VA - Johnny Depp's defamation case against ex Amber Heard, who countersued #3

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I noticed that also. No proof, No receipts. Just AH and her lies.

And when it comes down to it, and someone asks her to produce her phone for discovery, next to nothing can be turned up without data corruption... ' so far'.

After all the discussion about extractions via Cellebrite software, I was really excited when I saw an AH exhibit captioned with this name... only to find it's 3 pages long, only one of the texts in it is from JD, and it's not even serious in its objections, IMO. He calms down immediately after what looks like a pro forma grumble about her meeting with an unidentified individual... and this is what she thinks is her best proof.

Why is everything the defence show redacted?, is it literally because otherwise the narrative would be completely different or is there a genuine reason?

That's part of the trick and problem... we don't know.

One potential problem: AH got it from a third party (a la something like taking a pic with her phone, of the screen of JD's phone, and no one has okayed the production of the non-redacted texts).

Another potential problem: the blacked-out parts belong to a witness, either one we have not heard from yet or one we have already heard from whose information was agreed upon to be blanked out/thrown out.

Third potential problem: the one you outline, and the surrounding texts exist blacked-out because "where there's smoke there's fire", and it beefs up the size of the exhibit.
 
This is what I am hearing...." Blah blah blah blah"
"Then we got married"

Don't necessarily discount the "blah-blahs"... there's where a lot of the potential event markers occur, that can marry up what one party is recounting to the same anecdote that the other party is recounting in the overall timeline.
 
Don't necessarily discount the "blah-blahs"... there's where a lot of the potential event markers occur, that can marry up what one party is recounting to the same anecdote that the other party is recounting in the overall timeline.

Speaking of timelines .. do you happen to know if there is one somewhere? I would love to see it, if so.
 
Yesterday she testified that Johnny held a dog out the car window and "everyone in the car froze." I am wondering if any of those people will be on the witness list to corroborate her account. I'm sure she's been prepped for the direct to within an inch of her life. The cross will be telling, I think.
 
It seems hypocritical that doing mushrooms just wonderful for the bridal party, but Johnny hallucinating on something else is bad.
I don't care much what people do as long as society is not impacted badly (through severe addiction, theft to support habit) but statements seem inconsistent.
 
Speaking of timelines .. do you happen to know if there is one somewhere? I would love to see it, if so.

Not with all this subjective stuff contained therein, I fear... I'll poke around later, though frankly contemplating it sent a chill down my spine, when I thought "Gosh, I hope the jury doesn't have to ask for portions of Amber's testimony to be read back... they won't have any idea which section they need to look at; and judges generally take a SUPER DIM view of "hey, we need all of it" and refuse it outright.

On the bright side, at lunch Chanley said that to her eyes the jurors have seemed just as neutral listening to the AH testimony as they have the JD testimony, terming both "poker faced".
 
I am not certain that AH purposefully and deliberately hurt JDs career. I think she wanted to be seen as a victim because that is what the younger people who grew up in the cancel culture and the Me Too movement want--to receive sympathy via social media for being victim and receive status for overcoming adversity. Frankly JDs career damage came not so much from AH but from the media amplifying and repeating AHs claims, trying to excite public controversy and increase sales/advertising revenue by offering the public titillating stories about the rich and famous.
Interesting perspective. What a poo show. Literally and figuratively.

amateur opinion and speculation
 
It seems hypocritical that doing mushrooms just wonderful for the bridal party, but Johnny hallucinating on something else is bad.
I don't care much what people do as long as society is not impacted badly (through severe addiction, theft to support habit) but statements seem inconsistent.

This seems fairly standard if you are AH, who has in fact said in the past about herself, "you can't become an alcoholic if you stick to red wine".

I mean, I'm pretty sure you can in fact become an alcoholic on beer; and her thought process appears to be "because wine is a thing my parents never really got into, and thus I have no predisposition", but IIRC, that is what the addiction treatment industry calls "stinking thinking"; and again, she told Nurse Erin that she "used to" be addicted to cocaine, thus she is an addict; and addicts have told themselves some amazing stories to justify keeping being addicts, including nonsense like how mixing depressants with uppers supposedly cancels both states of affairs out, etc., etc..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
110
Guests online
1,394
Total visitors
1,504

Forum statistics

Threads
605,834
Messages
18,193,212
Members
233,581
Latest member
tbelle
Back
Top