Page 31 of 84 FirstFirst ...
21
29
30
31
32
33
41
81
... LastLast
  1. #601
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    So it becomes a question;

    Is Heard committing perjury?

    Or are her lawyers tampering with evidence?

    Kinda seems like it's one or the other, and there should be legal consequences for someone over it.
    Some lawyer I watched recently over just this question, because it has been asked a lot, it's rare that people gets prosecuted with perjury in civil cases.

    also found this which says the same.
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...unishable.html

    Seems like it won't happen. Which might be a reason why people do lie.
    Error 404 - Signature not found

  2. #602
    Quote Originally Posted by Winter Blossom View Post
    They played some of her testimony at the UK trial and it was... interesting. She was very carefree and almost jovial when answering questions to a specific incident, even eating as a tape was played for her. It wasn't at all like the performance she put on at the trial now, where she tries to show how visibly upset she is when she's asked to recall the same incident.


    I mean, these two are actors.

  3. #603
    The funniest was when her acting coach talked about how she can't fake cry, the lawtube commentary was like "we can tell"

  4. #604
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post

    I mean, these two are actors.
    Think only one of them is an actor tbh.
    Error 404 - Signature not found

  5. #605
    Quote Originally Posted by Kumorii View Post
    Well, people are saying the best lawyers for depp is ambers lawyers.
    It's hard to disagree with that her lawyers seem rather incompetent, Depp's lawyer used more of their evidence against them than their own.

  6. #606
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    It's clear when two addicts get together there's going to be abuse but she accused him of specific physical abuse which don't look solid after her testimony. I don't think he will win because defamation is hard to prove but it's evident she is a pathological liar.
    We have recordings of him admitting to headbutting Amber Heard and claiming it wasnt on his nose but the forehead

    He claims it was an accident but people act like she is making it all up

  7. #607
    Jennifer Howells testimony next week will probably be the smoking gun.
    Last edited by Kumorii; 2022-05-20 at 09:12 PM.
    Error 404 - Signature not found

  8. #608
    Quote Originally Posted by NED funded View Post
    We have recordings of him admitting to headbutting Amber Heard and claiming it wasnt on his nose but the forehead

    He claims it was an accident but people act like she is making it all up
    And it's clear you didn't hear the entire testimony of the incident including the part where she faked a broken nose.

  9. #609
    Pit Lord Magical Mudcrab's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    All across Nirn.
    Posts
    2,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    So it becomes a question;

    Is Heard committing perjury?

    Or are her lawyers tampering with evidence?

    Kinda seems like it's one or the other, and there should be legal consequences for someone over it.
    Heard is probably committing perjury. She has claimed they are different pictures taken separately. From the Newsweek article:

    Quote Originally Posted by Newsweek
    When two pictures were presented side by side, Heard claimed they were two separately taken photos with different lighting. "The light is on in both of these pictures though," Vasquez argued. Heard responded by saying one of the lights is a "vanity light."

    "Isn't it true you just edited these photographs?" Vasquez said to Heard. "And you just enhanced the saturation from one of these photos to make your face look more red."

    Heard denied both claims, stating that she has "never edited a photograph."
    - Link
    Sylvanas didn't even win the popular vote, she was elected by an indirect election of representatives. #NotMyWarchief

  10. #610
    Quote Originally Posted by Winter Blossom View Post
    They played some of her testimony at the UK trial and it was... interesting. She was very carefree and almost jovial when answering questions to a specific incident, even eating as a tape was played for her. It wasn't at all like the performance she put on at the trial now, where she tries to show how visibly upset she is when she's asked to recall the same incident.
    I think her behavior at the UK trial was jovial because she knew it would lead to good things for her. Her anguish this time around might be (at least partially) legit because she's aware of how THIS case will affect her public image.

  11. #611
    Quote Originally Posted by Winter Blossom View Post
    ‘She was swinging wildly at me, and I … from behind, as I was walking away from the argument to my office, she was hitting me in the neck, ear, back, everything.

    ‘I turned to cover my head and she was swinging quite wildly so the only thing I could do in that situation was either to run or to try to get hold of her, to get my arms around her to stop her flailing and punching me, so I did so, as I did so it seems there was a collision.’

    Mr Depp demonstrated with his arms how he claims he took hold of Ms Heard and said she was ‘kicking and moving’ so there was ‘very close contact’ between them.

    He said: ‘That is the only collision and the only potential injury that Ms Heard could have had, there is no way I did as she said and broke her nose.’
    Yeh, the alcoholic with anger and control issues is also somehow the benevolent, reasonable one.. totally believable.

  12. #612
    Quote Originally Posted by Eugenik View Post
    Yeh, the alcoholic with anger and control issues is also somehow the benevolent, reasonable one.. totally believable.
    Well, that's kinda the rub in this case. Neither is very trustworthy and both seem like kinda awful people.

    And before anyone starts: I don't care who's worse or who's more dishonest or whatever. Legit, don't give a single fuck. I'm not picking sides, I don't have to pick sides.

  13. #613
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    She was specific in her answer: She did not edit the photo's. And she's likely 100% honest. Beyond that, I haven't the foggiest clue and don't care enough to devote any brainpower to this beyond eating popcorn.
    Where does one gain these powers to deduce whos telling the truth and who is not.

    Quite impressive you're 100% sure someone who is constantly looking at the jury when answering rather than the lawyer speaking to her is telling the truth.

    Very impressive....

  14. #614
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    Except if that’s the “rub” Depp has no case.
    I never thought he had a proper legal case and have said repeatedly that he's more likely doing this to win in the court of public opinion. Or just try to bring Amber down in the mud with him.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertoCarlos View Post
    Where does one gain these powers to deduce whos telling the truth and who is not.
    You don't need powers for this, it's common sense.

    "Did you edit this photo?"

    "No."

    Simple. That's not asking if the photo is edited (that may have been implied earlier and her claim different lighting which is likely a fuckin lie) in general, but in that specific question it's extremely easy to be honest while still allowing for the photo to be edited. She could have asked a friend. She could have asked her lawyers. Her lawyers could have had someone do it. And even if any of those are true (AND I HAVE NO CLUE), she is still 100% truthful in saying she didn't edit the photo.

    For the rest of your post: My comment is literally limited to that one question and her response. Nothing else.

  15. #615
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    I never thought he had a proper legal case and have said repeatedly that he's more likely doing this to win in the court of public opinion. Or just try to bring Amber down in the mud with him.

    - - - Updated - - -



    You don't need powers for this, it's common sense.

    "Did you edit this photo?"

    "No."

    Simple. That's not asking if the photo is edited (that may have been implied earlier and her claim different lighting which is likely a fuckin lie) in general, but in that specific question it's extremely easy to be honest while still allowing for the photo to be edited. She could have asked a friend. She could have asked her lawyers. Her lawyers could have had someone do it. And even if any of those are true (AND I HAVE NO CLUE), she is still 100% truthful in saying she didn't edit the photo.

    For the rest of your post: My comment is literally limited to that one question and her response. Nothing else.
    So your problem is with how the lawyer phrased the question?

    Because it would be safe to assume amber is the one TAKING the photos because they look like selfies and assuming shes assaulted she would presumably take the photos in the privacy of her bathroom rather than bringing in her aquaman team in a more public setting.

    So its safe to assume amber who was taking snaps of johnny sleeping every other day is quite the photographer and would have no problem taking care of the photos herself.

  16. #616
    Quote Originally Posted by RobertoCarlos View Post
    So your problem is with how the lawyer phrased the question?
    *sigh*

    You're looking for a fight you're not going to find. The lawyer asked a specific question, to which a specific response can be truthful. The specific question was if she edited the photo, not if anyone else edited it.

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertoCarlos View Post
    Because it would be safe to assume amber is the one TAKING the photos because they look like selfies and assuming shes assaulted she would presumably take the photos in the privacy of her bathroom rather than bringing in her aquaman team in a more public setting.
    She took the initial photo, yes. And it's very likely someone else edited the photo into the second image.

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertoCarlos View Post
    So its safe to assume amber who was taking snaps of johnny sleeping every other day is quite the photographer and would have no problem taking care of the photos herself.
    Sure, but why do it herself when she knows she'll likely be asked if she edited it?

    This is basic legal shit.

  17. #617
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    *sigh*

    You're looking for a fight you're not going to find. The lawyer asked a specific question, to which a specific response can be truthful. The specific question was if she edited the photo, not if anyone else edited it.



    She took the initial photo, yes. And it's very likely someone else edited the photo into the second image.



    Sure, but why do it herself when she knows she'll likely be asked if she edited it?

    This is basic legal shit.
    oh piss off with your signing and "U wanNa fitE GovNeR" I was asking you a question because what you said sounded retarded so I was trying to confirm you are not that brain dead. Basic human interaction shit

  18. #618
    Pit Lord Magical Mudcrab's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    All across Nirn.
    Posts
    2,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    *sigh*

    You're looking for a fight you're not going to find. The lawyer asked a specific question, to which a specific response can be truthful. The specific question was if she edited the photo, not if anyone else edited it.
    The problem is that she testified to taking both photos in different lighting. If she had not testified as having taken both images then it would be a different story, but the moment she presented them as two unique, unaltered images is where the problem lies. Lets even say we extend her the benefit of the doubt, though probably an unearned one given her conduct, and say she did not edit the photos herself. Now what? She has still lied under oath by claiming they're two, unique pictures taken by her, and there's still been an attempt by her team to pervert the outcome of the trial. The only difference in this case is that while she's still likely guilty of perjury, there's now another party in the trial (her council, her witnesses, or a third party) that is guilty of fabricating evidence.
    Sylvanas didn't even win the popular vote, she was elected by an indirect election of representatives. #NotMyWarchief

  19. #619
    Quote Originally Posted by Magical Mudcrab View Post
    The problem is that she testified to taking both photos in different lighting. If she had not testified as having taken both images then it would be a different story, but the moment she presented them as two unique, unaltered images is where the problem lies.
    Agree. I'm unsure how anyone can claim she was "100% honest" about her not editing the pics when she had blatantly lied during the same sequence of questions. 100% means there can be no doubt and there sure as hell is doubt. Amber herself testified that the pic on the left was red because it had vanity lighting from a difference source whereas the pic on the right didn't. She said they were taken at two distinct moments and that's a lie as the two pics perfectly overlap. So how can anyone say "well she may have 100% lied with this PROVEN thing but then she was 100% truthful with this UNPROVEN thing 10 seconds later?" That's showing more faith than I see from most religious people.

  20. #620
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Magical Mudcrab View Post
    The problem is that she testified to taking both photos in different lighting. If she had not testified as having taken both images then it would be a different story, but the moment she presented them as two unique, unaltered images is where the problem lies. Lets even say we extend her the benefit of the doubt, though probably an unearned one given her conduct, and say she did not edit the photos herself. Now what? She has still lied under oath by claiming they're two, unique pictures taken by her, and there's still been an attempt by her team to pervert the outcome of the trial. The only difference in this case is that while she's still likely guilty of perjury, there's now another party in the trial (her council, her witnesses, or a third party) that is guilty of fabricating evidence.
    Also that there is no "oops, I must have misremembered" in court. You can get challenged, and you'll get a chance to retract or say you're actually not sure, but if you double down, that's perjury. Even if it was an honest mistake. Which your lawyers should have caught and coached you on.

    Doesn't matter if she took the photos or did the editing herself, if she claims they were from two different photo sessions under different lighting. since they're clearly the same photo, edited.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •