Poll: This Johnny Depp Stuff
- Thread starter Dirk Diggler
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 May 2004
- Posts
- 6,874
- Location
- Derby
wtf is this IO??? Who side is it on?
she claimed she never assaulted anyone, it didn't happen and JD's team planted it in the press 6 years before the divorce filing.
He is clever, starting a smear campaign before you start dating.
'Suck my d---': Amber Heard caught on tape verbally assaulting Johnny Depp | LiveNOW from FOX
Amber Heard, testifying in her defamation trial against her ex-husband Johnny Depp, was asked about an audio tape where Heard appears to verbally attack Depp...
youtu.be
She's evil
I've always said I would be open minded to any evidence presented by Heard. I didn't see all of his testimony but today there was an account by a joint friend of Heard and Depp who says he heard what sounded like Depp punch her and she dropped the phone. A little before that she had called him and put it on speaker phone. Then a day or two later he says he saw scratches on her face.
Did I hear that right? Admittedly he didn't see a punch and only heard what sounded like one. But perhaps his evidence is credible?
Did I hear that right? Admittedly he didn't see a punch and only heard what sounded like one. But perhaps his evidence is credible?
What evidence though?
I wouldn't say one persons testimony means anything without anything to back it up. Where are the pictures showing damage? Oh she has nothing apart from a few pictures showing very light brusing that could have happened in numerous ways. Where are the pictures where she has a broken nose/black eyes/punched with his rings? Those rings would act as knuckle dusters, there would be serious damage to anyone hit, along with Depp being injured himself his hands would be damaged. No medical records no nothing, it just doesn't line up.
Spoken testimony isn't enough at all. Specially when it's from a friend.
Last edited:
Fair. I'll leave you lot to it lmao.
Ironic
Don't forget the actually faked photograph pair that she claimed were two different photos because of lighting differences when i fact you can spend a minute in Photoshop/Lightroom playing with a few sliders and get the both images looking exactly the same and when superimposed, they match and align perfectly proving they are the exact same image lol.
In fact, I did just that:
I could have spent more time tweaking the balance but I gave up purely because of how comically laughable this "evidence" was to begin with.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
How the lawyers didn't notice the images being identical I do not know, considering they were taken at different times "apparently" it would be impossible for every strand of hair to be in exactly the same position.
I missed that bit? Has she submitted two beating photos that are the same?
Yes she claimed they were two individual photos, one with different lighting because the mirror's lights were on or something - Camille then asked if she had in fact photoshopped the images by changing the saturation to which AH declined the claim - I believe she remarked something about not knowing how to even photoshop.
None of the photos submitted contain any metadata for the record so it's all down to the verbal claim...
None of the photos submitted contain any metadata for the record so it's all down to the verbal claim...
Impossible - She claimed that the lights were on for one, to do that requires time between shots and as such no human can remain in that exact same position with every strand of hair etc being in the same place between the shots as well. And as shown above, it absolutely is just one image, with the 2nd one being edited to emphasise colour. On top of that these photos were supposedly taken by her friend, so it's not like it could be said the camera was on a tripod.