Poll: This Johnny Depp Stuff

Who wins?

  • Total voters
    361
  • Poll closed .
I mean there's a chance her claim is true, a small chance, there's no metadata so we cannot 100% say it's absolutely faked without physical evidence - But it's highly unlikely given the nature of the evidence itself :p
 
Trig said:
Bit of a commute to just call her a liar and throw poo at her though...
Click to expand...

I'd be inclined to agree with you if there weren't such a substantial number of inconsistencies in her testimony and had already been caught in multiple lies. It also says a lot about her character when her apparent "best friends" no longer speak or have contact with her and refuse to say why (could it be damning to her case?).
 
they did the same w/ the photo of stains on the floor, one was pretty good, the other was overexposed etc; it was entered into evidence twice apparently, as evidence for events in two different years :-/
 
I've wondered about metadata (appreciate it's easy to fake). Are they being submitted with no metadata? Surely that in itself shows the pictures have been edited. Every modern phone and camera sets metadata on by default.
 
Yup, you're right it can be modified but then the file properties would show that too because the file modified time/date would differ from the modified exif data showing when the photo was taken. Technically both file create property and exif metadata should match as the capture time is the same time as the image file being written to storage.

Basically every photo taken with a digital camera has two areas for properties, the basic file data itself which every file for anything has, which among other things includes Date Created and Date Modified, and for photos, EXIF data which includes the original date taken (assuming the date and time on the camera were set correctly) along with GPS data if available and exposure settings/copyright info etc etc.

The three Date related properties between file properties and EXIF should match up. Some metadata can be modified after the fact, but there would ve signs of modification when looking at the metadata in detail generally.
 
There's a lot to be said about avoiding a traffic light that demands to be seen and heard.
 
mrk said:
Yup, you're right it can be modified but then the file properties would show that too because the file modified time/date would differ from the modified exif data showing when the photo was taken. Technically both file create property and exif metadata should match as the capture time is the same time as the image file being written to storage.

Basically every photo taken with a digital camera has two areas for properties, the basic file data itself which every file for anything has, which among other things includes Date Created and Date Modified, and for photos, EXIF data which includes the original date taken (assuming the date and time on the camera were set correctly) along with GPS data if available and exposure settings/copyright info etc etc.

The three Date related properties between file properties and EXIF should match up. Some metadata can be modified after the fact, but there would ve signs of modification when looking at the metadata in detail generally.
Click to expand...

Yep, exactly, if I take a photo on my phone, I can edit the image, date/time and remove location data on it, but if i look at the exif/metadata itself it would have modified/changed dates which would be different from the date it was initially created.

I know its possible to strip that data from an image leaving only very basic information, and if that were the case it should be considered unreliable and inadmissable.
 
There is also a limited amount of time for each side. So I guess they have to decide where to use that time. e.g. Is it more useful bringing on expert witnesses such as photo experts, or more useful cross examining other people etc.
 
Also their closing arguments, it might all be saved for that because it will be the final blow that Heard's team have no way to object on at that stage. They can also bring up the number of times Heard's team have objected between each side and the basis for those objections which would be seen as buying time along with the number of legit objections from Depp's team because Heard's lawyer was leading or calling for speculation. All of that would be great for closing arguments to cement into the jury's collective mind.
 
MadMossy said:
The image posted by mrk #954 is a combination of the 2 photos she submitted as evidence, claiming they were taken at different times of the day. One of the images was very flat, the other the saturation had been ramped up to highlight the redness on her right cheek.
Click to expand...
Just shows they are identical in subject as I didn't even spot it change.
 
So, when's Kate Moss going to appear then....?
Now shes been mentioned does that also mean that Amber's past relationships can be called up, like her DV with her ex?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom