EXCLUSIVE: 'I can't promise I won't get physical again, I get so mad I lose it.' LISTEN as Amber Heard admits to 'hitting' ex-husband Johnny Depp

[G'Wobblez]

You have to see it as a whole
Like the jury did.

Rocky weren’t there to see things happen.
She was told by AH that it happened but the evidence isn’t there.

 

[G'Wobblez]

You Know RP testified that AH hit her. And they were in a physical confrontation over thanksgiving dishes.

 

[cerebus]

She never saw the hair being ripped out Amber told her that that is what happened.

She saw hair.
And she saw the red marks on her scull.( the evidence doesn’t show her scalp being ripped out) its a small red dot.
If she went to a doctor or a dermatologist it would have been documented.

But she never saw JD do it.
For all the jury know she could have done it herself and told her friend that is what happened.

She could see that Ms Heard’s hair was bloody from where a chunk had been pulled out, her face was red and her nose was swelling up. Her lip was bleeding.

So she did all that to herself but then she needed to fake all the injuries with makeup? Get your story straight.

If the metadata was produced at the uK hearing why did she go to all the lengths to not give it to the virginia court?
Where is the medical records?

Her lies made it difficult for the jury to believe secondhand testimony.

You need to watch the trial.

What are you talking about? Who says she went to any lengths not to give it to the Virginia court? Do you have a link?

 

[Emjay]

The requirements of proof were ludicrous. The UK trial had much more and definitive medical testimony. The US trial was pure media and as she put it "employees and randos". It WAS a smear campaign and it worked.

At this point I think you are just trolling for the lulz. If not, this is just beyond embarrassing for you.

 

[G'Wobblez]

So she did all that to herself but then she needed to fake all the injuries with makeup? Get your story straight.



What are you talking about? Who says she went to any lengths not to give it to the Virginia court? Do you have a link?

The meta data was never given in, they defied a court order.
She claims she did give everything but nothing was given.

Her defense even used messages sent to JD against him saying he sent them but they were obviously incoming text.

I’m don’t need to get my story straight. I’m just telling you what happened in court.
Play the ball.

 

[G'Wobblez]

As for RP statement it is hearsay.
I bump my head against the sink.
I tell my friend ( who is my friend) my SO hit me in the head.
She and I testify to what i told her.

See the conundrum the jury sat with.
They saw the high definition video and photos of AH after many of those incidents and there is no evidence of a split lip or swelling. You can cover bruises I have heard, but these weren’t even evident to the make up artist. Who testified to it.

 

[G'Wobblez]

Even the photos the day after she was photographed with bruises in court.
No bruises. Then she tells the jury. I was outside I had makeup on…well no red lip here…

 

[Cray]

But you don't understaaaand, the trial does not count. The reputable, credible fact checked sources says otherwise. iO says otherwise.

As opposed to the UK trial which doesn't count?

 

[G'Wobblez]

All I’m asking besides text where her attorneys showed that they even can’t read the nuance ( the bj text) what evidence were there presented to the jury?

 

[G'Wobblez]

As opposed to the UK trial which doesn't count?

It was a suit against a tabloid not AH.
There was even more damming evidence that the judge dismissed in the uk trial.
Like the Australia incident
The uk incident
All
Where AH lied to authorities

 

[cerebus]

As for RP statement it is hearsay.
I bump my head against the sink.
I tell my friend ( who is my friend) my SO hit me in the head.
She and I testify to what i told her.

See the conundrum the jury sat with.
They saw the high definition video and photos of AH after many of those incidents and there is no evidence of a split lip or swelling. You can cover bruises I have heard, but these weren’t even evident to the make up artist. Who testified to it.

It’s not hearsay that she saw her with torn out hair and a busted up face. Konfab is claiming that she fabricated the hair but clearly she didn’t.

 

[cerebus]

It was a suit against a tabloid not AH.
There was even more damming evidence that the judge dismissed in the uk trial.
Like the Australia incident
The uk incident
All
Where AH lied to authorities

Read the verdict. 12 of 14 cases were settled to the civil standard then reinforced by 2 other judges who thoroughly reviewed the evidence. The other two were not found to be lies, simply they didn’t have enough evidence.

Yet taking all the evidence together, I accept that she was the victim of sustained and multiple assaults by Mr Depp in Australia. It is a sign of the depth of his rage that he admitted scrawling graffiti in blood from his injured finger and then, when that was insufficient, dipping his badly injured finger in paint and continuing to write messages and other things. I accept her evidence of the nature of the assaults he committed against her. They must have been terrifying. I accept that Mr Depp put her in fear of her life.

 

[Emjay]

It’s not hearsay that she saw her with torn out hair and a busted up face. Konfab is claiming that she fabricated the hair but clearly she didn’t.

It is hearsay.

Definition of HEARSAY EVIDENCE

evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath.

For someone who pretends to be a legal expert, you cannot even get the basics right. The fact that you still don't understand Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is just more evidence you cannot grasp basic legal concepts.

Demanding that everyone answer your questions when you have not even watched the trial is peak cerebus.

 

[Cray]

It was a suit against a tabloid not AH.
There was even more damming evidence that the judge dismissed in the uk trial.
Like the Australia incident
The uk incident
All
Where AH lied to authorities

UK libel trials are notoriously difficult to defend.. Not taking sides but one trial victory out of two is not really proof of anything..

Best to stick to actual evidence rather than.. "a jury found this therefore it must be true..."

 

[cerebus]

It is hearsay.

Definition of HEARSAY EVIDENCE

evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

For someone who pretends to be a legal expert, you cannot even get the basics right. The fact that you still don't understand Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is just more evidence you cannot grasp basic legal concepts.

Demanding that everyone answer your questions when you have not even watched the trial is peak cerebus.

It's not hearsay. She SAW the injuries. It is eyewitness testimony. And I never pretended to be a legal expert, that's much more your domain.

 

[G'Wobblez]

UK libel trials are notoriously difficult to defend.. Not taking sides but one trial victory out of two is not really proof of anything..

Best to stick to actual evidence rather than.. "a jury found this therefore it must be true..."

I hear you. I’m just trying to explain what was presented to the jury and the whole world saw and why they think like they do.
Cerebus didn’t watch the trial.

 

[Howdy]

She is way outside of Danger Zone TBH.. her crazy level is at least 200.

All zeroes matter.

A 7 (maybe 8) - 200.

 

[G'Wobblez]

Read the verdict. 12 of 14 cases were settled to the civil standard then reinforced by 2 other judges who thoroughly reviewed the evidence. The other two were not found to be lies, simply they didn’t have enough evidence.

I would love to see the evidence. I only saw the transcript.
What evidence did they see that the Virginia trial didn’t.

The evidence in the Virginia trial didn’t match her testimony.

I understand that it is eyewitness testimony. The injuries are but not what caused the injuries. She couldn’t testify on how AH got them. She testified to never seeing JD Hit AH. She testified to anger. Words. Aggression.
But never to the actual act.

 

[Howdy]

As opposed to the UK trial which doesn't count?

IO's facts were checked later. Maybe facts is the wrong word. Anyway, that was about a newspaper being liable or not; different basis for judgement.

But good to see the court of public opinion is still in session. It's extremely educational.

Did you watch the trial?

 

[Emjay]

It's not hearsay. She SAW the injuries. It is eyewitness testimony. And I never pretended to be a legal expert, that's much more your domain.

Yes a bruise is evidence of a bruise being present, but it is not evidence of much, especially when so many people testified they saw no injuries on her mere hours after some of the incidents (with photos and footage to back it up).

You are cherry picking pieces of evidence and latching onto them when they are part of weeks of trial.