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

[cerebus]

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.

Right so not hearsay. So quit with the bullshit

 

[Cray]

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.

Google "libel tourism in the UK" and get back to me..

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

Did you watch the trial?

Yawn, I wasn't commenting on right or wrong or true of false. I I was pointing out that there where two trials, and you seem to give all credence to the one trial that gave the verdict you agree with.

 

[Emjay]

Right so not hearsay. So quit with the bullshit

How she received those bruises is hearsay. Therefore the bruises are not proof of anything.

Now address the fact that multiple witnesses who saw Amber up close and personal testified they saw zero bruises or swelling, or that she was not treated for any injuries.

 

[Cray]

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.

Did you watch the UK trial?

 

[Emjay]

Meanwhile, this is what is trending under #JusticeForAmberHeard on Twitter...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1536725928797143042

 

[Emjay]

Did you watch the UK trial?

Are you playing dumb?

 

[Emjay]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1536730472855654400

 

[G'Wobblez]

Did you watch the UK trial?

No I read it, the trial where the judge is friends with the tabloid owners..

Like I said, i would like to see the evidence presented in the UK trail as the evidence in the Virginia trial didn’t match AH testimony

 

[cerebus]

How she received those bruises is hearsay. Therefore the bruises are not proof of anything.

Now address the fact that multiple witnesses who saw Amber up close and personal testified they saw zero bruises or swelling, or that she was not treated for any injuries.

Multiple witnesses said they did see injuries and bruising. One of them, a makeup artist, testified to helping to cover them up which goes a long way towards explaining why others didn’t see them. It’s really not that complicated. You’re just choosing to ignore a boatload of credible witnesses who have no reason to lie. Isn’t that sort of thing usually good evidence?

 

[Cray]

Are you playing dumb?

Are you spoiling for a fight?

 

[Cray]

No I read it, the trial where the judge is friends with the tabloid owners..

Source?

Like I said, i would like to see the evidence presented in the UK trail as the evidence in the Virginia trial didn’t match AH testimony

Perhaps you should do some research before dismissing the UK verdict then?

 

[cerebus]

No I read it, the trial where the judge is friends with the tabloid owners..

Like I said, i would like to see the evidence presented in the UK trail as the evidence in the Virginia trial didn’t match AH testimony

Read the UK trial by all means. It features a ton of medical expert opinion that never got introduced in the US account. It goes pretty deep into the evidence of her physical injuries and it’s substantial. A lot of the bs excuses that Depp’s team used to brush off evidence is debunked.

 

[Emjay]

Are you spoiling for a fight?

You know that the UK trial was not televised, right?

And I have posted legal commentary on why the two are not comparable in this very thread. You are trying to take swings for a fight that was over days ago.

 

[G'Wobblez]

Source?

Perhaps you should do some research before dismissing the UK verdict

Where did I dismiss the UK verdict?

 

[G'Wobblez]

Read the UK trial by all means. It features a ton of medical expert opinion that never got introduced in the US account. It goes pretty deep into the evidence of her physical injuries and it’s substantial. A lot of the bs excuses that Depp’s team used to brush off evidence is debunked.

Please share the medical evidence the experts used as evidence
Linky please.
And please link to the bs excuses that depp’s team used to brush off evidence.

 

[Emjay]

Multiple witnesses said they did see injuries and bruising. One of them, a makeup artist, testified to helping to cover them up which goes a long way towards explaining why others didn’t see them. It’s really not that complicated. You’re just choosing to ignore a boatload of credible witnesses who have no reason to lie. Isn’t that sort of thing usually good evidence?

Yet, there were multiple witnesses who testified to not seeing any bruises or swelling. Again, you are acting like you know better when you didn't even sit through all the evidence or testimony. Your levels of self importance are really something to behold.

 

[Cray]

You know that the UK trial was not televised, right?

Yes, and yet we have everyone here dismissing it because they couldn't watch it on TV..

And I have posted legal commentary on why the two are not comparable in this very thread. You are trying to take swings for a fight that was over days ago.

Would you be kind enough to repost?

 

[Cray]

Where did I dismiss the UK verdict?

You diminished the importance of the UK trial by suggesting that it was against a tabloid not AH herself. If you do, in fact recognize that the UK verdict has some standing and should not be dismissed out of hand then I apologize, my bad.

 

[cerebus]

Please share the medical evidence the experts used as evidence
Linky please.
And please link to the bs excuses that depp’s team used to brush off evidence.

Read the verdict. It’s all in there. You know, like people keep telling me to do for the US trial.

Eh I’ll see if I can get some time tomorrow. I’m manning the fort this week as my wife’s away so it’s been pretty hectic trying to field this thread

 

[G'Wobblez]

You diminished the importance of the UK trial by suggesting that it was against a tabloid not AH herself. If you do, in fact recognize that the UK verdict has some standing and should not be dismissed out of hand then I apologize, my bad.

Nope just saying that the UK trial was against a tabloid.
The USA trial was against AH herself.
Two different kind of trials.