Depp has lied on stand as well and admitted to photoshopping pics that he submitted as evidence of her abuse. The big picture of the case is the abuse.
Huh? Depp submitted evidence of Amber's abuse? And admitted to photoshopping it?
When was this?
Here's him saying *a picture on the railway website looks photoshopped.
Come on now. You're being dishonest. Your original claim is completely different to the reality.
Depp lied multiple times.
Depp lied over 80 times during cross-examination in a Fairfax, Virginia courtroom. Here is each instance.
thegeekbuzz.com
What the heck is that link? It's barely legible and makes no sense. Pure garbage.
Why do you have such a glaring double standard? Every single facial expression of Heard is somehow proof that she's a lying narcissist but Depp fumbling to keep his basic story straight and offering obvious bald lies about how events happened that are directly disproven by the messages he and his cohorts sent at the time is just glossed right over.
As for impartial witnesses, give me a fn break please. Amber had 80 witnesses ready to testify, 12 of which actually testified.
None of them testified to the kind of injury she would have sustained if her own testimony were true.
Her expert witnesses were an absolute joke including a psychologist who diagnosed her without proper testing, a talent agent "in name only" who thought Herd's career is comparable to Jason Momoa's and a digital expert who was tasked to link general dislike of Amber to Waldman's statements yet failed to do so.
Many of those were also impartial and some were even meant to be Depp's witnesses but testified to seeing her bruises. Half of his witnesses were on his payroll, such as Stephen Deuters who for some reason never had to testify in the US trial despite admitting in the UK that his messages were authentic. Again, your double standard is shocking.
Again with the UK trial?
What do you think of the testimony of Josh Drew? The UK judge found it particularly compelling precisely because of his impartiality to the whole case.
You'd call
Amber's friend impartial?
He said she had "significant facial injuries", then said that the pictures match what he saw.
Would you call these injuries
significant? And
does it match Amber Heard's testimony?
Notice her lip in the picture below (why no damage? That would suggest the lip injury happened
after this pic was taken):
Notice her nose in the picture below (looks perfect, proving
it was just bad lighting in the first pic):
Sign up with Google
