Amber Heard vs Johnny Depp | Depp wins on all 3 counts

Chief123 said:
What I found strange was when the lawyer showed AH 2 photos which she claimed were taken the night she had facial bruises. Both photos are clearly identical. One has just been modified by increasing contrast to make bruises look worse.

The lawyer accused her of editing the photo to which AH denied it saying she’s never edited a photo. The lawyer should have pushed further to show that even the strands of hair that are moving around were exactly the same in both photos. They could literally be overlaid against each other.
Click to expand...
Yea, I was disappointed with this. Would have asked how Amber managed to go and turn on the lights and return to the exact same position with every single stray strand of hair perfectly replaced like they were in the first picture. It's 100% undeniable proof she edits her photos to create injuries.
 
Wing Attack Plan R said:
I'd say the misogyny comes in if/when people focus on the lawyer's physical qualities over her legal mind. On a football forum where this trial is a spectator sport, spectating is part of the game. The lawyer is hot. Johnny Depp is hot. If anyone claimed JD hired this lawyer because she was hot and not because she was a brilliant attorney, that would be misogynistic. If you were officially tasked with covering this case and you focused your reporting on how hot the lawyer was, that would also qualify. I would say this lawyer is most likely not interested in people's opinions of her hotness, because she's probably been hearing it since she hit puberty. I would also venture to guess that she hopes when this trial is done, people will marvel at how JD's lawyer thoroughly and comprehensively destroyed the opposition's case, no hotness mentioned.
Click to expand...

You're right in certain parts but people on a football forum commenting that a woman is attractive isn't misogyni in my opinion. Someone saying that a certain football player looks good doesn't automatically take away that he/she is talented, unless you actually say it specifically.
 
MichaelRed said:
Yea, I was disappointed with this. Would have asked how Amber managed to go and turn on the lights and return to the exact same position with every single stray strand of hair perfectly replaced like they were in the first picture. It's 100% undeniable proof she edits her photos to create injuries.
Click to expand...

That's easy. She's an actress. Just put a bit of tape on the floor where you need to stand and strike a pose. They do that stuff all the time and could probably pull it off quite convincingly.
 
MichaelRed said:
Yea, I was disappointed with this. Would have asked how Amber managed to go and turn on the lights and return to the exact same position with every single stray strand of hair perfectly replaced like they were in the first picture. It's 100% undeniable proof she edits her photos to create injuries.
Click to expand...
They will keep that for the closing I reckon?
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
That's easy. She's an actress. Just put a bit of tape on the floor where you need to stand and strike a pose. They do that stuff all the time and could probably pull it off quite convincingly.
Click to expand...
With every single strand of hair in exactly the same place? Yeaaaaaaaaaaaa
 
Mercurial said:
They will keep that for the closing I reckon?
Click to expand...
Maybe. There's also this proof from yesterday that Amber not only photoshops pictures but uses pictures as evidence of different events:
281050410_326638382875432_4268968065839207569_n.jpg
 
MichaelRed said:
Maybe. There's also this proof from yesterday that Amber not only photoshops pictures but uses pictures as evidence of different events:
281050410_326638382875432_4268968065839207569_n.jpg
Click to expand...
Is the left one supposed to be blood? Clearly same scene/picture but left is edited for contrast heavily, i tried it in Lightroom.
 
hobbers said:
I dont understand how a legal team could get picture evidence so badly wrong.

They must have gone through every image. Why do they have more images of Depp asleep than Amber injured? What did the comatose Depp images add to her case, other than to highlight how few of her own "injuries" were documented?

And why didnt they assign every (faked) image they were submitting to one event so as to not tie themselves in knots?
Click to expand...
I guess when your client lies to you so much it is possible that you might miss something.
 
MichaelRed said:
I guess when your client lies to you so much it is possible that you might miss something.
Click to expand...

It’s so fecking weird though. She missed the penknife that she clearly left on the “torn up bed”, and amazingly didn’t get a picture of the blood on the bed.
How the feck have her legal team not just said “you’ve fecked these pics, we cannot use them as they are clearly staged and will harm your case”. You can’t photograph a shit tonne of insignificant stuff like the bed, be stupid (or coked up enough) to leave the knife that you obviously cut the bed up with, on the fecking bed and in the picture, and just somehow miss the important part with all the blood.
Absolute moron.
 
Last edited:
Denis79 said:
You're right in certain parts but people on a football forum commenting that a woman is attractive isn't misogyni in my opinion. Someone saying that a certain football player looks good doesn't automatically take away that he/she is talented, unless you actually say it specifically.
Click to expand...
Right, but, in the corporate world over here (USA) we actually have training that specifically references this. The idea is, a woman should be free of having her appearance commented on by the male gaze, whether that's a positive or a negative comment is irrelevant. You are told to refrain from saying to a coworker things like "you look nice today" or "that outfit/dress really suits you". It may sound harmless, the person saying it may not have any evil intent or sexual impulses bubbling beneath the surface, but those comments will (and do) get you reported to HR. The same way a man wouldn't go up to another man (presumably) and say, "You'd be a lot prettier if you smiled more" or something of that nature, a man might feel entitled to say that to a woman. Misogyny is represented in the power imbalance between the sexes, where women are judged on their appearance (and how much they smile) where men are not. Doesn't mean you hate women. It means you're participating in misogynistic behavior.
 
Wing Attack Plan R said:
Right, but, in the corporate world over here (USA) we actually have training that specifically references this. The idea is, a woman should be free of having her appearance commented on by the male gaze, whether that's a positive or a negative comment is irrelevant. You are told to refrain from saying to a coworker things like "you look nice today" or "that outfit/dress really suits you". It may sound harmless, the person saying it may not have any evil intent or sexual impulses bubbling beneath the surface, but those comments will (and do) get you reported to HR. The same way a man wouldn't go up to another man (presumably) and say, "You'd be a lot prettier if you smiled more" or something of that nature, a man might feel entitled to say that to a woman. Misogyny is represented in the power imbalance between the sexes, where women are judged on their appearance (and how much they smile) where men are not. Doesn't mean you hate women. It means you're participating in misogynistic behavior.
Click to expand...
the-office-michael-toby-featured.jpg
 
Wing Attack Plan R said:
Right, but, in the corporate world over here (USA) we actually have training that specifically references this. The idea is, a woman should be free of having her appearance commented on by the male gaze, whether that's a positive or a negative comment is irrelevant. You are told to refrain from saying to a coworker things like "you look nice today" or "that outfit/dress really suits you". It may sound harmless, the person saying it may not have any evil intent or sexual impulses bubbling beneath the surface, but those comments will (and do) get you reported to HR. The same way a man wouldn't go up to another man (presumably) and say, "You'd be a lot prettier if you smiled more" or something of that nature, a man might feel entitled to say that to a woman. Misogyny is represented in the power imbalance between the sexes, where women are judged on their appearance (and how much they smile) where men are not. Doesn't mean you hate women. It means you're participating in misogynistic behavior.
Click to expand...

You’re making a mess of it again.

No-one on redcafe is working with, or meeting with Depp’s lawyer.
A couple of people she will never meet simply remarked that she was hot.

You’re having a fecking nightmare here.
 
Wing Attack Plan R said:
Right, but, in the corporate world over here (USA) we actually have training that specifically references this. The idea is, a woman should be free of having her appearance commented on by the male gaze, whether that's a positive or a negative comment is irrelevant. You are told to refrain from saying to a coworker things like "you look nice today" or "that outfit/dress really suits you". It may sound harmless, the person saying it may not have any evil intent or sexual impulses bubbling beneath the surface, but those comments will (and do) get you reported to HR. The same way a man wouldn't go up to another man (presumably) and say, "You'd be a lot prettier if you smiled more" or something of that nature, a man might feel entitled to say that to a woman. Misogyny is represented in the power imbalance between the sexes, where women are judged on their appearance (and how much they smile) where men are not. Doesn't mean you hate women. It means you're participating in misogynistic behavior.
Click to expand...

Wtf did I even read, human species is in a need of a big reset.
 
I mean, whilst I really do get where you are coming from @Wing Attack Plan R in many ways, the second you bring up Corporate America as any kind of benchmark...


...nope



Wing Attack Plan R said:
What strikes me about these photos is that pint of Hefeweizen. Anyone who has done a ton of blow knows that cocaine does not pair at all with Hefeweizen. I refuse to believe Johnny would make this rookie mistake.
Click to expand...

Now this is a true statement. Clearly staged right there!
 
Anyway, Depp's hot lawyer is destroying the ugly one. (Am I doing this right?)

EDIT: HELLO EVERYONE, THIS IS AN IRONIC POST. I REPEAT, THIS IS AN IRONIC POST.
 
Last edited:
hobbers said:
Oh yeh scar tissue could definitely be cocaine related.

But the problem is if she really went to an ENT specialist they could have just given the evidence for that rather than have Heard putting a false diagnosis out there in her own testimony.
Click to expand...
They probably told her it's Cocaine damage :wenger:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.