CraftySoAndSo
Full Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2021
- Messages
- 1,054
I've seen a few things saying both the US and UK might be looking at investigating Heard for perjury.
They should definitely investigate and hopefully press charges. Seems like no one gets convicted for it unfortunatelyI've seen a few things saying both the US and UK might be looking at investigating Heard for perjury.
She clearly should be, she’s made an absolute mockery of the law of perjury.I've seen a few things saying both the US and UK might be looking at investigating Heard for perjury.
Amber Heard and her friend seems to still be horribly obsessed with Depp. I wouldn't be surprised if Amber Heard herself was using that account.Amber Heard's girlfriend, who is banned from the court after doing investigation work which turned out to be a lie and caused Heard's team to mislead the judge, who was then moved away from the legal teams and kept using her phone to live tweet until they removed her, then she snuck back in and they physically removed her and banned her from the court, seems unhappy that Depp is playing gigs with Jeff Beck at the moment.
Apparently she wants victims to behave in a certain way.
Aye, there are rumors that she’s the one using that account.Amber Heard and her friend seems to still be horribly obsessed with Depp. I wouldn't be surprised if Amber Heard herself was using that account.
Did they break up? They seem thick as thieves so thought they were still together.Do you have any source for this? The only thing I found when googling was that Hears used to have a girlfriend but they don’t seem to be a thing anymore..
Deleted my post. My post was about Bianca Butti but I see now that you’re referring to Eve Barlow, yeah? Seems like they’re just friends but the use of girlfriend confused me.Did they break up? They seem thick as thieves so thought they were still together.
They do seem well suited to each other.
I think she’s also still pending a potential perjury trial in AUS as well. Going to need that money.It'd be quite funny if she lied under oath in order to win the trial then have to use the money she wins from Depp to pay for lawyers to deal with potential perjury charges.
Haha yupIt'd be quite funny if she lied under oath in order to win the trial then have to use the money she wins from Depp to pay for lawyers to deal with potential perjury charges.
At the risk of being accused of being biased, do you think that only Heard has potentially perjured herself, and not Depp?It'd be quite funny if she lied under oath in order to win the trial then have to use the money she wins from Depp to pay for lawyers to deal with potential perjury charges.
It seems fairly likely that Depp has lied about a few things on the stand as well but i think his lies would be harder to prove than Heard's. As @tomaldinho1 said i think she's facing investigations in Australia as well so that's 3 separate countries potentially investigating her.At the risk of being accused of being biased, do you think that only Heard has potentially perjured herself, and not Depp?
Oh I think he lied plenty but her lies are too obvious and easy to prove as such.At the risk of being accused of being biased, do you think that only Heard has potentially perjured herself, and not Depp?
You may well be right. I’m very aware that only a fraction of the available evidence, especially of the digital kind, has not been admitted. Which makes me think that on the balance of probability there is evidence out there which could perjure them both. But we’ll see, I’m making assumptions here, rather than actually asserting that it exists, or even that it would be admissible in the event of a perjury trial.It seems fairly likely that Depp has lied about a few things on the stand as well but i think his lies would be harder to prove than Heard's. As @tomaldinho1 said i think she's facing investigations in Australia as well so that's 3 separate countries potentially investigating her.
I’d assume she (like Depp) has been coached to not perjure herself, but perhaps her legal team’s priority was this trial rather than a potential future one that may never happen.Oh I think he lied plenty but her lies are too obvious and easy to prove as such.
Or she simply is a bigger liar than Depp. If you lie too much you will eventually get caught. She has lied about such stupid things it's unbelievable.I’d assume she (like Depp) has been coached to not perjure herself, but perhaps her legal team’s priority was this trial rather than a potential future one that may never happen.
Yep, there’s also that!Or she simply is a bigger liar than Depp. If you lie too much you will eventually get caught. She has lied about such stupid things it's unbelievable.
She's a pathological liar, having a pathological liar who's an abuser be put under oath is going to lead to some rather hilarious moments.Or she simply is a bigger liar than Depp. If you lie too much you will eventually get caught. She has lied about such stupid things it's unbelievable.
I pledge that she is telling the truthShe's a pathological liar, having a pathological liar who's an abuser be put under oath is going to lead to some rather hilarious moments.
We are past her being a liar, she's literally making fake notes in a courtroom filled with cameras broadcasting her to the entire world. It's rather concerning what's going on in her head.She's a pathological liar, having a pathological liar who's an abuser be put under oath is going to lead to some rather hilarious moments.
I think the term "I won't be holding my breathe" was coined for people who take pledges from people/bedshitters like Amber.I pledge that she is telling the truth
She had said "bruise kit" then changed it to "theatrical makeup kit" iirc. She probably slipped up there.Did she really say "apply to Bruise kit" or something to that effect when discussing her make up routine or is that twitter lies?
She couldn't be that stupid.
I assumed it was a passive aggressive pet name she had for it and it just slipped out. Something about her reaction when she realised she had said it seemed a lot more innocent than a "oh shit, I've been caught lying". We know she's not a good actor.Did she really say "apply to Bruise kit" or something to that effect when discussing her make up routine or is that twitter lies?
She couldn't be that stupid.
Sociopaths are actually way more common than people think.I think the term "I won't be holding my breathe" was coined for people who take pledges from people/bedshitters like Amber.
@Moby she's the definition of pathological liar, lies for absolutely no reason, like the note taking, it helps her not one bit taking notes, but does it anyway, it's baffling behaviour but I've come across a few in my time.
He has clearly lied, but the way he did it (for example the texts) still leaves room for question. Heard clearly lied about many things especially the photos, and there's no room there. Whether she gets pushed on it is another question entirely though.At the risk of being accused of being biased, do you think that only Heard has potentially perjured herself, and not Depp?
Are civil cases appealable? Or you think it will continue via a different channel?He has clearly lied, but the way he did it (for example the texts) still leaves room for question. Heard clearly lied about many things especially the photos, and there's no room there. Whether she gets pushed on it is another question entirely though.
This should be called a draw, and as I've said all along both feck off from public view. But there's no way this is the last we've seen of this.
I might be being cynical, but I think this isn't the last we've seen of this. I believe there are appeals, but more than that I think whoever wins will milk it and be using championing domestic abuse to replace the fame lost from the film contracts.Are civil cases appealable? Or you think it will continue via a different channel?
Yes. Perjury charges are very rare & only seen in extreme cases. She has lied with near every word leaving her mouth, a lot of them severe & provable as lies. Depp seems to have slight variations in details, such as where he was standing in a particular moment being slightly different to where his bodyguard said etc, these kinds of things wouldn't be considered perjury. If you & a friend recounted an event from 6 years ago, you'd likely present minor differences in detail, that's just memory & not deliberate deception. The main thing Depp seemed to have lied about was the wall-mounted phone & even there it seems like he lied in the UK case rather than this one, stating in the UK case that there was a wall-mounted phone but pictures of the bar before & after seem to disprove that ever being the case. In that case the UK wouldn't go after him for it either as it wouldn't be a serious offence & it was also of very little benefit to him to agree to the presence of a phone that seemingly didn't exist.At the risk of being accused of being biased, do you think that only Heard has potentially perjured herself, and not Depp?
That’s very true. My brother who is lawyer told me it’s often very hard to charge someone on perjury, as it could be easily explained by being case of “misspoken” or “misremember” the specific of some past events, which could be common.Yes. Perjury charges are very rare & only seen in extreme cases. She has lied with near every word leaving her mouth, a lot of them severe & provable as lies. Depp seems to have slight variations in details, such as where he was standing in a particular moment being slightly different to where his bodyguard said etc, these kinds of things wouldn't be considered perjury. If you & a friend recounted an event from 6 years ago, you'd likely present minor differences in detail, that's just memory & not deliberate deception. The main thing Depp seemed to have lied about was the wall-mounted phone & even there it seems like he lied in the UK case rather than this one, stating in the UK case that there was a wall-mounted phone but pictures of the bar before & after seem to disprove that ever being the case. In that case the UK wouldn't go after him for it either as it wouldn't be a serious offence & it was also of very little benefit to him to agree to the presence of a phone that seemingly didn't exist.
Not when said statement mattersThat’s very true. My brother who is lawyer told me it’s often very hard to charge someone on perjury, as it could be easily explained by being case of “misspoken” or “misremember” the specific of some past events, which could be common.
This was the question.Seems like the jury sought some clarifications yesterday. Does it give any indication as to what the jury is thinking?
The headline does not mention Depp by name, nor does it claim that Heard was sexually assaulted. All the headline states is that she spoke up against sexual violence and she faced our culture's wrath. At the same time, the Judge did tell the jury to use common sense.This was the question.
Yeah, the jury will have to assume that the sexual violence being talked about is with regards to Depp.The headline does not mention Depp by name, nor does it claim that Heard was sexually assaulted. All the headline states is that she spoke up against sexual violence and she faced our culture's wrath. At the same time, the Judge did tell the jury to use common sense.
This video gave some sort of insight into it, but it's a bit speculative I think:Seems like the jury sought some clarifications yesterday. Does it give any indication as to what the jury is thinking?
The whole point of this case, which has gone on for weeks, 68 pages and 238 of your posts is exactly to determine if the speech is protected by the first amendment or not ...Heard's lawyer stated what he's desperate for the jury to find, not what's legally correct. He even rambled on about the first amendment, despite it not covering defamation & just being a totally moot point in this instance. If the jury tie her to the headline, which they almost have to given that she re-published it with adding "I published this today", then they can believe Depp abused her every day of the week & twice on Sundays but still find for him so long as they don't believe her sexual assault story.
No, it isn't. Even if you ignore all evidence & decide that the statements aren't defamatory then it's still not protected by the first amendment. The first amendment protects you from actions from the state, it does not apply in civil cases.The whole point of this case, which has gone on for weeks, 68 pages and 238 of your posts is exactly to determine if the speech is protected by the first amendment or not ...
You better be talking about Depp and not Jeff Beck, you heathen!Tbf I'm unhappy that Depp is playing gigs with Jeff Beck, he's fecking awful.