Why side with someone who is as equally if not more culpable in this though?
Feck me. You’re definitely one of the worst in this shit show of a thread. Not everyone who once broke their nose looks like a fecking boxer. Never mind a Hollywood actress with access to the best plastic surgery money can buy.
Her black eye and busted lip?
Despite her not getting surgery on the broken nose? Broken nose will give you black eyes for weeks, yet she had no black eye 1 & 2 days after her nose was broken? Jog on.
You can get a broken nose without having black eyes you know?
Seven shades of purple? There's no injury at all in the photographs.
You do know in order to say that is is damning evidence you have to prove that a certain person did that.Huh? It's almost as if people want her to be beaten harder to have a case.
Not saying that she would, but she could over exaggerate it with makeup to make it appear much worse than it is/was
The only person she's accused of doing it is Johnny Depp, so I don't really understand the argument? Logic follows that if you believe the injuries in the picture are genuine and not makeup, you believe Johnny Depp inflicted the injuries.
No? I could break my nose in sport, combat training, accident on set, accident at home etc. The presence of a broken nose, which we don't have proof of as she never got surgery for it & thus there is no medical record of it, doesn't automatically make JD the one that 'broke' it.
I don't believe any of this happened if you didn't have surgery on your broken nose.
If only modern technology had invented a way to conceal bruising. Some sort of flesh coloured cream, maybe? If such a deceitful lotion existed the inventor could call it “concealer”.
There's barely a "black eye". It easily could have been make-up. This is Rihanna after getting punched 3 times by Chris Brown in a car:
People can have their own opinion based on the facts present to them, don't they?
Assume you don't wear make-up because you have no clue about the limitations of things like foundation and concealer.
We'll see now that it's her turn to take the stand. But the pictures she has won't be admissable in court unless she produces the metadata for them.
I’ll concede that a massive Jack Sparrow fan like yourself is probably more well versed than me in the dark arts of make-up.
I'm not taking a side here. I'm just arguing against the people completely disregarding anything she says because they have already decided she's a liar in favour of Depp.
Wouldn't you notice if someone was caked up in concealer though? Plus you wouldn't be able to keep it pristine throughout the entire day, especially with interviews etc where the heat would be building. Someone would notice something
The photos are admissable because they've been submitted. She's going to be torn apart on it though because they'll want to know why she refused to submit the metadata showing the dates of the photographs. The only reason you'd withhold that is if the pictures weren't taken when she claimed & that she was just using them to try display injuries from fabricated stories. She would have been better off not submitting any photos than photos with omitted metadata.
It was quite convoluted and loaded with circumstantial evidence and disputed testimony from people connected with both parties. But the (very heavily summarised) key gist was:
I'm not saying people shouldn't have their own opinions, however having positive opinions on a human who has lost a court case essentially calling him a domestic abuser is hard to fathom in my head.
If you believe a word out of her mouth, I honestly just feel sorry for you. Cbf wasting more time discussing this any more right now. Maybe you'll have reassessed by the 27th & I'll come back then.
You know the reverse hasn't happened either though?
The judge found the allegations to be substantially true, on most counts.
So she didn't get beaten hard enough for your standards?
He has in essence been found guilty of domestic abuse, the Judge found the allegations made against him to be substantially true, hence they were allowed to be printed.
I'd say thats likely because there was proof that she abused him too, yet he lost pretty much entire career and she got off almost entirely free with no labels dropping her etc. Basically gave the impression that if you're a woman, it's ok to abuse a man with no comeback. Thats what i imagine people were annoyed with, understandably so too. Hell, she even admits it in audio recordings that he can tell whoever he wants that she's abused him, but who's likely to believe him
It didn’t give that impression at all. The trial was in relation to slander and it was found that Johnny Depp’s actions were true and therefore the claim was not slanderous. Amber Heard’s actions were not on trial and therefore no verdict could be reached in regard to those.
No, he hasn't. To be found guilty of domestic abuse it'd have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers.
The most likely outcome from the start was that both the suit and the counter-suit would fail.
I get that aspect, but should we be feeling sorry for him?
To be fair, Depp's reputation has been pretty much destroyed already, so i imagine he sees it as he's got nothing to lose.
