VERDICT WATCH VA - Johnny Depp's defamation case against ex Amber Heard, who countersued #10

Status
Not open for further replies.

whitelilac

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2017
Messages
4,560
Reaction score
45,842
Did you notice the one person who didn't clap when the whole courtroom applauded Judy, the stenographer after Judge A. called her a "rock star" for her service during this trial? Take a guess.

Meanwhile, Johnny has consistently show respect to her and the bailiffs:
View attachment 346542 View attachment 346544
Johnny Depp shakes hands with a Fairfax County Sheriff Deputy outside...
respect....unlike the way AH handed her empty bottle to a bailiff on the way out, early on, without even looking at her. Remember?
 

katydid23

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
62,324
Reaction score
182,415
respect....unlike the way AH handed her empty bottle to a bailiff on the way out, early on, without even looking at her. Remember?
I remember that well...she walked off the witness stand and the bailiff[ who is a sworn Law Enforcement officer, not a production assistant] walked up to escort her back to her seat---and Diva Amber just hands the officer her empty bottle, with no hesitation. Automatically assumes that the woman is supposed to throw out Amber's trash for her...:rolleyes:
 

squareandrabbet

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2018
Messages
3,541
Reaction score
35,150
Exactly. And that won't be lost on the jury. The way she walked out, with her bruise front and centre, like the star of the show, was so freakin obvious.

When she responded to that in cross by saying so sadly ''what abuse victim would ever want to call for reporters to see them like that? ' ----UMMM< someone that wanted the publicity, and planned to use that publicity for their own benefit?
Not to mention, SHE UPLOADED into evidence the sad-faced pictures of herself in the hallway, leaning prettily against a wall, as if it was just too too much effort to keep her head upright... as if she thought they would help her...

 

Aussieboy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2021
Messages
136
Reaction score
1,608
1. Two photos of her face with the same name at the same time. One reddened, one not. I don't know how you get those two pictures that way, but it's a lie that one was taken in light and the other wasn't.
The metadata stuff was just crazy, Neumeister didn't really know how to explain himself in a court and the cross didn't even understand what they were objecting to. There was just so much ball in JD's court to play with, that JD's team just missed it. If the original device that had taken the photos was handed over for inspection, there could have been a chance to see if the photos were originals but AH didn't and that was very suspicious of her in my opinion.
 

squareandrabbet

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2018
Messages
3,541
Reaction score
35,150
The metadata stuff was just crazy, Neumeister didn't really know how to explain himself in a court and the cross didn't even understand what they were objecting to. There was just so much ball in JD's court to play with, that JD's team just missed it. If the original device that had taken the photos was handed over for inspection, there could have been a chance to see if the photos were originals but AH didn't and that was very suspicious of her in my opinion.
I don't think it was a failure on Neumeister's part, as other folks have said he testified in the Jodi Arias trial, and his resume is several pages long... the failure is with the items he was allowed to examine, and with what he was allowed to actually say. He wrote a great long brief about it for the UK, IIRC...

Also, I believe he tried at least once to say it was AH fault or to explain the technology, and it was objected to.

ETA for link:

 
Last edited:

Aussieboy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2021
Messages
136
Reaction score
1,608
I don't think it was a failure on Neumeister's part, as other folks have said he testified in the Jodi Arias trial, and his resume is several pages long... the failure is with the items he was allowed to examine, and with what he was allowed to actually say. He wrote a great long brief about it for the UK, IIRC...

Also, I believe he tried at least once to say it was AH fault or to explain the technology, and it was objected to.
The metadata and Exif data were very important to determine if they were fakes or modified, one is like the photo's DNA and the other is like a time footprint. If you don't look at these two factors it's virtually a waste of time trying to make any type of claim. If they wanted to object, he should have just called them most likely fakes, because those pics could have been from anywhere and even of a person posing to be AH.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top