[zmgsabst]

> There seems to be clear public evidence to the contrary.

I would encourage you to examine the evidence.

Heard’s claims weren’t critically examined in the UK — who took her statements at face value while discounting both physical evidence and testimony of others.

By contrast in Virginia, where Heard is the subject of forensic analysis, both forensic psychologists have stated that Heard abused Depp — while there has been zero evidence (except Heard’s wild claims) to support that Depp ever acted similarly.

There is only evidence that Heard abused Depp.

A lawyer on YouTube has been streaming the Virginia trial and posting daily recaps, LegalBytes.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbQVtXJ42xmgG9Q7cJI-F...

[tallytarik]

> there has been zero evidence (except Heard’s wild claims) to support that Depp ever acted similarly.

I'm a bit confused about this point - didn't Depp & his witnesses go first? I'd expect the majority of Heard's evidence in this trial to come out (and be examined) over the next couple of weeks.

If she calls witnesses that corroborate what you call her 'wild claims', would that change your opinion?

[sumnuyungi]

We already have the witness list and know roughly what to expect. The main thing going against Amber is that we've heard from the officers that responded to a couple incidences and each officer has testified as to not observing any injuries nor any damage to the penthouse. There are also zero medical records reporting the injuries she claims to have sustained.

Her witness list does not include anyone that will refute those points and is mainly filled with people whose only account of what happened between Johnny/Amber is what they've heard from Amber.

Just a sample of her claims thus far:

> Walked across a tile floor covered in glass shards from broken bottles and wine

> Sexual assault with a (potentially broken) wine bottle

> Thrown across a room by the neck

> Beaten on top of a bed so forcefully as to have broken the timber bed frame

[zmgsabst]

Yes — that’s why I’m watching the trial: to see the evidence.

Though, Heard’s case has already started: the second forensic psychologist was hired by Heard and called as her witness and Heard herself is currently giving her testimony (which, watching it in full I find unconvincing and in conflict with evidence already presented).

[tallytarik]

Fair enough — that's why I'm watching, too!