Depp v Heard. Observing the lawyers is very interesting

Squire

Active member
The most interesting parts are the interrogation of witnesses who are currently giving evidence while previously having submitted sworn statements on two other occasions.

The lawyers are trying to squeeze witnesses that are of dubious credibility. The risk for the witness is being exposed for perjury and even conspiracy, which is worse.

It just demonstrates that nobody should ever voluntarily be a witness, especially a witness facing interrogation after previous sworn statements or evidence.

At the very least, the lawyers for one side or the other will make you fearful, make you squirm, and make you look like an idiot if they choose to.

One of Amber Heard's witnesses is in danger of being investigated for perjury when two separate visits by police officers with body cameras determined there was no injury to Heard and no property damage whereas the witness is claiming injury and property damage and broken glass. Such an accusation is an allegation of negligence by 4 separate police officers which the police will not accept and the witness will have to be investigated for perjury. The witness even had the audacity to claim the damage of broken glass and objects strewn across the floor were visible when the police attended and walked through the whole apartment while the police body cameras did not record video of any such damage.

It is evident that the photos of damage and scattered chattels are faked because they were not visible to police and were not recorded on video during the walk-through by police.

There is also the situation of a female witness making the flippant comment that Amber Heard frequently covered bruises with makeup which is indicative of domestic violence, and then not reporting such violence to the police. Frequently is a dangerous word for a witness because then they have to justify doing nothing. Or worse, they become an accomplice to a crime by their silence if it is subsequently prosecuted.

The trap for perjurers closes at the end of a deposition when the lawyer asks is there anything you would like to change about your testimony or about any other testimonies you have submitted and the perjurer says no.
 
Last edited:

Squire

Active member
It got more interesting as a witness called Josh Drew claimed he talked to the police and showed them the damage when the police statements and videos and audio showed this guy had been uncooperative and hardly spoke and he did not point out any broken glass and other damage and in fact appeared to obstruct the police from entering the home in the first instance.

The witness also stated he discussed a domestic violence report with police when the police videos and audio did not record such an interaction with four different police officers.

This guy will definitely face perjury charges for his statements about police which are contrary to video and audio evidence and the individual reports of 4 different police.
 
Last edited:

HBS Guy

Head Honcho 💉💉
Staff member
When in the small claims court here in Adelaide practically every Monday morning after former partner left perjury is not a thing. You can lie all you like and never be up for perjury. Nevertheless I never stretched things too far (of course I lied like a trooper, was over $120K in debts left by fuckwit partner, had to stretch payments as far as possible.)

But I was always realistic

Fuckwit had employed cleaners, I of course sacked them soon as possible—vacuuming and cleaning toilets took maybe an hour. They sent me a summons for half the bill. I got 3 months to pay. Needless to say that cheque for about $900 went out in the third week of the second month. Apparently they got it a day or two AFTER the 3 month period.

They summonsed me for the second half of the bill. I endeared myself in my typical, ingratiating way “Oh, you weren’t good enough to get money out of [fuckwit!”] “No!” came the terse reply. I visibly but silently expressed contempt. Guy for the cleaners then tried to make much of the payment arriving, according to them, a bit after the set date.

Because I had not been an outrageous liar (I am sure the magistrates there knew I was stretching things lots) the magistrate hearing the case told them to shut up, they got their [fucking] money, didn’t they?

Had I been an annoying fuckwit or smartarse at my many previous appearances there the magistrate might have been happy to order some penalty payment. I was clearly paying my debts, was never a smartarse or doing anything more than stretching payments a bit.

In a major case—there ARE consequences to lying under oath!

Watch your steps in court!
 

HBS Guy

Head Honcho 💉💉
Staff member
I did once get summonsed to the Supreme Court in SA.

Got there, two tables for the two lots of lawyers. “THAT’LL do me I thought!” and laid out what papers I had on one table. Court bailiff wanted me to go to the witness stand. No fucking way—I go there I lose too much in position, in standing, in weight of authority yadda yadda. I stood my ground, was on equal footing with the lawyer for the other party—got a pretty good judgement. Needless to say there was no way in hell I could afford a barrister to plead my case in the Supreme Court!

Again, dignity, the judge saw I wasn’t being an idiot or aggressive etc.
 
Top