LogFAQs > #964748737

CoolCly posted...

i wonder what the decision making is like for these PR firms when approached by someone like Heard here.

Is there any kinds of thoughts of "how can I possibly turn this around? there's no way" or "the facts are so bad for her right now there's no turning this around, I"LL look bad for being attached to this / not succeeding" and then not taking the job, or is it just an automatic "hell yes this is gonna be super lucrative and in the public eye, there's no way to win but whatevs im in"

or do they truly believe they can pull this one off

They were very successful at controlling the narrative because the UK trial wasn't televised. Now, it's all televised and everyone can more readily hear about everything Johnny says happened and then compare it to Amber's previous stories in which she's just lied about everything pretty clearly.

It's New York Post, which is kind of a rag, but a few other sources seem to have confirmed this too. It wouldn't shock me since a "source" (Eve Barlow) living with Amber during the trial recently informed them of her routine that included studying for trial (which is weird because why does she need to study if she's just going to talk about what happened?) and then trying to villainize Johnny because the "source" said that Amber feels dehumanized because her ex-husband (who she claims abused her on the daily) is ignoring her in court.

It wouldn't surprise me though. I just think the genie is out of the bottle and I think her testimony, which is probably on Wednesday, is just going to open up even more criticism.