LogFAQs > #965170165

Then they pull up a chart he made with a timeline and a bunch of hashtags. It has only the dates that Amber was involved in movies, and not a single date from the incident in question. I got a crappy quality version of it I plucked from the stream below. But it's insane because the #justiceforjohnnydepp hashtag was used like 100 times more than any other one to the point they were literally baseline at the bottom of the chart. And not only that, the giant spike was BEFORE Adam Waldman's statement that Amber filed a counter-claim over. And then there's a smaller, but big one the day Waldman made his statement. So it's proving that there was more support for Johnny on an occasion BEFORE Waldman's statement. So this proves the Waldman's statement wasn't the cause of her bad press. Oh, and because the other hashtags were baseline, he had to manually re-create the chart. AND he took 1,000 tweets with those hashtags in a random generator to verify that they were all negative towards Amber, when many people co-opt hashtags to post their distaste for them.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/6/6/AATFBfAADQBi.jpg

Then they pull up another chart and look for keywords in each of those hashtags. The hashtags in question are #justiceforjohnnydepp, #amberheardisanabuser, #wejustdontlikeyouamber, and #amberturd. The keywords looked for were hoax, fake, fraud, Waldman, and Waldmignon (which I still don't understand). So far many people who are actually involved in online analytics have said this testimony was insane and awful. And then he relied on ANOTHER expert's findings to make determinations about what each tweet means in terms of why people tweeted them (that expert hasn't appeared yet). So he made up correlations when he's not an expert at this at all. Just the least credible guy.

Cross examination just ripped this guy apart. He named off all of the hashtags, which meant that now they can just freely say JUSTICE FOR JOHNNY DEPP, AMBER HEARD IS AN ABUSER, AND AMBER TURD all the time! They literally opened up for people to see just how the public is all siding with Johnny Depp now and how much everyone hates Amber Heard. The lunacy to allow this in and have it be used as a weapon against them is crazy, and you know it's getting mentioned in the closing argument that over 1.2 million people want Justice for Johnny Depp. And they did this for the most shitty and inconclusive testimony.

Every time they said Amber Turd, Amber was just squirming and twitching in her seat. It was actually pretty hilarious, she haaaaaates that.

Basically, this guy couldn't correlate anything to the Waldman article and the hashtags that were created, and that he only based it off someone else's opinion. And THEN he points out that he didn't make these connections in those depositions, and only made them before this trial. And then these hashtags existed BEFORE the Waldman article and were used a lot before then.

"Do you remember anything in Mr. Waldman's statement where he called her Amber Turd?"

And then this guy confirms that he didn't even bother to connect these hashtags to any other events, and he only used TV shows and movies that she was in that came out as markers AND that he had to recreate the chart. Then they just conclude as follows:

"So you would agree that Justice for Johnny Depp is a good thing?"

"That's not part of my assignment."

"But you'll agree with me that justice in general is a good thing?"

"I'm a big fan of justice."

"Aww, me too. No further questions, Your Honor."

Fucking perfect ending to this shit show. There was a re-direct but it meant pretty much nothing and it got a decent amount of objections that just wrecked it. This guy was clearly out of his element and his testimony proved nothing and only helped Johnny Depp.

Why in the WORLD would you bring in evidence showing a bunch of people want justice for Johnny Depp? Public opinion is a hell of a thing, and some jurors may be swayed by just that. I just can't believe they introduced this. How did they not anticipate this being used like this? This might actually be one of the biggest blunders Amber's team has made so far because WOW. There is no way they would allow this to come in if Depp's team wanted to introduce it, and here Amber's team gets the worst expert they could to come in and let the world know that Justice for Johnny Depp is outrageously more popular than people standing with Amber Heard. Just crazy.

Michelle Mulrony is up next and she was Amber's marital attorney. She contradicted Amber's claims that she had a pre-nup ready to sign and go and claimed she never saw anything a pre-nup. Her actual point of being here was that Johnny called her in one of these occasions and fired her. Uh, I think it was the birthday incident? Listen, I'm plugged into this thing and have watched the whole trial, and I don't even remember when Johnny had called her to fire her in all of this. It may have been Australia. I just don't remember. And I even have the benefit of knowing things the jury doesn't know, so I doubt they remember when the hell this happened either. Not that it's important.

Some important bits to keep in mind. Johnny paid for this attorney, but this is Amber's attorney. This woman stayed on the phone to be berated by Johnny for 3 minutes--when she should be spending no more than 5 seconds talking to him. This woman is Amber's marital attorney. You don't just talk to the opposite party like this about anything. It's a violation of confidentiality. And also, Johnny can't fire her because even though he's paying for her, it's Amber's choice ultimately whether or not to fire her because it's a conflict for you to fire the opposing attorney. I explained that poorly. If anyone needs to understand it more, I can try to explain it better later. But even she admits that Johnny couldn't fire her.

Anyway, Johnny called her one night, they talked for 3 minutes, he called her a bitch, and he fired her. She later quit after.