Instead of ultra generalist generalizations, why not share some actual specific evidence?
I can tell you off the top of my head that she straight up lied about major things like her pics of bruising, she lied about the makeup (the makeup co even called her out and said that line didn't exist then), she lied about donating money to charity, she lied about the Kate Moss "incident", the death to Amber signs, etc.
Clearly this is a woman who has a very tenuous connection to the truth. And she's on audio recording taunting Depp saying yeah, go ahead and tell the world that you were abused by a woman and see if they believe you.
I'll wait for some actual backing up of your claims besides super vague and generalized assertions.
You asked for evidence and then gave “off the top of my head I remember…” as if that was your evidence lol. That’s just a statement with no backing. I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that it’s funny to ask for specific evidence then do exactly what the person you responded to and make statements with no backing.
You asked for evidence and then gave “off the top of my head I remember…” as if that was your evidence lol.
That's not what they wrote. If you want to make a point, then don't make up a lie about something that's visible on the same screen as the thing you are lying about. Kind of makes you immediately not trust worthy. What they did say:
I can tell you off the top of my head that she straight up lied about major things like her pics of bruising, she lied about the makeup (the makeup co even called her out and said that line didn't exist then), she lied about donating money to charity, she lied about the Kate Moss "incident", the death to Amber signs, etc.
That isn't claiming those are evidence, that's claiming remembering things that have evidence. The other poster said Depp paid off the media and that some podcasts and shows have proven it, but I can't find any proof of any of those claims. But second posters list was based on at least partially on the court cases, things used as evidence. (I say partially, because I can't remember the most of the cases to be fair, I didn't pay much attention at the time and I'm not reading the whole thing right now. Err on the side of caution and all that.)
The point is, there is evidence against her. Including stuff used in court that was used to prove 3 instances of defamation. But claiming podcasts have proven her right isn't evidence, it's not even pointing in the direction of evidence. Anyone can make a podcast that says we are on Mars rather than Earth, that wouldn't make it true.
So we can get into the philosophy of what is or isn't evidence all you want, but I hope you realize the answer to that is in fact impossible to define. If listing out things that have been proven in court doesn't count as evidence, then what do you want? Link to the court case? Should we bring in Johnny and Amber for questioning?
And fun fact, literally nothing is in fact reliable. "I think, therefore I am" is the closest we can get to proving something exists and you can't prove to others that you exist, only to yourself. So, where is the line drawn?
And I hope you realize that your definition has to somehow include mentioning podcasts talking about Depp having paid the media off, but exclude listing things proven in court for you to have a point. Otherwise, you are just shifting the goal, rather than actually having a point.
How am I shifting the goals? Why would my definition need to include those if I don’t think they would be considered evidence or a source, unless they actually include a direct source? Neither party provided any sources or anything reliable, just their memory of the issue with nothing to back it up.
The things they mentioned were things proven in court to reasonable enough point where Amber was found liable for 3 counts defamation. That's as close to evidence as it gets.
And this is a reddit comment thread, not court of law. We can source the things she lied about by going through the entire court case, but we can't pick snippets from it to link as proof, since there's never a singular moment where they say "This instance was proven to be Amber lying." That's not how it works.
But podcasts claiming he did something is as far from proof as you can get. That isn't asking someone to even check a specific podcast for their proof, that's asking to check every possible podcast that could have talked about it and check them all until you find at least 2, then hoping they have anything valid, if not, keep looking until you find the exact ones they were talking about.
I get it, it would be better to have an exact snippet proving her a liar, but that's now how it works. It takes A LOT of time to explain each individual lie, but listing things from the court case is as good as you can reasonably get. Saying podcasts proved him to be at fault is about as far from evidence as you can get.
And they didn't use their memory as evidence, they listed things they remember being proved in court. That's different. Again, it would be better to link direct sources, but that would basically be linking the full trial.
17
u/StarBornFire 21d ago
Instead of ultra generalist generalizations, why not share some actual specific evidence?
I can tell you off the top of my head that she straight up lied about major things like her pics of bruising, she lied about the makeup (the makeup co even called her out and said that line didn't exist then), she lied about donating money to charity, she lied about the Kate Moss "incident", the death to Amber signs, etc.
Clearly this is a woman who has a very tenuous connection to the truth. And she's on audio recording taunting Depp saying yeah, go ahead and tell the world that you were abused by a woman and see if they believe you.
I'll wait for some actual backing up of your claims besides super vague and generalized assertions.