"My argument is the evidence showed what it showed."
A circular argument. You have to prove that it SHOWED that she committed a hoax.
"Along with the majority of the public and a jury found her guilty..."
Ad populum fallacy and appeal to false authority. A majority believing a thing and a jury deciding a thing doesn't make it true (see OJ Simpson)
"so why do you people keep saying anything about this trial?"
Because I believe in fighting for the truth and will not be bullied away from it.
"I've been abused myself and I watch the trial. Her testimony was the most cringiest, triggering show of"
So a large part of the reason you reached the conclusion you did is because of your personal experience and you found her not credible. That's fine. I did it based on some version Occam's Razor: the less complex thing and the thing with more evidence is the most likely true thing.
"So you admit that she could be lying about that so then how can you believe anything else that she says?"
Anyone could be lying. I still have to look at the facts of the case and it points more so to Depp hitting her at times rather than never.
"And you have no recordings that he ever actually abused her."
I have recordings and texts discussing him hitting her which he says he never did. I do not have recordings and texts of her planning a hoax. That is more than you have for your argument so I will dismss it.
"I'm sure both has made mistakes. That's not the issue. Its the fact that she ruined --"
I reject the premise of this statement. Neither of us agree on who the abuser is, so even if she ruined his life, whether I care would depend on whether I think he's an abuser or not -- which is the very thing we are arguing.
"And you say unproven well it wasn't proven that --"
She has more evidence of her claims than he has for his specific claims. That is all I care about. You have claimed it was a hoax and have NO evidence of that. No texts, no audio, no other. Just innuendo and supposed fruedian slips.
"That would have been a pretty damning piece of evidence wouldn't you say?"
No, I simply don't reason like you. You want to lean heavy on the credibility thing, go ahead. But I just look at the evidence and draw conclusions based on that and there is nothing illogical about that.
"
Again text messages are not evidence. That's just hearsay anyone can --"
Sorry, text messages are admissible in a court of law AND there are two dozen hearsay exeptions. Simply saying "hearsay" is not an argument.
"And yes we do have evidence that there was a conspiracy that's why they --"
No, we are arguing over whether the jury was right. You cannot use as evidence of that the very jury verdict that we are discussing.
"You're ignoring where Whitney also stated that she'd been abused by Amber herself."
Sorry, this is not an argument. Saying I'm "ignoring" something is not a rebutal. Where is your proof of a conspiracy. Show it or stop responding.
"You've also ignored the fact that you cannot --"
Sorry, i just reject your claims on the makeup. I showed a tutorial whether they covered up a black eye and gave an explanation. You simply ignored it.
"What about the images I sent you."
You are flooding me with Tweets and it's essential harrassment at this point. I am not going digging for the pictures: you still have not proved your case about a hoax.
"what about all my other questions until you answer those I'm not going to answer any of yours. Why didn't she go get medical records that she had been raped by a bottle?"
Sorry. this is not something I could possibly know as I can't read minds. You are asking me to know her personal beliefs and saying if I can't answer that then I am to jump to the conclusion of a conspiracy. Sorry. No.
"Why were there no injuries when --"
Sorry, this is not something you can no. I reject your claim that there were no injuries.
"How can you physically cover up two black eyes a broken nose --"
Already explained. You ignored it.
"And again you've refused to admit that you are just standing for her because you choose to not based on the evidence. If she can lie about one thing she can lie about other things. Period."
It is a scientific fact that everyone lies. Everyone CAN lie. It is not required of me to accept the opposite of someone's claims simply because it is POSSIBLE they lied. That is a fallacy.
"Why didn't she give those dying children money that she had promised for 13 months?"
IDK, but no matter the reason, it has nothing to do with whether she was beaten and has nothing to do with my rational. It has everything to do with yours, I understand. But I am looking at the evidence not whether she donated to someone.
"I'm still waiting for the evidence that she was ever abused..."
I'm taking this as an admission you HAVE no evidence of a hoax. I have texts/audio (when he kicked you, rape fantasies, disco blood bath, when you beat the shit out of me, headbutt), witnesses (make up artist, Sister), experts (Julie Owens, Hughes), video (kicking cabinets). photos (bruises, black eye, split lip, scratches on arm, swelling, bruise on arm) all that are more consistent with abuse versus what Johnny claims which is he never hit her.
"Did you see Whitney's face during this trial.. I did. She seemed like --"
I don't give a damn what you think she seemed like. I care about EVIDENCE. I just gave you my case. Now by. You will be muted.
