During the ongoing trial involving Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, a witness took the stand to discuss the video evidence presented in court. The witness, who reached out to Depp’s counsel, revealed that there were discrepancies between the video shown in court and the video they had received. However, the witness clarified that they were not interested in testifying and had contacted Depp’s team to provide assistance in understanding the timeline of events and published stories.
The witness mentioned that they became aware of the trial’s discussion about TMZ, a media outlet, and had seen a clip related to it. They confirmed watching a portion of the trial and acknowledged being subpoenaed through their attorney, who represents Christy Dembrowski, Kate James, and Robin Baum.
The witness denied seeking any personal gain or fame from their involvement, emphasizing that they were potentially becoming a target due to their association with TMZ. When questioned about their knowledge of Depp’s attorneys’ awareness of the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) proceedings involving Heard, the witness claimed they were not aware of the details.
Regarding the failed deposition attempt involving Amber Heard, the witness explained that they knew it didn’t work out because TMZ had published an article mentioning it. They clarified that they were not dispatched to film Heard and were not involved in the actual journalism. The witness could not provide information on why the deposition did not proceed as planned, suggesting that referring to the article would be necessary.
When asked about the origin of a video clip, the witness stated that they did not know who provided it. During redirect examination, the witness clarified their reason for contacting Depp’s counsel, expressing a desire to help with the timeline of events and understanding the discrepancies between different versions of the video. They emphasized that their intention was not to testify but rather to provide assistance to the case.
This witness testimony raises questions about the video evidence presented in the trial and highlights potential inconsistencies and uncertainties surrounding its origin and authenticity. The involvement of media outlets, particularly TMZ, is also brought into focus. The trial continues as both sides present their arguments and evidence.
