New revelations concerning Johnny Depp’s conduct and those of his legal team prior to the Amber Heard trial have cast the “Edward Scissorhands” actor in a negative light as a result of The Daily Beast’s investigation into the publication of secret court records.
In the unsealed court documents, Heard’s legal team claimed that Depp “Submitted by Depp as proof, metadata from photos and audio “reveals the items were ‘Modified’ days before their production in this case,” and that metadata “indicates the recordings were created in September 2015 and then modified in June 2016 and again one day before their production, but Depp only produced the modified version. Significant questions about manipulation, change, and deletion are raised by this.”
- 10 Images that will change how you see the world
- Fears For The Future of William Saliba as Arsenal Refuse to Negotiate a New Contract
- Is ASUS Actually a Good Brand? And Their Top 5 Laptops
- Arsenal is in negotiations with a versatile attacker as Mikel Arteta looks to make his first January signing
- 6 Habits That are Killing Your Energy, And How to Fix Them
Heard’s team was repeatedly refused access to the complete audio of these talks. Heard’s team said that the “Create and Modified” dates on the photos Depp provided from Heard that allegedly depicted bruises and scrapes on his person were years after the alleged occurrences.
One photo had a creation date of 7/24/2019, another had no creation date but a “Modified Date of 7/4/2020,” and a final photo had “‘Creation,’ ‘Modified,’ ‘Received,’ and ‘Sent’ Dates of July 22, 2019, despite Mr. Depp saying this photograph was shot in March 2015,” according to Team Heard.
Another picture Depp supplied of a supposed injury had “no ‘Creation’ or ‘Modified’ date information and puts the ‘Sent’ and ‘Modified’ dates as July 3, 2020.”
The defence team for Heard also retained Julian Ackert, an iDiscovery Solutions forensic expert, who testified under oath that he had gone over the metadata of Depp’s submitted evidence and found
“anomalies that call into question the authenticity of the multimedia documents,” including “instances where the date metadata, such as creation and date metadata, is either missing or is significantly after the alleged date of the incident.”
When creation dates are absent or when revisions include dates that are later than the events, digital evidence tampering may be obvious. According to Ackert’s evidence in court, Heard’s first images that she supplied showed her with a battered face.