Comments by "B Bodziak" (@B_Bodziak) on "What's the Johnny Depp / Amber Heard Case About?" video.

  1. Amica cream works like a miracle!
    7
  2.  @camerynr8344  I believe you've gotten that mixed up. In the defamation case, he is only suing for the defamation in the article.
    7
  3.  @ShadowWizard  Well, the time limits in LA County, CA have expired to indict either of them for DV. However, I believe this case can still spark a criminal investigation in Australia.
    7
  4.  @WalkinChristum  You sound like my father. After graduating Loyola, he never even took the Bar anywhere.
    7
  5.  @ameliecarre4783  It still seems unusual that someone suddenly becomes a raging lunatic that beats his partner at least weekly and for the very first time in his 50s. If it was one or even two incidents that he attacked AH, I could buy it but not the way she tells it. Then, I heard the recording from Australia where she admits to the finger and says how sorry she is. She begs to stay with him. I heard the tape right after hearing her testimony about the incident. Completely opposite. Now, I don't believe anything she's said.
    6
  6.  @WalkinChristum  If you're in a country requiring the white wigs, I can understand it even more!
    4
  7.  @shantichristian7600  One of the Murdoch sons is on Tesla's board and the Murdoch's own The Sun
    2
  8. I have to say I'm a bit confused when AH supporters are accusing positive JD statements are by bots and troll farms, when I see with my own eyes, the ratio of JD to AH fans outside the courthouse. Additonally, there was not a single LawTube or YT litigation attorney, with years of both prosecution and defense experience, who were providing commentary on every YT livestream witj 50k -600k active viewers that said they believed AH during her testimony. If AH supporters, including her PR team and publicist, think they might be able to convince people that AH is the one telling the truth, you are truly wasting your time. Many DV victims like me, gave her the benefit when we started watching the hearing, and many of us maintained this position throughout JD's case presentation. Many of us were still ready to continue supporting her through Day One of her Direct Exam. BUT, by the middle of her second testimony day, after we listened to her recounting the incidents in Australia, we saw FAR TOO MANY INCONSISTENCIES for it to have possibly happened anyway near what she testifed as happened. If he ever did get physical with her a time or two, it's ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to believe her about anything. I have zero doubts that he did not violate or rape her with a liquor bottle, and someone who would lie about something so incredibly horrific taking place when it didn't, will lie about anything and everything. Full Stop.
    2
  9.  @aoefeable  The ACLU atty testified that AH was upset that the Wash Post and her atty's wouldn't allow her to keep JD's name in the article. She is vindictive.
    2
  10. Why is her history not admissable?
    1
  11.  @cleigh3796  So, AGAIN, AH is telling the truth but the arresting officers and the airline agent are all lying. At least AH is consistent.
    1
  12.  @drew3030  Quite unusual for a troll farm to actually go back and edit a comment. But, you do you.
    1
  13.  @bridgetg6857  Are you supporting AH's claims that the arresting officer in the SEA-TAC incident was homophobic?
    1
  14. There was plenty of references to it when the ACLU representative, an attorney, was testifying. I don't know how AH doesn't have a malpractice case against her atty's for approving the op-ed. They're the same ones that drew up the NDA.
    1