Amber Heard’s recent interview with NBS has gone viral, with people dissecting her statements one by one. Despite not having any ill will during the interview, it is rumored that her team of attorneys now want to give up on her as their client and not follow up on the appeal due to the contradictory statements she made in the interview.
One single statement that stood out for her legal team was that she claimed that the op-ed piece she wrote in 2018 was not about Johnny Depp.
The media assumed it was about Johnny, and the actress never denied it in court. She later said under oath that it was about him. The latest interviews throw another contradiction into the mix, making it a lot harder for her legal team to make a case for a successful appeal. Insider sources report that they are on the verge of giving up.
The single statement has a much higher legal implication than all the other more spicier claims she made in the interview. The very subject matter of the debt versus her defamation trial was the op-ed she wrote in the Washington Post. One of the main questions that jurors had to deliberate on was whether Amber wrote the op-ed about Johnny or not since her did not mention him directly by name. This was one of the key factors of the trial’s verdict which the appeal will try to overthrow the more Amber speaks out about the op-ed the more confusing it becomes for both the judge and her legal team to frame as an appeal.
In court, Amber was asked by savannah guthrie why she wrote the op-ed in 2018 when she had seemingly moved on from her divorce with Johnny back in 2016. She replied that she wrote it because it was not about the actor or the relationship that the two had. Instead, she claimed it was about her loaning her voice to a bigger cultural conversation that was happening at the time.
Now, again, she has contradicted the statements she gave under oath, which might open up discussions of perjury. This has put severe pressure on her legal team. Some people believe that Amber might be asking such questions about the op-ed in an effort to make the appeal more difficult. The judge might also be reconsidering the appeal as she made more claims in the interview that the judge and the jury were influenced by social media and paid witnesses.