The integrity of the judicial system is being compromised in light of the Depp VS. Amber Heard trial. Not only did perjury undeniably occur underneath oath on multiple occasions, fabricated/tampered evidence submitted, but also continued claims that the system “protects powerful men” insinuates that our judicial system was biased/swayed. As this case was publicized for all to see - and although perjury cases are rare and hard to rule on - the court must send a message to the public that perjury is a serious offense. As such, we implore you to investigate alleged instances of perjury within the Depp VS. Heard trial.  

During the trial, while under oath (and also during depositions), recollections of events were grossly inconsistent between multiple parties. The common denominator, in this case, was Ms. Heard, who on numerous occasions gave sworn testimony that contradicted witnesses from both sides; the rebuttal justification claimed (once again) that everyone else (asides from her) was lying under oath. In addition, evidence was submitted and described under oath in impossible manners (e.g., same photograph, different events).  These inconsistencies are not only damming for the image of the court – but also have professional and criminal implications for many witnesses involved; Ms. Heard claimed that others have committed a serious offense (i.e., perjury) which could result in professional implications for the medical professionals and state/federal employees involved(e.g., loss of career, license, etc.). In addition, accusations of serious criminal offenses, such as sexual assault with a glass bottle, are not to be taken lightly – and in some districts have legal implications that carry sentences similar to attempted murder. By accusing Mr. Depp on the stand of such a heinous crime, Ms. Heard provided inconsistent testimony with the audio evidence related to the circumstances of events that occurred in Australia. In the end, there is a small chance that maybe Ms. Heard is telling the truth and the system “protects powerful men” – however, the preposterous weight of the evidence shows otherwise. Regardless, a perjury investigation will undeniably send a message that you cannot and should not lie under oath. In addition, if it is found that Ms. Heard perjured herself – it will also send a message that you cannot submit falsified evidence and accuse others of heinous and criminal offenses that are unfounded. 

The image of the court is in jeopardy, like it or not, due to this trial. As it was televised for all to see – the world was a witness to these inconsistencies and recognize that perjury undeniably occurred – either from Ms. Heard or almost every other witness. After the verdict, the statement from Ms. Heard continued to double down on the concept of systems protecting the powerful, further bringing the integrity of the court to question. Though Ms. Heard has a right to defend herself (and also appeal the decision), continued narratives painted by her, her team, and some of the mainstream media paint a picture of a prejudicial court system – that frankly, we hope (and believe) is untrue. The court must act, not only to protect its image, but also the integrity of the judicial system and send a clear message that perjury is a serious offense. We implore you to send this message through your own internal investigation on this matter, bringing closure to both sides. As previously noted, the investigation might also show that Ms. Heard was truthful, and if this is the outcome, then reform is needed. However, we also cannot continue to allow these narratives to be bombarded within the public sphere without substantiation. We need you to investigate and send a message to the public, whatever the findings of said investigation might be, as regardless people knowingly and undoubtedly committed perjury within these proceedings, be it Ms. Heard OR the countless other witnesses who testified that are too many to name.