﻿There is an ongoing theory that amber heard’s bruising, allegedly 2at the hands of Johnny Depp,
comes from Botox and filler injections. In this video, we’re going to review some of the recent
investigative journalism that has come out on the topic and also look at the anatomy of periocular
region to see if this is even a plausible theory. If you’re new to the channel because I mentioned
Amber Heard, we look at faces and beauty from a very objective and balanced point of view.
Most of you have been following the Johnny Depp defamation trial already,
so we’ll skip the backstory. The current theory for how Amber Heard got these infamous bruises
allegedly at the hands of her ex husband is through Botox, fillers and makeup. This
certainly isn't a victim blaming hit-piece on Amber, but in the interest of justice, we
should explore all possible theories. The first is that these bruises are from cosmetic injectables.
This idea first came about from a neighbour who suggested that the scars are actually injection
sites for the frequent cosmetic work she was getting done at the time. Dr Gary Linkov has
performed an excellent breakdown on Amber’s face ageing throughout the years, and it’s
clear to see her undereye contour hollowing as the fat sinks with gravity. This cosmetic concern
also increases the liklinehood of wrinkling, dark circles and tear trough deformities as our own Dr,
Dr Mahmoud, wrote on the QOVES website. For me, this solidifies one thing,
there is certainly a motive for her getting cosmetic injectibles in this region.
To restore the flush undereye contour like that of her 20s, she would need filler and not botox,
which only relaxes the muscles for anti wrinkling. Dermal fillers use thicker needles or canulas more
correctly than botox, so its also possible that the larger diameter required of fillers can lead
to larger local bruising as we see here. However, I also want to play devils advocate. An
LA based doctor reported in an interview that “from my own experience I can
confidently state that these marks are clearly from Botulinum toxin injections
and possibly other filler.” If this injection is supposed to be a bad reaction to Botox,
mind you I said botox and not filler this time, aka option B), then the bruising we see here,
doesn’t really add up to the timeline. Let me explain. The bruising is on the orbicularis
Oculi muscle, which is a relatively large muscle and so most eye injectables are here. That
being said, the occurrence of Ecchymosis, the medical term for traumatic bruising,
is around 4% from Olivera Et al and 1% from Emer Et al with Botox , so if this was from
Botox injections, she must be very unlucky. However at these particular regions the likelihood
of this needle shaped bruising can be as high as 25% of patients because the skin is very thin.
In many of her photos, bruises that only the precision of a needle or cannula can achieve
are present. This would be the perfect injection spot to fill out the undereye. I do find it more
difficult to believe that if Johnny did strike her like a Prizefighter, fist closed and all,
that the bruising would be so localized. Perhaps he was wearing a ring at the time which would not
be unusual for him but the bruising can reasonable be expected to be more widespread.
My verdict is that earlier photos of her showing off her botox injection,
whether on purpose or accidentally betray her now. This pinsite bruising is as you would expect from
any injection. The type of bruising she shows later on in public is of the rarer 1%
echchymosis cases mentioned earlier from botox injections so this gives us a third theory,
what if this isn’t makeup or abuse, but just repeatedly poor applications of botox. The
nail in the coffin for me at least, is the recent allegation that the Sun, a british bottom-feeding
tabloid. Apologies, that was too biassed of me, a British social parasite of a tabloid,
Photoshopped her injuries for clicks. For those of you that don’t know, at QOVES we also call out
a lot of Photoshops using forensics, checkout our Instagram vs reality series to see how it’s done.
This photo is significantly destaurated and adjusted. [Insert video]
It could entirely be abuse still, however Amber has shown a tendency of narcissistic behaviour,
rageful outburst and short term thinking. The idea of framing an ex partner is not entirely
out of character for someone who does show these traits. People were confused by Dr Curry’s expert
testimony seemingly going against Amber’s case, but that is what an expert psychological witness
does, they report on psychology facts and figures. It’s Amber’s defences incompetence
that they did not vet their cases properly to predict what she was going to say. She can,
afterall, only report on the truth for risk of perjury or reappeal.
There is one last dead end to cover. Amber’s defence showed the court her makeup, stating
that she felt the need to cover up her injuries, which is an amazingly incompetent argument,
I don’t know how they managed to get a celebrity client like Amber. How many girls carry some form
of cosmetic in their bags, most do. In Amber’s case, a narcissistic woman with dark circles,
undereye hollowing, nasolabial lines, marionette lines, tear trough deformities and other general
signs of ageing, again, don’t take my word for it, I recommend Dr Linkov’s video first,
the chances that she never leaves home bare faced is slim to none, especially one in the public eye.
So for her to openly start walking around bare-faced and broken all of a sudden,
is oddly out of character, and I do believe that much of her cosmetic flaws such as the undereye
dark circles and hollowing with general ageing, made her situation seem that much worse. From
someone who we perceive to have perfectly clear skin and a healthy lifestyle, to one that is
paying the consequences of a debaucherous lifestyle as age catches upto her.
The brand of makeup that her defence revealed to the court was by Milani cosmetics,
although that particular correcting kit product was not made until 2017
according to Milani themselves, whereas the timeline in question ends at 2016,
so this is a lie, unless Amber got a special release a year earlier.
The defence also argued: “Do you think that she ever would have wanted other people to
see her bruises and her cuts? This is what she used. "She became very adept at it,
and you're going to hear the testimony from Amber about how she had to mix the different colors for
the different days of the bruises” These little details of mixing colours that her lawyer provides
are odd to say the least. When you are caught in a lie and you have to keep adding seemingly
irrelevant points to make your story plausible. The lawyer did not say that it was this specific
brand or kit actually used by her, just that it was in her purse at the time, which we know
cannot happen as it came out in 2017. If Amber did not use this exact product found in her purse,
what is the point of showing this? Why not show the one she actually did use then?
What I suspect happened is that at some point she had Botox or Filler and during the recovery stage
there is a chance that she had an adverse reaction, but nothing quite as bad as the
tabloids photoshop it to seem. Amber, having some seriously questionable personality traits,
gets into a heated argument and takes her bruising from allegedly botox to the tabloids,
from which they exaggerate the story for clicks. Amber never expected it to get this out of hand
and she is now way in above her head. The whole situation reminds me of a book
called Gone Girl, the movie is quite cool too, highlighting a media phenomenon called the Missing
White Woman Effect. Eugene Robinson from the Washington post writes: A damsel must be white.
This requirement is nonnegotiable. It helps if her frame is of dimensions that breathless cable
television reporters can credibly describe as ‘‘petite,’’ and it also helps if she’s
the kind of woman who wouldn’t really mind being called ‘‘petite,’’ a woman with a good
deal of princess in her personality. She must be attractive—also nonnegotiable. Her economic
status should be middle class or higher, but an exception can be made in the case of wartime
Amber fits all of the requirements of Robinson’s critique, except maybe petite,
which if she were, it would be easier to imagine how big bully Johnny Depp
beat up his poor petite ex wife. Amber is well aware of this effect,
mentioning in recording “Go ahead tell them I johnny depp am a victim of dosmetic violence,”
knowing full well that no one would care or take it seriously,
and that is exactly what happened. The framing of this whole story, from 2016 to now,
has been that harm has been done to a white woman, not a white man, not a person of
colour but a white woman and thus deserves more media coverage and outrage than anything else.
Brands responded in suite, because they really only care about money under the guise of ‘moral
issues’ and so if consumers are outraged, they too are, with no investigation as to the
legitimacy of the claims. Amber’s words were all the hearsay they needed to drop Mr Depp.