On the sixth and seventh, i think they were towards the top. All right is that crosstalk. You testified that you reviewed a number of hashtags that you deemed were negative towards misheard. That's right! Yes, yeah and the before you picked at least the negative ones, uh justice for johnny depp, that's one of them right.

That's right, amber heard as an abuser, that's one of them. That is one of them. We just don't like you amber, that's one of them. That is one of them and the last one was amber turd right.

That is another one. Okay, and these four hashtags you identified and searched for you have, no, you don't believe they have any connection. This guy he's tweaking have no connection to these three waldman statements. Hashtags aren't attack are connected to waldman right well, i did an additional analysis that did show how many of those had waldman connected to them and i found that one out of four of them did right.

But when you were deposed, you were asked whether whether these were related. These particular hashtags were related to any of the walmart statements, and you said no at that time. I said more than that. I did.

I said i said i didn't know and then and then i said um, i'm basing my i'm looking at mr banya's opinion where he says they would be if they were in large number and i'm adopting his opinion and agreeing with him that they must be connected. So you're adopting an opinion. Oh no, this guy is so shaky. I kind of feel i can't feel bad for him because i think he maybe he's good at his job whatever, but whether they have him on on the stand or whatever he's just kind of getting uh.

In this case it doesn't look very convincing. It lacks charisma like by anybody, but you well. I know that mr banya has testified. Okay.

What i'm saying is, i know that mr banya, mr bana's disclosure says that he is expected to come to that opinion right, but the only person who's ever expressed this opinion today in this courtroom. Is you correct? I will, i would know. I haven't watched everything. I've watched you're adopting your own opinion um.

No, i'm adopting the opinion that i read in mr banya's disclosure and that's not the opinion you had during your deposition. I think the problem is that he's, probably very smart. I feel like and very successful what he does and his job is impossible to explain to normans and you're just you're, just if this guy dumbs down everything into something that no one can understand, even something that isn't that not even that valid. It still wins over.

This guy did make reference in my deposition to uh what mr banya said and and that i agreed with it all right, and you indicated in deposition, you didn't take into account statements made in the media correct made in what i could use. You said you did, you did not take into account that statements made in the media media. Yes, in the analysis where i gathered data and decided which data to gather, i did not take into account statements in the media, so you looked at data you produced charts. You did analysis relating to the data, but you had no reason at the time.

You did this to consider any particular statements. Isn't that true, that's true, i think that's an appropriate scientific methodology to not to first gather as much data as possible and then drill down on the data and the twitter data you collected shows that the four hashtags you would you identified were in existence before mr Waldman made the first statement: they didn't exist april 2020 right, that's correct, nope in very small number, but but justice for johnny depp has been around since 2013. Correct. All of them did um.

That sounds correct, yeah amber heard, isn't it in that case shouldn't you make bots to just say a bunch of about a bunch of people, so they that they exist ahead of time abuser and amber turd first appeared in 2016.. Correct, i don't recall, actually right. Do you recall if there was any portion of mr waldman's statement that made it any reference to amber turd, not that i've seen right people can form a negative view of misheard without reading mr waldman's statements, correct people can form a negative opinion of anyone without reading Anything that's correct and you didn't consider whether there was negative publicity around misheard other than the waldman statements. What i did was to report on uh correlation uh with with these hashtags and certain search terms.

In particular, i wasn't trying to read anyone's mind as to why they use them. You didn't form any opinion, that of of the million tweets million plus tweets that you looked at we're connected in some way to mr waldman's statements. I did eventually, yes, you didn't. You did eventually, after you read somebody else's report relative to testimony that hasn't been given here.

Well, i did it before my deposition. All right, you uh have a demonstrative that uh council played for you. Can we put up uh uh nice guys? I don't think he is, is he this is yours right, correct, um, the biggest spikes by far the biggest spikes here are attributable to what hashtag justice for johnny jeff hashtag yeah, and there are spikes that existed uh considerably and before mr wildman's statement, you were asked About that by council, one of them did. That was the date that mr waldman leaked uh, the audio tape the biggest spike was before.

This is the statement right the date he leaked the audio, and then there were many statements that um are there many hashtags or uses of the hashtag that follow the statements? You'll have to be more specific. Well, so you looked at a million two of these hashtags right right in your chart. Didn't 980 000 of these plus belong to justice for johnny depp. That sounds about right.

You'd have to show me, but i i'll take your word for it all right, but the vast majority of them were justice for johnny depp. A majority of them were well. It wasn't the majority so large that you had to draw another chart. Reason for drawing another chart is is because the numbers were high at particular points, so you wouldn't be able to see the other hashtags right literally.

This is your chart and and all of the other activity at the bottom. You can barely see. Oh no in comparison to the justice for johnny depp right as i testified, you can barely see them because of the spikes in the justice for johnny depp hashtag, but the. But when you look at the other chart, you can see that those others are still very large numbers, so you're not offering any opinion as to what caused these spikes.

That's correct right. So you're you're not a pining as to why these spikes are there. I'm only talking about correlation right, you're talking about well. This is how it should be, though, even though, even though he's an expert or whatever i don't, i don't think he's very biased.

I think he hired him to do. The stats he's explain the stats. So if you ask him a question and that is like incrementing for them or like or like it looks bad for them. Well he's answering, i mean i i agree with that.

I think that's. That's very good he's answering if it's a good question and it has a good answer, so be it the mathematical connection. That's right right! That's how law should be that's! Oh! That's all anybody and you don't purport to be in anybody's head such that. You know why they did uh a particular post with a particular hashtag.

That's correct, uh, there's a second spike that appears to be in july of 2020. um. Yes, the the pointer was pointing to a different one, but yes, yeah um were you where there was a trial in the in the uk in 2020, i'm aware, and in july um you're saying it was in july no, but we as of that the time of That spike there was ev. There was publicity around a trap, correct.

I don't know how much publicity there was. I i know the trial was going on. Then there are a number of things called out in your chart: um relative to particular dates. December 17th february, 11th february 14th.

You see all those i do bubbles and your chart makes absolutely no reference to and does not identify the dates of any of the waldman statements. Does it, sir? Not no, it doesn't call those out if that's what you're asking it calls out a whole bunch of other dates, but nothing relative to the waldman statements correct. Oh, it's coming all right at some time. At some point uh, you ran searches for additional search terms, uh hoax fraud.

I think you said fake and then you don't know why those terms appeared. Do you i'm not sure what you mean by that question? Are you asking me you could not perform a scientific analysis of the reason why these those terms appeared in that in the tweets you were looking at right. I could only show mathematical correlation right. You can show a correlation, but but you don't have any idea.

Why they're there i i can't get into people's heads right and just because the tweet contends one of the times this is lawyer, i'm not i'm not sure about them terms does not mean the tweet was in some way, prompted by mr waldman right, well, they're they're Doing something and then the the waldman and waldmanyeon okay, so um, you know it's not that big of a threat, this line of questioning uh. I i feel like these classical questions, can't really go anywhere, because the the the guy does the stats and put the stats in the computer. I i don't think he can draw any sort of uh to say that opinion, mr waldman, if it's his name and wild mignon or minion, wait a minute. Is it's the new standard? It's not that big a stretch.

Oh that's the point. I get it. Yes, i'm trying to speak right. Yes, all right, so you're, not suggesting that you know why mr waldman's name appeared in any of these tweets.

Well, if you look at, if you look at the tweets that have wild mignon, you know - and i looked at a large sample of them - just a large sample was uh 2 000 out of a million two. No, i looked at more than that of these, but um that's another thing that i wouldn't expect to be in controversy. Um. You know when people are saying that they're part of the wild minions or things like that um.

I would expect everybody to agree without arguing that it has to do with mr waldman do with mr waldman. I'm wondering how do you know that had anything to do with mr waldman's statement, but i was under the impression i was informed that nobody really knew who? Mr waldman was before all of this, so i wouldn't expect it to be anything else. I didn't think it was in controversy. It wasn't in controversy whether everyone knew who mr waldman was, that testimony.

No saying it wasn't in controversy that um that if somebody was suddenly talking about him that it had to do with this case, all right, but again it's not did it have to do with this case. It's did it have to do with the allegedly defamatory statements you have no idea. Do you, sir? I can't get into anyone's mind. I can only talk about the science of it right, um, and so you identify all of these uh hashtags as as as negative towards misheard.

Right right. Justice for johnny depp is not negative towards misheard. Is it no, but the tweets that use that hashtag are no, but the hashtag yourself wait, wait that doesn't make okay wait. Didn't he just kind of fail here? It's not.

He said he can't get into people's minds on why they do something here right and he won't do he's only going to go in the science of it. Then he said - and he says this isn't against her. He says that the tweets are: is it not making a conclusion or an opinion on what what these uh, what people meant by that negative towards misheard? Is it no, but the tweets not really that use that hashtag are no, but the hashtag itself, the the hashtag that predominates through your analysis is not in fact negative towards miss hurt, i'm not talking, i'm not opining on the hashtag itself. I'm talking about the tweets that contain that hashtag, but the hashtag itself is: you can evaluate the hashtag.

You can't evaluate the contents of the tweets themselves and their nature, otherwise it being a data somewhere or does it there'd be some sort of source for it, but he's just kind of saying that it's not negative. That's not part of my opinion. You can do you have an opinion as to whether justice for johnny depp is a good thing. That's not part of my assignment.

Okay, okay, but you'll, agree with me. Justice in general is a good thing. Big fan of justice me too. No further questions all right.

Redirect? Okay, yes, sir okay, what was that um? You, mr chanel, you reviewed um enough as a large sampling of tweets of justice for johnny depp correct i did and the tweet and the tweets that had the hashtag justice and here comes how many of them were negative toward misheard, all of them? What um, and what percentage of the tweets with negative hashtags between april 20, 20 and january 31st? 2021? Okay, that's a major heart rossi! How do i know, because that's nearly impossible with that, with that many people you're bound to have at least one troll you're about to have a reply. That is that that is in in johnny's favor, that is literally just uh, using the hashtag to get into a conversation. Literally when you see when you see a hashtag, as i don't know, bts forever stan luna. How many people are go and use the hashtag and say shut up dumb suckers, because a bunch of morons at at least one out of 100 thousands? I would assume.

So this doesn't make sense. And in your analysis, how far in times are the tweets containing the terms waldman or waldmignon, go like how, far to now beyond the scope across he was asking about overall um? So i think i disclosed at my deposition that i that i looked further into um 2022 and um found that it continued to go on, didn't see any end to it. How am i the bigger what i did? It makes a lot of sense. He agrees that the nature of the hashtag is for justice and not against her.

He testified that he agrees it's not against her and he said that in the hundreds of thousands of tweets, they were all against her in nature right. Therefore, the content of the tweet would have to say that it's all against her, but people use hashtags to get in conversations and on topics on twitter. Therefore, it is it is, it is by default impossible that every person they use the hashtag was all again. It's just impossible: oh okay, and based on your analysis again what period of time had more negative tweets against misheard before or after april 2020, it was clearly um double as many from april to 2021 and that's even including the february 2020 spike correct.

That's right! So that's sample is negative. Okay, then i'm going to cherry pick five data at random and say: oh guys, this is negative about amber checkmate. What the is that are you, okay, which is before april? Obviously, so, even if you put that in there, it's still a lot more smoking, the quebecois again, i see and there are fewer months in that time period. I think they're 20 or 15 15 months in that time, period and 27 months in the first part and based on your analysis.

What, if any end, do you see to the negative tweets toward mr objection, no foundation based on his analysis up until the time i'll sustain the objections? Okay, did you see any based on your analysis? Did you, at the end of the time of your of your analysis, what was happening with the negative tweets towards her to continue to go on? Okay, mr chanel, after your cross-examination? Have any of your opinions in this matter changed what no they have not. Thank you. All right all right, so you can have a seat in the courtroom where you're free to go. Okay, all right, your next witness, okay, sure what the was that give me! You.