The discussion revolves around a witness testifying in a legal case, possibly a defamation case involving Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. The witness, who is an expert in statistical and forensic analysis of social media, is asked a series of questions about their analysis of social media data related to the case.
The witness explains that their analysis was based on the hashtags used in tweets, particularly the hashtags "Justice for Johnny Depp," "Amber Heard is an abuser," "we just don't like you Amber," and "Amber turd." They clarify that their analysis did not take into account any specific statements made in the media, but rather focused on the correlation between the use of these hashtags and the timing of Johnny Depp's allegedly defamatory statements.
The witness also discusses the dates of these statements, which they believe were around April 8th, April 27th, and June 24th, and the fact that the statements were made in public media. They emphasize that their analysis did not involve speculation about the number of people who read the articles or the exact location of the references within the articles.
The witness also clarifies that their analysis was based on the data they had at the time and that they did not consider any particular statements in the media. They also explain that their analysis was focused on identifying a correlation between the use of specific hashtags and the timing of Johnny Depp's statements.
The witness is also asked about their analysis of other search terms like "hoax" and "fraud." They explain that they searched for these terms to see if they were correlated with the use of the aforementioned hashtags, but they do not have any idea why these terms appeared in the tweets they analyzed.
Lastly, the witness is asked whether they have an opinion on whether "Justice for Johnny Depp" is a good thing. They clarify that their assignment did not involve forming an opinion on this matter.
Here are some possible facts extracted from the text:
1. The text is a transcript of a cross-examination of an expert witness in a defamation case.
2. The expert witness is from Berkeley Research Group and is being compensated at 600 an hour.
3. The expert witness analyzed Twitter data related to four hashtags that he deemed negative towards misheard: Justice for Johnny Depp, Amber Heard is an abuser, we just don't like you Amber, and Amber turd.
4. The expert witness did not take into account statements made in the media or the dates of the allegedly defamatory statements by Mr Waldman.
5. The expert witness only reported on mathematical correlation between the hashtags and certain search terms, but did not offer any opinion on causation or motivation of the tweeters.
6. The expert witness adopted the opinion of another expert, Mr Bania, that the hashtags were related to Mr Waldman's statements.
7. The hashtag Justice for Johnny Depp was the most prevalent and had spikes before and after Mr Waldman's statements.
8. The hashtag Justice for Johnny Depp existed since 2013, while Amber Heard is an abuser and Amber turd first appeared in 2016.
9. The expert witness also searched for additional terms such as hoax, fraud, and fake, as well as Waldman and Wald minion.
10. The expert witness did not opine on whether Justice for Johnny Depp was a negative or positive hashtag by itself.