Ok, I’ve taken up enough of all your time. Thank you so much. My conclusion is this ‘outline’ photo was not taken that night. I think she deliberately injured herself at some point after the Sunday. This explains the darker bruise. A severe enough hit that it lingered.

This then explains why this bruise above her eyebrow is not present in the only series of shots she took on the instructions of her layer that night and the next day. Which are these.

I think at some point the following week, she marked her face with this phone. Lay on it, traced it, something. Added in either make-up or photo effects. Either way, she did so because she needed a suitably dramatic shot to distribute to the press.

This, as far as I recall, was the only shot given to that court. Or there may have been one other, too. As is standard, this evidence would then be given to the press, which it was. She never supplied the metadata.

That then explains why the bruise above her eyebrow was still present at the hearing but not the various ‘abrasions’, ‘marks’, & other ‘injuries’ in the ‘outline’ shot. I can only conclude then that entire shot is manipulated. Effects and/or make up.

Which then brings us to the question why it is her closing submission includes text messages sending the ‘outline’ shot to her parents. The metadata supplied to the High Court says both were sent that Saturday evening. This makes no sense in light of the rest of the photos.

It can only be true then that the texts were sent to her parents later that week, & Heard and NGN have supplied false evidence to the High Court, including manipulated images and faked metadata - not just for these photos but the texts, too.

This is my conclusion for now, but given you are all much more knowledgeable of this case and adept with information about it, I am very happy to take any criticisms, corrections, etc. you might have. Thank you again for being so patient, kind & helpful.