Latest / Crime Stories with Nancy Grace / Johnny Depp/Amber Heard Trial Goes to Jury

Transcript

Johnny Depp/Amber Heard Trial Goes to Jury · Crime Stories with Nancy Grace

0:05
Speaker 1: Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Well, it just won't go away.
0:16
Speaker 1: I'm talking about heard versus dep Depp versus heard. It's
0:20
Speaker 1: all happening right now in a Fairfax, Virginia courtroom. The
0:24
Speaker 1: jury is going into our ten of deliberations. Did Aquaman
0:30
Speaker 1: Star Amber heard defame Pirates of the Caribbean Captain Jack Sparrow,
0:37
Speaker 1: Johnny Depp? And likewise, a lot's happening. There's never a
0:41
Speaker 1: dull moment in this trial. I'm Nancy Grace, this is
0:44
Speaker 1: Crime Stories. Thank you for being with us here at
0:46
Speaker 1: Fox Nation and Series one eleven. Well, apparently Johnny Depp
0:51
Speaker 1: is not that worried. Take a listen to our cup
0:55
Speaker 1: forty three from the Today Show. Johnny Depp sporting new
0:59
Speaker 1: Blunde low headed overseas this weekend. The seemingly unfazed film
1:03
Speaker 1: star seen performing several songs in England alongside legendary rock
1:07
Speaker 1: gutarist and friend Jeff Back. Closing arguments in the trial
1:11
Speaker 1: were contentious, and there's a victim of domestic abuse in
1:14
Speaker 1: this courtroom, but it is not misheard Johnny Depp's team
1:17
Speaker 1: painting his ex wife as an abusive manipulator who wanted
1:20
Speaker 1: to destroy their client's reputation. He just hit me over
1:24
Speaker 1: and over and over again. Herd's team presenting their evidence
1:28
Speaker 1: to support her allegations of abuse, including an array of
1:31
Speaker 1: photos of her face bruised and swollen after she says
1:34
Speaker 1: Depp attactor text. They say, document the incidents and witnesses
1:37
Speaker 1: who testified they saw Depth become violent, as well as
1:41
Speaker 1: Herd's injuries in the aftermath. If Amber was abused by
1:44
Speaker 1: mister Depp even one time, then she wins. Depp brought
1:49
Speaker 1: the fifty million dollar defamation suit against Heard after she
1:52
Speaker 1: wrote a twenty eighteen Washington Post op ed where she
1:55
Speaker 1: described herself as a public figure representing domestic abuse, not
2:00
Speaker 1: fast under the black and white letter of the law. Yes,
2:05
Speaker 1: if Depth ever hit Heard, she wins. But they forgot
2:10
Speaker 1: this part. The jury has to be convinced. Sometimes one
2:15
Speaker 1: party can turn out to be so distasteful, so dislikable,
2:19
Speaker 1: the credibility is shot. You know. Let me go out
2:23
Speaker 1: to Charlie links and joining me from dalimail dot com.
2:26
Speaker 1: She is the editor of Female Charlie. I actually had
2:31
Speaker 1: someone approached me and ask me, either Blue this was
2:36
Speaker 1: at target. Do you think Amber Heard faked her bruises.
2:41
Speaker 1: That's not a good omen. You know, I have investigated
2:44
Speaker 1: and prosecuted hundreds, literally hundreds of domestic violence, domestic sex assault,
2:50
Speaker 1: domestic homicide cases. I've never had anyone ask me did
2:55
Speaker 1: she paint on or fake her bruises? That's not good
2:59
Speaker 1: for her. It's really not good for her. And I
3:02
Speaker 1: think first and foremost, you know, in the court of
3:05
Speaker 1: public opinion, I don't want to say that there's a winner,
3:08
Speaker 1: because I think that this whole trial has been such
3:11
Speaker 1: an insane circus that no one really wins. But I
3:15
Speaker 1: think that in the court of public opinion, Johnny is
3:17
Speaker 1: certainly ahead of Amber, and I think that he has
3:21
Speaker 1: come across in some strange way as being much more likable.
3:25
Speaker 1: And I don't know how the jury could not feel
3:29
Speaker 1: the same way. In some small way. Amber really just
3:33
Speaker 1: has not come across as a likable human being. And
3:36
Speaker 1: when you're dealing with a court case that has had
3:38
Speaker 1: so many insane claims, so many horrific allegations of different
3:44
Speaker 1: kinds of abuse, I don't know how that doesn't play
3:48
Speaker 1: at least a small part in their deliberations. Speaking of
3:52
Speaker 1: losing credibility, and again I'm not on herd side. I'm
3:55
Speaker 1: not on depth side. I am on the side of
3:58
Speaker 1: a true very whatever that verdict may be as to
4:03
Speaker 1: losing credibility, take a listen to our cut forty six.
4:07
Speaker 1: This is the dep lawyer during closing arguments. He owns
4:13
Speaker 1: his flaws, he admits to them, he told you all
4:17
Speaker 1: about them. But he is not a violent abuser. He's
4:21
Speaker 1: not abuser as Misheard claims, and he did not and
4:25
Speaker 1: does not deserve to have his life his legacy destroyed.
4:31
Speaker 1: There is a world of difference between having substance abuse
4:37
Speaker 1: problems and being a physical abuser. Amber Heard is not
4:42
Speaker 1: a true victim, and mister Depp certainly is not an abuser.
4:46
Speaker 1: This case, for mister Devil has never been about money.
4:51
Speaker 1: It is about mister Depp's reputation. You know, with me
4:55
Speaker 1: a former prosecutor now a veteran civil attorney joining me
4:59
Speaker 1: from Atlanta jurisdiction, Daryl Cohen, it's very possible that the
5:05
Speaker 1: jury may find amber Heard to be a liar. And
5:09
Speaker 1: the judge accurately gave the jury instruction that if you
5:14
Speaker 1: disbelieve a witness in part, you are then authorized to
5:19
Speaker 1: discard all of their testimony. If they disbelieved her about
5:24
Speaker 1: one thing like tipping off TMZ the thirty mile zone
5:29
Speaker 1: TMZ to come and catch her at the courthouse filing
5:32
Speaker 1: a t r O against step and then turning a
5:35
Speaker 1: certain way to catch the bruise on her face, which
5:38
Speaker 1: she denied tipping them off. If they find she even
5:40
Speaker 1: led about that, they are authorized to throw out all
5:44
Speaker 1: of her testimony. Well, Nancy, of course they can. If
5:48
Speaker 1: they don't like her for whatever the reason, they can
5:51
Speaker 1: ignore her testimony. If they don't like him for whatever
5:55
Speaker 1: the reason, they can throw out his testimony and say,
5:59
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, Hollywood here in Virginia, this is just terrific,
6:03
Speaker 1: because we are going to find against both of them,
6:07
Speaker 1: or for both of them, or find for them and
6:10
Speaker 1: give them a dollar each. Any of these things are possible.
6:14
Speaker 1: I was thinking that same thing about one dollar each. Yeah,
6:17
Speaker 1: this is soap opera, and both of them and my view,
6:21
Speaker 1: deserve each other. And I agree that in the court
6:23
Speaker 1: of public opinion, Johnny Depp is ahead. Does that mean
6:27
Speaker 1: he's going to win or lose? No, it's one more
6:31
Speaker 1: strike against Amber or for him. But there have been
6:35
Speaker 1: so many witnesses on both sides that have been that
6:39
Speaker 1: are so credible that it's really going to be fun
6:42
Speaker 1: for the Jarars. And you weren't know if they would
6:44
Speaker 1: call it fun, but go ahead. Yeah, well, I think
6:46
Speaker 1: one or more of the the Jars are going to write
6:48
Speaker 1: a book. I think they're gonna have a blast and
6:50
Speaker 1: they're going to have a tough time back there. They've
6:52
Speaker 1: been there for what ten hours now, and they're continuing
6:56
Speaker 1: to liberate. This is going to be a very interesting verdict.
7:00
Speaker 1: I would be surprised at nothing. At nothing. Doctor Charles
7:05
Speaker 1: Heller joining me clinical forensic psychologists specializing in domestic violence.
7:10
Speaker 1: He's the chief forensic consultant Rockland County in New York
7:13
Speaker 1: and works with Rutger's Biomedical and Health Sciences. Thank you
7:18
Speaker 1: for being with us. Boy, do we need to shrink,
7:20
Speaker 1: doctor Heller. Here's the thing. I hate for oj Simpson
7:25
Speaker 1: to rear his ugly head right now. But that said,
7:31
Speaker 1: isn't it true? It seems as if the jury loved
7:35
Speaker 1: Johnny Cochrane and hated Marsha Clark. Yeah, that's true. I'm
7:40
Speaker 1: not necessarily agreeing with that. Although Johnny Cochrane was my
7:43
Speaker 1: sparring partner at Court TV. It can boil down to
7:50
Speaker 1: like and dislike. You know, when you like somebody, doctor Heller,
7:54
Speaker 1: you tend to believe what they say. When you don't
7:57
Speaker 1: like somebody, everything they say like dirt in their mouth.
8:02
Speaker 1: That's very true. And Amber heard is a person who
8:06
Speaker 1: a lot of people are disliking at this point. Why
8:10
Speaker 1: what is it about her that is spark dislike well?
8:13
Speaker 1: I think it's her affect in the courtroom. What do
8:18
Speaker 1: you mean by that? You got to be more specific.
8:20
Speaker 1: Dummy down, doctor dummy down for me. Most of the
8:23
Speaker 1: time she has a kind of a flat affect. She
8:28
Speaker 1: doesn't show much emotion and people can only guess what's
8:33
Speaker 1: going on inside of her. The other part about this
8:36
Speaker 1: is that at other times she becomes very emotional and
8:40
Speaker 1: almost angry, just trying to figure out what it is
8:43
Speaker 1: about her that has engendered so much dislike. Well, there
8:47
Speaker 1: was a big, big development in the courtroom. Charlie Langston.
8:51
Speaker 1: Take a listen to our cut fifty six. This is
8:54
Speaker 1: the judge Letten know what happened? I mean, just read
8:57
Speaker 1: into the record the question. It's basically in regards to
9:02
Speaker 1: number C, items one in three and numbers C is
9:05
Speaker 1: a jury instruction on the finding instruction for the online
9:09
Speaker 1: article title. The question is does question number three the
9:14
Speaker 1: statement is false, pertain to the headline I spoke up
9:18
Speaker 1: against sexual violence and faced our culture's wrath or does
9:21
Speaker 1: it pertain to the content of the statement everything written
9:24
Speaker 1: in the outped. So I think the confusion came in
9:26
Speaker 1: this particular one because the statement in question is the
9:29
Speaker 1: title of the OpEd. So I think they're just confused
9:32
Speaker 1: as whether it's the whole OpEd or just the title
9:35
Speaker 1: is the statement, And it's clear that the title is
9:37
Speaker 1: the statement. So I was going to answer to say,
9:40
Speaker 1: the title is the statement in question for number three?
9:44
Speaker 1: Is that seem appropriate to everybody? So this is how
9:49
Speaker 1: it goes down. When the jury has a question, they
9:54
Speaker 1: usually get the four person to write the question now
9:56
Speaker 1: or somebody writes. They give it to the bail off.
9:59
Speaker 1: The bail off then prisses it on, typically to the clerk.
10:02
Speaker 1: The clerk then gives it to the judge. The judge
10:04
Speaker 1: calls all the lawyers, Oh, Darryl Cohen, didn't you hate
10:07
Speaker 1: getting jury questions? I mean the kylie or waiting a
10:10
Speaker 1: crystal ball. You can kind of get an idea where
10:14
Speaker 1: the jury is going. But oh, Daryl, did I ever
10:16
Speaker 1: tell you I listened at the air vent one time
10:20
Speaker 1: to the one time and all my years prosecuting, because
10:24
Speaker 1: if you will remember Judge Alverson's courtroom, that one of
10:28
Speaker 1: the biggest court Luther Alison. Wasn't he an awesome judge anyway?
10:33
Speaker 1: I was fortunate enough to be assigned to his courtroom
10:35
Speaker 1: for several years and handled all the state's business for him.
10:39
Speaker 1: He also, and you'll vouch for this, was the oldest
10:41
Speaker 1: judge in the courthouse. But that boomeranged in his mind.
10:46
Speaker 1: He had to prove himself to the other judges, and
10:50
Speaker 1: therefore he wanted to try more cases than any other
10:54
Speaker 1: judge in the courthouse, which means the prosecutor assigned to
10:58
Speaker 1: that courtroom has to be ready for trial every other
11:00
Speaker 1: week to try all the cases Joe Jefferson wanted to try.
11:04
Speaker 1: So I found out Daryl through happenstance. We were waiting
11:09
Speaker 1: on a verdict, and I just I didn't want to
11:11
Speaker 1: leave the courtroom, and I was just wandering around, and
11:14
Speaker 1: I went and sat down in the jury box on
11:17
Speaker 1: the back road, and right above me Daryl was e
11:21
Speaker 1: vent and on the other side of that wall was
11:24
Speaker 1: the jury deliberation room and they were in there and
11:28
Speaker 1: they were fighting, like h E double l on what
11:32
Speaker 1: I thought was a clear cut case. I was so
11:35
Speaker 1: I'm like, how could they be that torn up? It's
11:38
Speaker 1: so clear what happened. I was so upset, I almost
11:43
Speaker 1: I felt like I wanted to throw up. Daryl Well.
11:46
Speaker 1: Long story short, About thirty minutes later, the bill of
11:50
Speaker 1: sauntered out of the jury deliberation room and I looked,
11:52
Speaker 1: I'm like, what's happening in there? He went, They were
11:57
Speaker 1: just getting there drinking snack order. I never ever sat
12:02
Speaker 1: up in that jury bist during jury deliberations. Again. Those
12:06
Speaker 1: thirty minutes cured me. And that's what my point is.
12:10
Speaker 1: In a roundabout way, that's what a question is. Like,
12:13
Speaker 1: you go, oh, my stars, does this mean they're leaning
12:17
Speaker 1: for the defense or the prosecution in this case plan
12:21
Speaker 1: If a defendant, they had one question, they sent it
12:25
Speaker 1: out and there have been endless articles about this one question. Darrel.
12:29
Speaker 1: The question is, hey, Charlie, you deliver the question. You
12:32
Speaker 1: can do it better than I can. Go ahead, Charlie
12:34
Speaker 1: lanks Well. The question effectively is whether or not they
12:39
Speaker 1: should be considering the entire op ed as being defamatory
12:45
Speaker 1: because the online version of Amberhard's OpEd had a headline
12:50
Speaker 1: on it that was also included in the OpEd. So
12:54
Speaker 1: what the jury has actually been asked to do is
12:56
Speaker 1: to consider two specific passages from the op ed and
13:01
Speaker 1: the headline. That's all they are supposed to be looking at.
13:04
Speaker 1: That's what they're supposed to be determining as to whether
13:08
Speaker 1: or not Johnny Depp was defamed. But because this statement
13:11
Speaker 1: was included in the OpEd, they were confused as to
13:15
Speaker 1: whether they should be looking at the thing in its entirety,
13:19
Speaker 1: rather than focusing on two passages and the headline. Charlie
13:23
Speaker 1: I wrote down the three passages. Three passages. They've gotten
13:26
Speaker 1: a questionnaire the gurrs of forty two questions, and they
13:31
Speaker 1: deal with three passages in the op ed. Amber Heard
13:35
Speaker 1: wrote for The Washington Post. The first passage is just
13:38
Speaker 1: the headline, which states I spoke up against sexual violence
13:42
Speaker 1: and face our culture's wrath. This has to change. Was
13:46
Speaker 1: that a lie? Did it defame Johnny Depp? Second one?
13:50
Speaker 1: Then two years ago I became a public figure representing
13:53
Speaker 1: domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our
13:56
Speaker 1: culture's wrath for women who speak out. That was a
13:59
Speaker 1: second statement that they are to consider. Third statement, I
14:02
Speaker 1: had the vantage point of seeing in real time how
14:06
Speaker 1: institutions protect men accused of abuse. That's the third statement,
14:13
Speaker 1: each one asserting that she is a domestic violence or
14:17
Speaker 1: sex abuse victim. Okay, are they false? And did it
14:22
Speaker 1: defame depth? And did he lose money or roles? So
14:27
Speaker 1: the first question, I see what you're saying, Charlie Lankston.
14:30
Speaker 1: The jury saw the title and it says, is this
14:33
Speaker 1: defamatory and elicit title? So the jury thought, does she
14:38
Speaker 1: mean the title just those two sentences or does she
14:41
Speaker 1: mean the article that goes with that title? So the
14:46
Speaker 1: judge advised them, Charlie Lankston what the judge advised them?
14:50
Speaker 1: That know, it is specifically the headline that they are
14:54
Speaker 1: supposed to be looking at. And then those two other,
14:57
Speaker 1: as you pointed out, sentences within the optical exactly. So Darrell,
15:01
Speaker 1: coming back to jury questions, hate them, will love them? You?
15:05
Speaker 1: I hated them because it would just get me all
15:08
Speaker 1: churned up about what did the question mean? And I
15:12
Speaker 1: would try to decipher it. Did you do that? Nancy?
15:15
Speaker 1: I always learned, just as you did, the juries were
15:19
Speaker 1: predictably unpredictable. They would come up with the question that
15:22
Speaker 1: had nothing to do with the trial, had nothing to
15:25
Speaker 1: do with who testified and how they testified, nothing to
15:28
Speaker 1: do with the evidence. And they come up with this
15:30
Speaker 1: question and scrab your head and said, are you really
15:32
Speaker 1: kidding me? Are you serious? Where's this coming from? But
15:37
Speaker 1: ultimately they all seemed to get together and figure it
15:40
Speaker 1: out whichever way they decide to figure it. You're exactly correct,
15:45
Speaker 1: you know, somehow from all these sorts of walks of life,
15:50
Speaker 1: they get it right most of the time. I'll never
15:54
Speaker 1: forget a couple of years ago, I went to the
15:57
Speaker 1: dentist and he was right in the middle of doing
15:59
Speaker 1: something of my teeth and goes, you know, as I
16:01
Speaker 1: want to hear Juris. I'm like, I couldn't say anything.
16:06
Speaker 1: But then I started thinking about him, and I actually
16:08
Speaker 1: remembered which case he was on. It was a bank
16:12
Speaker 1: robbery case where I had a dyslexic bank robber. The
16:16
Speaker 1: note said, don't touch the al ram, this is a robie.
16:19
Speaker 1: That's a whole nother can of worms. Joe Scott Morgan,
16:22
Speaker 1: what do you think about somebody come to People actually
16:26
Speaker 1: have asked me this, But yesterday the most recent was
16:29
Speaker 1: in Target, and I got asked, do you think Amber
16:34
Speaker 1: heard faked her bruises? That ain't good for her? No,
16:39
Speaker 1: it's not. And one of the things that I've been
16:41
Speaker 1: kind of contemplated, and it was a woman. Yeah, one thing.
16:46
Speaker 1: What kind of what kind of evidence do you have
16:48
Speaker 1: of this? And when I say have of this, this
16:51
Speaker 1: is a continuing narrative. You know, you go all the
16:53
Speaker 1: way back many years ago. Uh you know in this
16:56
Speaker 1: whole timeline where she's talking about Oh man, I love
16:58
Speaker 1: it when you start the sentence with when you say
17:00
Speaker 1: you go back many years ago. Okay, get comfortable, start
17:04
Speaker 1: smores over there, because this is a campfire story, Jackie.
17:08
Speaker 1: All right, let me get my other hot tea. Oh
17:10
Speaker 1: and I realized I'm using my pirate cup that has
17:14
Speaker 1: nothing to do but when Johnny Depp. This is one
17:16
Speaker 1: of my favorite cups because the twins and I went
17:18
Speaker 1: to the Pirate Museum, okay, and they got me this
17:22
Speaker 1: nothing to do with Depp. Okay, although it's Captain Jack Sparrott. No,
17:25
Speaker 1: he's not on here. Okay, go ahead, go ahead, I'm comfy.
17:28
Speaker 1: Let me get my eyepatch in place. Yeah, I was
17:31
Speaker 1: I was thinking you know, going back those years where
17:36
Speaker 1: she claimed that he had taken this cell phone and
17:39
Speaker 1: through it, and the verbiage of the scene, you know,
17:42
Speaker 1: kind of the way it was phrased was interesting to me,
17:46
Speaker 1: like a very high velocity or something like this, and
17:49
Speaker 1: it struck her face, and you can kind of see
17:51
Speaker 1: this linear design, this impact point of impact that's left
17:55
Speaker 1: behind on the right ass I think it was the
17:57
Speaker 1: right aspect of her face, trying to say her right
18:01
Speaker 1: cheek of her face, well, and not really her right cheek,
18:04
Speaker 1: but it goes up into the forehead area as well.
18:07
Speaker 1: And it almost looked when I saw that, when I
18:10
Speaker 1: looked at it through you know, kind of my forensic eyes,
18:12
Speaker 1: it looked a bit contrived to me, that image alone,
18:17
Speaker 1: And you know, I think that there's a number of
18:19
Speaker 1: these injuries that kind that injury look contrived because if
18:22
Speaker 1: it's a linear injury, as if this side of a
18:26
Speaker 1: cell phone had struck her, I would think that that's
18:29
Speaker 1: too sophisticated to fake. I mean, if you're going to
18:34
Speaker 1: put on a bruise, why would you do it in
18:36
Speaker 1: a linear style? Yeah, well, precisely for that so it
18:40
Speaker 1: would match the pattern that is supposedly left behind by
18:43
Speaker 1: the cell The cell phone would have to strike like perfectly. Yeah,
18:46
Speaker 1: well it would have to strike perfectly to leave that behind.
18:49
Speaker 1: I see what you're saying. There was also other injury
18:52
Speaker 1: within the orbit of the eye, Nancy. That didn't you
18:56
Speaker 1: think that that's blocking it? You know that it didn't
18:59
Speaker 1: get deep in there. Instead, they've got this whole area
19:01
Speaker 1: that's essentially involved. And there's other evidence that this is absent,
19:07
Speaker 1: that there's associated hemorrhage where you would expect it to be.
19:10
Speaker 1: That's absent. One other thing to this point, relative to
19:14
Speaker 1: just the cell phone incident alone. We're not even talking
19:16
Speaker 1: about severed fingers and all this other stuff. You know,
19:19
Speaker 1: when LAPD showed up there, you know what they said,
19:22
Speaker 1: They said, we didn't see any evidence of injury on
19:26
Speaker 1: this person, on Amber her when she you know, when
19:29
Speaker 1: they were called to the scene. But suddenly this kind
19:31
Speaker 1: of appears. And as you know, and as I know,
19:35
Speaker 1: when someone is struck, when someone is struck, that's swelling,
19:39
Speaker 1: that redness, that inflammation begins to show up within about
19:43
Speaker 1: thirty minutes. You can appreciate it, and we can all
19:45
Speaker 1: imagine what a response time on this thing was. It
19:48
Speaker 1: probably took a good thirty to forty five minutes. They're
19:50
Speaker 1: standing there, they're talking to her, they're interviewing her, and
19:52
Speaker 1: it's not presenting, so that and then it's afterwards that
19:55
Speaker 1: these photos appear. It's just it's interesting to me as
19:58
Speaker 1: an investigation now that the occasia and Joe Scott Morgan
20:02
Speaker 1: where she filed the t r O and had TMZ
20:05
Speaker 1: ca w it's dalling show up. Yeah, yeah, yeah, and
20:08
Speaker 1: the furtough I was looking at was actually from TMZ Oh. Gosh, yes,
20:12
Speaker 1: that would be the one. Guys. Take a listen to
20:15
Speaker 1: the Depp lawyer of Esquis as she addresses what Joe
20:20
Speaker 1: Scott Morgan has just described. Exactly six years ago today,
20:26
Speaker 1: on May twenty seventh, twenty sixteen, Misheard walked into court
20:30
Speaker 1: and filed a false report of domestic abuse against her
20:33
Speaker 1: husband of fifteen months, Johnny Depp. The scene was a setup.
20:39
Speaker 1: She tipped off the paparazzi so they would be waiting.
20:43
Speaker 1: They knew exactly where she would pause, which side of
20:46
Speaker 1: her face to photograph, and the photos captured what she
20:50
Speaker 1: wanted them to see, the image of a battered woman.
20:55
Speaker 1: What the paparazzi did not know is that the dark
20:58
Speaker 1: mark on her face mysterious appeared six days after last
21:02
Speaker 1: seeing mister Depth. It was a lie. She knew it.
21:06
Speaker 1: Mister Depp knew it, and the multiple witnesses you heard
21:10
Speaker 1: from who saw her that week of May twenty first,
21:13
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen also knew it. But the world always saw
21:17
Speaker 1: what she wanted them to see. Time Stories with Nancy
21:30
Speaker 1: Grace Charlie links to in joining me from dailymail dot com.
21:33
Speaker 1: She is the editor of Semail FAMAI l Charlie again,
21:39
Speaker 1: thank you for being with us. Has anyone commented on
21:42
Speaker 1: jury reaction during the trial, You know, I think the
21:46
Speaker 1: focus has been so much on Johnny's behavior and the
21:51
Speaker 1: behavior that we haven't actually focused that much on jury reaction. However,
21:59
Speaker 1: this whole high thing has almost been like an episode
22:02
Speaker 1: of a TV show, where You've had people kind of
22:04
Speaker 1: sitting behind Johnny and Amber actually like opening their mouths
22:09
Speaker 1: in shock, looking absolutely stunned at the different things that
22:14
Speaker 1: people have said. You've had Johnny Depp and his lawyers
22:17
Speaker 1: fist bumping when Amber heard mentions Kate Moss during her testimony.
22:22
Speaker 1: This has, by no means been a court case that
22:26
Speaker 1: has been as serious and as kind of somber as
22:30
Speaker 1: you might expect from a case discussing potential domestic abuse.
22:35
Speaker 1: And while I think that the jury has tried very
22:38
Speaker 1: much to stay as straight faced as they possibly can,
22:42
Speaker 1: we've definitely seen a couple of flinches here and there.
22:45
Speaker 1: We've seen a couple of rais eyebrows here and there,
22:48
Speaker 1: and I think that that just speaks to the absolute
22:52
Speaker 1: sensationalism that has come out of this trial as a whole.
22:56
Speaker 1: You know, again, the lying in part on anything can
23:02
Speaker 1: authorize a jury to throw out that witness's entire testimony.
23:06
Speaker 1: And that is something I loved hammering home to jurars.
23:11
Speaker 1: If I caught the defense witness, any defense witness in
23:15
Speaker 1: a lie, I would argue to the jury that their
23:18
Speaker 1: entire testimony could be discarded. And here is a simple one.
23:24
Speaker 1: Darryl Cohen, a veteran trial lawyer. I don't know if
23:28
Speaker 1: you remember this witness. His name was Morgan Tremaine and
23:30
Speaker 1: he worked for TMZ with our friend Harvey love him.
23:34
Speaker 1: He was a field assignment manager with TMZ and his
23:38
Speaker 1: job was to send out photographers to show up like
23:41
Speaker 1: when a seleb gets off a plane at LAX. You know,
23:44
Speaker 1: and catch them without their makeup and chase along behind
23:47
Speaker 1: them and ask them very personal questions. But according to him,
23:52
Speaker 1: it was Amber Heard that her team that tipped off
23:57
Speaker 1: TMZ to be at the court house at a certain
24:01
Speaker 1: time and at a certain moment, Heard would turn a
24:04
Speaker 1: certain direction so TMZ could get the photo of her bruise,
24:11
Speaker 1: her alleged bruise. As a matter of fact, that's exactly
24:15
Speaker 1: what happened, and TMZ got the scoop and announced at
24:19
Speaker 1: first that HERD was getting a t R. HERD denied
24:22
Speaker 1: the tip off. Now that's a small thing in the
24:26
Speaker 1: big scheme of this trial. We're talking about one hundred
24:30
Speaker 1: and fifty million dollar cross countersuit defamation case. But if
24:36
Speaker 1: she tipped them off, as Tremaine said she did, that
24:39
Speaker 1: little thing is a lie, Daryl. Little things mean a lot.
24:45
Speaker 1: It sounds as if no big deal. I'm just going
24:47
Speaker 1: to call it to EMZ, But it means everything because
24:50
Speaker 1: when you get caught in one lie, then jurars and
24:54
Speaker 1: Daryl Cohen and other people say, well, what else did
24:57
Speaker 1: you lie about? Did you tell the truth? Ever? Is
25:00
Speaker 1: this just one streak, one part of your streak of lives?
25:05
Speaker 1: So it makes a difference. It makes a difference as
25:08
Speaker 1: to how a jury perceives your testimony. Not necessarily have
25:12
Speaker 1: they perceived the testimony of witnesses other than you, but
25:16
Speaker 1: they look at you in a different way because Nancy,
25:20
Speaker 1: we all know you have one chance to make a
25:22
Speaker 1: first impression, and that's what happens in the courtroom, and
25:25
Speaker 1: that very first impression is what jurars go on and
25:29
Speaker 1: lesson until their minds are changed so that one little
25:35
Speaker 1: did she really tip them off? Did she lie? Makes
25:38
Speaker 1: a major difference or could now In the case, he
25:41
Speaker 1: didn't come out and say am or her herself made
25:43
Speaker 1: the call, but Tremaine made it very clear that it
25:47
Speaker 1: was just moments before she was going to the courthouse,
25:50
Speaker 1: and who else would have known beside her and whoever
25:53
Speaker 1: was driving her to Charlie Langston. There was the other
25:57
Speaker 1: issue that saw over and over and over that Amber
26:02
Speaker 1: heard was videoing. Are many Johnny Depp's bad moments when
26:10
Speaker 1: he would be drunk or passed out and ice cream
26:13
Speaker 1: melting down his lap because he was out of it,
26:15
Speaker 1: or lines of cocaine on a desk that looked like
26:18
Speaker 1: they were pre arranged. You know, I never think when
26:22
Speaker 1: I'm having an argument with my husband to video him,
26:26
Speaker 1: that would be the most the artist thing. I mean,
26:29
Speaker 1: I agree with you, I think if it was me,
26:32
Speaker 1: and I'm very fortunate and that I've never been in
26:35
Speaker 1: a situation where i have been the victim of somebody,
26:40
Speaker 1: you know, violently behaving towards me. But when I've been
26:44
Speaker 1: in arguments, when I've been in situations where I feel
26:47
Speaker 1: in danger, it is not my first thought to whip
26:51
Speaker 1: out my cell phone and to start filming it. Nor
26:54
Speaker 1: is it my first thought to set up my cell
26:56
Speaker 1: phone to start filming. And I think the key thing
26:59
Speaker 1: to member here is that Johnny Depp's alcohol and substance
27:04
Speaker 1: abuse is not what's on trial here. He's admitted to
27:09
Speaker 1: the fact that he has had problems with both alcohol
27:12
Speaker 1: and drugs. He's admitted that he has fallen off the
27:15
Speaker 1: wagon a number of times over the years, and that yes,
27:19
Speaker 1: he behaved in an inappropriate way because of that. But
27:23
Speaker 1: there is a difference between smashing cabinets in your kitchen
27:28
Speaker 1: and touching someone in the face and raping somebody with
27:31
Speaker 1: a wine model exactly. There are Those are two very
27:35
Speaker 1: different things. And I think that while Amber Heard's videos
27:39
Speaker 1: might have helped to create an image of Johnny Depp
27:43
Speaker 1: as a violent person. Actually, none of the video footage
27:48
Speaker 1: shows any form of physical abuse towards her. Yes, they're scary,
27:54
Speaker 1: Yes they make him look like he has a very
27:56
Speaker 1: violent temper, But he's hitting it cabinet, He's not hitting hot.
28:02
Speaker 1: And I think that all of this video evidence that
28:05
Speaker 1: she was showing was intended to kind of try and
28:08
Speaker 1: paint him in the specific light that she wanted him
28:12
Speaker 1: to be shut Which leads me to the question doctor
28:14
Speaker 1: Charles Heller, doctor Heller or clinical forensics psychologists joining us
28:19
Speaker 1: from New York, that if she caught all of these episodes,
28:24
Speaker 1: many of these episodes on video of him beating a
28:28
Speaker 1: cabinet or slamming a door, don't you believe she would
28:32
Speaker 1: have tried to catch him on video as he beat her.
28:34
Speaker 1: It sounds very contrived, actually, that all of these things
28:39
Speaker 1: are on video. It sounds like she's somehow either wanted
28:44
Speaker 1: to set him up or wanted to document for future
28:48
Speaker 1: reference for a court trial. You just don't, You're right,
28:53
Speaker 1: she just people that usually think about recording their spouses
28:57
Speaker 1: in an argument. It's very unusual. Let's take a listen
29:01
Speaker 1: to what Amber Heard's lawyer has to say back to
29:04
Speaker 1: all of this, take a listen hour cut fifty then
29:07
Speaker 1: mister Depp's world. You don't leave mister dept And if
29:10
Speaker 1: you do, he will start a campaign of global humiliation
29:14
Speaker 1: against you, a smear campaign that lasts this very day.
29:19
Speaker 1: He will do everything he can to destroy your life,
29:24
Speaker 1: to destroy your career. That is what they're saying, ladies
29:28
Speaker 1: and gentlemen, and that's what they're trying to get you.
29:32
Speaker 1: The jury to be an accomplice too. But it's not
29:35
Speaker 1: surprising because mister Depp cannot and will not take responsibility
29:40
Speaker 1: for his own actions. It's always someone else's fault. Does
29:43
Speaker 1: the First Amendment give Misheard the right to write the
29:48
Speaker 1: words that she wrote in this article on December eighteenth,
29:54
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen. That's the question. And you cannot simultaneously protect
30:00
Speaker 1: uphold the First Amendment and find in favor of Johnny
30:03
Speaker 1: Depp on his claim. You simply cannot. Hmm. Okay, you're
30:07
Speaker 1: hearing Amber Heard's lawyer or Benjamin Rottenborne. Take a listen
30:11
Speaker 1: to one more thing he said in our cut fifty one.
30:14
Speaker 1: If Amber was abused by mister Depp, even one time.
30:18
Speaker 1: Then she wins one time. And we're not just talking
30:25
Speaker 1: about physical abuse. We're talking about emotional abuse, psychological abuse,
30:31
Speaker 1: financial abuse, sexual abuse. That's what we're talking about. Let's
30:39
Speaker 1: look at the evidence. You heard mister depth to find
30:42
Speaker 1: abuse from his own mouth. He admitted all of that
30:44
Speaker 1: when he talked about his childhood. They're trying to trick
30:47
Speaker 1: you into thinking that Amber has to be perfect in
30:49
Speaker 1: order to win, even while they're ignoring Jay mister Depp's
30:53
Speaker 1: many flaws. But don't fall for that trick. Amber's not perfect.
30:57
Speaker 1: None of us are. She's never pretended to be. And
30:59
Speaker 1: that's well. You're being asked to decide one time. Ladies
31:03
Speaker 1: are jelly one time if you abused her one time,
31:07
Speaker 1: Amber wins. Okay to you, Daryl Cohen. Let's analyze what
31:11
Speaker 1: we just heard. I'm hearing a lot of messages meshed together.
31:18
Speaker 1: One of those messages is that no witness is perfect.
31:22
Speaker 1: That I agree with. I told you about one witness
31:25
Speaker 1: that came in to the courtroom. It was a huge
31:28
Speaker 1: arson case. The whole apartment complex was burned down, and
31:33
Speaker 1: the witness, my best eyewitness, came in in the middle
31:37
Speaker 1: of August one hundred degrees outside. She was wearing a
31:39
Speaker 1: fake fur hat, and you could smell booze on this
31:41
Speaker 1: lady when she walked in the door. I'm sure the
31:44
Speaker 1: jewelry could too. But she wasn't perfect, but she saw
31:48
Speaker 1: what she saw. However, they're saying Amber, her doesn't have
31:52
Speaker 1: to be perfect. I agree. A victim, of course, is
31:55
Speaker 1: never going to be perfect. Victims are not usually none
32:00
Speaker 1: and science and virgins. Okay, no they're not. But lying
32:07
Speaker 1: about any facet of the trial is a whole another thing.
32:13
Speaker 1: Difference between me imperfect and lying. Nancy being imperfect is perfect.
32:18
Speaker 1: None of us are perfect. As you pointed out, if
32:22
Speaker 1: she lied and if the jury believes she lied, and
32:25
Speaker 1: if she didn't lie, and the jury still believes she lied,
32:28
Speaker 1: if they're looking for something to say, well, don't like you, Amber,
32:32
Speaker 1: And as a result of that, we're going to find
32:34
Speaker 1: in favor of Johnny Depp. They can do that. They
32:37
Speaker 1: can pretty much do anything you want and couch it
32:40
Speaker 1: in terms of the law. So how it was presented
32:44
Speaker 1: in that courtroom for the last five million weeks is
32:48
Speaker 1: how the jury is going to issue a verdict. There
32:52
Speaker 1: will come to a verdict. I wouldn't be surprised again
32:55
Speaker 1: dimensioning one dollar per each. I just don't know how
33:00
Speaker 1: they feel since everybody was focused on Johnny and Amber
33:04
Speaker 1: and the witnesses and not looking at the body language
33:08
Speaker 1: of the jars, and Charlie mentioned a raised eyebrow here
33:11
Speaker 1: and there. I think in the back of their minds.
33:15
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be surprised if somebody's listening if there's not
33:18
Speaker 1: a lot of laughter continually as they ultimately reach a verdict,
33:22
Speaker 1: regardless of how it may come out. So what did
33:25
Speaker 1: Depth's lawyers have to say back when they shoot back
33:29
Speaker 1: at herds lawyers in the courtroom. Take a listen to
33:32
Speaker 1: Camille vesquiz and ar Cut forty nine. This is Depth's lawyer.
33:36
Speaker 1: When you catch misshard in a lie, she tries to
33:38
Speaker 1: cover it up with more lies. So let's talk about
33:42
Speaker 1: the giant lie at the heart of this case, Mishurt's
33:46
Speaker 1: claim that mister Depp is an abusive monster and that
33:50
Speaker 1: she is a public figure representing domestic abuse. She spound
33:54
Speaker 1: a story of shocking, overwhelming, brutal abuse. She came into
33:59
Speaker 1: this room prepared to give the performance of her life,
34:03
Speaker 1: and she gave it. Mishurd. Mishurd's acting coach Christina Sexton
34:08
Speaker 1: testified that miss Hurd has difficulty crying when she is acting.
34:14
Speaker 1: You saw it, Mishard sobbing without tears while spinning elaborate, exaggerated,
34:21
Speaker 1: fantastical accounts of abuse and everything going on in her
34:25
Speaker 1: mind almost a decade prior while enduring that abuse. It
34:30
Speaker 1: was a performance, jess got Morgan, Professor of forensics. What
34:34
Speaker 1: do you make of that? Yeah, it goes to this,
34:37
Speaker 1: you know, kind of you know what I'd mentioned earlier
34:40
Speaker 1: relative to the injuries. Is this a piece of performance
34:43
Speaker 1: art that we're seeing here? This displayed you know, going
34:47
Speaker 1: back to doctor Heller's comment earlier relative to her affect
34:50
Speaker 1: in court, the term that came to mind for me
34:53
Speaker 1: was icy. You know, she just kind of sits there frozen,
34:57
Speaker 1: and even when she was on the stand and I'm
35:01
Speaker 1: I'm trying to listen to her when she's talking about
35:04
Speaker 1: these things, it seemed contrived, those kind of crocodile tears,
35:09
Speaker 1: you know, that she's crying there on the stand. I
35:11
Speaker 1: didn't see anything that really endears me, and I really
35:14
Speaker 1: wonder what the investigators thought about this, you know, going
35:18
Speaker 1: back to that earlier incident, were they standing there you know, thinking,
35:21
Speaker 1: you know, there's something that doesn't marry up here. Why
35:25
Speaker 1: why why is she telling us the story and these
35:27
Speaker 1: injuries don't match up and this sort of thing. And
35:30
Speaker 1: I think that this goes to this kind of long,
35:32
Speaker 1: connective thread that runs through this entire event. And you're right, Nobody,
35:36
Speaker 1: nobody skirts or pure white here, Nancy. As we know,
35:39
Speaker 1: there's problems that are abounding here, I think, in this relationship.
35:43
Speaker 1: But you know, at the close of all of this,
35:48
Speaker 1: it's it's the point these points of truth, you know,
35:50
Speaker 1: have they actually proved that she has defamed him in
35:54
Speaker 1: some way? And I gotta tell you start thrown around
35:57
Speaker 1: these ideas that he's an abuser to this level. You
36:00
Speaker 1: and I have seen abuse, and it makes me cringe
36:03
Speaker 1: when I see people that put these images up. You
36:06
Speaker 1: know that may be questionable. When I think about aging
36:10
Speaker 1: bruises on kids that have come through the morgue and
36:15
Speaker 1: trying to determine how long they've been being abused. I
36:17
Speaker 1: look at this and it just it makes me sick
36:19
Speaker 1: to my back teeth. You mean, it makes you sick
36:21
Speaker 1: to think that she may have doctored the bruises when
36:23
Speaker 1: real victims are suffering such heinous abuse. Yeah, and I've
36:28
Speaker 1: borne witness to to those those people that you know
36:32
Speaker 1: that have ended. You know, their lives have come to
36:35
Speaker 1: an end at the hands of true monsters that are
36:38
Speaker 1: out there. And you know better than anybody, you know
36:42
Speaker 1: that our world is populated with these people. Right now.
36:46
Speaker 1: I'm not convinced. Of course, my opinion, you know, doesn't
36:48
Speaker 1: mean anything, but it I'm not convinced of this. I
36:52
Speaker 1: don't see this as this monstrous event. Charlie Lanson, speaking
36:56
Speaker 1: of lies, where did it settle? Whether the dost settle
37:02
Speaker 1: on claims that Amber Her testified in Great Britain she
37:07
Speaker 1: had forked over millions of dollars to charity, in fact,
37:11
Speaker 1: her whole divorce settlement from Depth and then it came
37:16
Speaker 1: out that that's not true, right, and this is unfortunately
37:20
Speaker 1: yet another lie that she's been seen as telling in court.
37:25
Speaker 1: She said that she was going to give her entire
37:28
Speaker 1: seven million dollar divorce settlement to the ACLU and to
37:32
Speaker 1: the Children's Hospital of Los Angeles. That's three point five
37:35
Speaker 1: million dollars to each charity. Someone from the ACLU testified
37:40
Speaker 1: on behalf of Depth to say that actually, no, that
37:43
Speaker 1: was not the case, she has thus far only given
37:46
Speaker 1: one point three million dollars of that money. Now that's
37:50
Speaker 1: still a very large donation. However, using that claim saying
37:57
Speaker 1: that you are a charitable slam to a piers who
38:00
Speaker 1: doesn't care about money and who's giving all of their
38:03
Speaker 1: money away to charities and causes that means something to them.
38:06
Speaker 1: To be caught out in that lie is just another,
38:11
Speaker 1: you know, kind of thing against her. We've had so
38:14
Speaker 1: many different potentially small some might consider them small, but
38:19
Speaker 1: potentially small things that have just cast more and more
38:22
Speaker 1: doubt over everything that she said. And if we're talking
38:26
Speaker 1: about one small lie being able to overthrow her entire testimony,
38:31
Speaker 1: well we've had more than one. We've had the ACLU lie,
38:34
Speaker 1: We've had the TMZ lie, and then on top of that,
38:37
Speaker 1: we had the Cape Moss testimony. Three minutes of testimony
38:41
Speaker 1: once again uncovered yet another lie that Amber Heard and
38:45
Speaker 1: her team have given during this court case. Speaking of
38:48
Speaker 1: other girlfriends, I was very taken with Ellen Barkin's testimony,
38:54
Speaker 1: painting depth is jealous and angry and controlling. But I
39:00
Speaker 1: don't recall Ellen Barton ever saying that Depp beat her. No,
39:05
Speaker 1: absolutely not, And you know, once again. I think it
39:08
Speaker 1: all comes down to the questions that the jury needs
39:12
Speaker 1: to answer and whether or not Depth was controlling, angry
39:17
Speaker 1: had an aggressive temper. Those are not questions that the
39:21
Speaker 1: jury is being asked. The fact of the matter is
39:25
Speaker 1: what they need to determine is whether Amber is telling
39:28
Speaker 1: the truth about being physically abused by Depth, and whether
39:32
Speaker 1: she was telling the truth when she wrote that Washington
39:36
Speaker 1: Post op ed. If they determined that she did not
39:39
Speaker 1: suffer physical abuse at the hands of Depth, and that
39:42
Speaker 1: she claimed she did in this op ed and thereby
39:46
Speaker 1: defamed him, then he wins. I think the fact of
39:49
Speaker 1: the matter is this court case has brought up more
39:52
Speaker 1: than one very troubling incident that occurred during their relationship
39:58
Speaker 1: from both parties, but that has not really been any
40:03
Speaker 1: clear cut evidence that Ambahad was physically abused by Johnny
40:09
Speaker 1: tapp Oh. I disagree, go ahead, I completely disagree. I
40:13
Speaker 1: think whether or not you believe the evidence, that's another story.
40:16
Speaker 1: But as we all know, there's physical evidence, there's verbal evidence,
40:20
Speaker 1: and Amber testified how she was abused. Now, whether the
40:25
Speaker 1: jury chooses to believe it or disbelieve it, or say
40:28
Speaker 1: she's a liar, that's another story. But clearly the evidence
40:32
Speaker 1: was there saying that she was abused period. Well, I
40:35
Speaker 1: think there was evidence, but I think that much of
40:37
Speaker 1: it suffered when there were attempts to disprove it. As
40:41
Speaker 1: a matter of fact, take a list to our cut
40:43
Speaker 1: fifty five Steve Patterson DApp's team saying that Hurd is
40:47
Speaker 1: this vendictive, mentally unstable, essentially a liar that lied about
40:53
Speaker 1: being abused, that wrote that outed as a malicious, defamatory statement,
40:58
Speaker 1: meant to destroy any depth. She did it by again
41:03
Speaker 1: taking people on a ride throughout their relationship, saying that
41:06
Speaker 1: these key points of abuse where she was injured, she
41:09
Speaker 1: wasn't actually injured. And they do that by bringing up
41:13
Speaker 1: what they would consider photo evidence of her at a banquet,
41:16
Speaker 1: her at a red carpet, her on a late night
41:19
Speaker 1: talk show where she's alleging that there were instances of abuse,
41:23
Speaker 1: then showing those pictures or video clips and saying there's
41:26
Speaker 1: no blemish, share, there's no mark here, there's no busted
41:29
Speaker 1: lip where you said there were all these injuries, and
41:32
Speaker 1: then even pointing to photos that she did submit and
41:35
Speaker 1: saying that these are doctored, these aren't real. There isn't
41:38
Speaker 1: really a mark there casting that sort of doubt on her. Okay,
41:42
Speaker 1: the jury is at it time stories with Nancy Grace. Well,
42:03
Speaker 1: the verdict is in and it was not a very
42:06
Speaker 1: long verdict. Watch was it. Many people thought the jury
42:10
Speaker 1: may be out till tomorrow, may come back late late
42:15
Speaker 1: this afternoon. Not true. This jury had their minds made up.
42:21
Speaker 1: I have seen jurars deliberate for days and days and days,
42:25
Speaker 1: so you think they're never going to come back with
42:27
Speaker 1: a verdict and when they do, it will probably be
42:29
Speaker 1: a hung jury. No, this jury turned it around in
42:33
Speaker 1: a matter of hours. Long story short. Johnny Depp wins
42:38
Speaker 1: the block buster case against his ex wife Amber Heard
42:44
Speaker 1: you know her from Aquaman, the jury ruling that she
42:48
Speaker 1: defamed him with claims of physical and sex violence. Now
42:54
Speaker 1: hold on, it ain't over yet. The jury also found
42:58
Speaker 1: for her in a lesser way. The jury said that
43:02
Speaker 1: Johnny Depp's lawyer made a defamatory statement about Amber Heard
43:09
Speaker 1: and awarded her a couple of million dollars as well.
43:13
Speaker 1: So long story short regarding the money, Johnny Depp is
43:17
Speaker 1: celebrating right now in the UK, claiming quote, the jury
43:21
Speaker 1: gave me my life back. He is going to walk
43:25
Speaker 1: away even though he was awarded fifteen million dollars with
43:28
Speaker 1: about eight point three five million. Why is that he
43:33
Speaker 1: was awarded fifteen million dollars in all? Part of that impunitive,
43:39
Speaker 1: part of that in compensatory damages. That's to compensate him
43:43
Speaker 1: for damage to his career, But there is a cap
43:46
Speaker 1: in that jurisdiction. In Virginia, the maximum on punitive damage
43:51
Speaker 1: of this nature is three hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
43:54
Speaker 1: So he's only gonna get the eight point three five
43:59
Speaker 1: after paying amber Heard. So for those of you like
44:03
Speaker 1: me that are not major in math, that's fifteen million,
44:08
Speaker 1: cutting one verdict down to three hundred fifty thousand, and
44:11
Speaker 1: he's got to pay amber Heard two million. So you
44:14
Speaker 1: know what, that's not exactly pocket change. That's nearly ten
44:19
Speaker 1: million dollars, but it has the backdrop of him sewing
44:25
Speaker 1: for millions and millions and her sewing for millions and
44:29
Speaker 1: millions back. I wonder if the jury thought these were
44:33
Speaker 1: just two rich people fighting over money. I tend to
44:38
Speaker 1: think so, because one side was asking for one hundred million,
44:42
Speaker 1: the other side was asking for fifty million. The full
44:46
Speaker 1: award was less than ten million. Amber Heard was in
44:50
Speaker 1: the courtroom today and she looked very very serious, as
44:53
Speaker 1: she should have. Depth, as I said, was in the UK.
44:57
Speaker 1: He says, fulfilling a work commitment. He was supposed to
45:00
Speaker 1: be on tour with a band. What does it mean?
45:05
Speaker 1: Many people have reduced this down to a popularity contest.
45:11
Speaker 1: I do not believe it was a popularity contest. I
45:14
Speaker 1: believe that the jury disliked amber Heard. I believe they,
45:20
Speaker 1: like me, thought it was really odd that she kept
45:24
Speaker 1: filming arguments and filming Depth in very unflattering conditions, almost
45:31
Speaker 1: as if she was setting him up. Now. Do I
45:35
Speaker 1: believe he ever hit her? Probably? Do I believe she
45:41
Speaker 1: set him up? Definitely? Do I believe she lied? Definitely.
45:48
Speaker 1: You put all that in the pot together, including the
45:52
Speaker 1: fact that she admitted on tape that she hit Depth
45:58
Speaker 1: as well, and basically, you got two wet cats and
46:01
Speaker 1: a barrel. Which one is going to crawl out of
46:04
Speaker 1: the barrel first? Well, today Depp crawled out first to
46:08
Speaker 1: the tune of eight point three five million. Has this
46:12
Speaker 1: set women back real victims of domestic violence? That remains
46:20
Speaker 1: to be seen. I tend to think it has. Now
46:26
Speaker 1: when a woman claims domestic violence, She's going to be
46:32
Speaker 1: accused of quote pulling an Amber. It's going to happen.
46:36
Speaker 1: Do I like it? No? Is it true? Yes? I
46:41
Speaker 1: want to talk about domestic violence one moment. In addition
46:44
Speaker 1: to prosecuting and representing victims for years and years and years,
46:49
Speaker 1: I also worked at the Battered Women's Center as a
46:51
Speaker 1: volunteer for nine years, manning the hotline. So many women
46:57
Speaker 1: are beaten brutally. So many women have nowhere to go.
47:02
Speaker 1: So many women stay in vicious abuse of homes to
47:06
Speaker 1: protect their children, or because they don't know what else
47:09
Speaker 1: to go, or they don't have the resources to get away.
47:13
Speaker 1: This case, we'll have an impact on those women, And
47:18
Speaker 1: that is really what troubles me most about this case.
47:23
Speaker 1: I was just saying this morning on air, a woman
47:27
Speaker 1: want it to me at Target and said, do you
47:31
Speaker 1: believe Amber heard fake? To Bruce's to me? That was
47:35
Speaker 1: the death knell for Amber heard, For the general public
47:39
Speaker 1: to believe she faked the whole thing. That's bad. That's
47:43
Speaker 1: really bad, and it is a bad omen for domestic
47:48
Speaker 1: violence victims in the future, legitimate, real victims. So I'm
47:55
Speaker 1: sure Johnny Depp is raising another glass of wine right now,
48:00
Speaker 1: and Amber Heard is crying somewhere other somewhere over a
48:05
Speaker 1: foiled attempt to get back at depth. Remember this was
48:11
Speaker 1: all about an op ed, a piece she wrote for
48:15
Speaker 1: The Washington Post, which, although she didn't name him by name,
48:20
Speaker 1: called out Johnny Depp as being an abuser. That's how
48:23
Speaker 1: the whole thing started. Is it over yet? Probably not.
48:32
Speaker 1: There could be appeals to this verdict. There could be repercussions.
48:38
Speaker 1: We can't even imagine right now. When you go to court,
48:43
Speaker 1: you gotta get ready to roll the dice. You never
48:48
Speaker 1: know what a jury is going to do. You better
48:51
Speaker 1: have a lawyer alike the rifleman, Remember how he would
48:55
Speaker 1: walk down the center of town with his hands slightly
48:59
Speaker 1: out to the side, ready to draw. You got to
49:02
Speaker 1: have a lawyer that's ready to object and be strong
49:07
Speaker 1: immediately in the moment, and a lawyer that the jury
49:13
Speaker 1: can relate to and the parties. You really think this
49:18
Speaker 1: jury liked Amber Heard? I don't. But more critical, did
49:23
Speaker 1: they believe her? I put up a lot of witnesses
49:26
Speaker 1: I didn't like. But what matter it is? Were they
49:29
Speaker 1: telling the truth? You don't have to be likable. You
49:33
Speaker 1: gotta be believable. That was the problem. She just wasn't believable.
49:42
Speaker 1: And there you have it. Case closed, well for now anyway,
49:48
Speaker 1: Nancy Grace signing off my friend