Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - Amber Heard's Hit Parade of Johnny Depp's Exes on the Stand

Episode Date: May 20, 2022

Thursday's list of witnesses in the Amber Heard-Johnny Depp defamation battle was a hit parade of Depp's exes: an ex-girlfriend, an ex-friend, an ex-manager and an ex-Disney rep.  Actress Ellen Barkin testifies about her sexual relationship with Depp in the mid-1990s. She said that the Depp was “jealous” and “controlling” and had once thrown a wine bottle across a Las Vegas hotel room while fighting with a group of people.  Disney executive Tina Newman testified that she had never heard anyone inside Disney say that Heard’s Washington Post op-ed was the reason behind Depp’s loss of his role as Jack Sparrow in the “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise.  It's Ellen Barkin’s testimony that could be key.  Joining Nancy Grace Today: Darryl Cohen - Former Assistant District Attorney, Fulton County, Georgia, Defense Attorney, Cohen, Cooper, Estep, & Allen, LLC, www.ccealaw.com  Dr. Charles Heller - Clinical and Forensic Psychologist Specializing in Domestic Violence; Chief Forensic Consultant: Rockland County (New York) Forensic Mental Health Unit, Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences  John Guard - Chief Deputy – Pitt County Sheriff’s Office (Greenville, NC), Specializes in Investigating Domestic Violence Cases Kayla Brantley - Reporter, DailyMail.com, Twitter: @_KaylaBrantley, Instagram: @KaylaBrantley  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Johnny Depp versus Amber Heard. Seems as if the country doesn't care about Roe v. Wade, baby formula, politics. They are riveted on Johnny Depp versus Amber Heard. But why? It's like passing a wreck on the side of the interstate. You try not to look.

You try not to slow down. But you do. In the last hours, damning testimony from the stand, taking one hit after the next at Johnny Depp. Why is this happening? Because this is the grand finale of Amber Heard's case. Very similar to a criminal case where the state goes first and the defendant may or may not choose to put up a case. In a civil case, the plaintiff, nobody's going to jail, it's all about money, the plaintiff Johnny Depp is suing the not defendant, the respondent Amber Heard, claiming that she wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post that named him

de facto as being her physical abuser. He is suing for $50 million. She's suing him back for $100 million when he claimed her allegations were all a hoax. One witness after the next taking a hit at Depp. You got his former business manager, his former agent, his friend that he allegedly cut loose and ghosted, a former girlfriend, none other than the famous Ellen Barkin. It goes on and on. Thanks for being with us. I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories here at Fox Nation and Sirius XM 111. Let's start with a name we all know very well, Ellen Barkin. I mean, this woman is fantastic. Did you see her in Oceans?

Oh, my stars. She stole the show. Totally. Forget all the others. George Clooney, Pacino, blah, blah. Ellen Barkin. Awesome. Now, she had an ill-fated relationship with Johnny Depp.

Who cares? Maybe this jury. Because take a listen to what she had to tell the jury. Mr. Depp threw a wine bottle across the room, the hotel room on one instance in Las Vegas while we were shooting Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Were you, was something about to happen? A fight was going on. Between you and Mr. Depp? No. Who was the fight between you? Between Johnny Depp and his friends in the room? The assistant? Honestly, I don't remember.

And the bottle that you remember sitting here today, Ms. Barkin, whether the bottle was full of wine or empty. I don't. Sitting here today, Ms. Barkin, do you remember whether the bottle hit you? No, it did not. Did the bottle hit anyone else? No, it did not. Did the bottle hit anyone else? No, it did not. Approximately how far away from you was Mr. Death when he threw the bottle? Across the room, so maybe by that break in the table or a little further down.

It was a toss. Straight out to Kayla Brantley, reporter of Daily Mail. You can find her on Twitter at underscore Kayla Brantley. Kayla, I'm hearing a lot about wine bottles being thrown in this case. It's kind of a recurring theme. Oh, yeah, absolutely, Nancy. I mean, he was very known to drink wine. Everybody has testified that he is a big red wine drinker. And in this case that happened, you know, years and years ago, it kind of speaks to this is how Johnny is. And this is how Johnny has always been. of the time and then testified that he was also controlling and a jealous man and that's exactly

what Amber Heard has been saying so this all corroborates everything that Amber has saying that Johnny was drunk almost all the time and every time that he was drunk or doing drugs this monster would come out and do these types of things like throwing bottles and and you know really attacking people. You know what? Kayla, I really admire you. I like everything you've ever done. But aren't you putting a little perfume, a little perfume on the pig? When you say he liked wine, liked wine, what?

He had a $30,000 a month wine tab that we know of this guy blew 650 million dollars of fortune he had amassed by his own hard work and talent sheer talent and sheer hard work you can't spend 30 grand a month and not go broke. 30 grand on wine. That's a lot more than loving a glass of wine. Absolutely. You're absolutely right. It was more of a more than a like of wine. He clearly has an issue here with $30,000 a month on wine. And then also his business manager, who he sued, testified and said that Johnny's finances were very dire

thirty thousand dollars a month online you will quickly go broke and he was paying his doctor dr. David Kipper who some people called you know a scam artist a hundred thousand dollars a month his assistant earned you know over a hundred thousand dollars a year and his estate manager two hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year So he was blowing money left and right. He had all these penthouses and was living this lavish lifestyle that clearly made him, you know, lose all his money. You know, Daryl Cohen talking about Ellen Barkin and Jackie, let me know when you have the rest of the sound I want on Ellen Barkin. Daryl, of course, a trial is not a popularity contest.

Nobody in this trial is going to go home crowned Miss Sweet Potato. That goes without saying. So I'm not saying that Ellen Barkin is popular. What I am saying, when I keep saying she's likable, and Amber Heard has come across as not likable, the point is, Daryl, okay, here's a good example. You were like this very much in the courtroom trying criminal cases, but I always point to Johnny Cochran. Whether he was prepared or not, it didn't matter. He would walk into a courtroom. Everybody liked him.

Even I, who vehemently disagree with everything that came out of his mouth. I liked him. And when a jury likes you, they're more receptive to you when you irritate them and you grate on their nerves or they lose respect or they don't trust you anymore. They're not going to listen to a thing you say. So by putting up this, his former manager, right, that handled all of his finances that he later sued, by putting up who I thought was really believable and really likable. And then they put up a longtime friend, I think his name was Witkin, who he kind of ghosted. For instance, Barkin is likable. I think the jury's going to listen to her. Nancy, I completely agree.

Look, this is all about likability. This is all about entertainment. Entertainment went from Los Angeles to Virginia. We have a soap opera. Both of these people, Johnny and Amber, may deserve to win an Emmy for being on TV and clearly Oscar worthy. This is not a trial about somebody who's going to prison. This is a trial about lawyers winning and about both of them being big in the box after this is over. Watch what one of the jurors or more writes a book. Watch, just listen. And this is an interesting trial because it means nothing. It just means I have an ego and I cannot allow you to write an op-ed where I know that you are talking about me.

And I am not going to allow you to hurt me. So the two of them deserve each other. They really do. What a lovely couple. I mean, Keila Brantley joining me from DailyMail.com. Keila, a few weeks ago, isn't it true that a witness came forward during Depp's portion of the case? Right now, we're in Heard's response, okay? In Depp's portion of the case, a witness came forward and said that Amber Heard actually wanted Johnny Depp's name in the article, but the Washington

Post did not put it in there. Yeah, I mean, we heard from a lawyer who said that he looked through the article before it was published to make sure that she couldn't get sued for exactly what's happening now, couldn't get sued for defamation um for using johnny depp's name in vain so that name was not put in this was also written with the aclu the aclu health amber heard racist um so she clearly you know it seemed that she was out for this you know exposure to to defame johnny depp i guess in this case but she did take some precautions to not get sued which clearly didn't work because here we are. Guys we're talking about the testimony it was in a videotape recording of a deposition she took in about 2019 but her words

were powerful. Take a listen to more of a movie star Ellen Barkin in front of the debt jury you just use the word jealous how did that come up what does he say that indicated to you that he was jealous he's just a jealous man controlling where are you going who are you going with what what did you do last night I had a scratch on my back once that got him very very angry because he insisted it came from me having sex with a person who wasn't him during the time that you were in a sexual relationship with mr depp was it common for him to say things to you about being controlling to use your words or being jealous of you yeah very common and uh when in these instances when mr steph became jealous or controlling did he also become angry yeah and demanding crime stories with nancy grace

was it common for him to say things to you about being controlling to use your words or being jealous of you yeah very common and uh when in these instances when mr steph became jealous or controlling did he also become angry yeah and demanding angry demanding you know dr charles heller is with me clinical forensic psychologist specializing in domestic violence, the chief forensic consultant in Rockland County there in New York at the Forensic Mental Health Unit. Also with Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences. I could go on, but to you, Dr. Heller, I know that you probably have a very fancy term for this psychological talk, but I like to say when you don't know a horse,

look at his track record. So right now the jury is trying to figure out what kind of horse Johnny Depp is, and they're seeing a track record through Ellen Barkin.ineering, drunk, high, used coke, used hallucinogenics, extremely jealous, threw a wine bottle, confronted her about a scratch on her back, accused her of being disloyal, cheating. That's everything Amber Heard is saying. Yes, Nancy, all of these are signs of domestic violence. But both of these people have been have admitted to being violent with each other in different ways. And Amber seems to be exaggerating the intensity and frequency. And that's a serious problem for me. Yeah, it is a problem.

And this is the way I see it breaking down. Let me go to John Gard. He's the chief deputy at the Pitt County Sheriff's Office, also specializing in investigating domestic violence. You have investigated, SFI, hundreds and hundreds of domestic violence cases. That's what this is about. Was her telling the truth in that Washington Post op-ed? Has she ever been beaten by Johnny Depp? When you go to trial, the fact that the victim may have been beaten can be obscured by the fact, overshadowed by the fact, the victim has beaten the defendant

and the jury cancels it out. It's called jury nullification. They may actually believe, yeah, he hit her. But I hate her. She hit him too. I don't like her. I think she's lying. And totally void her claims.

Jury nullification. What about it, John Gard? Well, I think a couple things I've learned, you know, in the most recent summaries and how the trial's going is a couple of things. In our world, you know, historically, back in the olden days, domestic violence, we looked at it as being incident-based. You know, that one time when the 9-1-1 call came in. But what we found over the years that a lot of times people that are involved in these relationships, not necessarily one incident.

And in those incidents, in at least criminal investigations, you see a lot of co-occurring crimes. I know when they were looking at past history and talking with other folks that were involved with Mr. Depp, they brought up past similar bad acts. And we've evolved in the criminal world to not just look at the incident.

Today, you look at past history to determine, is there a pattern of behavior? And I, you know, the testimony about her striking Depp, you know, when we look into domestic violence cases all over this country, you know, there is no absolute obligation for somebody not to defend themselves or defend others. So was it there, not a criminal case, different levels of proof here in this trial, but there are a lot of things coming out this week. You know, another thing, John Gard, and I really appreciate what you're saying to all the guests on our panel today, because you

each have intrinsic value as it relates to the depth trial. John Gard, I put witnesses up on the stand. When they were drunk as a skunk, I could smell them when they came into the courtroom. One was so drunk she had on a fake fur hat. It was about 98 degrees outside. They have had rap sheets. They've had criminal

convictions. They're not great people. Let's just say they ain't nuns and priests and virgins, okay? But that does not mean they cannot be a victim. Lady Justice is wearing a blindfold for a reason. She doesn't care. She doesn't care if you're white or you're black or you're drunk or you're sober, you got a substance abuse problem, this, that. My point is, we may not like Amber Heard. We may have to hold our nose when she testifies. But if he hit her, none of that matters, right? I mean, witnesses are not

perfect. They're not angels. You have to take them as you find them. I agree 100%. I think this is very similar. If you look at what the jurors are dealing with and having to navigate, law enforcement across this country deal with this every day it's it's not every domestic assault that we go to where only one party used some type of force i mean you have an obligation or at least the right to defend oneself and at times there may be an injury because of that and you've got to put it together i love criminal investigations much more than maybe the civil. And, you know, we're fact finders and it leads us where we go. But we are highly trained and skilled in these type of investigations. That's why those that are involved or find themselves in these type of relationships.

Please reach out to law enforcement if you need detail. That's what we're here for. You know, Daryl Cohen, a former felony prosecutor, many, many years when I started the district attorney's office, Daryl was just leaving after many years trying felony cases, now civil lawyer in Atlanta and really all across the country. Daryl, so these are the two factors. Just tell me the truth. I know this is going to be really hard for you to do. I learned this the first week of law school for a lawyer to ever give a yes, no answer. But let me try again. Daryl Cohen, yes, no.

Do you believe Johnny Depp ever hit Amber Heard? Absolutely. Even once? Absolutely. Okay, me too. There, I'll tell you, me too. On the other hand, do you believe Amber Heard hit Johnny Depp, belittled him, demeaned him? Without a doubt.

I think the two deserve each other. There you go. You went under your one word limit. I'm sorry, but I would like to explain my answer in Georgia. No, this is cross-exam. Okay. Daryl, in the jury's mind mind you know what jury nullification is

it could happen here they may believe that sure Depp hit her but they may dislike her and disbelieve so many portions of her testimony as being exaggerated falsified

an outright lie in some occasions, that they discount her testimony and fine for debt. That could happen. Nancy, absolutely could happen. It's the likability factor. However, I think they're going to dislike Johnny Depp in some ways. They're going to dislike Amber Heard in some ways. And Lady Justice holding those scales, they're going to drop, fall out. And Justice is going to be the lawyer's win, and Johnny and Amber win at the box office, regardless of what happens with the jury verdict. If Depp ever gets another movie role other than the one in France where he's going to be Louis XV. Okay, guys, it's not just about Ellen Barkin, who I found to be one of the most powerful witnesses,

because I think the jury can relate to her. They think they know her. And maybe we do know her. Maybe her onscreen persona is her personality. But in addition to her, Johnny Depp's former agent, Tracy Jacob. I found her testimony really powerful. And his former business manager that he sued, Joel Mandel, very powerful. Let's take a listen to his former agent, Tracy Jacob.

Our cut A. Was Mr. Depp a difficult client to represent? He wasn't initially, and it became far more complicated in the last 10 years of my representing him. And how did it become far more complicated in the last 10 years of representing him? His unprofessional behavior. Anything else? I think that covers a multitude of things. And that's going to be my next question.

What do you mean by Mr. Depp's unconfessionality in the last 10 years of your representation? Showing up late to set consistently on virtually every movie, I would get yelled at. I never said to him you're a difficult client I never used those words but I was very honest with him and said you've got to stop doing this this is hurting you and it did there you were

hearing his former agent and that agent had been with him for I think 10 years or more so what they're doing, Kayla Brantley, Kayla is a reporter with DailyMail.com, which is read all over the world. Kayla, it seems to me that they are trying to tear down Johnny Depp's likability and show that Amber Heard's op-ed was not the cause of his demise, that he was his own undoing. Late to set, drunk. I mean, when you keep a crew waiting six hours,

they don't care if you're likable or funny or talented. Uh-uh. N-O. Nobody likes that. And even in Hollywood, they do have standards, Keala. Yeah, that's exactly what they're trying to do here because Johnny's saying that it was the op-ed that made him lose his Pirates of the Caribbean role. He got $25 million for the last movie, I believe. So he lost out on a lot of money when he lost that contract.

And he's saying that it was Amber Heard's op-ed that did that. like the last movie, I believe. So he lost out on a lot of money when he lost that contract. And he's saying that it was Amber Heard's op-ed that did that. But here we're seeing something totally different, that he had bad behavior, that it was increased due to his alcohol and drugs, and that he was late, that at one point he was using an earpiece to feed him his lines, is what his former agent said. Now what's interesting here is that he dropped his agent, I believe she represented him for 30 years. So they had been together for a long time throughout almost his entire career. And then in 2016, he completely dropped her along with his friend who testified along with his business manager. So it seems

around 2016, he was really going through a time where i believe tracy jacobs the agent said he quote terminated essentially everyone in his life and she was just along for the ride i'm curious what happened in 2016 to make him do that kella well that was the year that he was dealing with amber um according to his friend um i believe his name is bruce whitkin he had been his friend for years and years yeah they were in a band together i think yes exactly hollywood vampires they worked together um until something just happened he said that there were rumors that he believed he was trying to use him so So it seems like Johnny got pretty paranoid regarding the people around him.

He sued his business manager saying that he was stealing money from him when in reality, it looks like his finances were just extremely dire. Dire. Hey, that's a good way to put it, Kayla Brantley. Let's listen to what the former business manager. Now, famously, the reason we know about that

$30,000 a month wine bill, $30,000 a month wine bill, about the $75 million he blew on an island about paying this doctor thousands and thousands of dollars a month to help him detox. He was paying his staff, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, about $300,000 a month all in, all the staff. I mean, it was just, he was hemorrhaging money. But take a listen to Josh Mandel. This is our cut 44. His financial circumstances in 2015 had reached

a point where I was extremely concerned and was on a very, very regular basis expressing that concern. And it seemed as I increased my level of expressing that concern, there was anger directed in my direction. And so my warnings in 2015 that we were in very dire financial circumstances were not met very favorably. So did there come a time that you observed as Mr. Depp's business manager that his spending habits became more increased, perhaps excessive, extravagant? Yes. And when did you observe that? When did that begin? Again in the time frame I've described in that 2010 and on time frame as I recall income was very significant spending was very significant and the again the spending levels had grown very very very large and required that level of incredibly high income to be maintained. And when it dropped off, the disconnect became untenable.

What's so significant about debt paying staff members $300,000 a month, and there were many, many staff members, is that Amber Heard's side is making the argument that his employees and friends are siding with him because he has paid them so much money over the course of years and years and years. And to you, Daryl Cohen, veteran trial lawyer, there's absolutely a valid line of cross-examination to suggest someone has a pecuniary or money interest in the outcome of the trial. Oh, without a doubt, Nancy. If they didn't have an interest, then why would they be there? Well, they may be there because they like him. Oh, why do they like him?

Not because he drinks, not because he's late to the set, but because he pays me and he pays me on time. That makes a major difference in many cases. And it may help Amber or it may just be one more thing that the jury goes, OK, next. Let's please entertain me. Come on, Hollywood. Stay here in Virginia. We love you. There was a cast of characters on the stand now in what we believe to be the grand finale of the Amber Heard response.

As you know, Depp goes first, Heard goes second. To you, Kayla, joining us, Kayla Brantley joining us from DailyMail.com, there have been rumblings that Amber Heard's lawyers are going to call Johnny Depp back to the stand. Now, in a criminal case, of course, the state cannot call the defendant. Can't do it. It violates the right to remain silent in the Fifth Amendment. In a civil case, not true, not true at all.

Do you believe Heard is going to call Depp back to the stand? Well, there have been rumblings of that, and I could totally see that happening. If he does come back, they would absolutely try to discredit everything that he said. Again, he was so likable to the jury when he was on the stand the first time. And Amber Heard was not as likable as you can see from the court of public opinion. So I think definitely calling him back could be a move for them to try to tear him down and try to catch him in a potential lie. Well, you know, they had that chance, Daryl Cohen, on cross-examination of Johnny Depp. He was up in his own case and they cross-examined him extensively. I think putting him back on the stand would be a huge, huge, a grave miscalculation on the part of Heard's

team. Because once they put him on the stand, his side, well, his own lawyers will have him on cross-exam. Hey, Nancy, I hate to agree with you, but 1,000 percent to put him back on the stand, his side, his own lawyers will have him on cross-exam. Hey, Nancy, I hate to agree with you, but 1,000% to put him back on the stand gives him a chance not only to look good, rehabilitate himself, and to remind the jurors what a really good guy he was in spite of his flaws. Bad move, in my view. Yes, exactly. And you know, Darrell, which is such a powerful tool for a lawyer, is when you get the last word. Now, in a state's case, typically, the state gets the final closing argument. You typically have a chance to give the first closing argument,

and then the defense gives a closing, and then you get to give another closing. Or you can let them go first and you go second and the last thing the jury hears ringing in their ears is you telling it you telling it in this case if they put debt back on the stand and then his own lawyers get to cross-examine him and when I say his own lawyers get to cross-examine him. And when I say his own lawyers get to cross him, okay, you be debt. I'll be your lawyer. Isn't it true, Johnny, that she demeaned you? Answer.

Absolutely demeaned me. I cannot believe what she did to me. Yes. Isn't it true she attacked you? Isn't it true she savaged you? She ruined you. She turned you against your friends. I'd love to. They'll have a field day, Daryl

Cohen, if they have their own client on cross. By the way, you have only one chance to make a first impression. He did when he testified, and if he comes back, he has the opportunity, as you have just pointed out, to make a last impression. First and last,

what happens in the middle you forget it's like reading a newspaper article you look at the beginning and the end especially in these long long trials crime stories with nancy grace hey guys another person that took the stand was tina newman kella brant kella brantley joining me from dealingmail.com one thing i liked about her i don't necessarily agree with what she said i'll tell you why later but she was very matter of fact and actually very dry and i liked that yeah so she was an executive um for disney and she pretty much spoke about the pirates of the caribbean film and said that you know disney was not considering offering depth um you know 30 100 million dollars and a million alpacas,

which was something that it was a comment that Depp made. I've got that sound, Kiel. That's exactly what I was going to play for you. Take a listen to our Cut 45. This is Tina Newman, a Disney exec. Is Disney aware that Mr. Depp has testified under oath that he would not take another Pirates of the Caribbean franchise role for 300 million dollars and a million alpacas. Now would Disney entertain paying Mr. Depp

more than 300 million dollars and provide him with more than $1 million to be able to obtain his services for any future Pirates of the Caribbean role. You know, what's interesting there, and let me throw this to our expert, John Gard, Chief Deputy, Pitt County, and then I'll follow up with Charles Heller, our clinical forensic psychologist. There's this absurd question. Did Disney actually consider paying him 300 million and what, a million alpacas? It was a joke Depp had made earlier that even if they pay me 300 million dollars and a million alpacas, I wouldn't do it. Her response was so, she looked right at the camera and went, no.

No explanation. I mean, I found her very believable. Yeah, I did too. And in a case like this, where there has been almost a circus atmosphere, her personality really cuts through, let me just say, the crap. I would agree with you. But what's interesting about it, to Dr. Charles Heller, forensic psychologist, let's think this thing through.

While she seemed very believable on the stand, it's really hard for me to believe what she said about the op-ed having nothing to do with Disney cutting Depp loose. Why? Timing, timing, timing. She puts out the op-ed and very quickly after that, Disney announces, bye bye. You're over, Depp. I mean, how can they not be connected? Nancy, the reason many of Johnny's fans are so dedicated to him is that he concedes his faults.

She never concedes her faults. She has been dishonest about donating money when she just pledged the money. For her, it's the same thing. And again, she describes his very violent personality and behavior, yet she actually gave him a knife as a gift. Things don't make sense. You know, you brought up the lying about the donation of the money. That was a lie. Yeah.

The poop in the bed was a lie. Yes. And many people wonder about her certain claims that she used a certain makeup to cover up her bruises when that makeup had not even been put on the market at that time. That was a lie. Does that mean she can't be beaten? No. But does it mean the jury may not believe her? Very possibly. I want to circle

back to Ellen Barkin. Take a listen. Did there come a time when your friendship with Mr. Dapp became more than that, became romantic in nature? Yes. And at what point in time did your relationship with Mr. Dapp take a romantic turn? After I had moved to Hollywood and he you know, switched the buttons. Do you recall what year you moved to Hollywood? Yes.

1994. When you say switched the buttons, can you tell me what you meant by that? The friendship went from a purely platonic friendship to a romantic one. At that point in 1994, when the relationship turned romantic, to your knowledge... We'll change that to sexual. To sexual. Thank you. For how long did your relationship with Mr. Depp remain sexual? Several months.

Anywhere between three and five, six. I find that really interesting and thought-provoking. I think it was Ellen Barkin that said, could you change that characterization from romantic to sexual? Did I hear that correctly, Keala Brantley? Was she the one that made that clarification or was it the lawyer questioning her? No, it was absolutely Ellen Barkin. She doubled back and she said, please change romantic to sexual. She wanted to make that clear that it was a sexual relationship for a few months.

And then she said that when it ended, it was a long drawn out goodbye, tears. And then she left and never heard from Depp again. I find her characterization, clarification, very curious. She made it clear it wasn't romantic. It was sexual. Why did she do that? What does that mean to her? And what will the jury make of that? To you, Dr. Charles Heller, you're the psychologist. What do you think?

Well, basically, she says he changed. He pushed a new button. But you can't push a new button unless there's a response a positive response not what i asked you i agree with what you're saying what i asked you is she corrected the lawyer she said it was not romantic it sexual. What does that mean? Well, she wanted to clarify that it was just sexual. It was physical. There was no emotional connection. There was no love. The reason I ask is because later we learn that Depp said they broke up. He and Barkin broke up because she wanted a, quote, proper relationship. and he could not give her that. Therefore, they broke up.

I find that really interesting, the dichotomy of those two adjectives. What, if anything, that will mean to the jury while I mull that. Can we talk one minute about his lawyer? about that Kayla Brantley I mean oh she's all over him it looks like they're going steady maybe he gave her a lavalier I don't know what's what's with that oh I absolutely love all the rumors going around about Camille Vasquez you see they are very touchy very very affectionate, but there is a theory that, you know, they aren't anything romantic, and that if anything, it's a ploy that the jury can see that a very, you know, well-educated woman, who's a very strong woman,

can see the good in Johnny Depp, that they have a good relationship. And if anything, it's a show for the jury that, you know, Johnny Depp is this good guy who's very likable and can be respectful towards women. I'm not sure if there's anything actually going on, but Camille Vasquez has come out as the star of this trial, especially during her cross-examination of Amber Heard. She was so fierce, so direct, and really, really tripped Amber Heard up a lot. I frankly don't care who is sleeping with who, but what I do care is trial strategy. Daryl Cohen, do you remember the Menendez brothers' trial? Oh, yeah. Where the female defense attorney was all over them,

like smoothing their sweaters and fixing their tie and picking lint off them and hugging them, humanizing them to a degree in front of the jury to make the jury look at that, look here, not there, at the double murder, at the mother, Kitty Menendez, crawling down the hallway on her hands and knees, trying to get away from a barrage of bullets inflicted upon her by her own sons, the Menendez brothers. Oh, I remember it. Did it work?

No, it did not. I would say H-E-double-L, no, it did not. I agree, Nancy. But I'm back to Johnny's lawyer. I'm wondering why she makes so many objections that mean nothing other than having a juror or two. Break up the flow. Break up the rhythm. Well, but there was no rhythm.

And you and I have done this over and over again. She's made objections when there was no rhythm and you and i have done this over and over again she's made objections when there was no rhythm and i'm wondering if there isn't something more to it than trial strategy i wonder if it's social strategy interesting because social media did come into the trial from the stand one witness advised that Heard had lost roles because of unfavorable social media, for instance, hashtags like justice for Johnny and others, and because Johnny Depp's lawyer made disparaging comments about Heard, which they claim hurt her with the movie studios. It's all happening in a courtroom as this trial seems to be culminating.

We wait as justice unfolds. Nancy Grace, Crime Story, signing off. Goodbye, friend. This is an iHeart Podcast.