Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - Johnny Depp v Amber Heard: ROUND TWO

Episode Date: June 14, 2022

Amber Heard has broken her silence over the high-profile defamation suit ex, Johnny Depp, brought against her. In an NBC News exclusive with Savannah Guthrie, Heard said social media played a big part in her verdict in this case.  Heard says despite instructions from the judge to refrain from looking at social media, that exposure was unavoidable. "I think even the most well-intentioned juror, it would have been impossible to avoid this,"  Heard said, adding that she will stand by her accusations that Depp abused her "to her dying day."  Joining Nancy Grace Today: Dale Carson - High Profile Attorney (Jacksonville), Former FBI Agent, Former Police Officer, Author: "Arrest-Proof Yourself, DaleCarsonLaw.com  Caryn Stark - NYC Psychologist, CarynStark.com, Twitter: @carynpsych, Facebook: "Caryn Stark" John Guard - Chief Deputy – Pitt County Sheriff’s Office (Greenville, NC), Specializes in Investigating Domestic Violence Cases Susan Constantine - MPsy, Deception and Body Language Expert, Author: "The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Reading Body Language", Founder: TheHumanBehaviorAcademy.com, New on-demand course: “How to Spot a Liar in 7 Seconds or Less"  Charlie Lankston - FeMail Editor, DailyMail.com, Twitter/Instagram:@charlielanks See NBC's Savannah Guthrie's exclusive interview with Amber Heard:  Tuesday, June 14 and Wednesday, June 15 on NBC's TODAY and Friday, June 17 on Dateline NBC at 8 p.m. / 7 p.m. CT.  TIP LINE: The National Domestic Violence Hotline - 800-799-SAFE or 800-799-7233See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. You would have to be under a rock in a cave on the other side of the world, and even then, you would probably still hear about Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard. And guess what? It's not over yet. I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. Thank you for being with us here at Fox Nation and Sirius XM 111. Even within the last hours, Amber Heard is publicly stating that she stands by her testimony and that she was beaten by Johnny Depp

and slamming the glamorous lawyer Camille Vasquez for defending the quote liar she's referring to Johnny Depp let's just kick it off guys I want you to hear my friend from Court TV Savannah Guthrie now of course at the NBC Today show this is Savannah speaking with Amber and you can see it on air Tuesday, June 14, Wednesday, June 15 on NBC Today, Friday, June 17 on Dateline on NBC, of course. I want you to take a listen to Savannah speaking with Amber. As you sit here with me now, has it sunk in? How could it? Surreal and difficult in part, yes. This has been a long time coming. Do you stand by your testimony and your accusations against Johnny Depp about abuse? Of course. To my dying day, we'll stand by every

word of my testimony. You are hearing Amber Heard speaking out, stating that she's standing by her testimony. Now, that is not surprising to me at all, but taking a swipe at the jury, I am a little surprised at that. And I want you to hear what Amber Heard states to our friend Savannah Guthrie at NBC. And again, you can see it all on the Today Show, June 15 and June 14, and then Friday night on Dateline. Listen, this is our cut Z. I don't care what one thinks about me or what judgments you want to make

about what happened in the privacy of my own home in my marriage behind closed doors. I don't presume the average person should know those things. And so I don't take it personally, but even somebody who is sure I'm deserving of all this hate and vitriol, even if you think that I'm lying, you still couldn't look me in the eye and tell me that you think on social media there's been a fair representation. You cannot tell me that you think that this has been fair. Of course, we also touched on what happened in court and what the jury decided. There's no polite way to say it. The jury looked at the evidence you presented. They listened to your testimony and they did not believe you. They thought you were lying.

How could, I'll put it this way, how could they make a judgment? How could they not come to that conclusion? They had sat in those seats and heard over three weeks of nonstop relentless testimony from paid employees and towards the end of the trial, randos, as I say. So you don't blame the jury? I don't blame the jury i don't blame them it wasn't i i don't blame them i actually understand he's a beloved character and people feel they know him he's a fantastic actor their job is to not be dazzled by that their job is to look at the facts and the evidence and they did not believe your testimony or your evidence. Again, how could they, after listening to three and a half weeks of testimony about how I was a non-credible person, not to believe a word that came out of my mouth. Okay, let's figure out what's happening right now.

Apparently, Johnny Depp versus Amber Heard is far from over. Even right now, Amber Heard speaking out stating the jury got it wrong and that Depp is a liar. Again, I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. Thanks for being with us here at Fox Nation and Sirius XM 111. With me, an all-star panel, Dale Carson, high-profile lawyer, former Fed with the FBI, author of Arrest Proof Yourself. He's at DaleCarsonLaw.com.

Karen Stark, renowned New York psychologist at KarenStark.com. John Gard, Chief Deputy, Pitt County Sheriff's Office. Susan Constantine, body language expert, author of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Reading Body Language, and Charlie Langston, DailyMetal.com. She is the editor of Femail, that is F-E-M-A-I-L. Charlie, what is happening and what is her trying to say now? Yeah, we all watched the trial. We all saw the same thing the jury saw. The thing that really stuck out to me

was when she was saying, how could the jury believe me when they had heard testimony saying that I was uncredible? The thing is, it was her job to prove that she was credible. It was her job. It was her legal team's job to prove that her testimony was credible and should be believed. So I don't know why she's blaming the jury for finding her uncredible. That's not their fault. Now, she has once again publicly accused Depp of not only being physically abusive towards her during their marriage, but then of lying about it on the stand. And she's also thrown the jury under the bus by saying that they were duped by his fantastic acting, that they were swayed by social media. I mean, honestly, there isn't a single person here who she hasn't managed to

insult. She even insulted her own legal team by suggesting that Depp's legal team did a better job of winning over the jury during the trial. You know, here's the kicker. Dale Carson, joining me, high profile lawyer out of Jacksonville, she is again under the law. We call it republishing. In other words, when you know something is false and you publish it, in other words, you repeat it or you print it. When you republish something. Basically, she's doing the same thing again. And if he wanted to, Depp, I think under the law, could sue her again for what she's saying right now. Well, that's actually right, because it's actionable what she's saying right now. And my advice to all of my clients is to don't talk about stuff to anybody. It can't help your case.

You know, I had an ironclad rule as a prosecutor that I very rarely, if ever, deviated from, and that was don't speak to the press about your case, period, unless it's over. If I was followed, I would always say the same thing. I believe the jury will hand down a true verdict. Bam, that's it. That's much better than just saying no comment. And it shows you're more comfortable with the media than a lot of prosecutors are because you need to say something to the press. And it was true. I was very confident that juries would hand down a true verdict. And I also find this, Susan Constantine with me, I mean, she's the founder of the Human Behavior Academy.com with a new on-demand course, How to Spot a Liar in Seven Seconds or Less.

Okay, I'm totally watching that, Susan Constantine. Susan, all of us on the panel right now watch this trial. I want to figure out from your point of view, what is she doing? Even an animal goes to its cave to lick its wounds alone. Why come out full force like this? You know what? I think that this really boils back down to she's just emotionally unstable. I think this really is more rooted psychologically. And all we're seeing is

all of that playing out again. She cannot be told. She says, you cannot tell me. And you just stop right there. Right there in that statement is telling telling you you can't tell me anything because everything that she says is truth whatever everything says that johnny depp and his team is false but she has already been convicted so to speak based on her own demeanor evidence I mean, her snarkiness, her condescension, she plays the victim, her dramatizing everything, that when you read, when you watch her facial expressions, Nancy, it is really remarkable when you see that she really exhibits this really negative expressions of contempt and disgust. And what's happening is that because she shows it so much, it actually is creating in front of that jury and the public to feel those same emotions, but it's being now on her. Because that's what happens when you're around someone, you smile, it creates smiling. When you're around someone you smile it creates smiling when you're snarky and so but it's going to create that snarkiness so negative begets negativity

so that she's she is her own worst enemy i wouldn't you know i've worked in cases like similar to this i worked on the jeffrey epstein case and worked as a witness did witness prep for one of the sexual assault victims and i'll tell you what i worked with her like six different times listening through cross-examination etc how she would respond and watching her demeanor and everything met up to what a victim would be like okay and amber heard exhibits everything what a victim doesn't look like so you know that if the evidence is there demeanor evidence is there and that's what the problem is you know I'm very curious about something you just said Susan Constantine you said Amber Heard represents

everything a victim doesn't look like what do you mean by that okay what I mean by that is is that her expressions were not emoting what her words were saying. So when she was talking about her being victimized or that he was hitting her or whatever, her hands did not move in the same movement. Her hand gestures, her facial expressions, they were out of sync. So that what happened was, is that she was exaggerating and bolstering. I do believe that there was altercation, but she exploited it and made it so much bigger than what it was. That's why it was throwing off all those indicators of deception. And that's what I saw. That's what I'm talking about.

She didn't appear like a true victim because it wasn't in sync. And when it's out of sync, it's out of sync for a reason. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. To Charlie Langston joining me, editor of Female at DailyMail.com, I found this very unusual that somebody goes online claiming to be a juror off the Amber Heard Johnny Depp trial. And unusually, these jurors can remain anonymous for up to a year. This person goes online claiming to be a Depp juror and states everything she was saying came off like bull, S-H-I-T. And that because Amber lied, Amber Heard lied about donating divorce settlement money to charities because she lied about that. That that big, fat, honking lie sunk her credibility. Now it's coming out, this may very well not be a juror. It's believed that the diatribe was sent from an email not within the Virginia area.

But that said, I mean, if you're going to lie about your donations to charity and trying to fake off the jury saying, well, to me, donate and pledge are the same thing. It's not. A pledge is a promise that you're going to do something. I mean, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. But it's a whole nother thing whether you actually fork over the money. Charlie, what do you think about the person claiming to be Adept Juror? Well, I think, I mean, this person has now been proven to be a fake, but I think what they were saying and what they were publishing on their TikTok account were points that had already been made by legal experts, by members of Depp's own legal team. And that was that Amber lied on the

stand. That made the jury not believe everything else that she said. And I think it's also worth pointing out, Amber has admitted to being violent towards Johnny. She said that in her Today interview with Savannah Guthrie. However, she once again, rather than taking full accountability, she deflected it back to Johnny and said, oh, well, yes, I might have hit him. I might have done horrible things, but I only ever did it because I was a victim of psychological, emotional, and physical abuse. And what Depp's legal team has already said is that they believe one of the major reasons that the jury did not get behind her is because she failed to take accountability for any of her

actions on the stand. You had Depp, who readily admitted to having issues with drug and alcohol substance abuse. He admitted to saying and texting things that he wished he hadn't. However, Amber had an excuse for everything. While she kind of said, oh, well, yes, I might have done this, it was only because this had happened to me. And I think that that's one of the key things that prevented the jury from really believing her as a credible witness who kind of felt remorse and who was

really struggling as a victim. Regarding the jury, there are very subtle insults to the jury in everything that she says. She says that they were persuaded by Johnny Depp's reputation, and he's a beloved actor, that they couldn't see the truth, that they basically had been getting their evidence and facts from social media, even though the judge instructed them not to. As a matter of fact, take a listen to our cut BB. Now again, this is Amber Heard speaking to our friend Savannah Guthrie at NBC Today. And you can see that on the Today Show Tuesday and Wednesday and on NBC at night on Friday on Dateline Listen. Vast majority of this trial was played out on social media. I think that

this trial is an example of that gone haywire, gone amok. And the jury is not immune to that. You think the jury saw it? How could they not? I think even the most well-intentioned juror, it would have been impossible to avoid this. And more in our cut EE. I would not blame the average person for looking at this and how it's been covered and not think that it is Hollywood brats at their worst. But what people don't understand is it's actually so much bigger than that. This is not only about our First Amendment rights to speak.

But here's the thing about the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects free speech. It doesn't protect lies that amount to defamation, and that was the issue in the case. Yes, exactly. You can't go into... Free speech does not protect you if you go into a crowded speech does not protect you. If you, you know, go into a

crowded theater and you scream fire, we get the concept of free speech from the Greeks. My understanding of what that means is not just the freedom to speak. It's a freedom to speak truth to power. The truth is the word. Yes. That was the issue. And that's all I spoke. And I spoke it to power, and I paid the price. Okay, do not mess with Savannah Guthrie when it comes to the law because she is not only a journalist. She's a lawyer as well. So don't be coming at her with your home-cooked theories about what the First Amendment really is

because she will totally call you on that. home-cooked theories about what the First Amendment really is. She will totally call you on that. Karen Stark, New York psychologist, joining us from Manhattan. Karen, she's actually digging in. I spoke to truth and power, and I paid the price. She's digging in. Those are her words, not mine. And blaming the jury, accusing them of trolling the Internet during the trial.

And if you listen to it, Nancy, if she's trying to get public opinion to turn in her favor, then she's going in the totally wrong direction because it still doesn't sound like this woman is being accountable for anything. And why in the world, after she's being asked to give $10 million to Johnny Depp, would she go on air and start this all over again? There's something really wrong. And I do agree with you. I really do, that both of them are at fault. But at least he's taking responsibility for his end of it. I don't think it was just acting. I think he was able to say, yeah, I did these things. And she comes across as not just, gee, you know, all this happened to me, but kind of arrogant and look at that jury and justice has not been served and it's really something that is

not going to make people think that well another thing i wouldn't be surprised if she doesn't end up getting sued again there was talk out to you charlie langston dailymail.com that debt may not go after her for the money that he has cleared his name. He won a trial and he would not pursue what turns out to be about $8.35 million. What about that? Yes, his legal team have suggested that he might be willing to waive the payment now that his reputation has been restored. They've made very clear that this trial for him was not about getting a huge lump sum of money. It was not about bankrupting Amber. It was about clearing his name as far as the legal process was concerned and as far as the court of public opinion is concerned. And I think he has proven very clearly

that that has happened. We've seen rumors circulating that he is going to be doing more movies, that he's going to be doing sequels to movies that he's already made. His Dior fragrance ad has been put back on the air after his name was cleared in court. So I think as far as his reputation is concerned, he's done exactly what he wanted to do. Now, the question will be whether or not he decides to pursue legal action against Amber for this Today Show interview, not because he wants to try and gain money from her, but because I think he needs to make clear that this isn't going to be something that he's going to allow to continue for months, if not years on end. My question would be, if this interview goes unchecked, if these republished claims against him of physical abuse go unchecked, what does that mean for the future? And what else might Amber come forward and say in the months and indeed years after the trial has concluded?

So we also learned that he is heading across the ocean to create a movie about Louis XV in France, and there are rumblings that there may be a Pirates of the Caribbean reboot. We'll wait to see about that, but how did the two of them respond to the jury verdict? We understand Depp was still in the UK touring with his band but he took a little detour take a listen our cut LL yeah we were very excited to have Johnny Depp in our restaurant but there are a lot of rumors going around at the moment in respect to how much he actually spent in the restaurant and it's an unconfirmed amount because we haven't actually disclosed anything as of yet. But you I understand had quite a long chat with with Johnny Depp but mainly about his movie career is that right? We were just discussing his day-to-day life at the moment and how he's

enjoying Birmingham and what he likes to eat and we were just delighted to have him in our restaurant in Birmingham City Center. It's quite unheard of to have an A-lister being around especially on Broad Street in Birmingham. You're hearing our friend Piers Morgan speaking to the owner of the Curry House where Depp went to celebrate the victory. Around 50,000 pounds which I think equals up to about $60,000. No, Depp didn't need all that. As usual, he had an entourage hanging around that he had to pay for or chose to pay for. John Gard, Chief Deputy, joining us from Pitt County Sheriff's Office out of Greenville, North Carolina. John, I want to circle back to clearly the angry feelings between the two of them. It was not resolved with a jury verdict, was it? You can see that

by Heard's comments, basically, subtly dismissing the jury verdict, explaining away how they couldn't see the truth through Depp's persona, how they got their information from social media, how he did a great acting job and they fell for it and so forth and so on. So is that the way it always ends in domestic cases? The bitter feud goes on well after the verdict well you know not necessarily and i i just like to say how uh glad i am that i work within the the criminal courts and you know a lot of our uh cases are on navigate the courts in a different way different levels of proof and fortunately of those that do report we we're able to come in and do an investigation

and have unbiased fact finders bringing information in. But as a career officer and one that's focused the majority of his career on the prevention of intimate partner violence. I hope that we don't take a step backwards for folks that are victimized behind closed doors. And I don't say that from a gender end, whether it's her or him. I just say anyone because of the damage that it does daily around this country to many, many, many, many people. You know what? You're very right, John Gard. John Gard, Chief Deputy at Pitt County Sheriff's Office in Greenville.

In this case, we have Amber Heard self-proclaiming that she is a crime victim. Now, whether you believe her or not, from this point on, you're going to have juries being argued, defense attorneys arguing to juries, ah, she's lying, she's pulling an amber. That's what's going to happen from this point forward. There's really no way around it.

Whether you believe her or don't believe her, the reality is the jury sided with Depp. And from this point forward, this is going to be a common defense in domestic cases, domestic beatings. And not only did I prosecute them, I volunteered at the Battered Women's Center at night for nine years. Domestic abuse, violence is real. And very often, unlike Amber Heard, these women, and they are typically women, don't have the resources, the money, the wherewithal, the strength, the connections to leave the home. Very often, they're there until they're killed. Domestic homicide. And it's escalating, by the way. It's not getting any better. It's actually escalating. Very often, mothers feel they don't have the money to leave.

They don't have a way to support their children. They don't want to break up the home. It's being reported more, fortunately, today. It probably always existed at one level or another. And as to the actual case involving Heard and Depp, two important points that need to be brought forward. One is that the crucible of cross-examination is critical to justice in the United States. And when you put witnesses on the stand and the jury gets to listen to what they have to say, they can make an informed decision as to the credibility, both defense witnesses and prosecution witnesses. And more than that, what Ambrose got wrong is the

fact that the jurors weren't allowed to listen to social media, weren't affected by it. And that's not true for the participants in the case. They could listen to all the social media they wanted to, and perhaps they know things more than the jurors did. But the jurors looked at the testimony, they looked at the witnesses, and they made an informed decision. And that crucible of cross-examination is critical to proper justice in America, and I think you would agree. Is this Dale Carson? Yes. Yes. The cross-examination was relentless in this case on both sides. So what now? Take a listen to our friends at ETRCUTPP.

What is her next move? Well, her next move is appeal. Amber Heard's lawyer says she's ready to fight back following Johnny Depp's victory in his defamation trial against her. Elaine Bredhoff told CBS Mornings that Heard has plans to appeal after the jury decided the actor was, in fact, defamed by her, awarding him $15 million in both punitive and compensatory damages. And one of the first things that she said when she came back from the verdict when we went into the conference room was, I am so sorry to all these women. She said that? Yes, she felt like she had let down all of these women. It's a sentiment the actress echoed following the verdict in a statement she posted on Instagram, calling out her disappointment and feeling heartbroken. Quote, the mountain of evidence still was not enough to stand up to the disproportionate power,

influence and sway of my ex-husband. I'm even more disappointed with what this verdict means for other women. It is a setback. It sets back the clock to a time when a woman who spoke up and spoke out could be publicly shamed and humiliated. You know, to you, Charlie Langston, female editor at DailyMail.com, I understand that Amber Heard was just spotted taking a private plane to Teterboro and then ending up at a Ritzy Hamptons restaurant. She was. She was pictured getting on a private jet in DC. And we believe that this is

the flight that she took to New York in order to film her Today Show interview. So it remains to be seen who paid for the private jet. But I will say, if you've got your lawyer going on TV, telling the world that you are incapable of paying the $8.35 million kind of damages settlement that you are being told to give your ex-husband, getting up on a private plane while toting a designer handbag is not exactly a great message to be sending to the world. Yes, Susan Constantine, that's not a good visual. No, it's not a good visual. visual and you know first impressions and last impressions are super important so people are judging you based on your demeanor your dress how you're conducting your life and we assess them and we then profile them and that's just the way it is the way it's

always been it's never going to change Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. You know, when we look back at the trial and we see what's going forward, Amber Heard says she is going to appeal. What would the grounds be to you, Dale Carson, high profile lawyer joining us out of Jacksonville? What could the grounds be? Well, it would have to be some error by the court in admitting some evidence that was improperly admitted or something like that, or testimony that came out during the course of the trial that was subject to motion and lemony. In other words, the discussion between the two sides that certain testimony should not come in. But the by and large problem for her is that she has to put up a bond for the amount of money

that she's due to owe them. And I don't know that that's possible where she would come up with the $10 million. Exactly. I want you to take a listen again to our friend Savannah Guthrie at NBC Today speaking to Amber Heard. Now, you can hear this on the Today Show Tuesday and Wednesday, and on Dateline NBC on Friday night. Take a listen to our cut F, F, and D, D. In the closing arguments, the debt lawyer said, called your testimony the performance of a lifetime and said you were acting. What do you say to that?

Says the lawyer for the man who convinced the world he had scissors for fingers? I'm the performer. I had listened to weeks of testimony insinuating that or saying quite directly that, you know, I'm a terrible actress. So I'm a bit confused how I could be both. I never had to instigate it. I responded to it. When you're living in violence and it becomes normal, as I testified to, you have to adapt. You say you were responding, but there is evidence. There are tapes in which you acknowledge hitting.

There are tapes in which you say, I started the fight. I know much has been made of these audio tapes. They were first leaked online after being edited. What you would hear in those clips are not evidence of what was happening. It was evidence of a negotiation of how to talk about that with your abuser. Okay, what is she saying, Charlie Langston, that the tapes were leaked and edited? She's essentially saying that only small portions of three-hour-long audio tapes

were A, leaked online prior to the trial, and then aired in the trial. And Savannah, rightly so, questioned why Amber's lawyers couldn't have submitted all three hours of these audio tapes. Why on earth, if three hours of audio recordings exist, that will have presumably helped Amber's case. Why on earth couldn't her lawyers have submitted those as evidence? To which Amber was only able to reply, well, I'm not a lawyer. Dale Carson joining us out of Jacksonville.

Dale, that's a fundamental rule of evidence. You are not to allow in evidence that is only a portion of a fuller transcript or video or document. That is a fundamental rule of evidence. So I believe that if this is true, what she's saying, that it should have been admitted into evidence if it existed. Well, if the court allowed it improperly to appear in front of the jurors, then that is the basis for a rehearing on the matters in its entirety.

Well, if it was presented to the court, what we're saying, guys, is that I'm not saying that Depp had to play the whole three hours, but the whole three hours had to be admitted for the jury consideration. It's not forcing either side to play the full three hours, but you can't later say, oh, that was edited. The jury didn't see the whole thing. That's precisely why a full document or a full tape must be admitted into evidence,

not just the portion you want somebody to see as if the rest doesn't exist. John Gard joining me, Chief Deputy, Pitt County Sheriff's Office. Have you ever had a case, you specialize in domestic violence. Have you ever had a case where the violence and the arguments were actually caught on tape and on video? Yes, yes, we have. And just going back to that topic, and again, you know, living in the criminal courts world for so many years, I mean, that's why we have interviews or interrogations that are two, three, four, five, six hours long, we're going to make sure that defense counsel or the other side has an opportunity to review all of that. I mean, you know, the lady of justice is blind and all information needs to come out. So both sides can develop their trial plan to seek justice and whatever

justice means to them. To Charlie Langston joining us from DailyMail.com, everybody jump in on this. At this point, to me, the best thing Heard could do would be stop talking, number one, and pay off those charitable donations and let it be known that she fulfilled her promise. I absolutely agree with you. Otherwise, if she absolutely has to talk about it, A, don't repeat the same mistake of what she just got sued over,

but say, you know what, I told the truth. The jury chose not to believe me. I lost. And now I'm picking up my career and focusing on my daughter and trying to move forward. I mean, I think that's what I would do if I had to say anything at all. What about it, Charlie? Absolutely. I think she is digging herself a hole by continuing to double down and repeat these claims that she's already been sued over. She's already been found guilty of defamation. She's already been ordered to pay an enormous lump sum to Johnny Depp. If she really can't pay that sum, and if she is really planning to appeal, the best thing for her would be to say say the jury ruled as it saw fit.

I stand by my testimony and I will now leave it in the hands of my lawyers to decide whether or not we can move forward with an appeal. And then she makes the charitable donations that she said she had already made. She focuses on her personal life with her child and we wait to see how it will move forward in a courtroom. But she is now taking this out of the hands of lawyers and jurors and judges and placing herself, quite frankly, in front of a firing line. She's already said that she's faced hate and vitriol in the court of public opinion. And I don't think she's doing herself any favors by continuing to throw herself to the wolves. Susan, I agree with what Charlie Langston said, but I think I would be even more blunt. I would say, I told the truth. The jury didn't believe me. I lost. I'm going to

try to find the money to pay Johnny Depp and I'm going to live up to what I owe the charities. I'm going to take care of my daughter and try to get work. Exactly. I think that then she'd start to regain people's trust again. I think that this is a time for her to stay away from the media and to self-reflect, heal, and start to work on reinventing herself and becoming healthier. And when she comes out, she's going to come back stronger than she ever was. And I think the world in itself are very forgiving of people.

But if she doesn't own it, then people will never will. If she continues to throw daggers, people will continue to throw daggers back at her. But how could she be representing all women and saying that it's a setback for all women? It's just ludicrous and wrong to be showing up on a private plane, to be eating in fancy restaurants, to be living this lifestyle that she's flaunting and saying that this is a setback and she represents all women. All women? She should be lying low. I mean, I think you have to admit, and I remember, I know we all remember when Winona Ryder shoplifted, right? And she was blacklisted for shoplifting for Pete's

sake. I mean, you got Roman Polanski who raped a little girl in a hot tub, and Holly was begging for him to come back. Really? Anyway, I always thought that she'd never have gone to trial. She should have pled guilty and said, look, I have a problem. I did this thing and I don't want to be a bad role model for young girls that watch my movies. I'm going to start over and I hope you can forgive me and help me do a better job. You know, you got to own it. You got to admit to whatever happened and try to move forward, not keep churning over the same lies that the jury came back with their verdict because of social media, that the tapes were

edited. Just move forward and do something good. And if you keep doing that, that's the only way you'll have a shot. Hey, that $10 million verdict ain't going to pay itself. We wait as justice unfolds. Goodbye, friend. This is an iHeart Podcast.