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

Episode Date: June 1, 2022

Jury deliberations continued today in the defamation trial of Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. Jurors asked for clarification from the judge yesterday on a point of content, regarding the headline of Amber Heard's op-ed. The jury wanted to know if they were considering just the headline or the entire op-ed. The judge clarified the headline is what is to be considered. And then just 13 hours after deliberations began... a verdict.  Joining Nancy Grace Today: Darryl Cohen - Former Assistant District Attorney, Fulton County, Georgia, Defense Attorney, Cohen, Cooper, Estep, & Allen, LLC, 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 Joe Scott Morgan - Professor of Forensics: Jacksonville State University, Author, "Blood Beneath My Feet", Host: "Body Bags with Joseph Scott Morgan" Charlie Lankston - FeMail Editor, DailyMail.com, Twitter/Instagram:@charlielanks  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You're listening to an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Well, it just won't go away. I'm talking about herd versus debt,pp, Depp versus Heard. It's all happening right now in a Fairfax, Virginia courtroom. The jury is going into our 10 of deliberations. Did Aquaman star Amber Heard defame Pirates of the Caribbean, Captain Jack Sparrow, Johnny Depp? And likewise, a lot's happening. There's never a dull moment in this trial. I'm Nancy Grace. and Captain Jack Sparrow, Johnny Depp, and likewise.

A lot's happening. There's never a dull moment in this trial. I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. Thank you for being with us here at Fox Nation and Sirius XM 111. Well, apparently Johnny Depp is not that worried. Take a listen to our Cut 43 from the Today Show. Johnny Depp, sporting new blonde blonde locks headed overseas this weekend the seemingly unfazed film star seen performing several songs in england alongside

legendary rock guitarist and friend jeff back closing arguments in the trial were contentious and there is a victim of domestic abuse in this courtroom but it is not misheard johnny depp's team painting his ex-wife as an abusive manipulator who wanted to destroy their client's reputation. She just hit me over and over and over again. Hurd's team presenting their evidence to support her allegations of abuse, including an array of photos of her face bruised and swollen after she says Depp attacked her, texts they say document the incidents, and witnesses who testified they saw Depp become violent, as well as Heard's injuries in the aftermath.

If Amber was abused by Mr. Depp even one time, then she wins. Depp brought the $50 million defamation suit against Heard after she wrote a 2018 Washington Post op-ed, where she described herself as a public figure representing domestic abuse. Not so fast. Under the black and white letter of the law, yes, if Depp ever hit heard, she wins. But they forgot this part. The jury has to be convinced. Sometimes one party can turn out to be so distasteful, so dislikable. Their credibility is shot. You know, let me go out to Charlie Langston joining me from DailyMail.com. She is the editor of Female. Charlie, I actually had someone approach me and ask me, I the blue, this was at Target do you think Amber Heard faked her bruises that's not a good

omen you know I have investigated and prosecuted hundreds literally hundreds of domestic violence domestic sex assault domestic homicide cases I've never had anyone ask me did she paint on or fake her bruises that's not good for her it's really not good for her and I think first and foremost you know in the court of public opinion I don't want to say that there's a winner because I think that this whole trial has been such an insane circus that no one really wins but I think that in the court of public opinion, Johnny is certainly ahead of Amber. And I think that he has come across in some strange way as being much more likable. And I don't know how the jury could not feel the same way in some small way. Amber really just has not come across as a likable human being. And when you're dealing with a court case that has had so many insane

claims, so many horrific allegations of different kinds of abuse, I don't know how that doesn't play at least a small part in their deliberation. Speaking of losing credibility, and again, I'm not on Heard's side. I'm not on Depp's side. I am on the side of a true verdict, whatever that verdict may be. As to losing credibility, take a listen to Hourcut 46. This is the Depp lawyer during closing arguments. He owns his flaws. He admits to them. He told you all about them. But he is not a violent abuser. He's not an abuser, as Ms. Hurd claims. And he did not and does not deserve to have his life, his legacy, destroyed. There is a world of difference between having substance abuse problems and being a physical abuser. Amber Heard is not a true victim and Mr. Depp certainly is not an abuser. This case for Mr. Depp has never been about money.

It is about Mr. Depp's reputation. You know, with me, a former prosecutor, now veteran civil attorney, joining me from Atlanta jurisdiction, Daryl Cohen, it's very possible that the jury may find Amber Heard to be a liar. And the judge accurately gave the jury instruction that if you disbelieve a witness, in part, you are then authorized to discard all of their testimony. If they disbelieved her about one thing like tipping off TMZ, the 30-mile zone, TMZ, to come and catch her at the courthouse filing a TRO against Depp and then turning a certain way to catch the bruise on her face, which she denied tipping them off. If they find she even lied about that, they are authorized to throw out all of her testimony. Well, Nancy, of course they can. If they don't like her for whatever the reason,

they can ignore her testimony. If they don't like him for whatever the reason, they can throw out his testimony and say, my gosh, Hollywood here in Virginia, this is just terrific because we are going to find against both of them or for both of them or fine for them and give them a dollar each. Any of these things are possible. I was thinking that same thing about $1 each. Yeah,

this is a soap opera and both of them, in my view, deserve each other. And I agree that the court of public opinion, Johnny Depp is ahead. Does that mean he's going to win or lose? No, it's one more strike against Amber or for him. But there have been so many witnesses on both sides that have been that are so credible that it's really going to be fun for the jurors. And you know, they would call it fun. But go ahead. Yeah, well, I think one or more of the jurors are going to write a book.

I think they're going to have a blast and they're going to have a tough time back there. They've been there for, what, 10 hours now and they're continuing to deliberate. This is going to be a very interesting verdict. And I would be surprised at nothing, at nothing. Dr. Charles Heller, joining me, clinical forensic psychologist specializing in domestic violence. He's the chief forensic consultant at Rockland County in New York and works with Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences. Thank you for being with us.

Boy, do we need a shrink, Dr. Heller. Here's the thing. works with Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences. Thank you for being with us. Boy, do we need a shrink, Dr. Heller. Here's the thing. I hate for OJ Simpson to rear his ugly head right now, but that said, isn't it true? It seems as if the jury loved Johnny Cochran and hated Marcia Clark. Yeah, that's true. I'm not necessarily agreeing with that, although Johnny Cochran was hated Marcia Clark. Yeah, that's true. I'm not necessarily agreeing with that, although Johnny Cochran was my sparring partner at Court TV.

It can boil down to like and dislike. You know, when you like somebody, Dr. Heller, you tend to believe what they say. When you don't like somebody, everything they say is like dirt in their mouth. That's very true. And Amber Heard is a person who a lot of people are disliking at this point. Why? What is it about her that has sparked dislike? Well, I think it's her affect in the courtroom. What do you mean by that? You got to be more specific. Dummy down, doctor. Dummy down for me. Most of the time, she has a kind of a flat affect. She doesn't show much emotion, and people can only guess what's going on inside of her. The other part about this is that at other times, she becomes very emotional and almost angry.

Just trying to figure out what it is about her that has engendered so much dislike. Well, there was a big, big development in the courtroom. Charlie Langston, take a listen to Our Cut 56. This is the judge. Listen to what happened. Let me just read into the record the question. Listen to what happened. statement is false pertain to the headline i spoke up against sexual violence and faced our culture's wrath or does it pertain to the content of the statement everything written in the op-ed so i think the confusion came in this particular one because the statement in question is the title of the op-ed so i think they're just confused as whether it's the whole op-ed or just

the title is the statement and it's clear that the title is the statement. So I was going to answer to say the title is the statement in question for number three. Does that seem appropriate to everybody? So this is how it goes down. When the jury has a question, they usually get the foreperson to write the question out or somebody writes it out. They give it to the bailiff. The bailiff then passes it on typically to the clerk. The clerk then gives it to the judge. The judge calls all the lawyers. Oh, Daryl Cohen, didn't you hate getting jury questions? I mean, they're kind of like reading a crystal ball. You can kind of get an idea of where the jury is going. But oh, Daryl, did I ever tell you i listened at the air vent one time to the jury one time and all my years prosecuting because if you'll remember judge alverson's courtroom

that one of the biggest court luther alson wasn't he an awesome judge uh anyway i was fortunate enough to be assigned to his courtroom for several years and handled all the state's business for him. He also, and you'll vouch for this, was the oldest judge in the courthouse. But that boomerang, in his mind, he had to prove himself to the other judges. And therefore, he wanted to try more cases than any other judge in the courthouse, which means the prosecutor assigned to that courtroom has to be ready for trial every other week to try all the cases Judge Iverson wanted to try. So I found out, Daryl, through happenstance, we were waiting on a verdict, and I was just, I didn't want to leave the courtroom. I was just wandering around, and I went and sat down in the jury box on the back row. And right above me, Daryl, was a vent. And on the other side of that wall was the jury deliberation room. And they were in there and they were fighting like

H-E-double-L on what I thought was a clear cut case. I was so, I'm like, how could they be that torn up? It's so clear. What happened? I was so upset. I felt like I wanted to throw up, Daryl. Well, long story short, about 30 minutes later, the bailiff sauntered out of the jury deliberation room. And I looked. I'm like, what's happening in there? He went, oh, they were just getting their drink and snack order. I never, ever sat up in

that jury box during jury deliberations. Again, those 30 minutes cured me. And that's what my point is in a roundabout way. That's what a question is like. You go, oh, my stars. Does this mean they're leaning for the defense or the prosecution? In this case, plaintiff or defendant? They had one question. They sent it out and there have been endless articles about this one question, Daryl. The question is, hey, Charlie, you deliver the question. You can do it better than I can.

Go ahead, Charlie Langston. Well, the question effectively is whether or not they should be considering the entire op-ed as being defamatory, because the online version of Amber Heard's op-ed had a headline on it that two specific passages from the op-ed and the headline. That's all they are supposed to be looking at. That's what they're supposed to be determining as to whether or not Johnny Depp was defamed. But because this statement was included in the op-ed, they were confused as to whether they should be looking at the thing in its entirety rather than focusing on two passages and a headline. Charlie, I wrote down the three passages. Three passages. They've gotten a questionnaire, the jurors, of 42 questions. And they deal with three passages in the op-ed Amber Heard wrote for the Washington Post.

The first passage is just the headline, which states, I spoke up against sexual violence and face our culture's wrath. This has to change. Was that a lie? Did it defame Johnny Depp? Second one. Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture's wrath for women who speak out.

That was the second statement that they are to consider. Third statement, I had the vantage point of seeing in real time how institutions protect men accused of abuse. That's the third statement. Each one asserting that she is a domestic violence or sex abuse victim. Okay. Are they false? Yeah. And did it defame Depp?

And did he lose money or roles? So the first question, I see what you're saying, Charlie Langston. The jury saw the title and it says, is this defamatory? And it lists the title. So the jury thought, does she mean the title? Just those two sentences? Or does she mean the title, just those two sentences, or does she mean the article that goes with that title? So the judge advised them, Charlie Langston, what?

The judge advised them that no, it is specifically the headline that they are supposed to be looking at, and then those two other, as you pointed out, sentences within the article. Exactly. So, Daryl Cohen, that juries were predictably unpredictable. They would come up with a question that had nothing to do with the trial, had nothing to do with who testified and how they testified, nothing to do with the evidence. And they'd come up with this question and scratch your head and say, are you really kidding me? Are you serious? Where is this coming from? But ultimately, they all seem to get together and figure it out, whichever way they decide to figure it.

You're exactly correct. You know, somehow, from all these sorts of walks of life, they get it right most of the time. I'll never forget a couple of years ago, I went to the dentist, and he was right in the middle of doing something to one of my teeth and goes, you know, I was on one of your juries. I'm like, I couldn't say anything. But then I started thinking about him and I actually remembered which case he was on. It was a bank robbery case where I had a dyslexic bank robber. The note said, don't touch the owl ram. This is a Robie. that's a whole nother can of worms joe scott morgan what do you think about somebody come two people actually have asked

me this but yesterday the most recent was in target and i got asked do you think amber heard faked her bruises that ain't good good for her. No, it's not. And one of the things that I've been kind of contemplating. And it was a woman. Yeah. A mom, because she had her children with her. What kind of evidence

do you have of this? And when I say have of this, this is a continuing narrative. You know, you go all the way back many years ago, you know, in this whole timeline where she's talking about. Oh man, I love it

when you start the sentence with that. When you say you go back many years ago. OK, get comfortable. Start making your s'mores over there because this is a campfire story, Jackie. All right. Let me get my other hot tea. Oh, and I realize I'm using my pirate cup. That has nothing to do with Johnny Depp.

This is one of my favorite cups because the twins and I went to the pirate museum. OK, and they got me this. Nothing to do with Depp. This is one of my favorite cups because the twins and I went to the Pirate Museum. Okay. And they got me this. Nothing to do with Depp. Okay. Although it's Captain Jack Sparrow. No, he's not on here. Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead. I'm comfy. Let me get my eye patch in place. Yeah. I was thinking, you know, going back those years where she claimed that he had taken this cell phone and threw it. And the verbiage of this thing, you know, kind of the way it was phrased was interesting to me. It's like a very high velocity or something like this. And it struck her face.

And you can kind of see this linear design, this impact point of impact that's left behind on the right. I think it was the right aspect of her face. Are you trying to say her right cheek of her face? Well, not really her right cheek, but it goes up into the forehead area as well. And it almost looked when I saw that, when I looked at it through, you know, kind of my forensic eyes, it looked a bit contrived to me, that image alone. And, you know, I think that there's a number of these injuries that kind of... Why did that injury look contri know i think that there's a number of these injuries that kind of that injury look contrived because if it's a linear injury as if the side of a cell phone

had struck her i would think that that's too sophisticated to to fake i mean if you're going to put on a bruise why would you do it in a linear style yeah on the well precisely for that so it would match the pattern that is supposedly left behind by the cell phone the cell phone would have to strike like perfectly yeah well it would have to strike perfectly to leave that behind i see what you're saying there was also other injury within the orbit of the eye nancy that didn't you think that that's blocking it you know that it didn't get deep in there. Instead, they've got this whole area that's essentially involved. And there's other evidence that this is absent, that there's associated hemorrhage where you would expect it to be that's absent.

One other thing to this point relative to just the cell phone incident alone, we're not even talking about severed fingers and all this other stuff. You know, when LAPD showed up there, you know what they said? They said, we didn't see any evidence of injury on this person, on Amber Heard when she, you know, when they were called to the scene. But suddenly this kind of appears. And as you know, and as I know, when someone is struck, when someone is struck, that swelling, that redness, that inflammation begins to show up within about 30 minutes. You can appreciate it.

And we can all imagine what the response time on this thing was. It probably took a good 30 to 45 minutes. They're standing there. They're talking to her. They're interviewing her. And it's not presenting. So that and then it's afterwards that these photos appear. It's just it's interesting to me as an investigator. Now, is that the occasion, Joe Scott Morgan, where she filed a TRO and had TMZ coincidentally show up?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And the photo I was looking at was actually from TMZ. Oh, gosh. Yes, that would be the one. Guys, take a listen to the debt lawyer of Esquiz as she addresses what Joe Scott Morgan has just described. Exactly six years ago today, on May 27, 2016, Ms. Hurd walked into court and filed a false report of domestic abuse against her husband of 15 months, Johnny Depp.

The scene was a setup. She tipped off the paparazzi so they would be waiting. They knew exactly where she would pause, which side of her face to photograph, and the photos captured what she wanted them to see, the image of a battered woman. What the paparazzi did not know is that the dark mark on her face mysteriously appeared six days after last seeing Mr. Depp. It was a lie. She knew it.

Mr. Depp knew it. And the multiple witnesses you heard from who saw her that week of May 21st, 2016, also knew it. But the world only saw what she wanted them to see. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Charlie Langston joining me from DailyMail.com. She is the editor of Female, F-E-M-A-I-L. Charlie, again, thank you for being with us. Has anyone commented on jury reaction during the trial?

You know, I think the focus has been so much on Johnny's behavior and Amber's behavior that we haven't actually focused that much on jury reaction. However, this whole entire thing has almost been like an episode of a TV show where you've had people kind of sitting behind Johnny and Amber, actually like opening their mouths in shock, looking absolutely stunned at the different things that people have said. You've had Johnny Depp and his lawyers fist bumping when Amber Heard mentions Kate Moss during her testimony. This has by no means been a court case that has been as serious and as kind of somber as you might expect from a case discussing potential domestic abuse. And while I think that the jury has tried very much to stay as straight faced as they possibly can, we've definitely seen a couple of flinches here and there.

We've seen a couple of raised eyebrows here and there. And I think that that just speaks to the absolute sensationalism that has come out of this trial as a whole. You know, again, the lying in part on anything can authorize a jury to throw out that witness's entire testimony. And that is something I loved hammering home to jurors. If I caught the defense witness, any defense witness in a lie, I would argue to the jury that their entire testimony could be discarded. And here is a simple one. Daryl Cohen, a veteran trial lawyer. I don't know if you remember this witness. His name was Morgan Tremaine, and he worked for TMZ with our friend Harvey Levin. He was a field assignment manager with TMZ and his job was to send out photographers to show up like when a celeb gets off a plane at LAX and catch them without their makeup

and chase along behind them and ask them very personal questions. But according to him, it was Amber Heard, her team, that tipped off TMZ to be at the courthouse at a certain time and at a certain moment, Heard would turn a certain direction so TMZ could get the photo of her bruise, her alleged bruise. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what happened. And TMZ got the scoop and announced at first that Heard was getting a TRO. Heard denied the tip-off. Now, that's a small thing in the big scheme of this trial. We're talking about a $150 million cross-countersuit defamation case. But if she tipped them off, as Tremaine said she did, that little thing is a lie. Daryl?

Little things mean a lot. It sounds as if no big deal. I'm just going to call TMZ. But it means everything because when you get caught in one lie, then jurors and Daryl Cohen and other people say, well, what else did you lie about? Did you tell the truth ever? Is this just one streak, one part of your streak of lies? So it makes a difference. It makes a difference as to how a jury perceives your testimony, not necessarily how they perceive

the testimony of witnesses other than you, but they look at you in a different way because Nancy, we all know you have one chance to make a first impression. And that's what happens in a courtroom. And that very first impression is what jurors go on and listen until their minds are changed. So that one little, did she really tip him off? Did she lie? Makes a major difference. Or could.

Now, in the case, he didn't come out and say Amber Heard herself made the call. But Tremaine made it very clear that it was just moments before she was going to the courthouse. And who else would have known beside her and whoever was driving her. To Charlie Langston, there was the other issue that the jury saw over and over and over that Amber Heard was videoing many Johnny Depp's bad moments when he would be drunk or passed out and ice cream melting down his lap because he was out of it or lines of cocaine on a desk that looked like they were pre-arranged. You know, I never think when I'm having an argument with my husband to video him. That would be the most, the oddest thing. I mean, I agree with you. I think if it was me, and I'm very fortunate in that I've never been in a situation where I have been the victim of somebody, you know, violently behaving towards me.

But when I've been in arguments, when I've been in situations where I feel in danger, it is not my first thought to whip out my cell phone and to start filming it. Nor is it my first thought to set up my cell phone to start filming. And I think the key thing to remember here is that Johnny Depp's alcohol and substance abuse is not what's on trial here. He's admitted to the fact that he has had problems with both alcohol and drugs. He's admitted that he has fallen off the wagon a number of times over the years. And that, yes, he behaved in an inappropriate way because of that. But there is a difference between smashing cabinets in your kitchen and punching someone in the face. And raping somebody with a wine bottle.

Exactly. Those are two very different things. And I think that while Amber Heard's videos might have helped to create an image of Johnny Depp as a violent person, actually, none of the video footage shows any form of physical abuse towards her. Yes, they're scary. Yes, they make him look like he has a very violent temper, but he's hitting a cabinet. He's not hitting her. And I think that all of this video evidence that she was showing was intended to kind of try and paint him in the specific light that she wanted him to be shown. Which leads me to the question,

Dr. Charles Heller, Dr. Heller, a clinical forensic psychologist joining us from New York, that if she caught all of these, many of these episodes on video of him beating a cabinet or slamming a door, don't you believe she would have tried to catch him on video as he beat her? It sounds very contrived, actually, that all of these things are on video. It sounds like she's somehow either wanted to set him up or wanted to document for future reference for a court trial. You just don't. You're right. She just people usually think about recording their spouses in an argument. It's very unusual.

Guys, let's take a listen to what Amber Heard's lawyer has to say back to all of this. Take a listen to our Cut 50. In Mr. Depp's world, you don't leave Mr. Depp. And if you do, he will start a campaign of global humiliation against you. A smear campaign that lasts to this very day. He will do everything he can to destroy your life, to destroy your career. That is what they're saying, ladies and gentlemen. And that's what they're trying to get you, the jury, to be an accomplice to. But it's not surprising because Mr. Depp cannot and will not take responsibility for his own actions. It's always someone else's fault.

Does the First Amendment give Ms. Hurd the right to write the words that she wrote in this article on December 18, 2018? That's the question. And you cannot simultaneously protect and uphold the First Amendment and find in favor of Johnny Depp on his claim. You simply cannot. Hmm. Okay. You're hearing Amber Heard's lawyer, Benjamin Rottenborn. Take a listen to one more thing he said in Our Cut 51.

If Amber was abused by Mr. Depp even one time, then she wins. One time. And we're not just talking about physical abuse. We're talking about emotional abuse, psychological abuse, financial abuse, sexual abuse. That's what we're talking about. Let's look at the evidence. You heard Mr. Depp define abuse from his own mouth. He admitted all of that when he talked about his childhood. They're trying to trick you into thinking that Amber has to be perfect in order to win, even while they're

ignoring Mr. Depp's many flaws. But don't fall for that trick. Amber's not perfect. None of us are. She's never pretended to be, and that's not what you're being asked to decide. One time, ladies and gentlemen, one time. If you abused her one time, Amber wins. Okay, to you, Daryl Cohen, let's analyze what we just heard. I'm hearing a lot of messages meshed together. One of those messages is that no witness is perfect. That I agree with. I told you about one witness that came in to the courtroom. It was a huge arson case. The whole apartment complex was burned down.

And the witness, my best eyewitness, came in. In the middle of August, 100 degrees outside. She was wearing a fake fur hat, and you could smell booze on this lady when she walked in the door. I'm sure the jury could too, but she wasn't perfect, but she saw what she saw. However, they're saying Amber Heard doesn't have to be perfect. I agree. A victim, of course, is never going to be perfect. Victims are not usually nuns and saints and virgins, okay? No, they're not. But lying about any facet of the trial is a whole nother thing. Difference between being imperfect and lying. Nancy, being imperfect is perfect. None of us are perfect, as you pointed out. If she lied and if the jury believes she lied and if she didn't lie and the jury still believes she lied,

if they're looking for something to say, we don't like you, Amber. And as a result of that, we're going to find in favor of Johnny Depp. They can do that. They can pretty much do anything they want and couch it in terms of the law. So how it was presented in that courtroom for the last five million weeks is how the jury is going to issue a verdict. They'll come to a verdict. I wouldn't be surprised, again, to mention $1 for each, I just don't know how they feel since everybody was focused on Johnny and Amber and the witnesses and not looking at the body language of the jurors. And Charlie mentioned a raised eyebrow here and there.

I think in the back of their minds, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody is listening, if there's not a lot of laughter continually as they ultimately reach a verdict, regardless of how it may come out. So what did Depp's lawyers have to say back? What did they shoot back at Hurd's lawyers in the courtroom? Take a listen to Camille Vasquez in our cut 49. This is Depp's lawyer. When you catch Miss Hurd in a lie, she tries to cover it up with more lies. So let's talk about the giant lie at the heart of this case. Ms. Hurd's claim that Mr. Depp is an abusive monster and that she is a public figure representing domestic abuse.

She spun a story of shocking, overwhelming, brutal abuse. She came into this courtroom prepared to give the performance of her life, and she gave it. Ms. Hurd's acting coach, Christina Sexton, testified that Ms. Hurd has difficulty crying when she is acting. You saw it. Ms. Hurard sobbing without tears while spinning elaborate, exaggerated, fantastical accounts of abuse and everything going on in her mind almost a decade prior while enduring that abuse. It was a performance. Jessica Morgan, professor of forensics, what do you make of that? Yeah, it goes to this, you know, kind of, you know, what I'd mentioned earlier relative to the injuries. Is this a piece of performance art that we're seeing here that's displayed?

You know, going back to Dr. Heller's comment earlier relative to her affect in court, the term that came to mind for me was icy. You know, she just kind of sits there frozen. And even when she was on the stand and I'm trying to listen to her when she's talking about these things, it seemed contrived. Those kind of crocodile tears, you know, that she's crying there on the stand. I didn't see anything that really endears me. And I really wonder what the investigators thought about this. You know, going back to that earlier incident, were they standing there, you know, thinking, you know, there's something that doesn't marry up here. Why is she telling us the story and these injuries don't match up? And this sort of thing. And I think that this goes to this kind of long connective thread that

runs through this entire event. And you're right. Nobody's skirts are pure white here, Nancy. As we know, there's problems that are abounding here, I think, in this relationship. But, you know throwing around these ideas that he's an abuser to this level. You and I have seen abuse. And it makes me cringe when I see people that put these images up that may be questionable. When I think about aging bruises on kids that have come through the morgue and trying to determine how long they've been being abused, I look at this and it just makes me sick to my back teeth. You mean it makes you sick to think that she may have doctored the bruises when real victims are suffering such heinous, heinous abuse? Yeah.

And I've borne witness to, to those, those people that, you know, that have ended, you know, their lives have come to an end at the hands of true monsters that are out there. And you know better than anybody, you know anybody that our world is populated with these people. Right now, I'm not convinced. Of course, my opinion doesn't mean anything, but I'm not convinced of this. I don't see this as this monstrous event. Charlie Langston, speaking of of lies where did it settle where did the dust settle on claims that amber heard testified in great britain she had forked over millions of dollars to charity in fact her whole divorce settlement from dip and then it came out that that's not true. Right, and this is unfortunately yet another lie

that she's been seen as telling in court. She said that she was going to give her entire $7 million divorce settlement to the ACLU and to the Children's Hospital of Los Angeles. That's $3.5 million to each charity. Someone from the ACLU testified on behalf of Depp to say that, actually, no, that was not the case. She has thus far only given $1.3 million of that money. Now, that's still a very large donation. However, using that claim, saying that you are a charitable

philanthropist who doesn't care about money and who's giving all of their money away to charities and causes that mean something to them small, but potentially small things that have just cast more and more doubt over everything that she said. And if we're talking about one small lie being able to overthrow her entire testimony, well, we've had more than one. We've had the ACLU lie. We've had the TMZ lie. And then on top of that, we have the Kate Moss testimony. Three minutes of testimony, once again, uncovered yet another lie that Amber Heard and her team have given during this court case. Speaking of other girlfriends, I was very taken with Ellen Barkin's testimony, painting Depp as jealous and angry and controlling. But I don't recall Ellen Barkin ever saying that Depp beat her. No, absolutely not.

And, you know, once again, I think it all comes down to the questions that the jury needs to answer. And whether or not Depp was controlling, angry, had an aggressive temper, those are not questions that the jury is being asked. The fact of the matter is what they need to determine is whether Amber is telling the truth about being physically abused by Depp and whether she was telling the truth when she wrote that Washington Post op-ed. If they determine that she did not suffer physical abuse at the

hands of Depp and that she claimed she did in this op-ed and thereby defamed him, then he wins. I think the fact of the matter is this court case has brought up more than one very troubling incident that occurred during their relationship from both parties, but there has not really been any clear-cut evidence that Amber Heard was physically abused by Johnny Depp. Oh, I disagree. Go ahead. I completely disagree. I think whether or not you believe the evidence, that's another story. But as we all know, there's physical evidence, there's verbal evidence, and Amber testified how she was abused. Now, whether the jury chooses to believe

it or disbelieve it or say she's a liar, that's another story. But clearly, the evidence was there saying that she was abused, period. Well, I think there was evidence, but I think that much of it suffered when there were attempts to disprove it. As a matter of fact, take a listen to our cut 55, Steve Patterson. Depp's team saying that Heard is this vindictive, mentally unstable, essentially a liar that lied about being abused, that wrote that op-ed as a malicious, defamatory statement meant to destroy Johnny Depp. She did it by, again, taking people on a ride throughout their relationship, saying that these key points of abuse where she was injured, she wasn't actually injured. And they do that by bringing up what they

would consider photo evidence of her at a banquet, her at a red carpet, her on a late night talk show where she's alleging that there were instances of abuse, then showing those pictures or video clips and saying there's no blemish here, there's no mark here, there's no busted lip where you said there were all these injuries, and then even pointing to photos that she did submit and saying that these are doctored, these aren't real,

there isn't really a mark there, casting that sort of doubt on her okay the jury is at it crime stories with nancy grace Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Well, the verdict is in, and it was not a very long verdict watch, was it? Many people thought the jury may be out till tomorrow, may come back late, late this afternoon. Not true. This jury had their minds made up. I have seen jurors deliberate for days and days and days. So you think they're never going to come back with a verdict. And when they do, it will probably be a hung jury. No, this jury turned it around in a matter of hours.

Long story short, Johnny Depp wins the blockbuster case against his ex-wife, Amber Heard. You know her from Aquaman. The jury ruling that she defamed him with claims of physical and sex violence. Now, hold on. It ain't over yet. The jury also found for her in a much lesser way. The jury said that Johnny Depp's lawyer made a defamatory statement about Amber Heard and awarded her a couple of million dollars as well.

So long story short regarding the money, Johnny Depp is celebrating right now in the UK, claiming, quote, the jury gave me my life back. He is going to walk away, even though he was awarded $15 million with about $8.35 million. Why is that? He was awarded $15 million in all. Part of that in punitive, part of that in compensatory damages. That's to compensate him for damage to his career. But there is a cap in that jurisdiction. In Virginia, the maximum on punitive damages of this nature is $350,000.

So he's only going to get the $ 8.35 after paying Amber Heard. So for those of you like me that did not major in math, that's 15 million, cutting one verdict down to 350,000, and he's got to pay Amber Heard 2 million. So you know what? That's not exactly pocket change. That's nearly $10 million. But that's against the backdrop of him suing for millions and millions and her suing for millions and millions back.

I wonder if the jury thought these were just two rich people fighting over money. I tend to think so because one side was asking for 100 million, the other side was asking for 50 million. The full award was less than 10 million. Amber Heard was in the courtroom today and she looked very, very serious as she should have. Depp, as I said, was in the UK. He says fulfilling a work commitment. He was supposed to be on tour with a band. What does it mean? Many people have reduced this down to a popularity contest.

I do not believe it was a popularity contest. I believe that the jury disliked Amber Heard. I believe they, like me, thought it was really odd that she kept filming arguments and filming Depp in very unflattering conditions, almost as if she was setting him up. Now, do I believe he ever hit her? Probably. Do I believe she set him up? Definitely. Do I believe she lied?

Definitely. You put all that in the pot together, including the fact that she admitted on tape that she hit Depp as well. And basically, you got two wet cats in a barrel. Which one is going to crawl out of the barrel first? Well, today, Depp crawled out first to the tune of 8.35 million. Has this set women back, real victims of domestic violence? That remains to be seen. I tend to think it has. Now, when a woman claims domestic violence, she's going to be accused of, quote, pulling an amber.

It's going to happen. Do I like it? No. Is it true? Yes. I want to talk about domestic violence one moment. In addition to prosecuting and representing victims for years and years and years, I also worked at the Battered Women's Center as a volunteer for nine years, manning the hotline. So many women are beaten brutally. So many women are beaten brutally so many women have nowhere to go so many women stay in vicious abusive homes to protect their children or because they don't know what else to go or they don't have the resources to get away this case will have an impact on those women. And that is really what troubles me most about this case. I was just saying this morning on air, a woman walked up to me at Target and said, do you believe Amber Heard faked her bruises?

To me, that was the death knell for Amber Heard. For the general public to believe she faked the whole thing, that's bad. That's really bad. And it is a bad omen for domestic violence victims in the future, legitimate, real victims. So I'm sure Johnny Depp is raising another glass of wine right now, and Amber Heard is crying somewhere over a foiled attempt to get back at Depp. Remember, this was all about an op-ed, a piece she wrote for the Washington Post, which, although she didn't name him by name, called out Johnny Depp as being an abuser. That's how the whole thing started. Is it over yet? Probably not. There could be appeals to this verdict. There could be repercussions. we can't even imagine right now.

When you go to court, you got to get ready to roll the dice. You never know what a jury is going to do. You better have a lawyer like the rifleman. Remember how he would walk down the center of town with his hands slightly out to the side, ready to draw. You got to have a lawyer that's ready to object and be strong immediately, in the moment, and a lawyer that the jury can relate to. And the parties. You really think this jury liked Amber Heard? I don't.

But more critical is, did they believe her? I've put up a lot of witnesses I didn't like. But what mattered is, were they telling the truth? You don't have to be likable. You got to be believable. That was the problem. She just wasn't believable. And there you have it. Case closed. Well, for now anyway, Nancy Grace signing off. Bye friend.