Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - THE MORNING AFTER: What Went Wrong for Amber Heard in Johnny Depp Trial?

Episode Date: June 2, 2022

Actor Johnny Depp wins his defamation suit against his ex-wife, actress Amber Heard, but why?  The jury found unanimously that Heard's published op-ed describing her as a  "public figure representing domestic abuse” tarnished Depp's reputation and damaged his career.   Amber Heard did win the second of her three counts in a $100 million counterclaim. The jury found that Depp's attorney Adam Waldman defamed Heard when he told the Daily Mail that Heard had set up Depp in a hoax when police answered a domestic call at their home in May 2016.   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" Julie Owens - Victim Advocate, Domestic Violence Expert Consultant, Julie Owens Consulting, www.domesticviolenceexpert.org  Caitlyn Becker - Senior Reporter, DailyMail.com (Los Angeles, CA), Instagram/Twitter: @CaitlynBecker  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. The verdict watch is over. A jury finds in a split verdict mostly for Captain Jack Sparrow, aka Johnny Depp, while they did support one of Amber Heard's claims. What happened? What went sideways during this trial for Amber Heard? And now, what's next? I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. Thank you for being with us here at Fox Nation and Sirius XM 111. First of all, take a listen to what happened from the horse's mouth. Listen. Mr. Foreperson, is this the verdict of the jury? Yes. All right. Is? Thank you sir. In civil case number CL 2019-2911,

Mr. Depp's claim against Ms. Heard. One, as to the statement appearing in the online op-ed entitled Amber Heard, I spoke up against sexual violence and faced our culture's wrath that has to change in the Washington Post online edition Quote I spoke up against sexual violence and faced our culture's wrath that has to change end quote Do you find that mr. Depp has proven all the elements of defamation? answer yes has proven all the elements of defamation? Answer, yes. Has Mr. Depp proven by a greater weight of the evidence that, question, the statement was made or published by Ms. Hurd? Answer, yes. The statement was about Mr. Depp? Answer, yes. Question, the statement was false? Answer, yes. Question, the statement was false.

Answer, yes. This jury had 42 specific questions they had to answer. Either side was alleging basically three main charges against the other. What was lost in the sauce was that this was two lawsuits merged together. Depp suing Amber Heard for $50 million, claiming she defamed him. And Amber Heard countersuing for $100 million back at Depp, claiming that he, through his lawyer, Waldman, had defamed her. Well, it turned into a real brawl. With me in All-Star Panel, to make sense of what we know right now. You just heard a portion of what went down in the jury room as the verdicts were announced.

Straight out to Caitlin Becker joining us, senior reporter, DailyMail.com. Caitlin, give me a recap of the jury's decision, a jury of seven. Well, Nancy, they overwhelmingly cited for Johnny Depp. They found that Amber Heard's 2018 op-ed in the Washington Post defamed him, that she knowingly wrote false information, that she did so with malice. I was pretty shocked. And at the end of all of that, they awarded a massive amount of damages, $10 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages. Now, that did change because there is that $350,000 cap on punitive damages in the state of Virginia. So that number was slashed quite a bit. And then they turned to Amber Heard's counterclaim against Johnny Depp, finding in

her favor on one of those counts, finding that he defamed her through statements made by his lawyer and then ordering him to pay her $2 million. So when all is said and done, when all of that math is done, Johnny Depp essentially walked away with about $8.35 million in damages. Okay. So the math is the jury awarded him 10 million in compensation for alleged damage to his career, five million dollars in punishment, punitive damages against Amber Heard and for debt. Then that was reduced, that 15 mil was reduced because in Virginia, for punitive damages, you can only get $350,000 max. So the 5 mil was reduced to $350,000. That leaves us at $10,350,000.

But then the jury in the number two claim by Heard awarded Heard $2 million. So you now take the $10,350,000 minus the $2 million he owes Heard and you end up with $8,350,000. Question to you, Caitlin Becker, why were you shocked? I think this whole case almost felt like the legal embodiment of her original op-ed. She spoke out against sexual violence and faced the culture's wrath. I watched every day of this trial. I watched the testimony. And from my perspective, I feel like she maybe proved that Johnny Depp was abusive. I also felt like Johnny Depp proved that she was abusive. They both seemed like abusive

partners. So I was really surprised at the end of it that Johnny Depp's celebrity had kind of won out through all of this. I think the jury turned on Amber Heard when she got up on that stand and felt like she was acting. And they were endeared to Johnny Depp when he got up on that stand and felt like they were front and center with a celebrity who's been in their homes for decades. To you, Daryl Cohen, former felony prosecutor, now veteran civil attorney joining us out of the Atlanta jurisdiction. Daryl Cohen, what do you make of it? Well, I think that Sarah Maiden just was not likable. And Nancy, we've talked about this forever. You have to have likability on the stand.

And the public opinion, the court of public opinion, didn't like Amber, didn't like the way she was. I thought finally she changed her persona after she changed her PR people, but it wasn't enough. And I don't think it was about what she wrote and what Johnny Depp's lawyer did. I think it was more about the way that the public just didn't like her. So maybe Aquaman was her last stand. I don't know, but I do think it'll be fine. You know what? You're not here to say, I don't know. You're the civil lawyer expert. And I can tell you, it's not a popularity contest. Although when a jury doesn't like a witness, they're much less prone to believe the witness. I believe the jury smelled her lies

on other issues, like the charity donation that she never made, that she swore under oath she had made. Like the claiming that no one in her camp tipped off TMZ to show up at the courthouse when she got a TRO, temporary restraining order, and was supposed to turn a certain way so they could get a photograph of the bruise on her face. That didn't just happen. That was orchestrated. They claim that Depp pushed Kate Moss down the stairs and then Kate Moss appears as a rebuttal witness, which is very powerful when you get the last word. Depp brought her on as a rebuttal witness to say that didn't happen. I mean, there's a huge list of lies that she wasn't setting him up. Then why all the videos and the photographs?

That it wasn't about the money at all. When testimony came in that she demanded use of his three penthouse apartments and a Range Rover to boot. Now, what does this have to do with him hitting her? Nothing. It doesn't mean he didn't hit her. But what it did do, Daryl Cohen, is hurt her credibility as opposed to debt that gets up there and goes, yeah, I do drugs. I'm an alcoholic. I slam cabinets and I kick things and I throw things, but I don't hit anybody. He owned up to it all except the beating. So that is why I believe the jury rejected her claims. Not because they didn't think Depp ever hit her, but because they thought she was lying about other things.

Jury nullification. And that's partially what they did. They liked her. Not at all. They liked him a lot. And they did take, in my view, their thoughts about her lying. They did take the fact. And the America's really cool.

If you do something wrong as a celebrity and you admit it, after a while, it's okay. But if you don't admit it, it's never okay. And so our fair maiden is just not a fair maiden. She lost a lot more money than she won

if either of them ever collect. The lawyers will. And the lawyers have. Yeah of them ever collect. The lawyers will. The lawyers have. Yeah, you're right. The lawyers will collect. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Guys, what happened in that courtroom? Many people thought it would be shoo-in for Amber Heard, but it all ended up bass-ackwards.

Take a listen to Hour Cut 65, our friend Ron Allen at NBC. Cheering, yelling and screaming support for Johnny Depp, as has been the case for the last number of weeks he had been winning this in the court of public opinion it seemed obvious online social media and as the verdicts were read cheering outside the courthouse from a small group of people here today we don't have the huge crowd that we've had for the past number of weeks because Depp is not here he is in England he's playing a number of concerts and Depp is not here. He is in England. He's playing a number of concerts. And he has just released a statement, which I can read to you in part. It says, six years ago, my life, the life of my children, the lives of those closest to me, and also the lives of the people who for many, many years have supported and believed in me were forever changed, all the blink of an eye. Then he goes on to say, and and six years later the jury gave me my life back

i am truly humbled that is what depp has always said this is about it wasn't about money it wasn't about vengeance it was about trying to get his good name and reputation back because he vehemently denied the allegations that he was an abuser that he that he had committed violent acts against Amber Heard. Okay, while he is happy, his camp is happy, and he says, the jury has given me my life back, just the opposite on the other side of the courtroom. Take a listen to Hour Cut 66, our friends at NBC. This is coming from Amber Heard. The disappointment I feel today is beyond words. I'm heartbroken that the mountain of evidence still was not enough to stand up to the disproportionate

power, influence, and sway of my ex-husband. Heard goes on to write, I'm even more disappointed with what this verdict means for other women. It's 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. It sets back the idea that violence against women is to be taken seriously. She goes on to say, finally, I'm sad I lost this case, but I'm even sadder still that I seem to have lost a right I thought I had as an American

to speak freely and openly. Now, this statement came to us just minutes after the verdict came out, so it seemed to be a prepared statement that Amber Heard sent out to the press. To Dr. Charles Heller, joining us, clinical forensic psychologist specializing in domestic violence. He's the chief forensic consultant, Rockland County. Dr. Heller, thank you for being with us. There you see Amber Heard painting the court battle very much in a David and Goliath style, where she would be David in her mind and Depp Goliath. Now, as far as their bankability, their box office numbers, I agree with her.

But I do not believe that it was necessarily Johnny Depp's popularity that caused this verdict. I think the jury caught her in lies and they just lost all respect or all likability for her. For instance, and I'm not saying you never hit her, I'm saying she lied about other matters and the jury did not believe her, which they are allowed to do under the law. I think they hit each other. But for instance, all this business about donating the $7 million divorce settlement to charity, instead of insisting until she was blue in the face that she did donate it. And then the ACLU comes up and says, yeah, well, no, you didn't. Why don't you just say, you know what? I had the best intentions. I donated two or three million dollars, but then I ran out of money. Then I caught this lawsuit. I had the best intentions, but no, I never finished giving the money.

I gave all I thought that I could. So there. Nancy. What? The world has gotten a great lesson in how to assess false allegations. This is what I do all the time. And there's a certain procedure a forensic psychologist has to follow in terms of assessment of an allegation. You have to look at patterns. You have to look at any past dishonesty about anything, especially the situation. Oh, dear Lord in heaven, man. Everybody's lied. That doesn't mean you can't be a victim.

They caught her in many lies. And he was actually honest about a lot of his deficits and acting out in terms of alcohol and drugs. That's a really nice way to put it. His deficits. Man, he was a raging guy when he would be high on drugs or alcohol. But again, you're talking about lies, about other things that affect credibility. I think that's what you're saying, Dr. Heller. That's what I'm saying. You know, it's not so much public opinion that changed this verdict toward Depp. It's not that the jury liked him

more than her. It's simply the facts. The evidence didn't match up with what she was saying. Joining you right now is a special guest, Julie Owens, victim advocate, domestic violence expert consultant, and you can find her at domesticviolenceexpert.org. Julie Owens, weigh in. Good morning, Nancy. It's a devastating decision and will reverberate for years, I'm sure, with a chilling effect on other domestic violence victims. There is no doubt in my mind, after more than 30 years of working in similar situations that weren't as high profile. Johnny Depp is a textbook abuser, Nancy, and he has every single characteristic of a domestic violence offender,

whereas she does not. He's a great actor. He's playing the role of a lifetime. This is a man who said, we're married. Now I can punch her in the face and no one can do anything about it. This is a man who fantasized about killing her, who told her he's going to ruin her reputation. Who said she's begging for total humiliation. She's going to get it. I have no mercy, no fear. I'm happy she wants to fight this out. No victim says those things. You know, I'm thinking through everything you're saying. There's no question that we have to take witnesses and victims as we find them. You can't change a victim's personality. I will never forget Julie Owens. In one of the first cases I tried, not the first, but one of the first, I got a case that none of the and you know how it goes Darryl Cohen when you first go to the district attorney's office you're what they call

a mule okay and you are sent to all the courtrooms and you basically are handed the cases that they permanently assigned the the veteran trial lawyers, don't want to try. For instance, my first trial was a shoplifting from a Kmart where the guy didn't take anything. And you'll remember Harvey Moskowitz, our friend, great trial lawyer, gave me the case to try, and then immediately went out of town with Arla, his wife. I was thrilled to try a case, but then I realized the guy got a CD player. He cut it off the display, stuck it down his pants, put it in a rug, got all the way to the front door of the Kmart, and then left it in the rug. Well, the deputy dog security guys at Kmart threw him on the asphalt and yanked him back in and arrested him for shoplifting. He didn't have anything on him. He left it in the store. I had to try the case and

I got a conviction, Daryl, on attempted shoplifting. So in the next case I had, Daryl, I had a woman that was arm robbed with a knife. What I really didn't want the jury to find out was she was a stripper and she was coming out of a strip club at like 4 a.m. dressed as a cheerleader and a guy pulled a knife and took all her tips. Well, I thought they wouldn't like her if they found out she was a stripper. So I got her up there and I said, you know, how long have you lived in Atlanta? You know, where did you go to school? Where do you go to church?

Blah, blah, blah. I looked over at the jury and they were like, there's no way to change a witness or a victim, Daryl Cohen. You got to go with what you got. And what Julie is alluding to is no victim, no witness is perfect. So what? You're never going to find for them because they're not perfect? Darrell, are you there? I am here, and I'm listening to everything. And I think very honestly, the problem was, again, you talk about her lies.

I agree. I talk about her likability. Hopefully other people agree. Unfortunately, her likability didn't exist. She had a lack of it. And when she had her hair a certain way in the courtroom, when she had her makeup a certain way in the courtroom in the beginning, it wasn't working. And Nancy, you only have one chance to make a first. I hope you're not boiling this down to her hair and makeup because that is not what happened in the courtroom. That is not what happened.

This is what happened. What about Kate Moss? Listen. We were leaving the room and Johnny left the room before I did and there had been a rainstorm and as I left the room, I slid down the stairs and I hurt my back how did you and I apologize miss Moss please continue and I screamed because I was in because I didn't know what had happened to me and I was in pain. And he came running back to help me and carried me to my room and got me medical attention. Did Mr. Depp push you in any way down the stairs? No. During the course of your relationship, did he ever push you down any stairs?

No, he never pushed me, kicked me, or threw me down any stairs. Okay, right there to Joseph Scott Morgan, Professor of Forensics, Jacksonville State University, author of Blood Beneath My Feet on Amazon, and star of a new hit series on i I Heart Body Bags with Joseph Scott Morgan. Joe Scott, it's issues. I don't know what Daryl Cohen is drinking in his coffee, if that's exactly what's in that mug. But this is not about anybody's hair and makeup. This is about inconsistent statements on the stand. The Johnny Depp team could not bring in Kate Moss unless and until Amber Heard's side brought her up. At that moment, it's like a vampire.

Then once you're invited, you can bring in the evidence. And they did. And it was toward the end of the trial, it was one of the last things echoing in the jurors' ears, and they hear yet another claim made by Amber Heard was false. I think that had a great deal to do with her undoing lies about Kate Moss being beaten by Johnny Depp. That's not true. The charity, the poop on the bed.

I mean, it just goes on and on and on. That doesn't mean she was never struck, but it does mean she lied. Joe Scott, you're the expert. Weigh in. Yeah, yeah. And, you know, going back to I still can't get past this whole TMZ thing with the injury to the face, Nancy. You know, when you look at that, when you look at that image now that this verdict has come in and we kind of began to see this timeline, this seems manufactured now at this point.

Okay. Now, hold on. Julie Owens is not going to like anything that you're saying, but I have to agree with you. The timing was just too perfect. And again, I believe anybody in their right mind thinks that these two hit each other. But speaking of what you perceive to be a manufactured, I guess you're saying bruise or scenario regarding our friend Harvey Levin at TMZ, a wildly popular site online.

Listen to this. This is what came out in court. Would you normally send paparazzi to a courthouse? Only if we had been informed prior. It's not by any means a celebrity hotspot. We would only ever send people there if we had been tipped off that something was occurring and there was somebody present there. And what footage was TNC trying to capture at the LA courthouse on May 27th, 2016? We were trying to capture Amber leaving the courthouse and an alleged bruise on the right side of her face. What was your team of paparazzi supposed to do while they were at the Los Angeles courthouse on May 27, 2016? Their objective was to capture her leaving

the courthouse and then she was going to sort of stop and turn towards the camera to display the bruise on the right side of her face, theH bruise. Did your team of videographers get the shot of Amber Heard? We did. To Kaitlin Becker, joining us, senior reporter with DailyMail.com. Explain in a nutshell the whole TMZ drama. So essentially what happened here, Nancy, is they call this guy that used to work at TMZ to the stand to discuss why there were cameras from TMZ, paparazzi

cameras at the courthouse when Amber Heard showed up to file this TRO, how they knew they were going to be there and whether or not it was her team that tipped them off. You heard the back and forth on the stand. It didn't seem to go well. I don't think Ember's team got out of him what they wanted to get out of him. He was a bit persnickety. I, from experience, I worked there for a time in my life. I didn't work there at the time that this happened, but I do know that if the answer, the answers to the questions she was asking were not going to come from this guy, they were going to come from other people at that company. You heard him multiple times say, I was told by a news producer. I was told by a news producer. He went up on tmz.com, I was informed by a news producer. He wasn't the person with the information that she wanted. So she was never going to get what she wanted out of him. But my takeaway of

all of this as someone who's covered these types of things for more than a decade, who's worked as an entertainment journalist for a very long time, isn't this why as a celebrity, you have a team? The news is going to get out there anyway. I mean, a hundred times, I feel like we've heard them say, how did reporters know she was going to be there? There are reporters that work in the courthouse every single day. They work in the courthouse. So if Amber Heard shows up, they're going to know when she walks in the door. If a celebrity attorney shows up, they're going to call their news desk and say, the so-and-so celebrity attorney is in here. Send a camera down.

I don't know why they're here, but you're going to want to know. So it makes sense to me that Amber's team would have called ahead of time to try to get their side of the story out, would have leaked it. Maybe Amber didn't know. Maybe she wasn't aware of that and it was her team orchestrating this, but that happens all the time. Okay. Now, along that line, let's follow up on what Caitlin Becker from DailyMail.com is saying. Joe Scott Morgan, your claim is Amber Heard says she had nothing to do or her camp with tipping off TMZ that she was going to get a restraining order and that she had a bruise on her face. They say she was in on it and she was even prepared to turn a certain way and pause at the door of the entrance so the camera could get a shot of the bruise.

And that is exactly what happened, Joe Scott. Yeah, it is. And, you know, let's go back to when this event occurred and LAPD had shown up at the residence or the local police department showed up at the residence. And, you know, it's at that particular time that when the investigators took a look at her, they had noted that they didn't see any evidence of injury. And as we know, Nancy, from a forensics perspective, if you get popped in the face, okay, you're going to have immediate swelling. You'll have a redness that occurs. That's along the continuum here. You know, all the cases that we work relative to abuse, you know, that's one of the things that we do with kids and people that have been abused. We try to age the injuries. And with her, you know, that's one of the things that we do with kids and people that have been abused. We try to age the injuries.

And with her, you know, they didn't see it at that particular time. But yet when this photo is taken, and this is downrange in linear time, it's away from the event, you've got something that's presenting as red. And it's got a very distinctive margin to it where, you know, you're saying somebody struck you with a phone. Look, you can try to sell it to me all day long. I'm not going to believe it because the science doesn't back it up. It's nonsensical to me. And it seems like it's something that is a total contrivancy to me.

To Julie Owens, joining us, special guest, victim advocate with the Domestic Violence Expert Consulting Group. You can find her at domesticviolenceexpert.org. Julie, here's the problem. As you know, I prosecuted domestic violence for many, many years. Usually, well, always by the time I got them, they were an aggravated battery or a homicide. The fact, Julie, that someone actually walked up to me in Target and said, do you think Amber Heard faked her bruises? If it's at that point where somebody on the jury

thinks, well, did she fake her bruise that day? Because if she faked her bruise one time, her case is right down the crapper. There's really no way to say it any more nicely. Even if Depp had beaten her, if she is suspected of faking bruises or setting up photo hits like this with TMZ, it's over. Well, you're right. And I think that's why the perception of the jury and the public has been so skewed. I don't know if she faked a bruise or not. I do know, I am convinced without a doubt that he battered her and he abused her in every way, that he is textbook abuser. And victims are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Whatever they say is going to be used against them. And this case is what I call a classic case of DARVO. Deny, attack, reverse the victim and

offender. And that is what happened. It happens every single day in courts across the country, in criminal courts where victims are arrested after they had defended themselves in civil courts, when the abusers get restraining orders against them, in family courts, when they are made to look crazy or unstable or dangerous and they lose custody of their children. This is a classic tactic of abusers. He had all the assets, all the money, all the resources to make her look like a liar and crazy. And he did. And she's not perfect. She's not very likable, frankly, as it's been said. But that's not what this is. As you said, Nancy, it's not a popularity contest. The fact is he did abuse her. He abused her in many ways. He acknowledged that he wanted to kill her. He said it, and still, he wins. And this is exactly what she was saying in her op-ed. comes forward. Instead of looking at the abuser, the focus goes on the victim and tearing her

apart until everybody forgets that there was an abuser here. That is what has happened to Amber Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Sensational testimony that would normally send somebody to jail. Amber Heard describes the jury being raped by Johnny Depp with a wine bottle. Listen. It was just a pressure on my pubic bone and I don't remember what I said I just remember being really still not wanting to move I remember looking really still, not wanting to move.

I remember looking around the room. I remember looking at all the broken bottles, broken glass. And I remember that it's just not wanting to move because I didn't know if it was broken. I didn't know if the bottle that he had inside me was broken. I couldn't feel it. I couldn't feel it.

I didn't feel pain. Many people wondered, Julie Owens. Amber Heard is educated, sophisticated, has money, has contacts, has a supportive family, has a whole team around her. Julie, most women say that if they were raped by a wine bottle or cavity searched for drugs, as Heard also stated, they would be long gone. They'd be on the phone calling 911 and having a police report and a claim of rape. At the very least, would leave. Now, I know from working at the Battered Women's Center that many women feel they have to stay in the relationship for their children. They don't have money. They don't have money. They don't have a means of escape.

They're afraid they'll be killed. None of that is true in this scenario. And I can bet you everything I've got, if I were raped with a wine bottle, I would leave, number one, take my children with me, number two, get a divorce and go to the police station and make a claim. But that didn't happen. Julie Owens, many legal eagles believe if this scenario had really taken place, Amber

Heard would have been long gone and would have called police. But that didn't happen on any of the alleged sex attacks. That's right. And that doesn't surprise me one bit, frankly. As I said, I have worked with victims for over 40 years, thousands of them, and it doesn't surprise me at all, no matter how heinous the act, when a victim doesn't come forward. And this is a perfect example of why they are not believed. They will not be believed. It will be turned against them, especially when the abuser is someone who is so well-loved and so powerful, they don't even bother. And I believe completely that this probably happened because false allegations don't sound like this. Who says they got raped with a wine bottle? Come on.

This is a classic ring of truth kind of a thing for me. I believe it did happen. And I know other things that are even worse would have happened when victims had not gone forward because they were afraid, because they didn't know if things were going to get worse. They didn't know what was going to go from there. Daryl Cohen, you and I have tried a lot of cases, including before you were a civil attorney, you prosecuted many rape cases, as did I, of adult females, as well as child molestation. But right now I'm talking about adult females. One thing I would always look for, and this is before there was DNA readily attainable,

is an outcry witness. An outcry witness is someone the victim tells, doesn't have to be immediately, tells what happened. It could be a cop. It could be a rape counselor. It could be your mother. It could be a friend.

It could be anybody. That's one thing that would have corroborated Amber Heard's testimony. But we didn't get that at all on any of these claims, Daryl Cohen. Well, Nancy, it is possible. It is possible in her own mind. Johnny is cooler than I am. Johnny is a bigger box office hit than I am. I am struggling, though I'm doing pretty well as I am. I am a struggling though. I'm

doing pretty well as an actor and I don't want to tell anybody I'm so embarrassed, so terribly embarrassed that I just can't say anything to anyone because it will just destroy me. That's a possibility. But also with Amber, she had put up a cloak of badness. I talked about hair and makeup. I want to add to it facial expressions. I want to add to it body language. That's what the jury saw and heard. And you can only have one chance to make a first impression.

She didn't make a good impression. And I'm wondering if the jury actually did anything other than just pay a little bit of okay yeah you're she's testimony do I believe her no why because I don't like her why because she lied on other things as you have pointed out why because Johnny is really a good guy and you know he's admitted that he's got this drug problem. He's admitted he has this alcohol problem. But oh my gosh, that great pirate, he would never hurt a woman. He may scream, he may drink, he may do all these things, but he will never hurt anybody physically.

I believe him because I want to. Well, speaking of that, I want to follow up on exactly what you're saying. I considered the testimony of movie star Ellen Barkin to be very significant. When I first listened to her testimony, I felt that it would help Amber Heard. Because she describes in great detail that Johnny Depp is mean. He's jealous. He's volatile. He's angry. He's drunk or high all the time.

And he's not afraid to cause a ruckus. She describes having a wine bottle thrown in her direction, not necessarily at her, but in her direction while Depp was having an argument with somebody else. They were all in the room together. Listen to Ellen Barkin. 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, do you remember sitting here today, Ms. Barking, 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. Approximately how far away from you was Mr. Depp 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. I thought that would really help Amber Heard. But on second thought, as I analyzed it, it turns out to really corroborate what Johnny Depp said, that he would throw things, that he would bang cabinets and kick things and beat the wall. But never did Barkin state

she was harmed. Listen to Barkin. You just used 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 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 when, in these instances, when Mr. Depp became jealous or controlling, did he also become angry? Yeah, and demanding. To Dr. Charles Heller, joining me, forensic psychologist, I'd like to hear what you think about that. Yeah, with all due respects, I disagree with what Julie said.

I understand that she is an expert in domestic violence. I'm also an expert in domestic violence. I'm also an expert in domestic violence. And I also treat patients. And I also know about the truth about the frequency of false allegations, and they have to be assessed. And we can't just generally accept everything an accuser says. For example, Julie said that Johnny Depp said that he wanted to kill Amber. Well, that's not really correct. He said that he did write those texts, which I believe were more tongue-in-cheek than actual threats. He didn't want to kill her.

But this is the nature of a daughter Charles Heller I don't believe and of course I have to go read his text to find out but the last time I tried to read then my eyes started bleeding because they were so boring I don't believe my husband would ever write a text about my rotting corpse in the trunk of a car. Nor would I, I didn't even say it. It tastes like dirt in my mouth. Say that about my husband. Ever.

Never. Well, that's true. But, you know, people have idiosyncrasies. It doesn't mean that what they type are going to, what they're going to say. That's certainly putting perfume on the pig, calling it an idiosyncrasy. Julie Owens, I find that more than an idiosyncrasy. I mean, I know in my mind as a veteran trial lawyer, why this jury found for Depp, because they did not like Amber Heard. They thought she lied. They thought she set him up for money and

that this was a part of the setup and they didn't want anything to do with it. They weren't having it. Well, she did. That's what I think happened. She did lie. Yeah, I know she did lie. But what I'm saying wasn't that they thought it. Julie Owens texts like that are not just an idiosyncrasy. When you're talking about your ex's dead, rotting corpse and how you want to make sure she's dead. So you're going to F her first.

The corpse. That's not an idiosyncrasy exactly you you said it nancy and somebody was suggesting why didn't he why didn't kate moss why didn't ellen barkham uh say that they were abused you know why because this is the man who said we're married now i can punch her in the face and no one can do anything about it. Well, speaking of that, what about his wife, Vanessa Paradis? She never came forward with any claim. They were never married. She wasn't called.

They were never married. But they were in a monogamous common law relationship. Oh, agreed. Agreed. But if the argument is him saying, she's my wife, now I can beat her, he technically was never married to Vanessa Paradis. So maybe he was waiting for that. I'm not buying the distinction that you have to be married to him, to a wife beater, for him to beat you. I don't think that holds up with Depp.

That's fair. I don't think the marriage certificate makes the difference. I think that the jury knew about Vanessa Paradis. I think that they knew about Ellen Barkin, obviously, and they heard from Barkin and they heard from Moss. None of those women would state that Depp beat them. And I think that that all culminated in this verdict. I believe they thought Amber Heard lied. Guys, we know now that an appeal is on.

What about it, Caitlin Becker? They're already talking about an appeal. They are already talking about an appeal. Pretty much immediately after the verdict came down, they were talking about an appeal. Amber Heard, her team is certainly going to appeal. And at the very least, they're probably going to try to get that number of the damages reduced because as we know, she doesn't have that kind of money. She didn't have the money to pay the ACLU donations. She's not that wealthy from what I understand. And it looks like her acting gigs have dried up. What's going to happen next? Well, one thing we know,

there's no way to predict what will happen in Dept v. Herd. Nancy Grace, Crime Story, signing off. Goodbye, friends. This is an iHeart Podcast.