Law&Crime Sidebar - Depp v Heard Day 11 Recap

Episode Date: April 29, 2022

Jesse Weber recaps the biggest moments from Day 11 of the Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard trial. A top executive from the ACLU testifies about whether Heard actually donated money she had promised to the organization and reveals the major role it played in drafting the 2018 WAPO article. Depp's business manager recounts what Heard demanded in her divorce with the actor. Depp's bodyguards testify about the couple's troubling relationship and the "grumpy" that was left in the star's bed! See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that will

keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. Hey there, everybody. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. This is where we recap the biggest moments in the day's biggest trials. I'm Jesse Weber. So we're talking about the ongoing trial of Johnny Depp v. Amber Hurd out in Fairfax County, Virginia, and we just wrapped up day 11. Depp is suing his ex-wife for $50 million claiming defamation, namely that she falsely accused him of domestic violence in a 2018 Washington Post op ed piece, and that that article ruined his life and career. But she's actually countersuing him for $100 million, saying that

he defamed her by publicly calling her a liar. and that she was making up these abuse allegations. And the day started off with Depp calling more witnesses, as he's still presenting his case. And we started off with the deposition testimony of Terrence Dowardy. This is the C-O-O-and-General Counsel of the ACLU. And a lot of you out there might be saying, the ACLU, what does that have to do with anything? Well, when Depp and her divorced back in 2016 and she received $7 million in that settlement, she had said that she would donate all the money to charity.

But Depp is saying that Hurd didn't do that, that she lied, something that he's been consistent with during the course of this case. Now, for example, Hurd had promised the ACLU $3.5 million, but only $1.3 million has been paid out of that. And of that, Herd herself only paid $350,000. That's the only amount that came from her pockets. The rest came from Depp, a donor-advised fund, and even a fund that was backed by Elon Musk, who Heard had dated at that point. Well, here's Dowardy, explaining more. So after this December 2018 donation,

has Ms. Heard made any donations directly or indirectly to the ACLU? No, those are the four contributions, the one that we've discussed. Well, we're almost three years since her last contribution. What, if any, efforts has the ACLU made to get Amber Hurd to pay? We reached out to Ms. Hurd, we reached out to Ms. Hurd starting in 2019 for the next installment of her giving, and we learned that she was having financial difficulties. Well, let's unpack that. So when in 2019 did the ACLU reach out to Ms. Hurd about making her promise contributions?

I don't recall the date, but there is a document that we produced that was an email from Anthony to Amber about this in 2019. Now, Heard's counsel did try to show that maybe it wasn't a promise per se to pay the money and that maybe she does still intend to pay the money, even though the testimony revealed that the ACLU is concerned who Heard will actually pay the remainder of the balance. But here's the bottom line. The bottom line is number one. It makes Amber Heard look dishonest and in a trial about whether or not she's telling the truth,

this kind of testimony is critical. Number two, it makes it look like she's all about keeping the money for herself. and Depp has tried to paint Herd as somebody who was ambitious for wealth and fame over the love for him. To give you an idea about that, a little bit later on in the day, we heard from Ed White, who's Depp's business manager, and he was quite taken aback with what Heard was apparently demanding in the divorce. So, yeah, Depp is trying to paint her as somebody who was money-hungry and opportunistic. As a result of your involvement on behalf of Mr. Depp in the negotiation, What was your understanding of what Ms. Hurd was looking for?

She initially was looking for a consideration of $4 million, but her demand continually increased. It went from $4 million to $5 million. Then it went from $5 million to $5.5 million. Then it went to $7 million. And then it was $7 million, and she required, demanded that Mr. Depp also pay $500,000 dollars to her attorneys. Then, after that consideration, she also said that all the community liabilities that were accumulated during the course of the marriage, which approximated

13.5 million. So the next demand was that all of the community liabilities that were unresolved, approximately $13.5 million, that Mr. Depp had to pay those liabilities in its entirety. So at that point, she was demanding $14,250,000 of consideration, and then it got worse. The next demand was that all of this consideration be paid to her free of taxation, and counselor for him to pay $14,000, $250,000 to misheard. That would require him to earn a property 30 million dollars so far beyond the scope so far beyond his foundation of what was discussed so yeah debt is trying to paint her to somebody who was money hungry and opportunistic and stay with us here at sidbars we'll continue right after these words from our friends at

they walk among america podcast the award winning team that created they walk among us featuring true crime cases from the uk now bring their unique and bone-chilling podcast across the pond to the United States. Dive deep into cases that hit close to the American heartland. Police have arrested a man they are calling a serial killer. With the criminals that walk alongside you. Significant evidence. That's what Maui police are calling the results of a DNA test

linked to a 20-year-old cold case murder. Who live next door, or maybe, who sleep beside you. Police are investigating a double homicide. This is they walk among America. A new true crime. podcast covering tales of murder and mystery in the United States. The defendant is guilty of manslaughter as charged. They Walk Among America is a Law and Crime podcast network production.

For more information, visit law and crime.com slash podcasts or they walk among us podcast.com. Well, let's go back to the ACLU for a minute, because after some payments were made to the ACLU, We learned that the organization appointed Hurd an ACLU ambassador, and in fact, the ACLU staff, including their attorneys, actually drafted and reviewed the 2018 Washington Post article, the very thing that Depp is suing for. Now, one of Amber Heard's defenses to defamation is that the Washington Post article doesn't directly reference Johnny Depp. But as Dowardy explained on the stand, it seemed that everyone involved knew that's what it was about, and they specifically had to know. neutralized the language in that piece so it wouldn't violate the terms of Herd's dissolution agreement with Depp. There was an NDA in place. He basically indicated that Hurd wanted even more details in there about Depp. But not only that, the timing of the piece was a bit

curious. And isn't it true that Ms. Hurd's advisors initially revised the draft to remove any reference to Ms. Hurd's marriage or divorce? I recall a number of email communications back and forth among ACLU personnel and Ms. Hurd's attorneys where they were suggesting edits to the op-ed relating to matters covered in the NDA. And then isn't it also true that there were some at the ACLU who expressed their belief that excising those references to her marriage and divorce

from Johnny Depp made the op-ed less impactful, correct? It is correct. That is correct. But ultimately, based on those voices, Ms. Hurd pushed to get that excise material backed into the op-ed so it could be more impactful, true? That's not my understanding. My understanding is that the language that wound up in the final op-ed piece was very different from the original language that Robin included in the op-ed after having

spoken with Amber about her personal experiences. And how was it different? It was, it did not refer directly to Ms. Heard's relationship with Johnny Depp. The goal is to get this out this week to capitalize on the tremendous campaign for Aquaman. What does that mean? That means from the ACLU's perspective that Amber is about to receive an incredible amount of press and be in the public eye. So what better a time would it be then now

to put out this op-ed so that it generates significant readership about our issues? And Amber agreed with the ACLU on that point, correct? I believe the answer is yes. Every step of the way we were making these decisions with Amber's PR representatives. And in fact, we learn that an ACLU staff member

pitched the piece to the Washington Post by saying, hey Michael, wondering if we might interest you in a piece by Amber Hurd, who was beat up by Johnny Depp about how to protect women in similar situations. So Johnny Depp's argument would be the article

was clearly about him, even if it doesn't mention his name. Hurd made up the allegations, and this is defamation by implication, and it seemed that the article was jumping on the bandwagon of the release of a major motion pitcher, and Hurd was starring in it. So again, kind of casting doubts on the sincerity of her allegations. But

we can't not address the way the day finished up because we saw the testimony of Depp's bodyguards, Malcolm Connolly and Starling Jenkins. And they would testify, as a lot of the Depp witnesses have testified, that Amber Heard was off, that she was antagonistic, that she would scream at Depp, even described her as wearing the pants in the relationship. And one of the bodyguards described seeing injuries on Depp's face. Again, all continuing the narrative that she was the abuser and Depp was the victim. And her team would try to show, look, you weren't around 24-7. You don't know what caused the blow-up fights and acknowledged that there were times that Amber was, in fact, respectful and calm.

But this was the real doozy. You remember that testimony that Depp provided when he was on the stand, that his security team informed him, that while he was away, someone defecated in his bed? even actually called it a grumpy? Well, we got a much better understanding of what might have happened from Starling Jenkins when he recounted a conversation that he had with Amber Hurd as she was headed to Coachella in 2016. And did you have any discussions with Ms. Hurd on the way to Coachella that evening? We had a conversation pertaining to the surprise.

She left in the boss's bed prior to leaving the apartment. And when you refer to the surprise in the boss's bed, what are you referring? referring to the defecation and what did miss heard say about the defecation in mr devs bed a horrible practical jerk gone mr jenkins what observations did you make about miss heard at coachella in april 2016 she had no worry she was there to whip it up you can't make this stuff up what a case Thanks for joining us here on Sidebar. Make sure to subscribe on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. This has been Jesse Weber.

Speak to you soon. Spotify.