Law&Crime Sidebar - Did Heard Cheat on Depp with a Woman? Petito Family Lawsuit, David Dobrik Sued for $10M

Episode Date: June 24, 2022

Jesse Weber and attorney Katherine Lizardo break down the newly released photos seemingly showing Amber Heard cheating on Johnny Depp, but why weren't they shown to the jury? The parents of Brian Laundrie try to toss out a lawsuit over their alleged role in the death of Laundrie's fiancé, Gabby Petito. Weber and YouTuber Jeremey Hambly from The Quartering discuss the intense legal fight between YouTube stars David Dobrik and Jeff Wittek over a stunt gone bad.GUESTS:Katherine Lizardo, AttorneyThe Quartering, YouTuber LAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergVideo Editing - Sean BauerGuest Booking - Alyssa FisherSocial Media Management - Kiera BronsonSUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieThey Walk Among AmericaCoptales and CocktailsSpeaking FreelyLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee 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. Do newly release photos confirm that Amber Heard cheated on Johnny Depp? And why wasn't this shown to the jury in their trial? Attorney Catherine Lazzardo explains, Plus, an update in the Gabby Petito case. The parents of Brian Laundry try to toss out a lawsuit over their alleged role in the death of Petito. The question is, will this case go to a jury? And YouTuber Jeremy Hamley from the quartering discusses the intense legal fight between YouTube stars David Dobrick and Jeff Whitick over a stunt gone bad.

Welcome to Sidebar, presented by law and crime. I'm Jesse Weber. The Johnny Depp Amber Hurd saga has been continuing even after the trial, and we've reported about the comments that were made in the media by the lawyers, by Hurd, and even a juror after the monumental decision by the jury, a decision that found Herd liable to Depp on each count of defamation for her statements in a Washington Post op-ed piece that claimed Depp abused her. Now, as you might recall, during the trial, evidence was presented that Hurd, who claimed that she was the victim in their relationship was actually cheating on Johnny Depp. Now, most notably, there was elevator surveillance footage that was introduced showing actor James Franco

allegedly cozing up to Herd, and this happened while he was visiting her at the penthouse that she shared with Depp while the Pirates actor was out of town. This was something that Hurd was pressed on by Depp's attorney Camille Vasquez. That's you and Mr. Franco on May 22nd, 2016, right, Ms. Hurd? That's correct. And you're taking him up to the penthouses, aren't you? That's where I lived, yes. And it's past 11 p.m. at night.

Isn't that right? I'm not quite sure of the time it looked like that. But now, new photos have come out purportedly showing surveillance footage of heard making out with model and actress Kara Delavine. That's right. They were provided to Andy Signore from Popcorn Planet who went through this on his YouTube page. And while this does remain a question of whether these are. are unverified photos, they do appear to be real, considering this looks like the same exact footage of the elevator from the Eastern Columbia building that we saw previously.

There's no date on the footage. But again, you have to wonder if this is when heard and Depp were still married. So the question is, how come this wasn't introduced to the jury and what effect could this have had on them? While I'm joined right now by plaintiff's attorney, Catherine Lazardo. Catherine, it's great to see you. Great to see you, too, Jesse. I have to imagine that Depp's team knew about this, or they could have found out about it, why wasn't this introduced into trial?

I imagine it might be some sort of hearsay issue. Yes, that's what I would think, too. You mentioned that there's no date on there. It might be a hearsay issue. Also, it might be an authentication issue. But then again, like you mentioned, they had the video of James Franco in the elevator with Amber Heard. So why did this not come in? Most likely it's a hearsay issue because we saw how judge.

Escarati is really very strict about hearsay evidence coming in. It's funny because Joshua Drew, and by the way, assuming these photos are legitimate, but Joshua Drew, who was married to Hurd's friend Rocky Pennington, he said previously in a deposition when asked, did Rocky tell you that Amber Hurd was having an affair with Elon Musk and Kara Delavine while she was still married to Johnny Depp? Drew replied, yes. And then it was questioned again, Joshua Drew is somebody who testified in this case. but this part of his deposition testimony wasn't included.

He went on to say, did she ever tell you in words or substance while Amber was still married to Johnny Depp the three of them? Amber heard, Elon Musk, and Kara Delavine spent the night together. And Drew says, yes. So they're having a three-way affair? Correct. Now, I have to ask you, Catherine, even though Musk has denied this about them being intimate and he's always maintained that he'd never an intimate relationship with Kara Delavine and

he started a relationship with Hurd after she divorced. step, how come these statements from Joshua Drew, which seemed to corroborate the videos, how come this wasn't allowed into evidence? It wasn't allowed because it's hearsay. We heard from that deposition transcript, Josh Drew was saying, the question was, did Rocky tell you that in itself told you about this affair? That would be objection as hearsay right away. And as I mentioned, Judge Escarati is very strict about hearsay.

so that's why that did not come in. But the thing is, though, they could have used that as an impeachment against Drew's testimony. When I was actually watching Drew's videotape deposition being shown during the trial, I thought among all of the video deposition of Amber Heard's friends that they showed, his video deposition testimony seemed to be credible compared to the other ones. And I think a lot of people felt that way, too, if you look at it, at social media. Of course, the jury didn't look at that. And so, but looking just at his testimony, he looked very credible. And so if his testimony, that video testimony, juxtapose that next to that

video, maybe the jury would be persuaded as to whether or not that affects Amber Heard's credibility. And it sure does, because how much more would you interpret that kind of video? I was going to ask you that what you think the actual effect of it would be. So let's say Hurd's Camp had no problem with it coming in. We'll introduce it even over the objection of hearsay. And by the way, just so we're clear, if Drew would have seen this himself and he wasn't getting an account from a third party,

then it would have been allowed in, right? Yes, exactly. Because then Ben Chu's question to him during his deposition would not be, did Rocky tell you? It's more of, did you see, or have you ever actually known that Amber Hurd would have Elon Musk or Cara Delavine at their apartment when Johnny Depp is not there. So how come Rocky Pennington or somebody else wasn't brought in to corroborate this affair and this kind of three-way? I guess maybe the question is, how relevant would it have been to the overall case for Johnny Depp or even Amber Heard?

Yes, and that's the ultimate question. And since there are, there were two claims here, let's look at it for Johnny Depp's initial defamation. I think for that, it would not have made that big of a difference only because the jury verdict was overwhelmingly for him. So even without this video and without Drew's deposition testimony, the jury already believed Johnny Depp and already disbelieved the credibility of Amber Heard. So this will just confound that and would not make any difference because Johnny Depp won. Now, looking at the counterclaim, I have a different point of view of that because, the jury found in favor of Amber Hurd as to that one defamatory statement they claimed by Adam Waldman relating to the hoax that her friends made calling 911 and spilling some wine.

Now, the question is, as I mentioned, came across as credible. But if you put his deposition testimony in that video, would the jury think that if if Amberherd's friends are willing to cover up her affair, how far would they go to help her and cover up or support her domestic abuse allegation or sexual abuse allegation. We would never know. But I think that would have affected the verdict as to Amber Heard's counterclaim. That's a good point. That's a good point. And right now, as at the time of this recording, I neither Heard or Kara Delavine have actually issued a statement in response to this, but these photos are circulating and people have comments. Catherine Lizardo, thank you so much.

Appreciate it. Thank you for having me. All right, let's move on to a major update in a story that captured the nation by storm last year. I'm talking about Gabby Petito. 22-year-old Petito and her fiancé, 23-year-old Brian Laundrie went on a cross-country road trip that they documented in a Van Life vlog series on social media. And it ended with authorities discovering Petito's body in Wyoming strangled to death. Laundry's remains were then found in Florida. His death ruled a suicide.

The FBI did confirm that Laundrie did kill Petito with authorities recovering a notebook of Laundry where he confessed that he killed her. Now, there were many questions surrounding what Laundry's parents, Christopher and Roberta, knew about all this. After all, Brian had returned to his parents' home in Northport, Florida after Petito went missing, and then he was able to go off on his own. While Petito's parents, Joseph Petito and Nicole Schmidt, have filed a lawsuit against the laundries, claiming that they knew their son killed Gabby. they knew the whereabouts of her body, and they did nothing. And they also claim that they helped their son to evade capture.

They also argued that what made this particularly egregious is that while the search for Gabby was ongoing and underway, the allegation being that the laundries, again, knowing that Gabby was dead, they had their lawyer, Stephen Bertolino, issue a statement to the effect of, we hope the search for Gabby is successful and that she returns to her family. So Gabby's parents are now suing under a theory of intentional inflictile. of emotional distress. Now, the laundries are attempting to dismiss the case. And there was a hearing by Judge Hunter W. Carroll. The motion to dismiss basically happens after a complaint and a lawsuit is filed. And you're basically saying that you take the facts as presented. There's no legal cause of action.

There's no claim. It has to be dismissed by law. It doesn't even go to a jury because there's nothing for them to decide. So in the hearing, the laundries attorney, Matthew Luca, argued that what Petito's parents did or did not do, did not rise to the level of actionable conduct and that they are protected by the Constitution. The behavior claimed to constitute the intentional infliction of emotional distress must be so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency. That is conduct that is atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society. It is an objective standard. and the subjective response of the plaintiffs is not what controls.

The issue of whether or not conduct is outrageous is a question of law and for the court to decide. And that standard is extremely high. Well, assume for the sake of argument the court concludes that there was sufficient allegations that the attorney is the agent for the laundry. So assume that to be true. Now we have a situation where the laundries themselves are making a statement and not standing silent. So what does that do to your argument about staying silent? Your Honor, I still don't think it necessarily makes a difference. I mean, I understand what the court's saying, that if we impute that statement to the defendants, that would not be complete silence by them.

However, the defendants do have a constitutional right to have an attorney and to have that attorney. speak. So again, Your Honor, in my view, the attorney was merely exercising the constitutional rights of both the attorney and of his clients by making a statement. Few interesting points right here. First, the judge actually brought in the Depp Hurd trial and saying that an attorney can act as an agent of a client when making a state clear reference to Adam Waldman, Depp's attorney, who made a defamatory statement about Heard that he made on Depp's behalf and heard, remember one on that counterclaim. But the other interesting argument here is that the laundries have a right to speak, but also a constitutionally protected

Fifth Amendment right to not speak and to not speak to law enforcement. They don't have to incriminate themselves. So you can't sue them for not talking. They don't have a duty. Now, Patrick Riley, who's representing Gabby's parents, had a different interpretation. It's not simply about the silence of Christopher and Roberta Laundry who knew that their son had brutally murdered Gabby Petito. It's not simply about their callous refusal, despite pleas from the Petito family, to speak up about whether or not Gabby was alive and if she wasn't where her body was located. It's about a course of conduct that they committed from the moment they learned on August 28th of 2021 that their son had brutally murdered Gabby Petito up until the time that her body was found. And as this court has

already noted and pointed out, that includes the statement that was made. The one time they decided to speak up, they spoke up through their attorney. And I'll touch upon the importance of that in a little bit. As the court knows, you're bound to accept as true. All of the facts alleged in the four corners of the complaint. And I'd just like to review what some of those allegations are. Well, let me ask you this, Mr. Riley. And let's lay aside the statement that the attorney made on behalf of the laundries. What duty did the laundries have to do anything to help Mr. Petito admission? That's a fair question, Your Honor, and I've struggled with the answer to that particular question, and I guess maybe by answering this, I'm deflecting, but my answer is this. It's about what they did

with the information that they have, not just not not disclosing what they knew to the laundries. And by the way, to the Petito family, excuse me, they could have made an anonymous phone call and said where the body was located. And that would have would have helped this situation tremendously. It's interesting because if they made an anonymous call and it was eventually linked or backtracked to them, that would implicate them. So again, the question would be, did they have a duty to do that when arguably that would be a waiver of their constitutional rights. But again, Riley really was honing in on the outrageous conduct, particularly Bertolino's statement, and said that it gave Petito's family false hope.

Riley even went so far to say that the only reason Bertolino is not a defendant in this case is because he's not a citizen of Florida. That's quite a statement to make. Judge Carroll indicated that he would issue a ruling on this case sometime in the next two weeks. Well, the YouTube world can be a dangerous plate. It's famed YouTuber David Dobrick is facing a lawsuit from YouTuber Jeff Wittick over a failed stunt. See, the two were part of the vlog squad together. And in this stunt, Wittick was swinging from a rope that was tied to an excavator that was driven by Daubrick.

But what ended up happening is Wittick gets slammed into the side of the machine. Oh, my God. Now, Wittick claims that Doebrook was operating the excavator at unsafe speeds and that this was his fault. According to Wittick, he suffered numerous injuries, including a broken foot and a shattered skull, even though he doesn't quite list out the injuries in his complaint. And he's suing for $10 million under a negligence and intentional tort theory. So to make sense of what's going on here, I'm joined by YouTuber Jeremy Hambley from the

quartering. Jeremy, good to meet you and glad to have you on. Yeah, thanks for having me. This certainly is an interesting case, especially. It seems like it had happened forever ago, and only now we're seeing some movement in terms of a lawsuit between the two. Well, what do you know about these guys? Because not everybody's familiar with the YouTube world.

What should we know that? I feel like they had a beef. Something's going on with them. Well, they kind of grew up, grew up together on YouTube, Doebrick being, I think, the first guy really to kind of make it. And then Jeff appearing on his channel as a part of his vlog squad. And through his own hard work, you know, not to take anything away from him, built his own very popular channel and has kind of struck out on his own creating content. Now he's doing like interviews while cutting people's hair. People seem to really like his content. Bill Brick seemingly less active these days. But at one time, extremely popular YouTuber averaging between 5 and 10 million views every time he did something. And what did you think of the stunt? I mean, is this something typically they've done before? It seemed a little, I mean, it looked like it was going to end bad. Yeah, wildly irresponsible stunt.

You know, at the time, as a commentator on YouTube, I see a lot of these YouTubers doing dangerous things. And there's been things over the years that YouTube has done in terms of the terms of service to disincentivize dangerous type content. One example would be the rise and fall of like prank channels. Everyone's always trying to want up the next craziest thing, the next craziest thing. People are doing this inflammatory in the hood pranks and people are getting hurt or very dangerous. So YouTube disincentivizes that. This is coming from an era of YouTube. where you were able to do a lot of this, this wild stuff.

It wasn't the first time. I've seen these excavator kind of tossing people around in lakes, uh, videos before, uh, certainly not at, at this scale. It's certainly not operated by somebody who is clearly not, uh,

a licensed excavator, uh, user. I'm not sure if there's actually a license required, but he's certainly not somebody who uses an excavator regularly. Yeah. And I think the goal was they were going to be trying to do other stunts on it, maybe like wakeboarding or things like that.

And according to, To Dobrick, he says that Wittick was the one whose idea was, hey, why don't I start swinging from it? I don't know these guys. I don't know what they're about, but I just saw the video. I learned a little bit about them. Does it seem like something that that's what it would be? I mean, does this guy, Wittick, have the reputation of being kind of a daredevil? I think that it's entirely plausible that when you get a bunch of testosterone and money combined

and kind of the draw of the next big viral video, it's entirely possible that Wittick did propose this. And it's entirely possible, quite frankly, as somebody on the outside, he's clearly a willing participant in it, which is what I thought was, you know, this is just me editorializing, but I thought it was really weird that he would sue him because he was very clearly a willing participant in it. But sometimes that's not how it works. You know, he can be a willing participant and David Dober could still bear some legal responsibility. Yeah, I mean, just watching the video, you kind of see it going faster and faster, and it's kind of losing control a bit. I think everybody got a little bit concerned than when he's

stops it, it slams right in there. So Dobrick had come forward and said, this is the worst thing that's ever happened to him and he calls it a regret. But again, I don't know if he's taking full responsibility for it. Wittick says, according to him, that Dobrick never called him and never spoke to him after this. I mean, do you know anything about that? I mean, I think there's been some attempts between the two. One thing that I would point out, and I don't, I'm not choosing sides in this at all. But I think it's also important to point out that Jeff Wittick built a massive career off this injury. After the injury, he launched a Patreon that had somewhere near 40,000 paying backers where he had generated millions of dollars, according to tube filter, after the incident. And so maybe,

you know, between friends, you can't both complain about it being the worst thing in your life and then also make millions of dollars off the back of the incident. I suppose I'm just an outsider looking in, but I would argue that they probably sent a little frostiness between the two and then the lawsuit on top of it, where again, I'm pretty sure that Whittick was a willing participant here. Problem is when you have a YouTube channel with 15 million subscribers or whatever, you could probably have a stunt expert. You could probably have done this in a safer way than just a couple of bros renting an excavator and putting it in the ocean. And I think that's going to be what they're going to have to prove in court, I would imagine. And just so we know,

have they ever done any of these kinds of stunts before? I mean, what made them so famous? They kind of grew up in the in the vlog kind of big, you know, oh, we're giving away a bunch of money or we're doing this wild crazy thing. Kind of like pre-Mr. Beast era of YouTube content where it was largely wholesome content that was created for the specific purpose of going viral, if that makes sense. You know, we do this insane thing.

Tune in and find out. And that era of YouTube is gone now for the most part, at least the dangerous stunts or pranks or stuff like that. There's still people out there like giving away. You know, we gave, we gave away $50,000 to homeless people in this video. kind of stuff. Content that, again, like I said, is designed to go viral is and was popularized by this vlog squad group and David Dobrick was very good at it and made a lot of money at it.

I hope for everyone's sake, these kind of stunts do eventually stop because, you know, like you said, they don't end well. Jeremy Hambly from the Quatering, thank you so much for coming on. We really appreciate you taking the time. Thanks so much for having me on. It was great talking to you. Thanks for joining us here on Sidebar. Please subscribe on Apple Podcast, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you get your podcast. Sidebar is produced by Sam Goldberg and Sean Bauer, YouTube manager, Robert Zoki, and Alyssa Fisher as booking producer.

I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. You can binge all episodes of this law and crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.