Not Skinny But Not Fat - DEPP V HEARD W/ EMILY BAKER

Episode Date: May 17, 2022

Emily Baker who is a legal commentator, and a former deputy district attorney takes us through this very public & polarizing trial! She answers all my questions including: why is the trial in Virginia? Why is it being televised? What evidence is there against Johnny? What evidence is there against Amber? What does she think of the public opinion and more! Produced by Dear MediaSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The following podcast is a dear media production. Okay, everyone, let's talk dating, specifically dating on Match. American singles have spoken and being emotionally mature is in. So Match does an annual survey of singles in America and they found for the first time in over a decade, emotional maturity ranks higher than physically attractive on singles priority lists. In fact, pre-pandemic, being attractive was the number one because we were shallow. A.F. And now it's all the way down at number eight. Emotionally mature adults are the new sexy. Literally, I mean, as someone who's been married and with her partner for 11 years, I really think that there's nothing hotter than someone who wants to run errands with me, watches my stupid reality TV

shows with me, and is there when I need them because I'm anxious. Okay. So get with it. Grow up. And if you're ready for something more, download match. I really believe that there is nothing hotter than dating someone that starts their day before 11 a.m. That is open and loves to communicate. Are you guys ready for something more if you know what you want and you're not afraid to say it? Download match. And now messaging your top matches is free. This is Amanda Hirsch from the Not Skinny but Not Fat podcast.

You might know me from Not Skandi Bonatha on Instagram where I spend my time talking about reality TV, celebrities, everything happening, and pop culture. I also talk to some of our favorite celebs and reality TV stars. We talk about what's going on. Tune in every Tuesday and just feel like you're talking to shit with your best friends in your living room. All of my followers literally sent me you. Like, that's how I found out about you. They were all like, you know, you have to tune in to Emily Baker on YouTube. She's breaking it all down for us, you know, dummies.

And I was like, I need to have her on the podcast because then I saw you and you're such a vibe. And you explain it to us in ways that we can understand because we're not all lawyers. and professional attorneys. So you guys, I have Emily Bakeron. She's obviously an attorney. I am. You were at the district attorney's office in your past, right? I was.

I was a deputy district attorney in L.A. County for over 10 years of my career. So in court doing trials, doing hearings, talking to victims and witnesses of crime, that was what I spent the bulk of my law career doing before I moved into working with online business owners and then moved into just content 100%. Really? What do you mean by online? What do you mean by business owners? So I worked when I left the DA's office in 2017, I moved into doing consulting and legal documentation for mostly female entrepreneurs and online business owners, client contracts, terms of sales, intellectual property, that sort of thing. So that's kind of when I moved into

entrepreneurship before I stepped all the way into YouTube. And so the journey kind of went DA's office into the entrepreneur space and supporting businesses to get really to get their stuff legit and to know that they were supported by having a service provider contract or having their website legal with terms of use. You can get fined over $40,000 for not having terms on your website. So that kind of stuff is where I was. And then as my channel took off on YouTube and I started doing more coverage of pop culture cases with legal commentary because I was fascinated by them And my husband's like, I don't care about Erica Girardi. And I'm like, but I care so deeply.

Wait, so that was my next question. Did you always, because now you mostly comment on like celebrity, right? Celebrity cases that we all, I mean, I'm sure we would, you could get sucked into like any trial, right? You want, it's like a basketball game. Like, you'll get into it, right? But we care about celebrities. Obviously, I care about celebrities. Did you always kind of care about celebrities in pop culture?

Yes. I have a deep, deep love for pop culture to the point where even when I was pregnant with my kids, I had high risk pregnancies. And so I was at my doctor a lot. And she'd be like, what's going on on Jersey Shore? I'm like, girl, let me tell you what. So this, this has been since like the hills back to like the simple life. I've loved like reality TV and celebrity pop culture has always been not just a fascination and escape. I used to feel very guilty when I had work to do for work work. And I'd be watching Real Housewives of Orange County season one when they all had those awful sky tops with the jewels. And I couldn't stop. I loved it. I still love it. My colleagues are like, I don't want to talk about this at all. I'm like, but I do. And so now all these years later,

here we are and it's my job. It's crazy how the world works where you manage to turn in something that you love with like your profession that you also, I'm assuming love and like combine them into one thing that if you asked yourself probably 10 years ago, you'd be like, what? Like, you would never guess that this was the way you would combine these two interests and and loves in your life. When I went to law school, I did not intend that pop culture legal analysis is what I would be doing for a living on YouTube and on a podcast. That was never the goal.

I wanted to be a district attorney. I went to law school to become a district attorney and did that and loved it. But burnout is real. I had health issues and back problems. And I had to find a new path to actually enjoy my life, not just enjoy my work. And this is all kind of the outcropping of that. And now I really do get to not just be tuned into my family, but also tuned into the things I used to waste my time doing, which was looking at pop culture and reading people magazine.

I should have known this years ago when I had jurors coming in for jury selection. And I was looking at what they were reading. You come in with like a 4,000 page book by Neil Gaiman and you're maybe not my juror. I mean, I love Neil Gaiman too, but you're maybe going to take things a little too deep. You come in with like an Us Weekly or People magazine like you're staying. If you're reading something that is pink, fluffy summer book read, you're my people, you're staying on my jury and we're going to be friends and I love you. So we can talk about this case together.

I used pop culture references in my closing arguments because I think it's such a point of connection where if I say, you know, we all might describe Jennifer Aniston's haircut, like the haircut differently. But if she walks in the door, all of us are going to go, oh, my God, that's Jennifer Aniston. So even when I'm describing to a jury how ID works or IDing of a defendant works and how victims don't always have the way you would describe it, we all know what we know when we see it. And so pop culture is always kind of filtered into my world and my work. And now I get to just lead wholeheartedly into the stuff I'm curious with. And the Lawnard community has come along with me. It's been incredible. And isn't it so fun that it's no longer considered like superficial,

shallow and that you're probably stupid if you care about these things? I mean, I don't know if everyone feels that way. And I don't really care if because again, we all have this curiosity about not just celebrity, but about our reality stars, about our influencers, about people on YouTube. We are curious as humans. And I think there's a way to have that curiosity with compassion and have conversations around it. And I don't think pop culture has to be a bad thing. I think it's an amazing thing to look at, you know, celebrities who now have kind of come out of nowhere on YouTube or TikTok or whatever. And it's fascinating to watch it happen. I think we're all curious about human behavior in the way that we all engage as a society. And if there's a positive

aspect to it. I think it's conversation. I don't love the negative sides of just tearing people down and name calling the very, you know, Brittany 2007, the way we saw her treated. And I think there's a way to elevate the conversation around pop culture and love our celebrities while also realizing they're humans. Okay. So everybody, check out Emily Baker on YouTube, also the Emily show. You have your own podcast. And that, I mean, you kind of did the transition for me into what I want to talk to you about today because you were like tearing people down and you know whatever is so 2007 do you feel like with amber heard this is kind of i mean people are hating her like what is your you know you're from your professional standpoint as a whole like what are the facts you know what i mean like

what are the facts is it i mean people are going so far you know the rolling stone just published that thousands of TikToks were taken down because they were recreating her testimony about Johnny abusing her and really mocking it. What is your take on Amber and also how she's being ripped to shreds by the internet? I think it's very hard with this particular case different than others because there's so much ancillary information out and available to people. People can internet sleuth this case based on, based on like, oh, she said she was here there, but then there's paparazzi photos of the next day or, oh, she said this here, but then she's on the James Gordon show.

There is so much out there on her side that contradicts what she's saying in court that the internet has been like, oh, I'm going to sleuth this shit forever and goes and pulls up what she said in the UK case versus what she said in depositions. Normally that would all play out in court. That wouldn't be available to the public. But because this is, I feel like it's almost the third act of either a movie or a trilogy where we saw the initial allegations in 2016 with the. divorce. And then we saw the articles and the UK Sun case. And now this is kind of the

culmination of how is it all going to end. And I understand the fascination. But at the end of the day, these are two people who have quite a lot of trauma in their own lives and possibly from each other that's all playing out in court for all to see. The problem with Amber Hurd's testimony is it is such a big fish story. And it's not backed up by the evidence she's supporting in court. So while I worry that making fun and mocking of then, you know, that then my dog stepped on a beer or whatever can make other victims who have actually been through stuff feel less than, though I hope it doesn't. It can scare people to come forward, though I hope it doesn't. There are points of her testimony that are so inconsistent with all the other evidence, even her own photos, that it's hard not to ask questions. I think there's a way to ask questions without trying to destroy somebody.

It's, okay, you said this and this and this. and the photos show this. How is that consistent? Let's have that conversation. If you get popped in the mouth, even by accident or by your pet or by your kid's head, it's going to swell. So where is the swelling on the photos? I think those are fair questions to ask. And I hope that this case reminds everyone that there are going to be two sides to a story and sometimes more because we've got Johnny Depp's side, Amber Hurd's side, and then all the witnesses caught in the middle. And then the internet's perception of it. And I think the internet's ramping up because the headlines from some of the traditional media publications are so different than what people are seeing in court that it's

creating a back and forth there. And then the PR agents got into it and issued these wild PR statements and the whole thing, just the wheels have come off. You posted about that on your Instagram today because they're on a hiatus until the 16th and there's going to be the cross-examination that we're all waiting for. Yes. The court resumes on the 16th with the rest of Amber Heard's direct testimony, which could go another half a day, if not longer. I don't know exactly when we'll get to cross. But what I do know is Johnny Depp's team has a week to not just review transcripts. They can, unlike other trials, they can go watch her testimony.

Again, it's all on the internet. They can just go rewatch everything she said to prep for cross-examining her. They can go watch commentary. They can go watch body language experts. There's a lot of information that their team's not having to pay for that's just out and available on the internet. How much of that's helpful to them? I don't know.

How much they'll watch? I don't know, but it's all available to them. It's wild. Does this not usually happen? Like, is that a huge advantage to Johnny that isn't, like, not fair? I don't know if it's not fair. Amber Hurd's team knew when the court break was going to be, and they got to choose when they put her up on the stand.

They could have filled the last day and a half with other witnesses and waited until after the break to put her on the stand. They chose not to. I think that could have been tactical to let her very seemingly emotional recreation of events stick in the, jury's head for a week, that might have been a strategic choice on their part. They had to have talked about it, knowing that the break was coming up and knowing that it would give Depp's team more time to look at transcripts. Normally, you would have the transcripts in a civil case, not so much

in a criminal case, but you don't often have video because most courtrooms aren't televised and live streams the way this is. So is it an advantage? Probably, is it unfair? No, because they were aware and they got to make that choice and they chose to have her on the stand before break. And the fact that it's televised. How does that even happen? There were motions in court that were litigated in this case. Courtrooms in the U.S. are open to the public. You're allowed to walk in and watch court. In some cases, they are not open. Things like probate like the Britney Spears case, the conservatorship, juvenile proceedings. But most courts are open. You can go down to your local courthouse and walk around and see if somebody's in trial and go sit and watch it. 2020 has brought cameras into the courtroom

in a new way because we've got Zoom court and courts live streaming on the internet. I think it's a good thing for access to justice to show people how our court systems work. But it also becomes wild in a celebrity case like this. Johnny Depp fought to have this streamed. Amber Hurd fought against it and she lost. Oh, wow. I've told you guys this before and I'll say it again. I use Billy. I use Billy the razor. That's what I use to shave my parts. Okay. Your girl can't get laser because she's too goddamn blonde. So I need to shave. I shave my legs. shame of pits. I shave my bikini line and I use Billy. And before I use Billy, I would get Knicks and cuts and the razors that I used were too big and they didn't really fit right.

But Billy is designed by women for women. So it hugs your curves and crannies and has five precision blades and gives such a close, smooth shave. Also, it comes with their cult favorite magnetic shower holder that I am obsessed with because we never know what to do. our razor in the shower. Okay. The razor won multiple awards and gets rave reviews because if you try it yourself, you're going to know that it legit is amazing. And it's only $9.00. You could get the starter kit, which gives you a reusable razor handle and a bunch of cute shades, two blade refills, and the cult favorite magnetic shower holder, all for $9 flat. And shipping is free. You heard that right, $9 flat for all that.

So you guys, go to billy.com slash not skinny to support the show and get the best razor your role ever owned for $9.000. So Billy is spelled B-I-L-L-I-E.com slash not skinny. Plus free shipping always. When you go to mybilly.com slash not skinny, that's mybilley.com slash not skinny. What is your opinion on, you know, the fact that Johnny, the way he handled himself, he called her misheard, misheard, misheard, misheard. It's like I had that in my brain going to sleep. He was sometimes funny and made kind of jokes. Is that like just him being him, do you think?

Or are these things, something that he discusses with his lawyers, like to call her misheard, for example, because she called him Johnny. She kept saying Johnny, Johnny. Like those are two very different ways to handle it. They are. And I think just from my perception of watching this, I think Depp chose to call her misheard to distance familiarity and fondness and friendship.

Calling someone by their last name is much more formal than calling them by their first name. It's surprising to me that she's not calling him Mr. Depp because it shows a level of familiarity and still fondness, I think. How the jury will interpret that, I don't know. That's how I interpret it. It's very odd. I mean, in a lot of criminal proceedings, you get the defendant or the plaintiff. And she could have gone as far as to say the plaintiff is doing this. the plaintiff is doing that and not even call him by name, which she chose not to do.

And I think both parties need to pick what's most natural to them so they don't slip because then the jury's like, oh, you just switch something. That's odd. I think Johnny's cadence is probably his cadence. It seemed, the jury might feel like it's somewhat put on if they're not familiar with him. But the way he testified also made some of his text messages. Like you get the way that he talks. And I think they needed to show the jury the way that he talks to take some of the sting out of some of his more egregious and kind of appalling text messages so that the jury's like, oh, I see his cadence. I see the way he's using language and maybe some of this is hyperbole and not actually meant literally. And so I think his team needed to do that. Her team, I feel like,

is trying to narrow down her focus and she is going to talk the way she is going to talk. Yes, their teams would have talked about it. Yes, they would have prepped both. of them to testify. But at the end of the day, when you're on the stand for multiple days, you're going to be who you are. There's not much room to hide from that, you know? So what do you say to people saying that she's, you know, acting or, I mean, listen, I'm with you. I like looking at the facts, right? So did I see tears? Like, if I zoomed in, I'm not sure that I did. But I feel like people were judging her even before there were tears or no tears. they felt like the whole thing was an act, a monologue.

What do you think about that? Some of her testimony rang very true and very consistent to me. There were times in her testimony where she was talking about verbal fights they had been in that were very fluid. And her cadence was very quick. They didn't, you didn't get those stutters of like, it was here. I don't know how it ended. And so some of that felt very true when she talked about feeling like her career was being controlled. That seemed very true.

When she talked about punching Johnny Depp in the face, that felt very true. very true. The stuff leading up to it, not so much. I think what a lot of people are reading from her is this very over the top display of emotion and then pausing to look at the jury and seeming unaffected by emotion. So there are things that are inconsistent. When we normally see somebody break down on the stand, if they break down badly, generally the court has to take a break to give that person off the stand and get them somewhere to recompose themselves. Emotions don't just go on and off like a faucet. And that's been hard to watch with hers as it has gone on and off. But not all people cry when they are emotional with physical tears. The thing that's been very difficult for me

in her testimony is her voice has been very strong and sure the entire time, not a single crack in her voice, which I've never seen someone be emotional on the stand about something they're talking about that's traumatic and not have their voice wobble or crack unless they are completely dissociated from it. And then there's no emotion at all. It's very flat. It's very, I got in my car, I went to the store, they pointed a gun. It's very, very monotone, like, just get me through this. There's no emotion to it at all. But when someone is emotional or seemingly emotional for their voice not to crack

is more telling to me than tears or not tears. Because you can have people crying on the stand where tears are rolling down their face where they don't appear outwardly emotional otherwise. And you can have people that are very much locked up in their throat and the way they talk where there is no tears at all. So the tears weren't it for me. the other stuff that was odd for me, voice, the way she describes events. I've never seen someone describe events where they say, and then it just ended.

There's always a thing, and most that have been through traumatic events that I have seen in my experience, know what that thing is that shifted something. You know, a car door slammed, people walked by, you know, a car came down the street. There's always something, the phone rang, the TV went to a commercial and it got real loud. There's always a thing, and there's no thing in this case. She's like, and then it just stopped. And that's very odd to me. And she, the thing you said about looking at the jury that I, that people are noticing is that

Johnny, it seemed like he was answering questions, looking at whoever was asking him the question, like her attorney or his, like standing at the podium. She is seemingly looking towards the jury, which I'm sure is also something that is either happens naturally when, you know, or is kind of a planned, you know, have them feel your, thing. What is you, Matt? Oh, really? I've never ever seen someone.

I've seen expert witnesses like Dr. Hughes and Dr. Curry turn and explain to the jury. Hey, this is what this is. This is what that is. I've seen it with law enforcement witnesses. I've not seen it with victims and witnesses talking about something very difficult for them. I think it when they're explaining things. Like, oh, you want, I want you to understand. So I'm explaining.

And Johnny Depp did this when he put his hand on the edge of the witness scan. I'm explaining where the action. was. But then when it got difficult for him to talk about, he locked back into his attorney seemingly for support. A lot of people don't want the jury looking at them when they're talking about things that are traumatic. They don't want anyone in the court looking for them. And so they are either locked into their attorney or looking down often. Right. He was looking down. Her pausing to look at the jury during very descriptive and difficult testimony was very strange to me. It might be very off-putting to the jury because she is staring them down. And some of the language she's using

is, I know it's silly. This feels dramatic. She's trying to explain to them how to perceive her testimony, which is not something you ever saw with Depp's testimony. You saw him say, I'm embarrassed of this. I'm ashamed by this. I don't love these texts. But you don't see him telling the jury how to feel. He's explaining how he felt. She's trying to control, it seems, in some parts of her testimony, how other people perceive it with the words that she's using, which is very, very odd. So do you feel like from a professional standpoint that there's any blame to be put on her team

for just how, I mean, because, I mean, the internet is shitting on them, right? Being like, where did they get these lawyers, like make a wish? Like, whatever. I think a lot of these are the wish lawyers. I've seen a lot of that. I've seen a lot of that.

Do you have any feelings towards that? Like, are you like, oh, she could have gotten a better team? I think there's only so much any lawyer could do to control the way Amber Hurd is going to testify. And while I have been critical of her female lead counsel, Elaine Brettahoff, for other things, the evidentiary objections being one of them, I think she was doing her best to try to rein in this testimony and narrow Amber Hurd down to time to the point that she was leading quite a lot in a way that I don't think she should have been. I think she was trying to regain control of her client. But at the end of the day, this is a civil case.

And the client kind of runs the ship. So if her legal team is saying, we're not doing this. And she's like, this is what we're doing. It's, I think it's very difficult for them to say no to their client. I think a lot of this is client driven. If she loses, do I think she'll blame them? A hundred percent. I think she will throw all of them onto the bus.

Do I think behind the scenes she's driving some of these decisions? A hundred percent. So I have seen moments of her tourneys. I have not liked style-wise. I don't like the way they've come after everyone at cross-examination, very hot and very aggressive. I think when you're aggressive all the time, it loses impact with the jury. But they've had also moments where they're very collegial with the judge, very collegial

with the other side. They've worked well together in court. But then you've got one of her attorneys standing up and saying, well, you don't know if it's my cat doing the Google searches. And you're like, you're meming yourself right now, man. Come on. Come on. You've already objected to your own question.

and now you're talking about your cat doing Google searches. You just, you've memed yourself, and there's no coming back from that. But we haven't seen Depp's team do a lot of cross-examination, and their cross-examination of Dr. Hughes could have been stronger. I think they're using it as a building block, but I think they could have hammered it a little bit harder than they did. So with civil attorneys, they don't go to trial as often as criminal attorneys do. They do a lot of depositions,

and I think it comes across that a lot of Amber Heard's team is very familiar with doing depositions and does a lot of them, but does not do a ton of trial work. And then to do that live streaming to millions and millions of people has to be a little nerve inducing. They have to be nervous. But I just rewatch this today when her lead counsel, Elaine, called Amber Hurd to the stand. She called her by the wrong name. She called her Laura Amber Hurd. And then she sits down and she's like, can you please state your name for the jury? And she's like, Amber Laura Hurd. And I'm like, oof, girls already mad at her attorney for calling her the wrong name when she called her to the Do you guys know that I saw, again, the internet is so wild, and I don't even think this is true.

But there was an image that looked like Elaine, one of her attorneys, was like at some premiere of Johnny's, like waiting for him behind the barricade the way fans do. Do you think that's her? I've seen that, too. It looks a lot like her. I have no idea. But attorneys have a life, too. I mean, I'm at a lot of Dave Matthews shows over the summer because I grew up in the 90s and

I'm old and I love it. But attorneys have a life outside these cases, too. If that is her, I only hope that she would have let Amber heard know that behind the scenes when she hired her. It's just, hey, so you know, I was at whatever movie premiere, I've been here and there for these reasons. Because what you don't want is that to come out and your client to then question your loyalty to them. These are hired zealous advocates. These are your ride or dies that are going into court to fight for you. And I think it would be very unsettling if that is her to see the Internet.

saying, oh, your attorney was a fan of your ex who you're accusing of all these horrific things who's suing you. I think if that is her, I really hope she disclosed it to her client just to maintain that trust. Like, these are supposed to be your people in your corner no matter what. And hopefully that conversation would have happened if it is her. And if it's not, hopefully she would have addressed that with her client directly because I'm sure they had a conversation about it. God, I would love to be a fly on the wall, right? Imagine. TikTok says it's you. Is it you? Okay. Do you guys know those cute star-shaped pimple patches that you see Haley Bieber wearing and you're like,

Haley Bieber gets pimples? I want pimples. No, literally. So we could wear those cute star stickers. So thereby Starface, you're welcome. And they are their best selling hydro stars. They're made with 100% hydrocholoid. So that's a pimple path that helps reduce inflammation, absorb fluid, and shrink spots overnight. It's literally an internet sensation because everyone loves it and is obsessed with it because it helps treat pimples and acne. But not only that, because I was blessed with kind of, you know, non-pimpley skin, thank God. I am obsessed with their skincare essentials. I love, love, love their body wash. it is just as soapy as I freaking love it. So you guys should check out Starface to get those

cute star patches that work on your pimples. So don't miss out and also check out the outer space daily body watch that I love. And it's also for acne prone skin and it helps hydrate and exfoliate. You can job the entire Starface collection at Starface.world. And for a limited a time, Starface is offering all of my listeners 15% off your first order at checkout with Code Not Skinny 15. That's code Not Skinny 15 for 15% off your first order at Starface. Dot World. Have any of you not heard about TravelZoo? Like there's no way. Like everyone knows Travel Zoo. Why do you forget to use it? It's literally the trusted source for top rated travel deals and lifestyle experiences. They have a global team that

literally search for the best experiences for their members and negotiate the best prices with deals to top bucket list destinations like the Maldives, the French Pali, Galapagos, South Africa, and many more with mostly featured hotels that are 4 plus stars. Thank you very much. We boogey. And they inspire members to get out and travel more. So if you need an excuse to get inspired to travel, which I don't need that excuse because I want to travel all the time, literally their deals are going to motivate you to actually go out and experience new and interesting destinations and not just lay by the pool like I do. So you can get their deals delivered straight to your inboxes plus their top 20, which is released every Wednesday

and features 20 of the best deals currently available. Their membership is free and simple. So why not get a free and simple list of top destinations, top deals and delivered to your inbox? So visit www. Travel Zoo.com slash sign up to become a member and get the best deals delivered straight to your inbox. I can't even imagine what's going on behind the scenes there. I said in general that I want to know, you know, where they're staying and if they're staying in Fairfax, Virginia,

if they're going to D.C. I want to live stream of like the after hours. Are they going at dinners? Like, what is happening? But I think my biggest question is actually, aside from the text that Johnny Depp that they have on Johnny that are, you know, at times violent and mean, talking about, you know, killing her and banging her corpse. Yeah.

Is there any evidence against him, like that supports her story? There is the audio where he's apologizing. The Amber Hertz team is trying to say that that, audio is apologizing for being abusive. I read that audio as apologizing for the verbal arguments they got into. So what I see is a lot of evidence that they had a lot of verbal fights. I have not seen a lot of evidence of physical, that he has been hands-on physical with her. The only person we have on audio so far apologizing for making things physical is her. And it's hard to extend that to him. However, for the defamation case, for part of it,

it doesn't matter because she talks about domestic abuse and all of the experts and Johnny Depp himself have said that abuse can come in, you know, a mental, emotional, verbal, not just physical. So I think the defamation is very hard when it comes to her statement that she represented domestic abuse. But the headline where she talks about sexual violence, I think is his strongest argument because, again, that testimony seems inconsistent with what we've seen in the UK and seems to be unsupported by any of the other evidence and unsupported by medical records. And when the jury is looking at two parties that are telling very different stories, they generally, in my experience, will look for what other evidence there is, not with those two parties.

So I don't want to hear what Amber said. I don't want to hear what Johnny said. What did all the other people say? What did the documents say? What did the nurses note say? What did the medical records say? What do the pictures say? And then when you get all of that evidence in the middle, whose story does that support?

And I think at the end of the day, a lot of that evidence right now supports Johnny Depp's side that they had a lot of horrific verbal arguments that the only time he ever was hands on with her is to stop her from hitting him. And we'll see if Amber Hurd's team can overcome that with other third party witnesses. I don't know if they'll be able to. Have they gotten anyone to speak about the fact that she was arrested for domestic abuse, that incident she had with her then wife at the airport? Did they bring that up yet in court? That has not come up yet. I was very surprised it didn't come up with her expert, Dr. Don Hughes, because I thought Depp's team would have been able to ask the doctor, did you consider this incident when

making your determination that Amber heard, your professional evaluation that Amber heard is a victim of interpersonal violence and that she has trauma from that? Did you consider these other factors? They went up to sidebar. They started asking it. and the court shut it down. And I don't know why. I very much want to know why.

Objection relevance. Totally. It was totally relevant. But I don't know why it was forestalled from coming in with the expert. It's completely appropriate to come in with an expert. There must have been pretrial hearings that the judge determined when that was coming in. They can bring it up to Amber Heard. She's opened the door for that.

She said, I know it's never okay to hit a man. I know it's never okay to hit a woman. I think they're going to be able to cross-examine her on that. And that's when that comes up. I would have hoped to have seen Amber Heard's legal team getting out ahead of it and asking. The way Johnny Depp's team asked him about the horrific text first, you kind of take the sting out of it when your own team gets to ask you about it and you don't hide from it. And you get to kind of testify the way you want to about it. But after seeing her deny any drug use, deny writing on the mirror and lipstick, which seems bizarre to say, no, I didn't write on the mirror.

I don't even know who Carly Simon is. it's like, I don't know if the jury's going to believe you on that, but okay, go off, I guess. So her team, I don't think is going to get out ahead of it. And that can make it worse for her. Like, if you don't take responsibility, you know, even think about your fights with your, you know, spouse or your partner. And it's like, you can't just blame one person at the end of the day. Like, you had a part in it whether or not, you know, we know who would be used to. But yeah, it would have been also smart to say, you know, I, and I,

also, yeah, the way she talks about the drugs is like, and he was doing, I think, cocaine. I don't know. I've never seen it. He had a jar of this substance. I am told it is cocaine. The nurse's notes talk about you having issues with cocaine. It's very clear in all of the nursing records that she's talked about doing cocaine and having issues with her own cocaine use. So why back away from that? Why not just meet it head on and say, I've done these things too? I'm not proud of it. It was she could, she could testify if it's true to her. I didn't start doing cocaine until I was in this relationship with him. And I'm trying to like go along and be cool. Like he's, he's double my age. I'm trying to just fit into his world. There, there could have been an explanation for that. Instead,

she's like, who? We don't know her. I've never. I've never. I only do laughy drugs. We only do this. I only drink a little. Well, you know, you've got Ben King, the British house manager who was one of the most lovely witnesses in this case saying that he's, you know, provisioning the house with at least two bottles of wine a day for her. And she's like, oh, no, I don't, I don't drink very much. What? What? No. It seems like. And those are the little things. And those are the little things. And sometimes it's, it's the little things. Emily, I feel like you have a side in this. And you're convincing me with you. You're doing it. Like, I'll tell you what, when I, there are a lot of accounts on Instagram. I'm an Instagram person. So I'm not as much on TikTok. But.

A lot of accounts on Instagram, people are like, oh, go follow this account. Like, it'll tell you, not you, like other accounts that are very, very one-sided, right? Where it's like, here Amber's lying and here she's lying and just pointing out all of, you know, the discrepancies in her testimony, like you were saying that are available on the internet and, you know, how ridiculous she is and how, you know, laughable her acting is and blah, blah, blah. I could get sucked into that, but I've made a conscious choice to not follow along with that just because I feel like then I'm going to be doing myself like a, you know, an injustice to not know everything and just look at like how horrible she is. And I've said this before and I've said this last week

on my podcast. I have heard from people in the industry, people that have met her, people that know her. I've heard not good things. So it's not helping the fact that I do want to believe her. And I don't like that the public is trying to literally, my only thing is this. And I said it last week on the podcast. I'll say it again now because you are saying a lot of things that, you know, are just the facts. And I don't argue with the facts. So I think it's just important to say whether or not she's lying, whether or not she's wrong here, whether or not she abused Johnny. Still, what the internet is doing is so dangerous because that can cause somebody to like literally kill themselves. That's my only. It's like, imagine the whole world is against you. You know,

I get hateful messages just by saying, let's hear her out. I don't know. You know what I mean? It's, and I think we should hear her out. There are, again, this is a court case. The jury is told to not decide until all of the evidence is in. I have very much been trying to do that myself and not diving into everything that's external on the internet. People are like, if you listen to all this Australia audio, no, it's not in court yet. I want to understand what the jury is heard and then how they're going to decide. But there are differences in the evidence that's been presented so far. And it is difficult not to compare her testimony back to all of his witnesses, which is what the jury is going to be trying not to do in their heads as well.

But she deserves to be heard out. But at the end of the day, both of them could lose this defamation suit very realistically, where the jury's like, you know what, yes, Johnny Depp was abusive in some way. And yes, Amber Heard was saying that these claims of sexual violence are a hoax in some way. So neither of you defamed the other. Both of you lose. that's still a very realistic possibility. I came into this case very much hoping that somebody would not continue to lie about something so serious, that actually does impact so many women, that somebody would not write an op-ed for personal gain or career gain at the expense of someone else.

I still hope in some part that that's not true. It's just the evidence is not going that way at this point. We're not done with her evidence, but the evidence is not going that way at this point. point. The ACLU testimony was probably some of the most damaging, I thought, for her case, talking about how they plotted to release this article for maximum impact, how they took out references to Johnny Depp, but then needed more of them in so that it was more impactful and to make it spicier. Some of those emails are very damning. And at the end of the day, the jury might look at that testimony alone, but the ACLU essentially plotting with her on how to have maximum

impact on this article and decide that that's where the article's defamatory, not listening to her testimony, not listening to his, but listening to lead counsel from the ACLU talking about preparing for maximum impact with this article. And that might be what carries the day. So there is a lot of evidence here, but I think mocking domestic violence, even if they don't believe Amber heard, at the end of the day, if they're mocking her, they're mocking him as a victim as well. And that's kind of difficult to see. Mm. That's a very, very good point. So the evidence against her, we have the recording, which again, my lullaby at night, you know, you weren't punched. You weren't punched, babe. You weren't punched. We have that where she says you weren't punch, baby. You were slapped. It was like a hit. So that's very. I was hitting you. I wasn't punching you. And her Dr. Hughes talked about Amber Hurd using minimal and low level violence. And I'm like, wait, so we're minimizing violence now. That's okay, Dr. Hughes. Okay. I'm going to just breathe and

that's what we're doing. It's like, well, it's okay when she does it. It's not okay when he does it. It's how that testimony felt to me. It was hard to hear. So yes, we've got that audio of you're not punched. I was just hitting you. I was just hitting you. And we have the bottle of vodka thrown at his finger, which I mean, we know that his entire finger. Did she admit it? Did she, how did she say that happened exactly? She said that they were fighting. She describes, horrific events and then she said she went up to stairs and took a handful, I mean two sleeping pills and doesn't know what happened. And she woke up sometime later and he was bleeding and she doesn't really know. Oh, so she had nothing to do with that event. Something just happened.

And then she testified that she thought it had been too long that he'd been bleeding, which is inconsistent with her taking sleeping pills and sleeping. It was odd testimony. It was odd testimony, but it was completely distance of I wasn't even there. I don't even know what happened. It was not even, I was defensive. She seemed to try to allude that when he was smashing a phone against the wall, maybe it happened then, but she didn't ever really say that she saw it until after she went to bed with multiple sleeping pills and then woke up at some point later and saw it, which is very inconsistent from the other. So it's two completely different.

Completely different. And so, okay, so we just have the audio technically, right, aside from Johnny's testimony. And you've got the security guys who came in later. You've got Ben King's testimony who came in and cleaned up and found broken bottles in the area where Johnny Depp said that they were that found the finger down by or the tip of the finger down by where Johnny Depp said it was severed at the bar. So we do have some other testimony and then we've got photos.

She said that she was being very, very graphically and violently assaulted and her feet were slipping on the floor that was covered in glass and they were all cut up. but there's no photos of like sloshed blood on the floor. There's no evidence that her feet were cut up or her arms were cut up. So her testimony is vastly different than what the photos have shown in this. And I think that's going to be hard for the jury to parse because all the other testimony that's not Johnny Depp's is pretty consistent with this is the glass that was there. This was the drops of blood.

And there are drops of blood all over the house consistent with him bleeding from a finger that's been severed. But she doesn't know how it happened, it seems, is her testimony. Cross-examination on that's going to be very interesting. Yeah. So it's cross-examination as beginning on the 16th. I think it'll be the afternoon of the 16th. She's not done with her direct examination with her attorneys yet. And I think, as we're talking about evidence, the other things the jury might rely on are the ACLU testimony about how the article was written.

And then you have the other audio that they played at the very end of Johnny Depp's testimony where she says, you know, essentially tell the world, Johnny, tell a judge, tell a jury, who's going to believe you. And that also might be the audio that is most damaging to her, because it's her own words outside of court. If they discount what these two parties say in court and go with the audio only, she's saying, tell them you're a victim of domestic violence. Who's going to believe you? And that might also carry the jury. Depp's team did a very good job at when they introduced that audio. Herd's team has not addressed it at all yet, which is very odd to me. At some point, they have to address that audio and what she said, because she's mocking him, it sounds like, on that audio,

saying no one's going to believe you anyway. And that's damaging. And her Depp's team did a great job, leaving that to the very end of Johnny Depp's testimony. And about these recording, do you have any idea, like, from your experience being in courtrooms, like, who starts record? Like, how do you record? Are people that are in toxic relationships? Do they just record? Is that a thing that happens? Do they know they're going to need it for court one day? It's not uncommon in relationships where people are recording to preserve what the other party is doing or if they feel unsafe. The laws on when you can do that are pretty limited in California. The other party needs to know your recording.

It's a two-party consent state. Johnny Depp said multiple times in his testimony he didn't know she was recording. They've agreed to let the recordings come in. And I think it's because they're damaging to her. And they support his side so far, the ones we've seen or heard. and it's it's not uncommon. The thing that's hard with the recordings is, okay, you've recorded all of this audio,

but where are the rest of the photos of sliced up feet, of you being punched? If you're documenting everything, then there's a gap of what you've documented. Because right now the photos and evidence don't match the abuse that she's described. And I think it could go against her in the jury's mind. Well, you recorded so much.

Why not this? So the recordings of you're not being punched, and the no one's going to believe you, are her recordings? Or her recordings. How did they get even into the case? Depp's team had them through discovery and they've all agreed that they can come in. She tried to use them against him and his team's like, okay, if you want to use these recordings, we're using all of them.

The recording of him slamming the cabinets is her recording. These are her recordings. There's a very few that he did, but most of them are from her. Wow. Okay. The slamming, I'm sure most of you know, that's alluding to a video that, um, that came out a few years ago. I think it was like the day after his mom died and he was really upset.

He came home, probably drunk or or something. He was like he was angry and he was obviously taking it out on the kitchen cabinets, like slamming them. And I think he noticed that she was propping up the camera even, right? She walked in. He was in a moment unto himself and she walked into the room from the full recording we have because the recording that had previous had been leaked was only a part of the recording from TMZ, which was interesting because TMZ started claiming all the videos that had this recording in it from court,

even though Amber Hurd said she never sold it to TMZ. So there was a whole like sideshow going on with this video when it was played in court. But we see the full video. She walks in and she's like, babe, what's going on? And he's like, did anything happen to you today? No, things happened to me. And he was also going through financial hardship. He had very close in time learned that he owned over $100 million to the,

IRS because his financial team had not taken care of it. And that there was somewhere over $600 million missing that was not being counted for. So all of that was happening. And she's like, did you drink this whole thing? And then he sees, oh, you're recording, you're recording now. And then he kind of flips out about it. But he had poured himself a very large like Mason jar on a stem of wine. And that's when you get this cross-examination with Rottenborn saying, so you poured yourself a megapine of wine and Johnny Depp on the stand going megapine and Ron Boring going, those were your words. And then pulling up the transcript from the UK and everybody's like, we don't care if he said make a pint in the UK.

It's just funny. Come on, Rottenborn. Everything's not so serious. But that video, I think, shows from Depp's team, and I think they'll argue that she was constantly setting him up to record him, but he was angry that had nothing to do with her. And she was inserting herself into it to record him to set him up. And that's going to be their argument that she was setting him up for in this divorce to essentially blackmail him for the $7 million, that she didn't donate to charity based on the

evidence we have so far. I showed you guys on Instagram my new Rothes. They're my new everyday shoe. They are so cute. They're laces, right? I got them in white because I'm literally ambitious. But you know why I can be so ambitious because Rothies are washable so I can throw them in the wash. I can get them dirty and throw them in the wash, which makes it just so comforting to know that. So not only are they cute and they're comfortable. but they're washable and I love that. And to top that all off, they literally take sustainability to the next level because their products are knit with thread made from plastic water bottles. So far,

they repurposed around 125 million bottles. That is literally amazing. Obviously, I get the everyday sneaker because I'm a loungy kind of girl, but they're even more known for their chic pointed toe flats and have iconic head-turning designs in bright but sophisticated colors. So your new favorite choose are waiting and you don't even know it, discover the versatile styles you can wear absolutely anywhere

and get $20 off your first purchase at rothis.com slash not skinny. That's Rothies, R-O-T-H-Y-S dot com slash not skinny. That's rothies.com slash not skinny. for $20 off your first order. Did you know that only 9% of plastic actually gets recycled, no matter how much we put in our recycling bin? At Grove Collaborative, they believe it's time to ditch single-use plastics for good. And I love that because whenever I recycle, I'm like,

is it really going where it's supposed to go? I'm making such an effort. So here is where we should actually be making the effort. We should replace single-use plastic across our home. home and personal care routine. I love Grove Co's concentrated cleaners and refillable glass bottles. They're friendlier to the planet and they're twice as effective as the leading natural brands. Switch to sustainable products for every room in your home from laundry care to hand soaps and more Grove Co has you covered with safe formulas and refillable packaging that never

compromise on performance. I love Grove Co's more. multi-purpose cleaner concentrate. It comes in a two-pack and I love the smell. I love the scent I have. I have apple and pear blossom and it literally cuts more grease than other natural brands and it's crafted to be sustainably powerful for a healthy home and planet. It also has 100% natural fragrance. It's certified bee corp and it's better for our planet. Go to grove.com slash not skinny today to get a free gift set worth up to 50. $50 with your first order. Plus, shipping is fast and free. So get started right now at Grove, g-R-O-V-E.com slash not skinny, grove.com slash not skinny. And you'll get a free gift

set worth up to $50 with your first order. So there was that. And then also the picture with the ice cream where he's, you know, drunk out. I didn't really understand that picture even from the beginning, you know, what it, how she thought or her team thought that it was helping her. or she thought when she took it, I mean, unless she was like, it was a joke. I thought it was funny. Which, like, I dated someone in college

who I found after, you know, he ate like two weed brownies and I found him like that and the thing of, of icing, Fillsbury icing. But so I'm saying if she was like, oh, it was fucked up, like I took a picture,

but that's not what she said. She was trying, how did she, the way she tried to explain why she even took that photo was a little odd. It is. Odd. His team's going to argue that she's trying to set him up. And he said, look, my hands are in my pockets. In his testimony, my hands are in my pockets. I didn't eat the ice cream. I had taken painkillers. She knew I was falling asleep. He kept referring to it as being on the nod because he's taking opiate painkillers that literally put you out. And he's like, she put it in my lap and staged it and took a photo who does that. And she's trying to say, look, this was close in time to when he kicked me on the airplane. He's so out of it. I'm showing you this is how consistently out of it he is.

but who doesn't just clean their spouse up or why not pick up the ice cream before it melts and spills? I don't think it's the serve that she thinks it is. They're trying to say, look, he's so out of it all the time. He's a drug addict.

He's a drinker. He's abusive and he doesn't remember it. So don't believe his story. Believe mine. That's really their theory of the case. He's so out of it all the time. He doesn't even see he's got food all over him. I also think some of this is embarrassment.

They played audio of him vomiting. The timing is unclear. Some, the internet is saying it was when he was detoxing. Others are saying it's when he's on a plane. I'm like, I've thrown up on a plane. It happens. I get motion sick. But if you tried to record that and make it something that it wasn't, that would be terribly

embarrassing. I think some of this is also going to embarrass him. And I didn't lean into that until I saw their PR statement that was calling him pitiful and cowardly. And I think there's an element of trying to embarrass him to some of this evidence. I really do. What you're talking about is now that they've taken a break, both teams kind of put out a PR statement.

And you were talking on your Instagram, I saw that Johnny's statement, Johnny's team statement, and then Amber Hurd's team statement, where they said something, what did they say that you were talking about? So Johnny Depp put out a PR statement. This was all after court closed on May 5th, which was Thursday, the last day before this week-long break. I'm not surprised Depp's team put out a statement. And they basically said, we predicted that she was going to give the performance of a lifetime.

I think they didn't want the public or maybe the media running with all of her dramatic testimony. And we've definitely seen some of that. I've seen publications accused of photoshopping tears onto her and various types of headlines. I think this was to get ahead of, remember, cross-examinations coming up. We believe some of her testimony is false. And we're going to point that out. Johnny Depp's testimony has been consistent. And then Hurd's team puts out a PR statement that is very much different and says that he's

sitting there snickering and doodling and that he was pitiful in their marriage and that he doesn't have the courage or fortitude to look at her. It was a very odd PR statement, again, seeming to personally attack him and try to embarrass him. But as a response to them saying, see, she's just performing all of this was an act. So I understand why we're in the battle of the PR statements. It was just hers was a little odd in the way at language things. Again, are you calling him a obsessive, terrifying, abusive monster? Or is he pitiful and, you know, lacks courage and fortitude?

Which is it? Is he a pathetic man or is he a horrible, scary monster? The narratives are shifting in this PR statement, which is odd for me. Do you know when we're going to know what the decision is? Is it going to take a while? I think we won't know until early June. The jury gets the case or should get the case on May 27th, which is the day for closing arguments.

It's the Friday before Memorial Day. I think closing arguments will take most of the day. I don't know how much time the court's given. You'll get Johnny Depp's team giving a closing. Then you'll get Amber Heard's team giving a closing. And then Johnny Depp's team has time for a rebuttal closing argument, a final closing. At some point, the judge is going to have to read jury instructions.

that can take almost an hour. That'll be before or after the closing. And then the jury will get the case and start deliberating. I don't know if they'll even have an hour to deliberate on Friday. It depends on how long does closing arguments go. But then I think it's realistic in a six-week trial that it could take them of three to six days to deliberate. Unless they're like, none of you defamed anyone, you're done.

All of you are done. We believe none of you goodbye. That could happen very quickly. But with so much audio, video, video, and six weeks of trial with a break, I think this jury will probably give it some time in consideration. I don't think they'll want to just wash their hands of it. They're going to want to talk about it together. And the only time they get to talk about it together is in the jury room.

They still can't talk. These jurors go home and it can, like what happened in court today? I can't talk about it. Today was weird. Like they can't talk about what they're seeing in court. They can't talk to each other about what's going on in court. When they go out of town, it's like, what do you do for a living? You know, is your butt getting tired in the seat?

Wow, it was hot in there. You think they really follow the instructions? like nobody, really. Because jurors tell on each other. Like, if you've got one juror that's taking it really seriously and another juror is like, did you see her outfit today? It looked like Johnny Depp's outfit yesterday. That juror is going to go to the court and be like they're talking about the case.

It happened in the Cardi B. Tasha Kay case recently. A juror started talking to another juror at lunch about the statements that were made and was like, I'm so offended by these statements and the things that are being said. The juror went to the judge and said, hey, this juror was trying to talk to me about the evidence. and the judge kicked the juror off. They do take it. Most jurors take this jury duty very, very seriously. They're losing six weeks of their life.

I think there's an awareness that if you don't follow the rules, that you could be stuck there longer or somehow mess up the case. We just had that happen very publicly with the Golan Maxwell case, with a juror that gave interviews to the BBC afterwards and hadn't properly filled out their jury firm with information that was important. That was a very big story. I think jurors do follow the instructions. I think they take it seriously.

And I think they do tell on each other if somebody steps out of line. So there's a lot of reasons to do it. But the jurors I've had talked to me after the trials I've done all took their duty very, very, very seriously. So people need to remember this is a defamation case, right? Correct me if I'm wrong. Johnny Depp suing Amber Heard for $50 million for defaming him in that op-ed where she's seemingly referring to him as an abuser. and she's countersuing him for $100 million? Yes.

And what does that mean? Like she's countersuing him for $100 million. Then what's the, like, what is she saying for defaming her? Yes. She's saying that his lawyers who are his agents so that statements can be attributable to him. Her lawyer, his lawyers said that her claims of sexual violence were a hoax and that these things were lies. So she's saying everything I said in my op-ed is true and they called me a liar. Therefore, they're defaming me.

Johnny Depp's team is saying what you said in your op-ed was a lie, therefore calling you a liar is not to fame you because it's true. So both sides are saying what I said is literally true. That's their arguments against each other. I think she picked $100 million because she just doubled what he picked. I would do. I really think it was like, you're going to sue me for $50 million. Fine.

I'm going to sue you for $100 million. So the decision of the jurors, like they need to in the room think about it as such, right? They can't, like the decision isn't, oh, do you think he'll be like, or is it that? Or is it who you believe or who the evidence supports abuse too basically will decide on who wins? This is why it's so convoluted. They have to decide if her saying she became the face of domestic abuse and spoke up against sexual violence is a lie. If those things happen to her and that's the truth, then it's not defamatory. So they're going to have to decide who they believe to decide if it's defamatory. And it can't just be that the statement's false. It has to also be done with malice.

She knew it was false. I'm surprised that Amber Hurd's team didn't lean into the mental health evaluations and say, no, she believes this. She believes this is what happened to her. I'm surprised they're not leaning into it. They're saying, no, not that she believes this. This is what's happened to her. But the evidence in court and the statements don't quite mesh.

And so I'm very surprised they didn't lean into if she believes what she's saying, even if it isn't exactly what happened, it's her perception. So they have to find she did it with actual malice. And there's some technicalities about whether they have to find Johnny Depp suffered harm or not because of defamation per se, which means just saying, accusing someone of these things can be defamatory without proving harm. So there's a lot of quirks to it. The jury has a lot to get through to decide did she defame him in three different counts or did he defame her? And I think it's four different counts. It's a lot.

And if he defamed her, it's just based on, that's not based on what, she said, that's just based on his team saying she's a liar. Right. If they believe that her statements are true, then calling her a liar can be defamatory because they believe that her statements were true. So saying that it was a hoax and she's a liar could be untrue. Or they could say, you know what, we think this was abusive. We also think parts of this was a hoax.

So nobody defamed anybody. Do you think that might happen that they both lose? Is that where you're... I think it's very possible. I came in thinking that that was most possible. Her testimony, though, is starting to sway me a bit to the retweet where she says, I'm very proud of this statement I put out with that sexual violence headline. Wait, can you tell us what that is?

Because I'm not sure what you're referring to. No, sure. So there's three counts where Johnny Depp is suing her. One for the print article. I don't see how he wins that count with regard to the print article because the print article didn't have that more salacious headline. The print article talked about her being a, you know, a speaking. up against domestic abuse. And I think there's room for them to say she did speak up against

domestic abuse. She did go and get a domestic violence restraining order. She did do these things. I think there's room for the jury to find that that's literally true, even if they don't believe that the basis of the restraining order is true. She literally did go speak up against it, even if it's a lie. So I think there's room for them to sort that out that way. Then there's the digital copy, and there's two counts with regard to the digital edition. One count for her publishing it with the headline talking about sexual violence and one count for her retweeting it saying essentially I'm very proud, and I'm paraphrasing, but I'm very proud of what I've written, this is my op-ed. So I think if the jury finds that these sexual violence allegations aren't true, those are very

much more specific than what domestic abuse is. So they could find this was a mutually abusive relationship, but also find that the claims of sexual violence aren't accurate and therefore find it was defamatory to use that headline. So the headline on the tweet said, The headline on the article said. The headline on the digital article said the sexual, my sexual violence story. Let me pull it up and I will read it exactly what it said because I have it because I have it. And that she's referring to when she was telling the story with the bottle, correct? Yes.

Okay. And that didn't come up in the UK case as an allegation. So it's going to come up very much. about, well, why didn't you talk about this in the UK case if this is one of the allegations? Because that that allegation has not come up before any of this. So the headline for the digital article is opinion, Amber Hurd. I spoke up against sexual violence and faced our culture's wrath. That has to change.

So her team has been arguing that she didn't write the headline. Depp's team is arguing even if she didn't write the headline, She retweeted it and said, today I publish this op-ed in the Washington Post about the women who are channeling their rage about violence and inequity into political strength, despite the price of coming forward. And so it has the headline in it, and she's saying, I publish this op-ed. So I think the tweet is their strongest case right now because she's saying, I wrote this. And she's saying, I wrote this including the headline. And if they find that those allegations are not real or that they don't believe them, or that they can't get there to believing them enough to say it's not defamatory,

that those are the strongest counts for him. So that's why they're fighting so much about the headline. And in closing arguments, they're going to argue a lot about it. They argued a lot about it in their motion to dismiss last week because the headline is the strongest part for depth and the weakest part for for Herds team. And I don't think everyone caught it, but during Dr. Don Hughes's testimony, it kind of went fast. but she said the most damaging part for Amber Hurd in all of this was that she wasn't believed about her allegations of sexual violence.

And that's, so again, I think Dr. Hughes is saying the most psychologically damaging part of all of this to Amber Hurd is she wasn't believed about that headline that her team's also trying to argue she didn't write and is not defamatory because she didn't write it. So there's moments in this trial where I'm like, Dr. Hughes is trying to say the allegations from Johnny Depp were psychologically damaging to Amber Hurd.

calling this a hoax, but she's also admitting that she said those things because how is it damaging to you if you didn't say it? Like if, how is it damaging if it's not your words? Right. How is that the most damaging part of his statements against you if those aren't your words? So I didn't read that op-ed. In the op-ed, does she describe the same, the same? So there is no description of sexual violence, but they just titled it that? She said, like many women, and I'm quoting from her op-ed now, she said, like many women, I have been harassed and sexually assaulted by the time I was of college age, but I kept quiet. I did not expect filing complaints to bring justice.

I didn't see myself as a victim. 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. And then it goes into it. So they're saying the headline, they're going to argue the headline is going to her experience in college and that's what it sounds like to me many college age women can agree but they're saying the tweet combined with her saying two years ago in context is defamation by implication I see she's backing that up in court by if she had said nothing about any type of sexual

violence in court I think her team could have argued she's referring to college this is unfortunately an epidemic on college campuses she's not referring to johnny dep at all they're trying to make this about him. It's not. She did speak up. She was silenced in college and she's speaking up now about past experiences. But now they're trying to prove that this happened. And they're going to be left with testimony that's not by medical. And that's a challenge for them. I think that that's maybe an Amber Hurd-led decision versus a team-led decision. Because I think from a lawyer perspective, if you only talk about the abuse within the relationship and don't talk about this at all, you say, Even if she wrote the headline, it's not about him.

It's not defamation by implication. It doesn't imply him. It implies college. Because when I first read the op-ed, that's how I read it too. Yeah. When you just said that, I was like, oh, she's talking about college. But what you're saying, which, oh, my God, I wish I could have you with me all day. But because no, you just blew my mind.

Because if she didn't tell that story with the bottle, which I'm not saying she shouldn't have shared it, but that it had no evidence, it was, you know, just the story she was recounting. then that wouldn't have, have hit that, that, the, the sexual headline. Because now she's saying he was violent in this way against me. So they can't argue that he wasn't. Because now she's in court saying he was violent against me in this way. And we've got the ACLU testimony talking about having the biggest impact in this article. So I think the jurors are now in a better position to find its defamation by implication

than if she had not brought that up at all and just talked about the psychological abuse. the control of the career, the coercive control, and the violence that she's alleging because she's alleged it before. She can't not talk about it. She's never brought up sexual violence in anything before, so she couldn't be impeached on that. And I think it would have put her legal team in a stronger position. I don't think she was willing to do that as a client. If one of them wins, I know this might sound like a dumb question. They literally, no dumb questions? No dumb questions. They literally, like, it's like, here's $100 million. Like, is it really So I believe in Virginia, and I could be wrong because it depends on the judge and the jurisdiction.

If they find liability, they have two options. Either they get more information from the attorneys to determine a figure or an amount so they can go into kind of a penalty phase of trial. That's very criminal language, not civil language. But they can go into a little bit of a mini trial proving damages, though Depp's team has proven a lot of that during their case. So they might not need that then. or they can put liable, not liable, and then give an amount for, you know, the different types of damages that have been complained of the punitive damages, I think, are up to 250 or 350,000 in Virginia. And then they just decide an amount. But they could also say Johnny Depp's liable or Amber Heard's liable and award them a $2 amount and say, you know what?

Yes, you defamed them, but no, I don't think it caused you that much damage. There's too much water under the bridge. There's this other article from the U.K. Sun. There wasn't an inked contract for Pirates Six. There were creative differences. You didn't want to do it for millions of dollars in alpacas. We don't think this article did the financial damage, but we do think it's defamatory. So here's $10. Okay. So it doesn't, even if one of them wins, it doesn't mean that automatically they'll win the amount that they're suing for. It could be decided by, is that by the jurors as well? Yep, the jury decides the amount as well. Damn, that's

some power. The jury holds the motherfucking power. That's why they take it. And I think that's why jurors take it so seriously. I mean, when you're in it and you're in this courtroom and these people are like literally trying to bear their life experiences to you, I think it can feel very overwhelming and weighty. But then you also have this surreal experience of a gallery of like a live television audience of Depp fans sitting in there holding like heart hands and wearing like Captain Jack Sparrow shirts and shit. It's so bananas to watch. Wait. And why is it in Virginia? That's a great question. So it's in Virginia because Johnny Depp's

attorneys are very smart and they chose to sue in Virginia due to some quirks in their law there. And the printing presses and some of the servers for the Washington Post are located in Virginia. They litigated very heavily to try to pull it back into California. California has some different laws with regard to defamation and these anti-SLAPP statutes that could have stopped the case before they did discovery. They chose their form in Virginia. they chose it very wisely and they sustained all their motions to have it in Virginia because that's where

the Washington Post is located at least as to some of their printing presses and servers. Wait, why do we care where the Washington Post says? I'm confused. Because it was published in the Washington Post and that gives the court jurisdiction over what the Washington Post does and they are in Virginia and that's why in Virginia.

It's really to get around some other laws that would have potentially been damaging to Depp's case at the beginning. They wanted to get through discovery. And Discovery is the process of turning over all of the information from one side to the other. In California, in defamation cases and cases about First Amendment and public participation, there's a very, very strong statute that allows the case to be thrown out before you ever get to discovery. That's the anti-SLAPP statute.

So I think they were worried they might not win that and they won a discovery. So I think it was a strategic choice. It was a strategic choice and it might work for them. But this is why this is why lawyers play 3D chess. It's just there's all these factors to consider and where can we bring this other than California? I don't know if it'll backfire. Amber Hurd's team argued about this in opening that this is further evidence of abuse by depth, that he's dragged her across the country away from family and friends to litigate this in Virginia.

They talked about it in their opening statements. They'll talk about it again, that this is him being abusive to her by resting her out of where she lives and away from where all the witnesses are. Mm. And I just saw, I think it was like yesterday or today, TMZ published an article saying that, you know, contrary to, you know, TikTokers and stuff like that, Johnny is not, you know, dating or hooking up with one of his attorneys. But the reason why people were thinking it is because they're very touchy-feely. They're like, you know, they giggle, they whatever. Is that normal? Like, is that. that frowned upon is that should he like reel it in even if they are like closer outside of the court that i mean i've heard the rumors of him and his female attorney camille vaskas the first reason it bothers me is because just because she's a young and attractive and smart attorney doesn't mean she needs to sleep with her male clients like come on second it could

partly be strategy to get under amber heard skin because camille vaskas is the attorney that's cross-examining her so if they believe that amber heard gets jealous or possesses over Johnny Depp. That might be part of the way that they interact in court because Amber Hurd is clocking everything that he does in court. And so that might be a strategy. It might be that they are just friendly. I have not looked at the rules of professional conduct in Virginia. And I don't know if she's licensed there or elsewhere and then is admitted into Virginia just for this case. But different jurisdictions have rules about mixing money and personal life with clients. And California, by the way, doesn't care.

California is like, it's cool. Like, we're just, we're chill here. But other jurisdictions might have more rules on that. So it could potentially be unethical for her. It also might be courtroom strategy. I doubt that she would want to get romantically involved with a client in a high profile case. I imagine her career is more important to her than Johnny Depp.

It also seems that he is probably substantially older than she is. And she has other things to do. But this is his team. This is his support system. I mean, we see his other attorney, Ben Chu, pulling candy out of his pocket like somebody's grandpa and putting it on the table for him every day. This is his support system. And that support system is going to play out in different ways.

But I don't love that the internet's like, oh, look, she's young and attractive and they seem friendly. Obviously, they must be having a relationship. She's a professional. And she's trying her case. And I think she's actually been one of the best attorneys in court. Her opening statement, I thought was fantastic. but we know that she's the attorney that's kind of going for the jugular on Amber Hurd.

You can't have a large older imposing man like Ben Chu being the one to cross-examine Amber Hurd. It just further solidifies kind of that dichotomy that Amber Hurd's trying to set up of, I'm just being, these men are coming at me. So you have a younger female attorney due the cross-examination and it takes away all of that negative perception and potentially in the eyes of the jury. So it could be strategy. It could just be that they're friendly.

I really don't think that they are together. in that way. I would be shocked if they are. Yeah, she's got other things to focus on like this case and whether this case solidifies her as a preeminent civil litigator, which might be more important to her than Johnny Depp. Well, then him is a person, not than his case. I'm sure he's the only thing she's been eating, sleeping, and breathing for at least the last 12 weeks. So you're going to continue breaking this down. So the way you do it is you literally pull up the trial and we see you in a little window right on YouTube and it's live as the as the court as it's happening yes I'm doing live legal analysis of this trial from gavel to gavel day in and day out what the objections are

what the rulings are what's happening at sidebar what I'm seeing in the courtroom what we're seeing from the witness testimony calling back other witness testimony I feel like a sportscaster watching football and just being like he's running for the you know it's like that's a hearsay objection, Bob. Yeah. Wait. You know, I'm streaming it. You guys, so go check out Emily Baker on YouTube.

And when, when court returns on the 16th, we'll be able to catch you on your YouTube channel. I was just wondering, I was like, did you do analysis of the Black China v. Kardashian case? I haven't done a lot. There was nothing televised. I talked about it a little bit in my, in my podcast breakdown of week one. of this trial and that trial. It went very quickly. It was not very dramatic. And the reporting that's come out about it has been very good. She said this. They said this. The jury found very quickly that there was no defamation there and everyone's moved on. But I try to do quick little

breakdowns on Instagram and TikTok with the reels. And then I do the longer streams. And then each week I summarized the week before on my podcast for those that do not have six plus hours a day to watch this trial. Though I have gotten messages from people who are like, we just have you on the TV at work and we're just watching all along it's the fascination with this case has been something that was really unexpected to me that there would be you know 30 to 60 people on the live stream talking about this case at once just on my channel and hundreds of thousands more across the internet so there's a lot of fascination and it's all anyone wants to talk about it's fascinating it's all anyone wants to talk about and um and there seems to be a very very large consensus which we don't

normally see. I mean, a lot of times, you know, the country is torn and, you know, the world, you know, some people are team this, team this. I feel like here it's like, it's, it seems to be like there is a consensus. And you said this at the beginning of this podcast. And I want to remind everyone, you were saying, you know, we do want to hear her out. Let's let her, you know, be cross-examined. And basically, the world doesn't need to crucify her because I think once she's cross-examined and she's going to be presented with the facts versus what you. she said, that's when the, you know, we'll be able to see more of, yes. And Amber Hurds, I mean, I think it's important to remember Amber Hurd is Amber Hurd. She does not represent all women. She does

not represent all victims. She does not represent all abusers if she's proven to be that too. This is her experience and Johnny Depp's experience in court. And though there are similarities that can be drawn to other things, I think it's hard to say all people do this ever in any context, but that's something I think people need to just be mindful of when watching this testimony. This is her testimony playing out in court. And while it's fair to point out, but she said this over here, I think mocking can be a little, a little difficult. Yeah. Yeah. Well, thank you. I think you're the way you're presenting the information, you know, while making your professional, you know, gatherings and opinions is, is something that I,

as someone who is currently trying to, like I said, listen, Johnny Depp was the love of my fucking life, okay? I had like a picture of him in my wallet. I'm not even lying to everyone, okay? I've seen every one of his movies. I just, first of all, I think I was shocked at the beginning because we're so, you know, in our culture, we believe women, you know what I mean?

And society, we want to believe women and victims that come forward. So it's hard for me to say as a woman like, I don't believe her. you know what I mean it's very uncomfortable it really is uncomfortable and I think it's a good I think that's a good opportunity to have that talk of what does it mean to believe and support people and then look at the evidence too and where where do we find that I think this whole case has been a very real time exercise in all of not just critical thinking but evaluating our own biases and looking at I don't want to believe that she would lie about this like I don't want that to be true but I also might

not want it to be true that a beloved actor would do this to someone when we know that they do and have, not necessarily him but others. We've seen people that we've trusted Bill Cosby's allegations come to mind, that we've trusted on television and then we go, oh my God, we're hearing these horrible allegations that there are two sides and that it's important for us to know, I don't want this to be true, but I still want to look at what's coming out and try to figure out how to square those two things. People are biased against things. People are biased against things. or four things. Being able to see that, I think is the more important part than trying to not be biased at all. It's like, I see this. I see that I like Johnny Depp. I see that I want to

believe all women and I see what's happening in court. And I'm really trying to square what I'm seeing with what I believe externally. The way you said it. Okay. The way you said. Emily, thank you so much for taking time to come to my podcast. I know you are probably having a little bit of a break now when court is in, not in session, right? we're still talking about this case all the time. So it's a lot of interviews this week about this case. But I'm really happy to have the conversation about it and to help break down what's happening in court for those that really don't have the time because, you know, life and work and family and can't watch it minute by minute. Because what we're seeing on social media and what we're seeing in traditional media and what we're seeing in trial are all very different. Right. And that's why it was important to me because I know that I've been making, you know, judgments a little bit or sharing things. but no, I haven't been watching the entire, you know, trial. So that's why I wanted to have you today. Thank you so much.

You're amazing. Keep on doing what you do. You. And everyone go follow Emily Baker, Instagram, YouTube. All the things. I'm at the Emily D. Baker all over social media. So you can find me there. And the Emily show podcast.

Yep. Thanks, Emily. I'm going to keep on tuning in. Thank you. Bye. Thank you guys so much for listening to this episode of Not skinny but not fat follow me on instagram at not skinny but not fat subscribe to the podcast so you don't miss any episodes rate the podcast that you love so much on apple podcast and write a

little review if you tell me you did i'll give you a big virtual smoo too much for listening and i'll see you next tuesday