All Episodes
Previous Next
May 23, 2022 - Viva & Barnes
06:34:59
Johnny Depp to Testify IN DEFENSE? Viva Frei Live!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Are we live?
I think we're live.
Let's see if the audio good.
Oh boy.
Morning here.
I'm listening to Law& Crime.
I'm going to wait a few seconds before bringing this up because currently we're looking at a graphic image of Johnny Depp's finger.
It looks like...
It looks like...
You know what?
I might just have to share this.
We're gonna pull...
Hold on.
Just to catch up where we're at right now.
Good morning, everybody.
Apparently, Johnny Depp is gonna be called in Amber Heard's defense as a witness today, which I thought was gonna be sufficiently interesting.
But right now, we're looking at Johnny Depp's exploded finger, and they're having an orthopedic expert testify.
Let me share screen and share the link around.
This was a short notice again, just so we can...
Okay, here we go.
It's important that the jury understands the basis for your opinion that a bottle couldn't have caused this coming in from above.
They've called it an expert to claim that the injury could not be caused.
Again, the mechanism described would have almost certainly led to a severe nail injury.
I see no subungal hematoma.
Again, it's a palmar tissue loss.
And the loss is from distal to proximal, which is from the tip, back far below the nail.
And so for it to create that tissue loss down there, there would almost certainly have to be injury dorsally with that described mechanism.
So what you're saying is that something coming from the top could not have left the nail intact and yet caused injury from the tip of the finger underneath the nail.
To testify that in his expert opinion...
The injury could not have been sustained by a vodka bottle.
You can answer.
So I believe that with the mechanism described that if the bottle struck the nail, there would have certainly been an injury to the nail bed.
And in order for the soft tissue injury to be created by that mechanism, there would have almost certainly been tissue loss on the top of the finger as well.
Does Mr. Depp's description of what happened line up with the undisputed photographic evidence that you've reviewed?
No.
Viva, no audio.
Now, we mentioned the term crush injury a few minutes ago.
Viva, no trial, great.
Viva, no audio.
I'd like to show you DX360, please.
We can't hear you.
Okay, hold on.
Let me bring up my audio.
We won't publish this time.
Is this a document that you reviewed in connection with your expert opinion in this case?
Yes.
My audio is up.
Michelle, if you can please go to pages 5 and 6. I have audio.
I hear you fine.
Viva can hear you, but volume is low.
Dr. Moore, what are these pictures of?
These are x-rays of the injured digit.
And what do you observe in these x-rays?
What you see.
So these are two views.
So one in the plane looking through the finger in this direction and one in the plane looking through the finger sideways.
And you can see that the tuft or the tip of the finger, the last bone in the finger called the distal phalanx is shattered.
You can see there's multiple little spicules of bone and there's also a transverse fracture at that level which runs through the bone.
So this is what we would describe as a accommodated fracture, and it's commonly associated with crush injury.
In your decades of practice, Dr. Moore, have you ever seen a accommodated fracture like this result from an object thrown in the way that Mr. Depp described?
Well, not with the constellation of findings shown on the x-rays.
I mean, I think that could create a fracture, but in this setting, it wouldn't create a fracture without the associated fracture.
Other injuries that we would anticipate.
And in your decades of practice, when you see a comminuted fracture like this, what are some things that typically cause it?
I'm going to bring up my audio a little bit more.
So crush mechanisms could be slammed in a drawer, caught between two logs in the fireplace, car door, sliding glass door.
Those are all any mechanism that squeezes the finger between two hard opposing surfaces.
Anything that squeezes the finger between two hard surfaces, like a vodka ball.
How did he describe what happened to the alleged bottle when it hit the bar?
I believe he said it exploded.
Shattered.
If a bottle had exploded near his finger in the way that he alleges, what would you expect to see in the documents that you have reviewed?
Well, I think that the physicians did a good job of documenting the presentation, the appearance of the wound.
They did not document the presence of any glass shards, and there were no other associated injuries elsewhere on the hand.
I just want to step back for one minute.
Michelle, can you pull up the next page of the x-ray here?
I'll fix the audio in a bit, guys.
Right now.
Thank you.
And Dr. Moore, just before we move on from x-rays, I know that when it's blown up like this, it's a little bit blurry, but can you point out or describe to the jury where the multiple bone fragments are?
So they're in the very tip.
If you see the joint, and then there's what we call the transverse fracture, which is across the middle of the bone in the same plane as the joint, and then the multiple fragments are in the tuft.
And with a Xerox copy, the quality is not as detailed as a true x-ray.
You can take that down, please, Michelle.
Thank you.
So back to the glass.
In the records that you reviewed, Dr. Moore, did you see any adjacent injuries?
In other words, injuries to any other part of Mr. Depp's hand other than the tip of his middle finger?
No.
Okay.
Let's just fix it right now.
Sorry, peeps.
Yeah, it's very loud.
Let's just go with Johnny Depp.
So what's happening right now, people, is Amber has called this doctor who's an orthopedic specialist.
He was recognized as a specialist after a voir dire.
Now you're all going to say it's too low, but we're going to live with this, and I'll lower my volume.
Did any of those providers report retrieving glass from the wound?
No.
What about any glass near the site of the injury?
No.
No glass, so it couldn't have happened.
You've just showed that gory finger to the jury, and you think this is going to be convincing.
Is there any reference at all, Dr. Moore, that you've seen to any glass in the records that you've reviewed?
Okay, sorry about that earlier.
Dr. Moore, in your decades of practice, have you ever seen an injury associated with a glass explosion that was focused on the end of a single finger in the way Mr. Depp describes?
Dr. Well, not consistent with the clinical Have you ever seen an injury associated with an alleged glass explosion where no other glass was found on any part of the patient's body or clothing or injury?
No.
Have you ever seen...
Vodkas are thick bottles.
They are thick.
And because there's been talk of a glass explosion.
He said his finger exploded.
Not that the glass exploded.
Seems to have been a suggestion that somehow glass may have sliced off the end of Mr. Depp's finger.
Is that what's going on here?
Can't tell.
This wound doesn't really appear to be a sharp glass laceration.
You referred earlier to an abulsion.
Which is a term I had never heard before your opinion in this case.
Explain to the jury what that is.
So often with crush injuries and we'll see tissue loss that we call an avulsion or where the tissue is actually pinched or pulled away rather than sliced or cut.
And it's not uncommon with crush injuries to see that.
In your decades of practice, Dr. Moore, have you ever seen an abulsion injury with a partial amputation that results from an object thrown from the top of the finger in the way that Mr. Depp describes?
No.
Again, I think that the description differs from the clinical appearance on the images.
Michelle, can you please pull up Exhibit 369?
This attorney keeps asking bad questions.
Have you ever seen an injury like this?
And he's answering, no, I've never seen an injury like the one that would have been hypothesized by Johnny Depp, but I'm saying that that is not what happened now because...
Dr. Moore, you've treated thousands of hand injuries over the course of your career, correct?
Correct.
What is that on Mr. Depp's hand?
Passed.
So we'd describe that as...
Objection calls for speculation.
The picture just changed.
Sorry.
Page 12, please.
That's an immobilizing cast with a pin in the finger to replace and hold still while it heals.
So that's a plaster splint.
Okay, sorry.
Thank you.
I'm sorry.
Please tell the jury what that is on Mr. Depp's hand.
So that's a plaster splint.
A half a cast is how I sometimes describe it to patients, and it provides stability for comfort and to protect fractures in the course of treatment.
Is that plaster splint hard or soft?
What's plaster Paris?
It's hard.
Dr. Moore, does Mr. Depp's description of how his finger became injured line up with the facts that you've seen?
No.
I have no further questions.
Maybe you want to show the jury the big bloody fingertip again, just for full traumatic effect.
Show them the finger again, Amber's team.
Show the bloody nub of a finger to the jury, and then expect them to think that what they're looking at...
Expect them not to be traumatized by what they just saw.
You said you reviewed Mr. Depp's video deposition.
Inconclusive, he said.
And you said you reviewed Mr. Depp's testimony at this trial, correct?
That's correct.
And was that also a video of his testimony?
Yes.
You testified that Mr. Depp demonstrated that his hand was flat on a surface.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
That's not entirely accurate, is it, though?
No.
His description was relatively consistent in both, including turning and resting the hand on the edge.
This expert is going to get destroyed.
When Mr. Depp did the demonstration in his deposition, he showed that his fingers were hanging over the bar.
Well, even hanging over the bar, it still leaves the dorsum of the hand or the nail vulnerable.
That's not my question, Dr. Moore.
Thank you.
That's good, Camille.
Isn't it true that Mr. Depp said his fingers were not laying flat on a table, they were hanging over the bar?
Yes.
Okay, so you just misrepresented the injury then?
When you made that opinion.
Isn't that correct?
Well, I...
I believe that I, as I demonstrated, or slightly curled over.
No, you said flat on the table.
It was a description that I gave.
Your description in this courtroom was that it was flat on the table.
And I think you've done that now twice.
But in your deposition, you testified that his fingers were actually hanging over the bar.
Isn't that correct?
Objection, Your Honor.
Misstates the witness's testimony.
Then read his testimony.
Overruled.
Overruled.
Go replay his testimony.
So that's a distinction that perhaps I Ought to have done, yeah, maybe.
That's stated in one of the two descriptions.
However, that's not substantially changed my opinion of the impact it would have on the mechanism When facts don't change your opinion, you have faith and not science.
Isn't it true that Mr. Depp also testified that the bottle came from an off angle?
Yes.
This is going to hurt.
I don't want to think about this first thing in the morning.
Yes, I believe he stated that it came from between 6 and 10 feet.
I think it was off to, I think he demonstrated it was off to his right.
I can't recall specifically, but it was off angle, yes.
So it didn't come from the top as you previously testified just a few minutes ago, correct?
A change in fact would not have changed my opinion.
Top of the finger, but it may have been slightly off angle in its approach based on the description.
So the broken glass.
Off angle, correct?
Correct.
That's not flat.
Dr. Moore, just at the outset, your billing rate for providing deposition testimony is $1,000 per hour.
And you were deposed in this action for several hours on March 22nd, 2022.
That's correct.
And your billing rate for providing trial testimony is $5,000 per day.
That's correct.
You were retained in this case by Ms. Heard's legal team, correct?
Correct.
And over the last few years, you've provided expert services for one of Ms. Heard's law firms on at least two other cases, right?
That's correct, yes.
Sounds like this guy's living on the dole of Amber Heard.
No personal knowledge as to how Mr. Depp injured his finger in Australia, correct?
No, I have no personal knowledge.
My impression is based on his description of the injury and the available medical records for review.
But you weren't in Australia with Mr. Depp and Ms. Hurt, correct?
I was not in Australia.
And so therefore you have no personal knowledge as to how that injury was sustained.
That's why he's an expert witness and not a witness of fact.
You also never personally examined Mr. Depp's finger, did you?
Correct.
You didn't examine Mr. Depp's finger at the time he was injured?
I did not.
And you never provided any medical treatment to Mr. Depp in connection with this finger injury, did you?
I did not.
Now, you've testified that you identified Mr. Depp's finger injury as a crush injury, correct?
Correct.
And a crush injury is when a body part is crushed or trapped between two opposing firm surfaces.
Yes?
Yes.
And a crush injury to a finger can occur when a foreign object hits the finger, right?
Yes.
And based on the pictures that you reviewed of Mr. Def's finger injury, you cannot determine what particular object caused the injury to his finger.
Yes?
Well, I can't.
I can't determine.
He's going so far down.
I think that I can I can say.
With confidence that the described mechanism of the bottle hitting and shattering the finger was not consistent with the appearance of the injury.
That's because you misstated it, doctor.
That's because you misstated it.
You said his hand was flat.
That caused the injury to Mr. Depp's finger.
It's a little bit more of a non-specific answer.
I mean, you know, again, I can't determine the exact object.
But I can determine that it's unlikely that it was sustained in the manner described.
Unlikely.
A bottle is a foreign object, isn't it?
Yes.
So you can't rule out that the injury to Mr. Death's finger was caused by a vodka bottle, correct?
Correct.
Well, based on the injury pattern, I can say that the described mechanism of injury is inconsistent with medical findings.
Right.
But because a vodka bottle is a foreign object.
You can't rule out that a vodka bottle is what caused Mr. Depp's injury.
Well, I can't rule out that a vodka bottle caused the injury, but I can rule out that it was caused in the manner described in his testimony.
Because you misdescribed it, doctor.
You can't rule out that the injury was caused by a knife, right?
I think it's unlikely that the injury was caused by a knife.
But you can't rule it out.
He would more easily be able to rule that out.
Wouldn't impart the injury to the distal phalanx to result in the common fracture.
Now, a chopping type, but again, that would likely come from a direction that would create a dorsal injury to create the fracture that was developed.
Do you remember giving testimony in this case, Dr. Moore?
Oh, I do.
I got paid healthfully for it.
Deposition?
Yes.
Yes, yes.
I remember every hour of it.
Correct?
Correct.
And that was on March 22nd, 2022.
Yes?
Correct.
Okay.
May I approach your honor?
Yes, ma 'am.
So, okay, by the way, guys, before I went live, he specifically said it was inconclusive how the injury was sustained.
It's used the word inconclusive in saying, well, when looking at it, inconclusive.
He's now saying, well, it's unlikely that it was caused in...
Dr. Moore, may I please have you go to page 163 of your deposition?
He says it was unlikely that it was caused in the manner Johnny Depp said.
Because he misstated it.
He says his hand was flat and it couldn't have been caused flat because...
163.
His hand was also over the corner.
So, yeah, maybe I should have said that.
Well, it couldn't have happened in the manner in which you misstated how he said it happened.
This guy's in big trouble with this.
I can't rule out that it was a glass bottle.
Line 4. Correct.
Question, but you can't rule it out completely, right?
Answer.
I can't rule anything out completely.
I can't rule out that he caught it in the door, cut it with a knife, or slammed it in the car door.
Or, again, as Dr. Gilmer said, we can't definitively say what caused this injury.
Did I read that correctly?
You did.
Your Honor, I would object to the incomplete impeachment.
I think if she's going to read his answer, she also needs to read or give Dr. Moore the chance to read the paragraph below.
She just picked out half of his answer.
You can redirect.
That might be improper speaking.
Telling the witness where to go to, you know, refresh his memory.
So you can't rule out the injury was caused by a car door either.
Is that right?
I think you could rule out a car door.
Oh, God.
But it's your testimony sitting here today that you can rule out that the injury was caused by a vodka bottle.
Is that your testimony?
My testimony is that I can rule out the injury as caused by the mechanism described by Mr. Depp in his position.
No, by the mechanism you misdescribed.
But you can't definitively say what caused the injury to Mr. Depp's finger.
Well, the definitive injury was a crush injury, but again, I...
I can't say.
I mean, I think it's quite likely that the initial mechanism described at the time of presentation of the accordion doors would classically create this injury pattern.
You know, the hand up in front.
If you picture accordion doors as the end...
Except even Amber didn't say it was a door.
Amber said it was him smashing the phone on the wall.
I think it's important that they understand that.
This is the time for me to ask you questions.
Oh, boy, look at this guy.
He wants...
He's begging.
He's begging to tell his story uncross-examined.
You can't definitively say what caused the injury to Mr. Depp's fingers.
Yes or no?
No.
Okay.
Thank you.
And the truth shall set you free.
You did not attempt to reconstruct the incident.
Is that right?
Of course not.
Nobody paid me to do that.
That could be prejudicial.
You mean did I throw a vodka bottle at something?
No, Dr. Moore.
I mean, you didn't do any type of accident reconstruction, either computerized or any...
You didn't conduct any type of accident reconstruction of the...
Dude, I guarantee you I could replicate that injury with a vodka bottle.
Do I have one here?
And your analysis is based on an understanding of how Mr. Depp described the exact position of his finger at the time of the injury.
Yes?
Yes.
Okay.
And your analysis is also based on the assumption that Mr. Depp's hand remained completely still in the instance that a vodka bottle was hurled at him.
Yes?
No, my assessment is on his description of the vodka bottle striking the top of his finger.
But his hand stayed still, according to your analysis.
Yes?
I guess it was still long enough for the bottle to hit it, but natural.
Reaction would be to try to pull away.
When you perform traumatic finger surgeries, you inquire about the cause of the injuries, correct?
Correct.
And your best information on that is typically just the self-report of the patient, yes?
Correct.
And your assumption is that the patient is trying to get care.
Because the patient is trying to get care, that person, that patient, is generally telling the truth, right?
You would hope so.
Yeah.
You reviewed Dr. Kipper's deposition testimony informing your opinion about Mr. Depp's finger injury, correct?
Correct.
Informing your opinion, did you consider Dr. Kipper's deposition testimony that while Dr. Kipper was providing emergency treatment for Mr. Depp...
Objection, Your Honor.
Let her finish the question, please.
Okay.
Okay, so...
By the way, I hope he's being paid $1,000 an hour and not just that she pledged to pay him $1,000 an hour.
Bada bing, bada boom.
This is going down, this cross-examination, or his testimony.
In chief, he says, you know, it's inconclusive, but his hand was flat on the table, as per his testimony, so it's unlikely.
You would expect to see glass everywhere, yada yada.
The bottle exploded.
In cross now, he has now been forced to say, yeah, oh, I'm sorry, the finger was curled over the side of the bar.
Maybe I should have said that, yeah.
Would that have changed your opinion?
No, because...
It's important the jury hears this.
So informing your opinion, did you consider Dr. Kipper's deposition testimony that while Dr. Kipper was providing emergency treatment for Mr. Depp's finger injury in Australia in the driveway of the house, Mr. Depp told him that his finger was injured when Ms. Hurd threw a vodka bottle at him?
I don't...
I don't recall that from the deposition.
I'd be happy to review it if you have the deposition available.
Did you consider Dr. Kipper's testimony that he recalled that Mr. Depp's finger was found in the kitchen?
I do recall that.
So you must have also seen Dr. Kipper's deposition testimony that he wasn't the one who actually found the finger, correct?
That's correct.
Dr. Kipper testified that someone he thought was the chef told him he found it.
I'm going to assume so without reading the deposition now.
Did you review any testimony from Ben King in rendering your opinions today?
Not to my knowledge, no.
Did you see any of Mr. King's testimony at this trial?
I did not.
So you're not aware that Mr. King testified that he is the one who found Mr. Duff's finger, are you?
Can you imagine?
And you're not aware that Mr. King testified that he found Mr. Depp's finger in the bar area, right?
Correct.
And you're not aware that Mr. King testified he found Mr. Depp's finger in a piece of tissue in the bar area.
Exactly.
No.
And you're not aware that Mr. King testified that multiple broken liquor bottles were also found in the bar area, right?
Yes, but you see, it's possible he took his fingertip to the bar afterwards and planted it there.
And by the way, Johnny's testimony, unless I've mistaken it or misremembered, not that the bottle exploded, but that his fingertip exploded, and it was Vesuvius.
I'm sure the bottle shattered, but everybody knows what a bottle breaking looks like.
And it may be published, please.
Yes, my lips are addicted to lip-sil.
Chapstick actually makes my lips drier.
I just have a blank screen at the moment.
There we go.
Thank you.
It's my birthday today, by the way, just in case.
Have you ever seen this picture before, Dr. Moore?
No.
Oh, you've never seen this?
So you're not aware that this is the bar area where Mr. King testified he found Mr. Depp's finger?
No.
Enhance, let's see the finger.
Do you see that broken vodka bottle in the back corner near the bottom of the bar?
I don't.
Let me see this here.
Oh, okay, fine.
That's a thick vodka bottle, people.
What kind of vodka bottle?
Internet.
Do you see the blood drops on the floor?
Yes.
Stop it.
Stop it.
My legs hurt.
Can we please fill up Defendant's Exhibit 1820, which is already in evidence?
This actually makes the upper part of my thighs of my legs hurt, looking at this.
Have you seen this picture before, Dr. Moore?
I have not.
So you're not aware that this is also a picture from the bar area where Mr. King testified he found Mr. Depp's finger?
Correct.
Would this change your...
Do you see the bloody tissue on the ground at the bottom of the bar?
Would this change your opinion, Doctor?
Yes.
Do you see the blood drops around that tissue?
Yes.
So you didn't consider any of this evidence in rendering your opinion about how Mr. Depp injured his finger in Australia, did you?
I did not.
Nothing further, Your Honor.
Thank you.
Oh, I might have asked.
Would these findings...
Maybe you're better off not asking the would.
Exhibit 1817.
Please show the finger again, Amber.
Show it to the jury.
And can you blow up what Ms. Vasquez referred to as a broken vodka bottle, Michelle, please?
Blow up.
Maybe you don't want to use words like that.
Based on your review of the documents in this case, what did you understand to be the size of the bottle of vodka that Mr. Death alleged cut off his finger?
The description was that it was a handle, a half-gallon bottle.
And that's bigger than a 700-billion mil or a fifth of liquor, correct?
Yes.
And what size bottle, if to the extent that's even a bottle, what size is that?
Oh, give me a break.
He can't answer that.
She's Louise.
Does that appear to be a handle?
Objection calls for speculation.
I'll sustain the objection.
Come on.
This is terrible.
This is terrible.
Take it down, man.
Think before you ask a question.
Ms. Vasquez just asked you about Dr. Kipper's deposition testimony.
And she said, is that...
Where she claims that Mr. Depp allegedly told him that...
What do you mean, do I still?
I always do.
Do you remember that question a few minutes ago?
Objection leading?
Overruled.
I didn't remember that question.
Yes.
Thank you.
Is that consistent, that alleged account, is that consistent with the texts you reviewed between Mr. Depp?
Oh, he reviewed texts, but not photographic evidence.
And what did those...
That was a hell of a good expert.
As I recall, Mr. Depp indicated that he had cut his finger off.
Now, Ms. Vasquez wouldn't let you finish when you were trying to explain to the jury how Mr. Depp's account of injuring his finger in an accordion door would be perfectly consistent with the photographs you saw.
Could you please explain that to the jury?
Well, so, again, we tend to try to believe patients.
We hope that they come in with an honest history initially.
I would have thought they would have had better vodka than Belvedere.
And again, if you picture your hand up with either a closure of a hinge or closure of a door, the palmar surface is exposed.
If it's caught in that hinge, Stop it.
it.
It could be slightly off center.
It would pinch that tissue away in a similar fashion.
Because it's below the level of the nail bed, it could create this Oh, gosh.
I'm taking my shoes off.
Can you look at page 164 of your deposition, the one that Ms. Vasquez just showed you?
Yes.
Objection, Your Honor.
I'm going to object on hearsay grounds.
Your Honor, she only...
Thank you.
Ms. Vasquez asked you a question, and then she read your answer, trying to impeach you, but she only read half of the answer.
So I'm going to read the whole answer.
Please, please do.
I'm going to ask you to tell me if I'm reading your answer right.
Oh, another reading right question.
The question is on page 164, line 4, but you can't rule it out completely, right?
And you answered...
I can't rule anything out completely.
I can't rule out that he caught it in the door, cut it with a knife, or slammed it in the car door.
Or again, as Dr. Gilmore said, we can't definitively say what caused this injury.
And then you go on to say, this is where Ms. Vasquez cut you off and didn't let you finish.
Oh, quit with the...
What I...
Just read it.
I don't think that's in the transcript.
Objection.
Okay, thank you.
The rest of your answer that she didn't read to you, Dr. Gilmore...
Oh, just read it already and stop...
What I...
The question I can answer is, is that the mechanism that was described by Mr. Depp and demonstrated by Mr. Depp is inconsistent with the injury pattern that's found on the images and the description.
Did I read that right?
Yes.
And does that remain your opinion today?
Yes.
Has anything that's been presented to you on cross-examination...
Stupid question, Rottenborn.
Is this Rottenborn?
No.
I have nothing further.
Yeah, of course.
Has anything that you've seen today, would it change your opinion, like where the blood was, where the fingertip was, where the broken glass was?
Would any of that change your opinion?
No.
That is because you are operating on faith or paid testimony and not actual expert scientific evidence.
Would any of the additional facts that you now admit in front of this jury you did not consider in your original opinion, would it change your opinion?
No.
Okay.
Thank you.
We have exited the realm of scientific expertise and entered the realm of paid testimony.
But Team Amber, go ahead and show the fingertip again with your explanation as to implausibility of a certain cause of that injury and expect anything to stick in the jury in their mind except that bloody image of a knob of a fingertip.
Today is Viva's birthday.
And by the way, to the question you asked, what...
What gas station gift did my wife get me?
At the request of my youngest, we got the DJI Mini 2 drone.
So I can now officially go back to flying a drone lawfully anywhere I want because the DJI Mini 2 weighs 249 grams and the regulations, at least as of now, apply to drones weighing 250 grams or more at takeoff so I can fly this drone anywhere I want.
And it's beautiful, by the way.
It's amazing.
So this guy, he gets up.
Expert testimony.
They have a brief voir dire.
The issue is never going to be whether or not he's going to be recognized as an expert in his field of practice.
Dude's an expert.
He's an expert doctor, surgeon, not necessarily a forensic assessor of damages.
You know, he was a fellow, whatever.
Extensive experience in surgery.
And orthopedic medicine or orthopedic doctorage.
But not necessarily in forensic analysis of how injuries were caused.
So he says...
He says...
Yeah, they gave me the documents.
I looked over texts.
I looked over pictures.
I looked over Johnny Depp's testimony.
It is inconclusive how he sustained this injury.
But I could...
Rule out or rule unlikely that it was caused by his hand being flat on a table, injured by a bottle being thrown.
The bottle explodes, which was, I think, miscarriage in the testimony.
You'd expect to see glass in the injury, yada, yada, yada.
In cross-examination, Camille rightly gets him to recognize that no, even by the testimony and even by the story, even by his own acknowledged facts or facts, Allegations of fact.
The fingertip might have been bent over the bar.
And the expert says it was, in his expert opinion, caused by a crush.
It was a crush injury.
Broken fingertip bone, shattered.
But not a crush of a bottle on a finger, wedging it between a bar and the bottle.
Inconclusive.
That didn't go well.
That did not go well.
And that was...
That was a bad testimony.
Well, he contradicted himself in that he said, my opinion was based on the finger being flat on the table.
And then in crosses, yeah, well, it could have been bent over the side of the table.
All right, would that change anything?
No.
Would broken glass and blood drips on the floor by the bar change anything?
No.
Would the fact the fingertip itself was found near the bar change anything?
No.
Well, that's great.
We'll see who...
Is determined to be credible in that testimony.
But thank you for refreshing the jury's memory as to how horrific that injury actually was.
Oh, God.
Who's Marcus Ray?
And John Allen, if you would be so kind as to not spam, but who is Marcus Ray?
I guess I should go Google that.
So who are they going to call now?
Another expert?
To say in their forensic assessment analysis, their expert's going to say, I don't know what caused it, but...
Yeah, I'll do some better fishing videos sooner than later.
Yeah, the thousand bucks an hour.
That's a double-edged sword.
If the expert is being paid a thousand bucks an hour, you're going to say they're doing it for the money.
If they're not being paid anything, you're going to say they're doing it for some other underlying belief, equally impeachable.
They're either doing it for the money or they're doing it for bias.
So it's sort of a lose-lose situation.
People generally expect experts to get paid for their expert testimony.
$1,000 an hour to tell an implausible story to a jury who, they're not even getting $1,000 a week for this.
I mean, I don't even know what, $100 a day maybe, if anything.
$1,000 an hour.
For hardworking people to hear somebody try to twist the facts to come to the conclusion of another person who's worth millions and millions of dollars?
No.
Ah, yeah, that was a good...
There's a child bringing in a birthday card.
Let's see this.
Ooh, why thank you, sir.
Should I open it live?
This is...
I've got a birthday card.
It's the DJI...
Will you please tell the jury your full name in business?
And...
David...
$2.50.
Thank you, sir.
Okay, go get out of here.
I work at 825 Fairfax Avenue in Norfolk, Virginia, as part of the Eastern Virginia Medical School.
And what is your occupation?
I'm a physician-psychiatrist.
Physician-psychiatrist.
Okay.
I work in Eastern Virginia.
I'm employed by Eastern Virginia Medical School, but I also work at Norfolk General Hospital, which is a teaching hospital in Norfolk.
How many years have you been practicing as a psychiatrist?
I entered residency in 1989.
I graduated residency in 1993.
So from 1993 to today, I've been in physician practicing.
In my experience, psychiatrists are very eccentric people.
John Allen, please stop spamming.
I don't want to have to block you.
We read it.
Please stop spamming.
About 85 to 90% of my day is clinical between the two components.
And what is involved in a comprehensive evaluation?
Comprehensive.
So in a comprehensive evaluation, in addition to reviewing the historical information that you receive from collateral other sources, you undertake a history from the patient.
You get, whether it's the history of current illness, the past psychiatric history, family history, social history, legal, substance history.
Then you do what's called a mental status exam, which is the psychiatric version of the physical exam where you're actually giving a description of what you see in front of you.
Then you can do cognitive testing, which tests the patient memory, attention, concentration, etc.
Then you come up with a working and a differential diagnosis, describe any other additional testing you may need or not need, and then you come up with a treatment plan.
How many patients have you treated over the 30 years?
Quite a lot.
What did I miss?
Probably in the tens of thousands.
And how many patients do you regularly see?
So inpatient is generally about five to eight, sometimes more.
But are they inpatients?
Probably five to six, sometimes more.
I should point out that my inpatient work is divided between consultation, psychiatry, and I believe we're going to talk about that, as well as working on the inpatient service.
So we'll talk about that.
What, if any, differences are there on how many patients you see on weekends as opposed to weekdays?
So when I'm on call, which is on either a Saturday or a Sunday meeting.
So he's an oncologist.
I'll shut my mouth now.
Probably an additional 35-plus patients.
How frequently do you treat patients who abuse drugs and alcohol?
Unfortunately, drugs and alcohol are part of psychiatric practice, and so probably three-fourths of my patients have substance abuse problems.
Does this include both legal and illegal drugs?
Yes.
Put them both together, probably 75%.
And how frequently do you treat patients who have suffered from someone in their lives who abuses alcohol and drugs?
On a regular basis, like I said, on a daily basis.
This is part of what psychiatry is.
And as part of that treatment of patients who abuse drugs and alcohol, do you evaluate the impact of the abuse on their brains and personal interactions with others?
Yes.
Substance of abuse, both in the short term and the long term, can affect the brain in terms of mood, behavior.
Cognition, meaning, attention, concentration, memory, ability to control your behavior, as well as your overall level of functioning.
It can affect it in the short term, such as alcoholic blockouts.
It can affect it by causing stroke, such as stimulants can.
And so, at the end of the day, it's a rather lengthy list of what substance abuse can do to the human brain.
Dr. Spiegel, how frequently have you treated patients who have suffered intimate partner violence?
Again, it's very unfortunate that probably 50% of my patients suffer from trauma.
If I had a guess of those 50%, probably 25% of my practice is people who have suffered intimate partner violence.
And how consistent is that with the national average?
In America, unfortunately, it's about 20 to 25 percent, depending on the study, women have complained, have reported intimate partner violence.
And how frequently have you treated patients who have perpetrated the intimate partner violence?
So, again, in the outpatient setting, I don't see it quite as much, but in the inpatient setting...
Again, it's a really relative common phenomena that we'll see perpetrators of intimate partner violence.
And, you know, patients should be treated too.
And overall, how many patients have you treated who have been perpetrators of intimate partner violence?
Perpetrators?
Yes.
Probably 5% to 10% of the patients I do is perpetrators.
And would you say tens of thousands over the 30 years?
Yes.
Thank you.
Elaine has to thank the judge every time a question gets overruled.
We've got to get to the testimony here.
Yes, I am.
And when did you first become licensed in Virginia?
1993.
Have you been qualified by courts as an expert witness?
Yes, I have.
In how many states have you been qualified as an expert?
Seven.
Three, which would be Virginia, Maryland, and South Carolina.
Dr. Schmigel, can you please review for the jury your educational background?
Is his name Schmigel?
What's his doctor's name?
I went to Duke University undergrad.
I went to medical school at the State University of New York Health Science Center in Brooklyn, formerly known as Downstate Medical Center.
I did my internship and residency between Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center and Penn State Hershey Medical Center.
It's taking a little longer than you'd think it would.
But I'm curious to see what he's going to testify on.
Did you...
So where did you do your residency and your internship?
So I did my residency for Penn State and internship at Dartmouth.
Oh, get to the case.
He's a psychiatric expert.
Psychiatry expert.
So I am in the acting chair.
Smegel.
It's not Dr. Spiegel.
Are you board certified?
Oh, he's board all right.
Oh, sorry.
What are you board certified in?
General adult psychiatry and consultation ways on psychiatry as a subspecialty.
Okay.
So you have two board certifications.
Okay.
Can you explain to the jury what's involved in board certifications in those two fields?
Lots of study, lots of practice.
Okay, let's get to it.
So what certification is the standard we strive to in being a physician or any other mental health practitioner?
It involves...
Taking a very comprehensive test at the beginning of your career to initiate course certification.
Martin Tarantino's dead.
I see that.
They're low on time.
You could have asked credentials, area of expertise.
I don't even think the Johnny Depp team is going to object to him.
They probably want him on there.
Again, this is throughout.
This occurs always.
Beautiful little baby in that picture.
Now, are you a member of any professional organizations?
Yes, of course I am.
I'm a member of the American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychiatric Association.
APA.
I'm a member of the Medical Society of Virginia.
I'm a member of the Psychiatric Society of Virginia.
I'm a member of the Tidewater Academy of Psychiatry.
And I'm a member of the Academy of Consultation Liaison Psychiatry.
Okay, good.
Do you have any teaching responsibilities?
Oh, my goodness.
Teaching.
Oh, yes.
So teaching is a daily occurrence.
That's part of my job.
When I do my inpatient rounds, residents.
Medical students, physician assistant students are assigned.
Well, let's just see.
Hopefully he's never had his license revoked temporarily or, you know.
In addition to that, I teach lectures to the residents.
This is a voir dire.
I think they're just trying to get him recognized as an expert.
First-year medical students.
Okay, good.
You teach a lot.
As well as a fourth-year medical student lecture as well.
It's a good point.
I mean, I think they might, yeah, just trying to kill time.
Give it a going...
Are you engaged in any hands-on training of psychiatrists practicing in Virginia?
Hands-on training?
Is this the proper pun you want to be using, Elaine?
With psychiatrists.
Oh, yeah.
So, again, I'm teaching at bedside.
I mean, we don't speak in front of the patient, obviously, but I'm...
Any hands-on, any exploded fingertip hands-on training?
...to learn.
And, again, that includes residents at every level.
That includes medical students, third, second, and first year physician assistant students.
So every day is a teaching explanation session to the students and residents.
What is your role at Eastern Virginia Medical School as the acting chair?
Please tell the jury what that means.
It's very important.
I'm a very important person.
I have lots of leather-bound books in my office, and I have a little, like, Panther perfume.
In a box.
It's made with bits of real panthers, so you know it's got to be good.
...treating, seeing, evaluating a certain number of patients.
I'm responsible for their academic requirements, so in terms of publishing, et cetera.
I'm responsible for their teaching assignments to other residents, to other students.
I'm responsible for fiscally, that they are accountable to their fiscal productivity.
So I know a heck of a lot of other administrative meetings that I go to.
I have lots of administrative meetings.
Have you published in your field?
Oh my goodness, is this a joke?
I have two of about 80 manuscripts.
I have my own book on catatonia, the consultation liaison setting.
I have a book chapter on the current and...
She's going to ask him next, how many times have your publications been cited?
Watch this.
I'm also in a dissociative identity disorders chapter on a wiki book.
How many times have your sources been cited?
Have you peer-reviewed literature?
Yes, so I'm a reviewer.
I served as a reviewer on Lancet.
I served a reviewer as...
I was going to make the Lancet joke.
I was literally going to say, have you published in the Lancet?
Damn it, I should have said it.
former.
So he's published in the Lancet.
Have you lectured on the effects of drugs and alcohol on the human brain?
I was literally going to make the joke as to whether or not he's been published in The Lancet.
Have you published and lectured on the causes and effects of intimate partner abuse?
Yes, I've punctured I believe two articles Did you say punctured or published?
And in that trauma was intimate partner violence.
Are you familiar with the hallmarks of intimate partner violence?
Yes.
Are you familiar with what causes intimate partner violence?
One more, excuse me?
What causes intimate partner violence?
Yes.
Yes, there's multiple explanations that cause intimate partner violence.
Jury's boring.
I can't just mention at this point, too, that when we were discussing intimate partner violence, I think it's imperative for the jury to know we're talking about repetitive behavior over periods of time.
And the type of abuse can be any physical, psychological, sexual, but just as important is for somebody, one of the partners to maintain some uneven element of control.
Well, I think now he's getting into the substance of his testimony.
Yes, dark brown with short hair.
But there's more to it than just the actual abuse act.
Abuse act's important, but it's not the sole one.
Your Honor, I'd move to qualify Dr. Spiegel as an expert in the field of psychiatry and behavioral science.
You should have done this maybe 10 minutes ago.
Alcohol abuse, intimate partner violence, and the effect of these as they pertain to the issues in this case.
All right, any objection?
Yes, Your Honor.
Do you wish to voir deer?
I do.
Okay.
To his qualifications.
His qualifications.
Okay, thank you.
Oh, boy.
Sir, you talked about two board certifications.
General adult psychiatry.
They might have something good for him on CROSS.
Let's see.
Liaison consultation psychiatry.
Other way around.
Consultation liaison.
Subtle point.
Right.
Now, that is not intimate partner violence.
That deals with a...
The issue of comorbidity between people who have medical problems and health problems.
So you're saying subspecialty?
Yes.
So consultation on psychiatry does have that, but you're also treating patients who have medical illness who have comorbid psychiatric illness or people who have psychiatric illness that have comorbid medical illness.
And many of the patients that I see...
On the trauma service, have tried to take their own life.
And unfortunately, as part of that, intimate partner violence and trauma in general is part and parcel of that.
So it's very, very narrow to say it's just a medical psychiatric interface.
It's much more psychiatric patients who need medical help, medical patients who have psychiatric problems, but also that interface.
I literally just talked about The Lancet last week.
As a subset of your trauma patients.
Not just the retraction, but the origins of COVID, and they're volte-fast, 180.
As a subset of that practice, some people have been involved with intimate partner violence.
So as a subset of my overall practice, 50% have suffered from trauma, about half of that number have suffered from, I'm sorry, about 20, so it's about 20% that suffer from intimate partner violence.
You've never conducted any empirical research.
On individuals who experience intimate partner violence.
There it is.
Okay, hold on.
Let's try this.
Okay, I tried.
Let's see if that works.
This is the voir dire, Maggie.
They're just trying to get him recognized as an expert in a specific field.
It's going on.
They're going to bore the jury to sleep before he even testifies.
...try one treatment versus another.
I've reviewed the body of literature on intimate partner violence to get to review articles.
Yes.
So you've read the-What, 0.21 gigawatts?
The only thing that can cause that is a bolt of lightning.
I have to disagree with you on that, sir.
Reading about it and writing a review article- I'll just leave it like this.
As a subset of trauma, the answer is yes.
In terms of in the name of the title of the article, the answer is no.
Okay, I've lowered my volume, a touch.
You've never written any books specifically on IPV.
I've never written any books on IPV.
Although, although, temporal mandibular disease, okay, in terms of psychiatric issues, does have a higher frequency.
Here's a question.
I mean, they're doing this for the judge, not for the jury now.
Including intimate partner violence.
And I am part of that book.
Temporal mandibular disease deals with problems with the jaw.
What is temporomandibular disease?
Temporomandibular disease is a problem with oral issues.
There are many patients who complain of oral issues where the oral surgeon cannot find a reason for it.
And the reason why they can't is because people who have suffered from trauma and intimate partner violence are prone to increased sensitivity of somatic sensations, which can manifest in temporomandibular disease.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
Nice plug for my book, too.
Thank you.
Oh, that's not what you want to be saying as an expert on the stand.
Again, I think I've gone over that.
I've written two articles on that, and I've written parts of chapters, and dissociative identity disorder, I should add, where I did write a chapter on, is completely based on trauma, and it's a part of violence.
Thanks for plugging my book.
I'm here as an expert in a very serious trial.
Thanks for the plug.
I will reiterate again.
You cannot separate intimate partner violence and say that is a separate rubric aside from trauma.
Trauma is overall intimate partner violence is part of trauma.
And the answer to the question is Any individual who suffers from a dissociative disorder, which I am the author of a chapter of, suffers from trauma, whether it be at the hands of childhood or it be at the hands of an intimate partner.
Right, but you've already testified that half your practice is trauma, and a subset of that practice is IPV, correct?
Actually, I treat the national average of patients.
About 20% of patients suffer from it, and that's about my practice number.
You're discounting the fact that half your practice is not trauma at all.
So 10% of your practice is IPV.
I don't know if the numbers add up exactly like that.
I'm just using yours.
I don't know if I'm doing...
I don't know if those numbers add up like that because I'm not sure if that's the case.
If you take 25% then maybe...
12.5%.
Well, he definitely does have something interesting with his job.
A significant number of my patients have suffered from intimate partner violence.
I see it on a daily basis, and I'm not sure exactly why I'm getting asked the same question again.
Thank you, sir.
This guy's got attitude.
I don't think he's drunk.
I think he just has a...
He's got a jaw issue for sure.
60, 80, whatever it is, right?
No, 60 and 80 is not...
Nobody's drunk at 10 in the morning.
Come on.
It's 1050.
Spiegel DR, and you'll find that number is 72 with two waiting to be impressed.
One submitted, so that'd be 75. So it's around 80. So again, what's on my CV is not necessarily the most updated version, because I still publish since the CV has been given to you, sir.
And not one of the 72, 80 articles has IPV in the title, right?
Correct.
Not one of them has IPV.
It does have trauma, but not IPV.
Right.
And you've never presented...
Now, what was IPV again, people?
This is so good, I've forgotten what they're trying to testify about.
What is IPV?
As a function of trauma and as a function of somatic illness, again, I would say to you that...
Intimate partner violence.
The answer is, yes, I have.
IPV is intimate partner violence.
And IPV doesn't appear in your CV at all.
If you say it's not in my CV, I will believe you.
There's a lot of things that are not in my CV.
Yeah, things that you're not an expert in.
You're not associated with any professional literature.
Grandmaster in chess is not in my CV.
I'm sorry, repeat the question, sir.
Is there any professional literature that you've contributed to relative to IPV specifically as opposed to trauma generally?
The answer to the question again, sir, is that you cannot separate this artificial separation you were trying to do...
That's not an answer, sir.
...between trauma and intimate partner violence.
Okay, so I see where they're going now.
They're trying to get him...
They're going to challenge him on being an expert in IPV.
Okay.
Your Honor, plaintiff would accept this witness as an expert on general psychiatry, but...
Yeah.
...with respect to the drug usage issues that Ms. Bretterhoff...
Reference, but not with respect to IPV.
All right.
Over objection, he's entered as an expert, as stated on the record.
All right.
You may continue.
Thank you.
Okay.
Dr. Spiegel, at our request, what have you reviewed in this case?
And just go ahead and give me more.
So it's a lengthy review, but court filings.
So he was not even the treating doctor.
That was done on misheard by both Dr. Hughes and Dr. Curry.
Other physicians, medical records, other physicians, Dr. Kipper, counselors and therapists at both parties and psychiatrists that they went to, text messages, depositions, snippets of the UK trial.
And I'm sure...
Pictures of physical injuries.
I'm sure.
Okay.
They're going to get him.
So he's not even a treating practitioner.
What have you seen in terms of emails, audios, videos?
Yes.
So I've seen videos of Mr. Depp.
I think the video was shown right here.
I've seen videos.
I've heard audios of him being very...
Slamming cupboards and breaking glass and yelling at Ms. Heard while having a wine glass with wine in his hands.
I've seen videos of destruction of property in the house.
This guy's going to get destroyed on cross-examination.
And what, if any, review have you conducted of the deposition and testimony of Mr. Depp's hired witness, Dr. Curry?
Objection.
Sure.
Oy, oy, oy.
So this guy, he will not have been a treating...
Psychiatrist.
He's going to have looked over...
And I don't even like the way Elaine phrases the question.
The evidence that...
What we have given you, have you reviewed?
If he's a true expert, should say, okay, is there anything else other than what you've given me?
You've given me this.
Are there other things that I should know?
Because I'm not just a paid...
I don't want to use any analogies that might get me in trouble on YouTube.
I'm not just a hired gun.
I'm an expert.
I don't just look at what you give me because that's a very myopic view of what I'm supposed to be an expert on.
But she keeps phrasing it.
We've given you stuff that you've looked at.
What did we give you?
Well, you gave me some very self-serving documents, pretty much only one side, that I've analyzed to determine that, yes, you're one side with no other evidence in there.
Makes Johnny very bad, man.
Oh, he's...
Well, I mean, an expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less.
I mean, what's his book on?
But that was a pretty good score in Cross on the voir dire, challenging him.
You have nothing about IPV specifically anywhere in your resume.
That's because it goes hand in hand so much so that it does not require its own specification or identification on my curriculum vitae, in my books, whatever.
So, yeah, we'll see this guy.
We'll see where it goes.
But this is going to be another one of we've given you half the story.
Come to an expert conclusion.
Come to an expert.
Earth Day Viva.
Love your commentary.
Thank you.
I want to see Johnny Depp get called up, I hope.
By the way, I can't go past 3 o 'clock today, so it's going to be relatively short.
You know, only four and a half hours.
But I'm going to end at three o 'clock.
I think Nate the lawyer is live.
Alita Legal Bites is live.
Emily D. Baker is live.
Rakata is live.
I think Good Logic is live.
If Uncivil Law is not live, he probably will be at some point.
Where do I see?
Doc Brown.
I definitely see Doc Brown now.
Like, Doc Brown sans the hair.
1.21 gigawatts!
But no, this is...
I want to see them call Johnny Depp.
Hail Mary is one way of looking at it.
Act of desperation is another.
Even in Hail Mary, there's a strategy.
Acts of desperation, you just throw it all up in the air and hope it lands somewhere good.
The Hippocrates Matrix.
Happy birthday.
You have a much-loved brother and have a great day.
Thank you very much.
And you know, Hippocrates, when you say brother, I like it.
When AOC comes out on Twitter and refers to certain people based on religion alone as her brothers and sisters, that makes me angry.
That feels cheap.
This feels loving.
Thank you.
Get the DeLorean.
Oh man, let's see what this guy has to say.
So you've seen...
I don't, Elaine.
You'll have to refresh us.
Did you review the deposition and testimony of Dr. Curry?
Dr. Curry.
First expert who came out and talked about BPD, bipolar disorder.
Borderline personality disorder, I'm sorry.
Two very different things.
Yes.
Objection, Your Honor, beyond the scope of the disclosure.
I'll allow that.
Thank you, Your Honor.
Overruled.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I got it.
I got it.
Oh, good logic is in the gallery today.
I'll send him a link.
Maybe he can pop on during break.
Dr. Spiegel, I'm going to ask you some questions in this case, respecting your opinions.
And the opinions you have formed and the basics for them.
Probably Patriot.
And I'm going to ask you to provide me with, in a reasonable degree, medical probability or certainty.
Can you do that?
Yes.
Okay.
On what were you requested to analyze and opine in this case?
So, it's fourfold.
One, I was asked to opine about the risk factors that are associated with intimate partner violence and behaviors that are shown – risk factors that are shown in intimate partner violence.
I can see creeps with behaviors that Mr. Depp has demonstrated to, I've been asked to opine about the acute effects on alcohol and substance use But only for Johnny, not for Amber.
Only for Johnny.
Functional impairment.
Three.
Talking about the psychological profile, if you would.
Is there a question?
I'm sorry.
Oh, no.
Okay.
Of psychological and medical sequelae of patients who have suffered intimate partner violence.
But only for Johnny, not for Amber.
And whether or not Mr. Death's behavior is consistent with that.
And lastly, about alcohol and other substance use disorders, their diagnostic criteria.
Their medical and psychological effects, psychiatric effects, their cognitive effects, and their functional effects.
But only for John.
Not for Amber.
I think I would like to just go with the jury.
One other thing.
When we talk about, when psychiatry talks about substance use disorder, it's imperative to understand we're not talking about someone who rarely uses and happens to have a bad night.
We're not talking about someone who uses on a weekly basis and has a bad night.
We're talking about repetitive patterns of behavior that meet a list of 11 criteria that can be deemed mild, moderate, or severe.
This guy is going to diagnose Johnny without ever having met him.
Oh, I may have used this because I used it twice.
There is a whole criteria of behavior and sequelae and consequences that go with a substance use.
This guy is going to do what doctors are never supposed to do.
Diagnose someone they've never actually met, examined, or been mandated to diagnose.
So I really need to reiterate that because I think when you look at psychiatric behavior, we tend to look, people look online and say, my gosh, I have all seven of these, right?
And they're reading it not quite the way the psychiatric literature is supposed to go.
So please, when I'm talking about this, I need you to understand, one.
We now know from the bombshell Ellen Barkin testimony, he threw a bottle 35 years ago.
He's going to get grilled on cross-examination.
Objection beyond the scope of the question.
Sustained.
Next question.
Okay.
Dr. Spiegel, could you please just summarize for the jury the conclusions you came to with your opinions, and then we'll take you through the specifics.
So in my opinion, based on my...
NCBI, is it ever ethical for doctors to diagnose patients they haven't examined?
He's going to get grilled.
...and cross.
Mr. Depp has behaviors that are consistent with both someone who has a substance use disorder as well as consistent behaviors for someone who is a perpetrator of intimate partner violence.
Thank you.
I'm going to start with the impact of drug and alcohol abuse over time.
First of all, based upon your review of the record evidence, what type of drugs has Mr. Depp used?
I don't like making accusations of ethics.
I just sent you the link.
Okay, so we are talking about...
Psychiatrists should never provide professional opinions in the media about public figures they have not personally examined.
The American Psychiatric Association reiterated in a statement.
We are talking about LSD.
We are talking about ecstasy.
We are talking about opiates.
We are talking about prescription benzodiazepines.
And...
Know what Johnny was taking?
about the abusability of Seroquel and or Gabby Pett in Iran.
Seroquel, I heard it a Tom McDonald song actually for the first time.
Concurrent use.
Boom, here, go ahead and read that people.
In your practice, do some patients suggest to you that drugs and alcohol actually help them?
So I think it's patients who lack insight or are in the very early stages of recognizing they have a quote-unquote "problem." will sometimes actually say that they have this medication actually calmed me down, this medication makes me feel better.
He's going to get grilled across.
Johnny's expert, Dr. Curry, actually met Amber.
And was mandated.
Very poor.
Anyone mind if I talk over this for a second?
Amber Heard was actually mandated to meet with Amber and diagnose her with PTSD, but instead diagnose her with borderline personality disorder.
Actually help him.
In review of the evidence, he has suggested that alcohol, Xanax, I'm in the list of medications.
Do you help?
Although I will also tell you on review of the evidence that there was...
At least two times I can remember that Mr. Depp was referring to at least short periods of sobriety, and I cannot exactly tell you what that included.
Because I never met the guy.
I can't tell you what that occurred.
And that he recognized that alcohol and drugs was at the root of his problems.
I'm excited for the cross-examination of this guy.
Quite charming, both off and on the drugs and the alcohol.
What is your answer to that?
So, again, let me put one thing clear here.
I am not here to impeach Mr. Depp's acting skills or his persona.
Oh my gosh.
Thanks, doctor.
What I'm here to say is talk about how drugs and alcohol affect what we all have in common.
We're all human beings.
We can all only get so much, take so much when something is going to happen.
And that's what I see every day in the emergency room, on the consult service, in patient psychiatry.
Bad things happen.
Not because of anything special, except for all human beings.
And our brain's substance of abuse are not titrated.
They're not regulated by the FDA.
We don't know what we're getting.
We don't know how much we're getting.
There is no control.
Even when they are regulated by the FDA, you don't know what you're getting or how it's going to affect you.
It's not the actor.
It is not the persona.
Who I've never met.
Never actually had a concert with.
Don't know when he was doing what.
Never talked to him.
But I've read some depositions.
When Mr. Depp was in his relationship with Amber Heard, was he a polysubstance abuser?
Was he in what substance abuse?
Polysubstance abuser?
Based on the depositions.
He took many drugs.
Different drugs.
Okay, so college substance abuse is the use of three or more substances.
And I answer, like I said, concurrently, he was.
Even while I was getting ready for rehab on the island, he was.
So, yes, he did engage in that.
Did Mr. Depp's drug and alcohol abuse affect him cognitively?
How the hell is he supposed to know?
If nothing else to look at...
Oh my goodness.
Blaustein, a psychiatrist who's evaluated Mr. Depp, did a mini-mental state exam on him.
And as part of that mini-mental state examination, you're asked to remember three words and then come back five minutes later and repeat those three words.
And in the meanwhile, you're getting other types of testing for retention.
So now he's assessing another doctor's assessment.
Interesting.
So other things that are being tested, too.
Mr. Depp was unable to recall any of them.
And that is very unusual for a 50-ish year old.
I don't even know how old the guy is.
I never met him.
Generally speaking, that age group should be remembering two or all three.
Dude, have a few kids.
We'll see what you remember after that.
I do know that his lines were also fed to him by earpiece.
Doctor, do drugs and alcohol affect someone's mind?
I've seen video deposition about having to have questions.
I don't want to say repeat as much as completely forgotten.
So the answer is yes.
And again, any one of us who use alcohol and cocaine to that level of degree, and I'm talking about a severe level of substance use disorder, are going to have effects.
It is inescapable.
Because we all have brains that are malfected by extensive substance use.
Even Amber Heard?
Even with her mega pints, Amber Heard?
Did you hear Amber Heard slowing her speech?
Saying she couldn't remember things?
About Mr. Depp having difficulty focusing his attention span, processing whether he could function as an actor.
Dude, I have a short attention span.
Objection, everything.
Thank you.
So, again, in terms of the acting part, we do know that he needed his lines fed to him for movies.
I didn't know that.
I heard that.
That's something of a rumor.
And I don't know which movie.
This doctor's going to...
I don't know which movie, when it happened.
...entirely wasted.
So I imagine it would be harder to do that.
Additionally, like I said, when I looked at that position, you can tell that the processing speed...
was down.
It's thinking rate was down.
If your thinking rate is down, and I'm not talking about, again, I'm getting older.
I'm probably not as sharp as I was at 25, okay?
But I'm talking about it so slow that when we're trying to move on to other questions, we're still trying to answer the original data that's presented to us.
So attention span is very much impaired.
And if your attention span is impaired, Your memory is going to be impaired.
It is inescapable that that's going to happen.
So all that comes into play.
And that's what I witnessed.
Amber also drank?
Amber also did drugs?
So by this doctor's own testimony, she would be guilty of IPV as well.
I do see that during this trial.
His cognition has improved somewhat, which will happen if you are sober.
Has improved from a baseline that I haven't measured myself.
Oh, this guy.
This is why doctors are not supposed to assess people, whether it's Trump, Nixon, or whomever.
What if any observations from the record evidence did you have about Mr. Depp having alcoholic blackouts or foggy mind?
I'm sorry, is there not a difference between blackouts or foggy mind?
Thank you, Barb.
Oh, he saw pictures of him passed out drunk.
Oh, my goodness.
Evidence.
You will see that...
Evidence.
Three pictures.
And the context is that which Amber gave to us.
This guy.
This guy.
If you have blackouts and you're using alcohol or using cocaine...
It's going to be near impossible to remember what happened the night before.
I don't think I'm the first person that's ever told you that alcohol can cause blackouts.
This guy's using blackouts interchangeably with forgetting.
To an extensive degree, the individual cannot remember what happened because they didn't have enough time for their brain.
The doctor can testify on hearsay because they're answering hypothetical questions as an essence to their testimony.
No, of course not.
But are they complication of a use disorder?
Absolutely yes.
And there was record evidence of that.
What was the record evidence of Johnny's blackouts?
At one point, alcohol and cocaine.
Is it possible to have blackouts with alcohol and different types of substances?
Yes.
So my clinical experience, and I'll date it back within the last month, we had a patient who was using both, especially cocaine, and she had these kind of stroke-like lesions around the brain center known as the hippocampus, which involved it.
I would let him do this so you can actually illustrate why it's necessary to examine an actual patient.
What is a major stroke?
And again, we think of a major stroke as someone who has speech difficulties and movement difficulties.
There's a lot of different types of stroke that can just affect cognition.
They don't necessarily have to have severe movement deficits or severe language deficits.
They can solely affect you in terms of your cognitive system.
There is truth to what he's saying about blackouts, obviously.
But the question is, he's just testifying at large based on having reviewed depositions and photographs.
You need to understand that you can have these insults, these lesions, these strokes, without demonstrating physical features and at a minimal extent.
We know that he was using both substances concurrently, and in the middle we know he had cognitive issues that we talked about, or at least had some of them.
Thank you, Dr. Spiegel.
What, if any, correlation is there between domestic abuse, heavy alcohol abuse, and cognitive disorders?
Let's hear it.
Good question, Elaine, because this applies as much, if not more, to Elaine.
Probably many of them.
I don't have time to go over all of them.
But the ones in particular, characters in particular, are one, having someone in the relationship who is jealous or suspicious.
Two, having someone who has a higher than average acceptance of violence ideations.
Three, someone who has rapid and extreme mood shifts.
Four, someone who has limited self-control.
Amber?
This guy is describing his own clients.
I hear a dog.
Hold on a second.
...and acting out on thoughts.
We all get angry at people.
That's human.
We all get angry at people.
We all think things about people.
The difference is when our brains are intact and working well, most of us don't act them out.
Okay?
Most of us do not act them out.
So that's because your frontal lobe and other parts of the brain are involved in making sure these negative thoughts don't get active.
What do you have to say about this?
Okay.
So when you have the effects of alcohol, it causes disinhibition, which means you are, by definition, losing control and having rapid mood swings.
Two, you are affecting parts of the brand that are involved in what we call social processing cues.
So you no longer can interpret what's in front of you that is, I would say, right or wrong or what I should act on and what I shouldn't act on.
So we act on them.
Even though sober, and I've seen it in Mr. Depp's record evidence, I've seen it clinically.
Sober, we can contain that.
We can contain that.
But when you have these mixtures together, knowing, by the way, that about 40% up to 60% of intimate partner violence is done under the influence of alcohol and substance use disorders.
Knowing that treating it gets it better, improves, I'm not saying removes it, but improves it.
Hearing from Mr. Depp's own text to Dr. Kipper that he was better with that, that things are going better, will show you that given those confluence of factors, given them all lining up the risk factors, I love it how he's going to only rely on Johnny Depp's incriminating text, but not on his exculpatory texts recordings.
If we're more experienced, we have more tolerance dependence, it's gonna take a lot more, but inevitably, We'll make us disinhibited and we'll make us act out and acting out can be done in a lot of different ways.
Let me tell you something, doctor.
I've been uninhibited and have never acted out in violence.
Control is the end game of it to be part of violence.
So that's how they basically interact.
Thank you.
I assume you have.
I have quite a bit more.
Let's go ahead and take our morning recess.
Discuss the case and don't do any outside research.
We'll be back with you.
I'm sorry.
15 minutes.
We're just taking a break.
No, no.
We're just taking a break.
Remember, once again, that book was...
What was the name of his book, people?
By Dr. Schmeagel.
Yeah, that's...
I mean...
Let's just wait until...
Oh, hold on.
I'm going to leave up a chat.
I'm going to leave up a comment just to...
All right, let's just take a break.
Hi-yo.
Okay, let's just see what happens in the courtroom.
Apparently, good logic, Joe Nierman is in the house, as is, I think, as is, I think, other people.
His opinion not only means nothing, he's going to get demolished on cross.
This guy never met Johnny Depp.
He's Cherry-picking, in the truest of the senses, the evidence on which...
There we go.
Sick Semper Tyrannus.
Virginia State logo.
Let's remove this for one second.
I can take these off.
Oh, God.
Oh, it hurts.
I do know that I've got a gift coming in the mail, which are going to be better and more comfortable headphones.
Okay.
Let me just see what we got here.
Red Pill says, I'm sorry.
Thinking the break was his fault.
LOL.
No, no, no, sir.
Let's just go pull up an article that I just sent to everybody.
That was a Bach piece that I once played back in the day.
Is it ever...
You know what?
It's not an incognito.
Let's just go here.
Okay, people.
Do we see this?
Do we see this article?
Let me just go back to StreamYard.
To StreamYard.
Oh, this is why I need to do...
I need two separate windows.
Give me...
Let's just get out of here.
Do it like this.
Sorry, peeps.
I need to do incognito because I need to toggle between two windows.
Must toggle between two windows.
This is an article from the NCBI.
Share screen.
Chrome tab.
Is it ever ethical?
Is it ever ethical for doctors to diagnose patients they have not examined?
NIH, sorry.
Oh no, NCBI.
The publication is in NCBI.
The National Center for Biotechnology.
Information.
Is it ever ethical for doctors to diagnose patients they haven't examined?
Psychiatrists should never provide professional opinions in the media about public figures they have not personally examined, the American Psychiatric Association reiterated in a statement.
The association was reminding members about what is known as the Goldwater Rule.
A guideline penned in 1973 after more than 1,000 psychiatrists went public.
With views about U.S. presidential candidate Barry Goldwater's fitness to hold office, calling him, among other things, a dangerous lunatic.
My goodness, history doesn't repeat, but it certainly tends to rhyme, people.
Mark Twain, mutatus mutandus to what experts did with Trump.
Despite this longstanding principle, however, many medical professionals have continued to weigh in over the years, particularly on the health of U.S. presidents.
Richard Nixon was declared paranoid.
Reagan was diagnosed from...
Afar with Alzheimer's disease.
Bill Clinton was proclaimed a narcissist.
More recently, cardiologists had a field day with Donald Trump's cholesterol levels, belly fat, and coronary calcium score.
At what point, if ever, should doctors go public with their from a distance diagnoses?
Are psychiatrists unique?
Let's just see if there's anything interesting.
I don't want to go through.
You know, it's not that long.
Let's just go here.
But apart from the duty, rests on having done a proper evaluation.
According to Dr. David Goldblum, a psychiatry professor and senior medical advisor for the Center for Addiction and Mental Health, you are intervening to abrogate fundamental civil freedoms, he said.
You can't do that from having read an article or watched television.
Here the difference is going to be this individual is called as an expert specifically to assess someone's mental standing.
Assess based on evidence provided to them.
I know it's different, but it's still nonetheless very interesting that this guy's going to have read and assessed based on cherry-picked information from one party and come to some pretty, I mean, on the one hand, standard conclusions, but also on the other hand, some pretty radical conclusions.
I wonder if they hired this guy to assess Amber Heard.
How would that go?
The Canadian Psychiatric Association said it had no official position on this subject, and although the American Psychiatric Association generally frowns on diagnoses made at a distance, there are instances when it's considered acceptable, yada yada yada yada yada.
For example, the CIA will ask for psychiatric evaluations of world leaders who haven't been examined in person.
Kim Jong-un's mental state has almost certainly been opined upon.
By psychiatrists, he said, when a judge requests a psychiatric assessment of a person whom the psychiatrist hasn't met, the assessment relies on materials collected by others, but in some cases the limitations of the evaluations are understood.
Exactly.
Armchair diagnosis can also harm trust in the medical profession, according to Brendan Lehrer, a clinical ethicist at the John Dositor Health Ethics Center.
Doctors are stewards.
Of an inherited trust.
Yeah.
If it were an inherited trust, it certainly might not be passed down to the next generation.
It will not be inherited by the next generation.
It's going to have to be reestablished by the next generation.
What you do can undermine that trust, he said, because diagnosing public figures on cable TV could cause you to be perceived more as a political advocate than a physician.
Close this up.
So people, bear that in mind.
Apply Mutandis Mutandis to this.
I mean, we know it's an expert.
This is under the caveat that this person is being called as an expert for a trial.
It's going to be perceived that way.
But...
My goodness.
Okay.
But yeah.
No Chairman Klaus.
That is not something that we can assess.
Viva, it took your entire life to get to this point.
Happy birthday.
Thank you very much.
The psychiatrist looks like the scientist from Back to the Future.
That would be Doc Brown in the movie, Christopher Lloyd in real life, and I believe we all agree on that.
But no, this is...
It's fascinating.
The first expert, for those who are just tuning in now, was...
Not an ophthalmologist.
Oh, was testifying on the finger injury.
We had the first, which is not cognitive.
You're not assessing someone's psychiatric mental state.
You're assessing physical injury, which is different in nature than psychiatry, different in nature than the mind.
First expert of the day, orthopedic surgeon.
Thank you.
There you go.
The first expert of the day was an orthopedic surgeon who...
There was no challenging his credentials.
He was recognized as an expert after a relatively short voir dire, voir dire, which is si, say.
No, it was truth, truth say, which is testing the credentials of an expert.
He was admitted as an expert, and he came in and said, that injury on the finger, I've reviewed the evidence submitted to me.
Not to say it was cherry-picked, but I've reviewed evidence that was submitted to me by Team Amber.
And I'm saying Team Amber, not in the hashtag Team Amber as in blindly following one team versus another in absence of assessing any evidence, but rather Amber's legal team.
Reviewed the evidence submitted by Amber's legal team, proceeded to describe the manner in which Johnny Depp allegedly sustained the injury, said his hand was flat on a table, and in his mind, although inconclusive, Very unlikely that the injury was sustained by a bottle allegedly thrown because his hand was flat on the table.
The bottle allegedly exploded and one would assume that there would be pieces of glass in medical reports by the treating physicians, etc., etc.
He said it was a crush injury, but in his assessment he said...
Unlikely that it was caused in the way Johnny Depp said it was.
His hand was flat on the table.
The bottle, I would imagine, comes in at an angle.
Not a crush.
You'd expect broken glass everywhere in the wound, etc.
The fingernail was intact.
Okay, fine.
But he specifically said inconclusive.
Cross-examination.
I will say Camille destroyed him.
Camille crushed him in cross-examination by getting him to recognize that, or admit, That his description of how, in his expert opinion, the injury occurred was wrong.
Johnny Depp, by his own testimony, his hand was not flat on the table, but curled over the side of a bar.
She then proceeded to show pictures of broken glass at the area of the alleged incident.
Blood drips at the area of the alleged incident.
Proceeded to show evidence to the effect that the fingertip was found at the bar area of the alleged incident.
Asked the doctor if he knew any of this, and he said, no, I didn't see any of that.
Amber's team didn't.
Give me that information.
They tried to get him to testify on what the broken glass was.
And the redirect did nothing to reestablish his garbage expert testimony, in my humble opinion.
Call me biased, but that expert was bad.
That expert was bad from the get-go.
And that expert was attempting to undermine the idea that Johnny Depp's injury was sustained in the way he said it was sustained, which was Amber Heard throwing, what was it, a half gallon?
Sounds like a big freaking bottle of vodka.
That crushed his finger, smashed the tip off, and then the bottle proceeded to break.
I had a thought on that.
Oh yeah, although the doctor did say it was a crush injury.
And it could have occurred in a sliding door, in a car door.
He doesn't know, but he doesn't think it happened with a bottle of vodka being thrown at it, crushing it against the side of a bar, and then the bottle proceeding to shatter off once it hit afterwards so that you would actually have no glass in the wound.
The only problem with that, by the way, I think they'll use it in closing because they didn't raise it in cross.
That's not even how Amber Heard said he lost his finger.
She said he lost his finger while smashing a phone on a wall.
To the point where the phone disintegrated, his blood going everywhere.
And then when she woke up three hours later after just going to sleep after that incident, no drugs involved in that or alcohol.
After going to sleep after that, his fingertip was gone.
So even by the doctor's own testimony now, even if it is inconclusive as to how Johnny alleges he sustained this injury, it's, I think, demonstrably incompatible with Amber Heard's testimony.
Which was repeated striking and not a crush injury, even according to their own expert.
Playing Monday morning quarterback, quite literally on a Monday, and it's easier to think when you're not there and when you're not necessarily following a specific line of questioning, but okay, doctor.
And maybe you don't even want to open that door to him to clarify Amber's testimony, but his explanation?
For how it happened, it was a crush injury.
Could have been in a sliding door.
Could have been in a car door.
He doesn't know, but not a bottle.
Incompatible with Amber's own testimony as to how Johnny sustained that injury.
Okay, interesting.
Let's get to Dr. Doc Brown in a second.
Megapine for both of us.
Candice Magnus, thank you very much.
I'm 39 today.
You're 40. Happy birthday, Candice.
You're 43 and I diagnosed this with being amazingly awesome.
Gonna buy me some Viva merch today.
Oh, hold on.
Let me plug the merch store, people.
Candice, thank you very much.
Speaking of plugging, let's get to the second doctor plugging his book on the...
And the funny thing is...
Candice, thank you again.
It's a funny joke, ordinarily.
Like, it's a joke.
Hey, let me...
That's VivaBornsLaw.locals.
Yeah, it's a joke.
But there's a time and a place for every joke.
And even I know that.
Despite my juvenile sense of humor, despite my...
Despite my, you know, sometimes lacking better judgment, even I know that you don't make certain jokes in certain contexts.
You're there as an expert, an alleged expert, a psychiatric, a psychiatrist expert testifying on IPV, intimate partner violence.
It's not the time to even give the illusion of looking opportunistic.
But he did.
Because, you know, I mean, whatever.
A moment of not thinking clearly, but speaking of judgment, okay.
Doesn't the edge of the bar play into this?
I'm betting the doctor didn't know if the bar edge was smooth or curved or sharp 90 degree.
Wish they asked.
Well, they got to it enough where they said, did you know any of this?
Did you know that the broken glass was there?
Did you see these pictures of blood by the bar?
Did you know the fingertip was alleged to have been found there?
And he says, no.
I might have asked.
If you knew this, would it possibly change your opinion?
And here, it's one of those questions where you don't know the answer, so it could be risky, except it's one of those questions where either way he's damned.
If you knew these additional facts of which you were not aware by your own testimony, would it change your medical professional opinion?
He either says yes, in which case you win, or he says no, in which case he looks like an idiot, and in which case you win.
Or he tries to get into some lengthy, well, maybe if I...
You're asking that question.
If you had known now what you admit you didn't know at the time, would it change your professional assessment?
The answer is either going to be yes or no.
Yes is bad.
No is bad.
One makes him look incomplete.
The other one makes him look dogmatic.
Now, speaking of shameless plugs, yesterday we launched the merch store.
And it looks good.
Getpressed.ca.
A Canadian company.
And the stuff is not all made in Canada, but I've asked at least it's not made in certain countries that we might not want to, you know, out of principle, try to avoid purchasing goods in as much as possible.
Stay local.
This is it, people.
Check it out.
Booyah.
This is my wife.
And then you can go.
Anyways, it's there.
It's all there.
Cake, anyone?
Because today's my birthday.
I don't know if you knew that.
Look at this.
Look at this.
Oh, it's beautiful.
Layout's good.
The apron is good.
I'm having a barbecue tonight.
Viva Barnes, you.
And we're going to get the Barnes stuff up ASAP.
Okay, let's get back to the psychiatrist.
Remove.
So we've read an article.
This is not a question of like, don't go file ethics complaints either, by the way, because the doctor diagnosed them.
In as much as doctors should not be assessing or providing psychiatric evaluations of people they've never met, people should not be filing ethics complaints against doctors or lawyers that they've never had as professionals for whom they have never been clients.
So that goes both ways.
But this doctor, I mean, he's called to assess at a distance because...
But he necessarily...
I'm just going to remove that.
He necessarily hasn't met Johnny Depp.
Presumably, this is not a court-appointed expert.
So he has not met Johnny Depp.
He's not going to meet Johnny Depp because Johnny Depp's not going to agree to sit down with this partisan, let's say partisan, because he is acting for and on behalf and at the direction of, in the interest of one of the parties, Amber Heard.
He's not going to sit down and meet with them, and that's totally understandable.
No, but this is just, this is too stupid.
Cannot watch.
You should watch this.
First of all, if you've never seen a voir dire, it's interesting.
People don't appreciate, you know, experts, especially if it's adversarial, like uber adversarial, and especially if it's not televised, you challenge an expert in court.
People do it all the time.
And you want to, even if you...
Oh, we're getting back.
Even if you're unsuccessful in challenging an expert, you want to do it.
You want to rattle the expert before they take the stand as a recognized expert of the court.
And the voir dire...
First of all, let me anecdote while they do this here.
I'm going to add to stream.
I once had a case where I was...
I called an expert.
I'll tell you what.
You learn lessons fast when they happen to you.
We had an expert in a file.
Any detail doesn't make a difference.
I sat down with this expert for...
Two, three days to go over testimony, not to prep their testimony, to understand their testimony, to get them ready for a cross-examination, to go over the facts, to go over their expert report.
Two, three days.
Okay.
We get to court and I present the evidence.
I'm sorry.
I present the expert and ask that they be recognized as an expert.
Qualifications, expertise, how many times have you been to court?
Okay, great.
Opposing party challenges...
We have a few questions.
Has your license ever been suspended?
Hmm.
What do you think the answer was to that question, to which I was not aware because I knew that they were licensed and in good standing at that time.
What do you think the answer to that question?
Has your license ever been suspended?
The answer was, it hadn't been suspended.
It had been...
Let me rephrase.
It had been suspended, but not necessarily revoked.
Temporarily, but reinstated?
Hmm.
You've got to do your own due diligence on your own experts because they don't always offer what would be obvious, relevant information.
And I didn't think to ask.
Never made that mistake again.
Of course, your own expert doesn't like being challenged on whether or not their license has ever been suspended, revoked, or reprimanded.
Although the individual hadn't been reprimanded.
It was just a temporary suspension.
So, yeah.
This is a learning experience for anyone who wants to become a lawyer.
And you'll see in their cross-examination or the challenging the expert status of Doc Brown here.
They got him to not be, or at least challenge his IPV expertise.
Okay, I'll shut my face now for a second.
Thank you.
Now, you indicated that you reviewed Mr. Depp's video depositions.
Is that correct?
Yes.
Did you review Amber Heard's?
Is that correct?
Yes.
Okay.
Did you reach any conclusions about his cognitive symptoms inside?
Oh, he's drinking Gatorade.
So, during the video deposition, what was readily apparent was a gentleman who had...
Oh, a delay in processing?
Or maybe he just thinks before he speaks.
Oh my goodness.
I think we're going with hashtag Doc Brown.
At least he's drinking the yellow.
That's the best flavor.
If you're going to drink garbage.
It's got the stuff plants need.
No coherent pattern.
He was structured by Ms. Bredehoff to kind of get to the point of the question, which happened throughout most of the deposition.
And so you could see there that there was obviously some form of cognitive issue that should not be happening in someone in their mid-50s.
Oh yeah, clearly.
Probably due to the alcohol and substances.
What, if any, observations did you make about impulse control?
So, during the deposition?
Yes, or any other time?
And on the record evidence, either.
So, again, I think that...
Under the guise of not being acutely intoxicated, I think Mr. Depp was able to control much of his behavior, much of his thinking, even if it was aberrant or negative, he was able to control that.
I think that once you start getting to the point of adding substances to that, that will set you up.
I'll talk a little quieter.
If you saw the video, I think you all did, about the kitchen where there was smashing of glasses.
Oh, God, yeah.
You pretend to diagnose anything on that?
You're done.
And throughout the deposition of Dr. Kipper, Mr. Devin is firing him and rehiring him and yelling and screaming.
I do believe that a lot of it had to do with the interaction of, "Hey, we're trying to help you get sober." And it is obviously something you are resisting, not ready for, not wanting.
And so you saw a lot of yelling, a lot of acting out, if you would.
Which puts you on the state of, hey, this is a gentleman who has really significant trouble with delaying gratification, delaying reward.
And certainly one way to make that significantly worse is with substances.
There's no question about that.
He has never met JD, correct.
Subsume this in, but what, if anything, did you observe relating to erratic behavior based on the record?
Yeah, I mean, I think, again, when you talk about erratic behavior, Dr. Kipper's deposition, I believe it was, where I think I made a particular note of this because I'm a psychiatrist myself.
I don't know if you knew that, guys.
You spent 25 minutes just praising me.
Did you get that part, guys?
...about Dr. Cowan, who was Ms. Heard's psychologist-therapist.
And the language, you can be dissatisfied with your provider.
I have no problem with that.
You could be dissatisfied and you have the right to go to wherever you want to go to.
But the texting...
Was the video about after the death of his mother or the $650 million that he lost?
It was disturbing in terms of the verbiage used, the phrases used.
I'm Oh, look at this.
He wants to shock the jury.
Go ahead.
I can't?
He looks so happy.
Look at that face.
He looks so happy that he can swear now.
Go back and look at that face that he just gave.
So happy.
Objection hearsay.
He's entitled to rely on it and to give his examples.
Experts are allowed to, it's going to be overruled.
Talk about what he developed from the hearsay, but not repeated himself.
He's entitled to give examples of it.
I'll sustain the objection.
The hell do I know?
Without giving the exact words that you recall.
Oh, without giving the exact words?
Yeah.
Okay.
So, I mean, without giving the exact words, it was basically vulgar language.
Oh my gosh, vulgar language.
Heaven forbid, Doc.
Multiple tests, texts, multiple things that Dr. Cowan were doing in therapy.
This is the chief.
Without relaying exactly, I'm trying to be as accurate as I can.
And I think at the end of it, I think he was also talking about that Dr. Cowan was filling Amber with positive...
Thoughts of therapeutic...
Objection hearsay.
I think he's keeping it more general.
He's entitled to rely on.
Thank you.
So more along the line of giving Amber psychiatric jargon to put on him and actually what I read and interpreted what Dr. Cowens was getting blasted for was he was...
You know, kind of teaching Amber how to be heard.
I appreciate, by the way, I hope this guy is critiquing Dr. Curry who met with the patients to assess.
That's called Monday morning quarterbacking.
And for that, there were a lot of negativity being sworn at.
So again, erratic behavior in terms of writing a text, but I have no problem.
They're going to destroy them, I think.
Okay.
None whatsoever.
It's just the expressing of it and the continual ranting of it was very uncomfortable for me to read.
But regardless, I think we have seen.
Uncomfortable for me to read?
I'm sorry.
I have a clean mouth and I don't really think Johnny has said many things that are over the trouble.
Objection beyond the scope of the question.
Sustain.
Next question.
Okay.
I don't agree.
Like we say, the only opinion that matters to the court is the judges.
The behaviors that you have been describing for the jury, are those typical and age-related?
No.
So, well, I don't consider 58 years old.
I'm 59, okay?
I will tell you that the age-related changes that occur in humans are very erratic, hit-and-miss.
Meaning they'll occasionally be there.
You may need a little bit more time to answer a question or pull things out of memory.
Just a little bit slower and a lot more inconsistently slow.
You wouldn't describe what Dr. Lovstein's changes were or what I saw on the deposition attributed to age.
How about attributed to very, very bad news in his life?
Seracopine is actually an atypical antipsychotic, which is indicated for many things, including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, adjunctive treatment for major depression.
So it's indicated for a lot of things.
But what effects may it have?
This is one of the drugs that Mr. Depp was taking, correct?
It was a prescribed drug?
Yes.
Okay.
So the effect of cerequils is it's very often used as a sleeping agent because it doesn't have a lot of the side effects that are associated with conventional antipsychotics, movement disorders, tired dyskinesia, etc.
At least it's a very low risk of that.
So people have used it off-label.
Physicians have used it off-label to help them sleep.
I have a neurotic objection to sleeping aids.
And it really knocks people out, or certainly if you use it.
A neurotic reluctance to any of these things.
And the problem is, the problem is it also has street value.
So it's absolutely used on the street.
What does this have to do with Johnny Depp?
Obviously, it's a little bit more readily available because it's prescribed.
Are they suggesting that Johnny was kicking his...
What does that have to do with anything?
Street value.
What effect would this have on Mr. Depp based on the dosages he was taking?
What effect would this have based on dosages?
Oh my gosh.
Objection and speculation.
Thank you.
Oh.
Damn it.
Well, at least I knew what the objection was going to be.
Patients who have substance use disorder.
My volume is markedly low.
People tell me it's high.
I know what a circadian rhythm is.
My wife told me.
So you will take stimulants to quote unquote, get you up in the morning and then you Caffeine.
To knock you out.
So basically, what these are being used for is...
But there's speculation.
And then there's speculation.
That's very characteristic of what would be actually legal prescribed substances.
The first time I ever heard Syroquil was in a Tom McDonald song.
It's a bottle of Syroquil on the counter.
I don't even touch it.
Dr. Spiegel, what is neurotic?
I've heard that before.
It's actually an anti-seizure medicine, which I think is indicated for seizures, and it might be indicated for one chronic pain condition, although I can't swear that to you.
That said, again, in a substance use disorder population.
It has significant street value.
And people who misuse opiates...
What does the street value have to do with anything, doctor?
Because it has this anti-pain calming effect.
So unfortunately, it also can cause respiratory suppression.
And so when you use it with opiates, there are people that are lucky enough to succumb to respiratory suppression.
So they say melatonin is non-habit-forming?
Anything that helps someone sleep is habit-forming.
That people use it for.
And what effect would this have on Mr. Depp in the dosages he was taking?
How the heck are you supposed to know without having...
Objection.
Okay.
Again, what it would do is have the street value of using it with the opiates.
The advantage is you're using it with opiates and it's making...
Because opiates in general, despite everything else...
Street value.
And you use it with it, it offers further calming, which is why...
Doctors have been born not to strive.
Based on his songs and lyrics, not based on an assessment from afar.
And opiates together, unless under significant strict I have never been told that I have a nice voice, but I try.
What if any?
Because these medications have notoriously varying effects depending on how the individual reacts to them.
Adderall is psychostimulant, which is prescribed relatively regularly for ADHD.
The problem comes again when you shouldn't be prescribing or receiving Adderall when you're already misusing cocaine.
You're now doubling your stimulant dosage here.
What you are talking about, again, it comes down to the substance use disorder population.
You are using it to stay awake, have energy, keep yourself going, getting high, getting energetic.
And then the only way to kind of combat that because you have this effect is to kind of...
Take downers during the day and downers being anything that's calming.
So anywhere from opiates, prescription, anywhere from Neurontin, anywhere from Seroquel, all medications that are potentially, not potentially, which are abusable.
And so that's what this is going on.
That's what the substance use disorder patient has.
And, you know, it can't be given with someone using cocaine.
It's not just that he doesn't know, Johnny.
These medications are notoriously individualized.
What, if any, effect would these drugs have if they were mixed with MDMA or cocaine?
Oh.
Street value goes way up.
Like I talked about before, there are effects where you are looking at the predisposing traits of intimate partner violence.
So, jealousy.
Rapid mood changes.
These are her best witnesses.
And to some degree, condoning violence to a certain degree.
When you combine them all together, you get this disinhibiting euphoria effect from cocaine and Adderall.
Then when you combine the two together, what happens?
You get too much and then you start getting irritable.
You start getting agitated.
You start becoming suspicious.
Jealous?
I'm no doctor, but I don't think jealousy is one of the side effects of NDMA.
...average everyday use of these substances.
We are talking about chronic use together.
And we also know that alcohol and cocaine use independently increase significantly the risk of intimate partner violence.
These aren't statistics I'm coming up with.
Anywhere from reports up to 7 to 27 fold.
So you are quote unquote colloquially playing with fire when you are talking about substances and intimate partner violence.
You are playing with fire.
And that's all of us.
And the substances that Mr. Depp was taking and the record evidence relating to those, did you draw any conclusions concerning Whether he met this criteria or these risk factors.
So, in terms of substance use disorder, when you look at it, so major role obligations not being fulfilled.
Don't have any evidence about operating under the influence or not.
Social issues, especially disagreements.
arguments with your spouse or family.
My goodness, obviously there was tolerance and dependent for the amount he was using.
Cause if anyone is naive to this, these medications, most of us would be dead.
Unsuccessful efforts, difficulty cutting back using more than intended.
Giving up social occupational obligations because of this.
I know there was a party right after the rehab on the island in Australia.
This guy's testimony.
Objection beyond the scope of the question.
Some of it is laughable.
What other record evidence did you have supporting this?
Psychological using, despite the fact you know it causes known psychological, psychiatric, or medical effects.
I think that's been pretty well documented.
So, in this case, you're talking about someone who has a severe substance use disorder.
I do want to emphasize, uh, the jury, that intimate partner violence and substance use disorders are two scourges in this country.
They're two plagues.
This is very serious stuff we're playing with.
Camille, look at Camille, staring at the jury.
She now looks at the doctor.
Relevance.
Now she looks at the judge for the objection.
Beyond the scope.
Beyond the scope.
Amber, Camille looking at the jury.
Tell me more about the relationships between substance abuse and IPV, please.
Yeah, so again, that...
You are talking about this and you may be able to control the risk factors for IPV.
Any of us.
I agree, Pixie.
We're matching colors.
We're thinking and we're not disinhibited, not having these hyper intense emotions from substances.
Once you add that to this mix, your brain can no longer do what it's supposed to do.
Oh, yeah.
And that's evidence by virtue of the fact that Johnny...
From doing this.
Quite frankly, because it's your own.
Did you arrive at any conclusions concerning substance abuse and potential self-harm that may have led to Mr. Depp injuring his finger?
Oh, now it's self-harm.
Accusation of what Johnny Depp...
Exactly what Amber might have done.
I'll tell you that Mr. Depp has a history of self-injurious behavior.
How?
Go on, please.
Mr. Depp has a history of burning himself.
I know when the actual event happened, there was texting to Dr. Kipper, paraphrasing, not saying exactly, that Amber and him got into a disagreement related to...
Her wanting him to be sober.
And as a result of that, he said he got so angry, he cut the tip of his finger off.
So if you're asking me, can someone who has or have I seen and can someone who cuts themselves, burns themselves, can cut a tip of their finger off with or without alcohol or cocaine or the rest, the answer is...
Objection beyond the scope of the question.
Let him answer it.
Thank you.
Please continue.
Was it overruled?
It was overruled.
Go ahead.
So...
Yeah, it has a history.
By the way, I don't think...
I disagree that Johnny has a history of self-harm unless you include drug addiction and self-harm, which many people would.
...started out with similar risk factors of burning self and cutting self.
I'm not going to get into the descriptions, but I've seen people do a lot worse than that.
So the answer is yes.
Okay.
I'm going to turn now specifically to intimate partner violence, and I know you've talked certainly about it.
But can you tell the jury, please, a little bit more about intimate partner violence and what is included in that?
So, the APA task force on violence in the family...
By the way, the only evidence of self-harm was Amber's ideations in youth and childhood, apparently.
Recurrent abusive behavior by means of psychological, sexual, or physical maltreatment for the purpose of achieving control or maintaining power, authority, and control.
Amber?
Come on, Johnny.
I didn't hit you.
I'm sorry.
I didn't punch you.
I slapped you in the face.
You've had worse.
Quit being a baby, Johnny.
As a means of emotionally and mentally hurting someone.
But with the same end goal to achieve control, it can be destroying property.
It can be financial, which is part of that.
Verbal outbursts.
verbal outbursts, I'm sorry, threats, intimidation, body language, all of that goes under the concept of psychological abuse.
And you may be able to divide it verbal They had better destroy this expert on Cross.
Play the recordings of Amber.
Is this manipulation?
Is this abuse?
Is this IPV?
Oh, he's opening it up.
Okay, look.
This is why I don't eat or drink in public.
It's very embarrassing when you don't do it properly.
Oh, yes.
So survivors of intimate partner violence.
And by the way, I should start out by saying we don't expect in psychiatry, we don't expect our victims to be perfect.
We don't expect our victims to be unscathed by what they've received.
So you expect your victims to also be victimizers?
It's not unusual.
Throwing that out there.
Possibly?
To see substance use, substance abuse, substance-induced symptoms, chronic depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, or sub-syndromal post-traumatic stress disorder along the lines of Banner-Wise syndrome.
And some emotional unpredictability.
Again, you are a victim here.
You are a victim.
Do perpetrators typically seek treatment or counseling?
No.
Perpetrators are not receiving counseling treatment.
One, because they're going to be probably having to tell someone that they actually struck someone, which is what their thought is about the big problem that intimate partner violence is just hitting.
Again, important, but not the sole part of it.
So perpetrators very rarely will go into any type of formal counseling.
Victims.
Go into counseling.
Victims are seeking actually couples counseling.
Victims are seeking couples advice to try to repair what's happening.
I'm trying to apply this to Amber and Johnny.
I don't know this well enough.
Who was the one that went to therapy?
They don't do that.
In your review of this case, is there record evidence of physical violence by Mr. Depp?
Objection, Your Honor.
No foundation.
People who know this case better than me, what is the evidence on who sought treatment, who sought counseling?
We know that Johnny sought rehab, and I think we know that Johnny sought treatment.
He sat there drinking his lemon lemonade, wondering where it all went wrong.
Was it possibly diagnosing someone at a distance?
Possibly talking about street drugs?
He sealed the bottle, put it back down, and looked over.
To see what exactly was being discussed.
Then went back to contemplating everything he'd ever done that brought him here.
It takes a lifetime to build a reputation.
A moment to ruin it, he thought to himself as he cleaned off the tip of his shoe with the other foot.
Viva Golf Voice is over.
Like, no joke.
I think the evidence is that even by what this doctor is saying, Johnny Depp was the one who went to therapy, went to rehab.
And Amber went to...
What was it?
NA?
Narcotics Anonymous?
He stared over at the jury.
He wondered, what did this jury think about him?
Did they respect his credentials?
Would they buy his book?
We will find out next on Expert Testimony continues.
Well, okay, but some of this testimony is preposterous, I think.
The self-harm for Johnny, okay, duly noted.
There has been evidence that he used to cut his arm or burning the...
I think I know about that.
I mean, I think we do know about that.
That was there.
It may not have been as fresh in my memory.
I do recall...
I didn't know the business about his arm scars being a, you know, a diary of his life.
Then the issue is self-harm.
Is scarification self-harm?
Is tattooing self-harm?
Without getting into that.
So I wasn't aware of the scars on his arm being a diary of his life, although I'm certain that the scar on his fingertip is one chapter.
I mean, I know what I'm looking for in this testimony.
Everything that this doctor has testified as far as IPV, abusive behavior, temperamental behavior, verbal abuse, physical abuse, is more true of Amber, based on the evidence that we've actually seen adjuiced, than of Johnny.
The stenographer sat there, listening quietly but pretending not to hear the objections going on behind her.
She's thinking about the book that she's going to write about this trial.
It will finally get her out of this stenographer's...
What's what I'm looking for right now?
The nine to five of the life of a stenographer court reporter.
It's very interesting stuff, but the life was lived for this one moment, the Johnny Depp trial and the book that she will write about it.
She then completes the entry for the day.
Oh, what's going on behind them?
I'd love to hear.
I'd love to hear what they're saying with the judge right now.
Let's see here.
Actually, I want to see.
This is a long sidebar.
Elaine's got a lot of stuff in her hands.
She's got a lot of stuff.
They're looking at it.
That's got to be the expert report.
There's a little post-it in there.
Oh, if she's watching Netflix.
I don't think she's watching Netflix.
Thanks.
This guy's describing the behavior of both Heard sisters, right?
No, no, no.
No, of course not, because he didn't assess any of that.
He only looked at...
Play the recording.
Where did I post it?
I think I posted it to Twitter yesterday.
Hold on.
Oh, no, I have to take the screen out if I do that.
Come on, Johnny.
Don't be a baby.
I didn't clock you.
Okay, I hit you.
You've been around, Johnny.
You've had worse.
Like, play that for him.
Ask him if he heard that.
Ask him if he heard that audio.
Camille, if you're listening.
Camille, if you're listening, play that.
Ask this expert if he ever heard that audio.
Play the recording of Amber cackling and berating and insulting Johnny.
Ask him if he ever heard that.
Ask him if that counts as the controlling, manipulative IPV that he's talking about.
But play the one where she admits to hitting him, but she didn't deck him, Johnny.
Don't be a...
Can you imagine telling someone after you've hit them not to be a baby?
Play that for the doctor and ask him what he thinks of that.
Ask him if he's ever heard that.
Ask him if it's normal that he would not have been given that information when assessing at a distance, from a distance, someone.
Ask him if that's common practice.
Ask him if he heard that.
If he heard that, would that have changed his expert opinion assessment of Johnny?
Might he then think that Johnny might actually have been the victim of IPV and not the perpetrator?
And he'll have the same damned if you do, damned if you don't answer.
No, it wouldn't change my opinion because I'm a paid mercenary.
Or yes, it would change my opinion, which makes it worthless.
Carry on.
What have you reviewed that correlates with the risk factors for IPV related to Mr. Depp?
So a risk factor I reviewed that correlate.
So starting with the, I guess we'll start with the physical because that was the question that was put out there.
What I have reviewed has demonstrated pushing, shoving, grabbing.
Objection, Your Honor.
Let me see if I can direct this a little differently.
Elaine didn't even bother to fight that one.
Rather than giving the summary of what that was.
What did you review that correlates?
In other words, did you review witness statements?
Did you review depositions, photos?
Yes.
So what I reviewed was in terms of witness statements, Dr. Kipper's notes.
Very, very interestingly, actually, early on.
In, I think it was 2012, around that time, circa 2012-2014, Ms. Heard was...
It shouldn't be on the scope of the question.
What he reviewed is the question.
All right, let's...
So I reviewed...
So Ms. Heard's...
Objection, there's no question pending.
There's no question pending.
Please continue with what you reviewed.
I've never heard that objection before.
Therapist's notes, counselor's notes.
Objection, he's...
Answering text messages.
No question that has been asked.
Depositions.
Video.
pictures, Psychologists.
Notes and evaluations.
I said physicians.
I reviewed what I was told to review my expert.
Now, you've indicated that...
Oh, they're not going to get to this before lunch.
Physical violence, sexual abuse, and psychological aggression.
Can you please describe for the jury what psychological aggression is and what it entails?
Psychological aggression.
Take notes, Camille.
She is taking notes.
Or she's on her phone.
Someone had better bring this back and cross.
Listen.
Harming someone.
I got goosebumps.
I got goosebumps.
Play that audio of Amber.
Cackling at Johnny.
Include insults.
Intimidation.
Amber.
Amber.
By holding things financially against someone.
Amber.
Jealousy.
Amber.
Property destruction.
Amber.
So all that is involved in nonverbal communication, so threatening looks, glances, things like that.
Amber, Amber, Amber.
All that is involved in psychological maltreatment and intimate partner violence.
What if any...
What, if anything, would be psychological aggression if it was trying to control somebody's career?
Good question, Elaine.
Don't expect this question to be turned back on you.
Let her ask it.
So, yeah, trying to control someone career, that would be under financial, trying to mistreat someone, especially, you know, someone who wants to succeed and trying to have a career, and you're preventing them from doing so by maltreatment.
That's another example.
Play it.
Play it after the break.
We're going to ask specifically about the risk factors for intimate partner violence.
The risk factors.
Is substance abuse a risk factor for intimate partner violence?
Yes, it is a risk factor as well as a precipitating cause.
Oh, this doctor's getting cross-examined today, maybe even before lunch, but definitely after lunch.
Record evidence did you review that correlates to Mr. Depp engaging in substance abuse?
The record evidence of...
I'll just start with Dr. Kipper and the substances that...
Dr. Kipper, the guy who actually met with the patients, or the people.
...and on urine drug screen, were brought out through that.
Okay.
Is lack of behavioral control and impulsiveness risk factors for intimate partner violence?
Yes, they are.
Okay.
And...
What, if any, record evidence were you aware of that Mr. Depp exhibited lack of behavioral control?
Whatever you gave me, Elaine.
Again, threatening.
Objection.
Why?
Record evidence.
That correlates with, and I'm on the risk factors at this point.
Thank you, Your Honor.
Threatening?
Yes.
Destroying furniture, property, breaking things, writings on walls, mirrors.
Oh, come on.
Tailor your answer a little more, Doctor.
Writing in blood on furniture.
Why is he writing in blood?
Because she chopped his finger off, Doctor.
Good point.
Writing in blood on furniture after your abusive partner chops your finger off with a bottle, that's sign of domestic IPV.
My goodness.
Doctor, why was he writing in blood on the furniture?
Oh, I don't know.
If his spouse had cut his finger off, would that be IPV?
It's not just his property.
It's his blood.
And it's coming out because of what something Amber allegedly did to him.
Narcissism as it relates to the risk factors of intimate partner violence and what that realm is.
So narcissism patients have poor self-control.
Rapid mood shifts.
As a result, they have an undue sense of admiration.
They worship power, worship control.
Interesting.
They have lack of empathy and people are generally kept around as long as they're useful to them.
Wow, does this guy not realize who he's describing?
Large sense of entitlement.
Wow, does he not know who he's describing right now?
This is glorious in its irony.
Need for praise.
Oh my, is this a joke?
Narcissistic personality and IPV.
What if any traits would be requiring admiration?
Would that fit into it?
Oh yes, requiring admiration, need to be admirers, part and parcel of narcissistic personality disorder.
Would being envious fit within that?
Yes.
Fragile self-esteem?
Yes.
I'd say objection leading.
This expert should be able to offer this without...
What, if any, record evidence do you have that correlates with Mr. Depp being narcissistic?
Whatever you gave me.
I do think that the fact that he thought that Amber owed him, Ms. Hurd owed him...
Objection, Your Honor.
You're safe.
Thank you.
Go ahead.
The fact that Ms. Hurd owed him...
Only wanted to be together with him because of his fame is an example of that.
They have to be, especially given Dr. Curry's testimony on BPD.
An example of that, I do think, you know, I think Mr. Tillett had testified that being admired is one thing, but then behind your back saying something else about people is another thing.
And I can probably say with a reasonable certainty that to some degree this whole trial is that...
Objection, Your Honor.
I would have let him keep going there.
It's not record evidence.
Speculation.
Please continue.
You look defensive when you don't want to answer.
In terms of narcissistic insult is what's going on.
I believe that Mr. Depp...
Was very much a mainstay, appropriately, in Hollywood.
And then this was pulled the rug without...
Objection, Your Honor.
Can we be...
Can you explain what you mean by this whole trial?
This court case...
There's an objection, sir.
But also, we also have to distinguish between narcissism and...
Domestic violence.
This is, uh...
It's also amazing, because...
Oh, boy.
Amber Heard is boiling in rage at the quality of this expert.
How much are we paying this guy, she asked herself.
He is so destroyed, I'm going to file a complaint against this doctor.
How dare he assess someone that he had never met before?
She stares back at the gallery.
that correlates with Mr. Depp being narcissistic, having those traits.
What was I not allowed to say again?
I wasn't allowed to say how the trial was an insult to his ego.
In order to maintain any sense of control a narcissistic person really has to have lack of empathy.
We can't diagnose at a distance.
He lacks credibility, in my humble opinion.
Going to get destroyed on the cross, in my opinion.
So I think that's another facet.
So, are attitudes accepting or justifying intimate partner violence a risk factor for intimate partner violence?
Sorry, Lynn, you have to clarify that question, please.
Do some perpetrators in intimate partner violence try to minimize?
I don't want to focus on Amber's clothing, but what is she wearing today?
It is unfortunately not uncommon, especially during the calm phases of the abuse cycle where there is no increased tension.
I think the guy's going to cross.
I forget what his name is now.
I don't think it's Camille.
More of the honeymoon, apologetic phase, begging for forgiveness.
Thank you very much, Hart.
Tackle.
Maybe giving them gifts.
And then when the dust settles later in the day, a day or two later, it is not uncommon for the perpetrator to kind of switch the blame over to the victim saying, Heart Tackle makes good.
Made in America.
lures and fishing tackle.
Trying to make it look bad or an allopathic defense where you instigated it or an altruistic effect where I'm doing it for you.
I'm getting people saying my volume is too loud, too low.
Anyhow, sorry.
It looks like she's wearing a cowboy outfit of sorts, like some Rango-esque cowboy outfit.
But beyond that, the ability to kind of quote-unquote, for lack of a better phrase, win people over.
Try to minimize.
That's what Amber did.
It's amazing.
Play the video clips and just say, does this qualify as everything you just testified to?
Charming phase where it looks like the victim is, you know, just fabricating this.
And is victim blaming a characteristic?
Yes.
I can't turn up the volume for the trial.
One of the defenses are the allopathic defense.
Allopathic?
What does that mean?
With victim blaming.
That's what it says you're doing.
I'm blaming you for what you made me do.
Look what you made me do.
And is there record evidence that you reviewed that correlates with Mr. Depp engaging in this type of behavior?
So, I think for a lot of the issues seen...
The big precipitate was going to be the need for surprise.
I'm putting on my glasses.
I think he's trying to explain it.
Thank you.
Please continue.
Are those hieroglyphics on Johnny's tie?
...substance use disorder, and many of their arguments, but what I reviewed in the record, stemmed around Ms. Heard's desire for Mr. Death.
To maintain sobriety.
And that was happening.
So as a result, she was blamed for bothering him in a way he didn't want to be bothered.
And that triggered what was going on.
What did it trigger, Doc?
Are you familiar with the term gaslighting?
I'm familiar with the term gaslighting.
What if any, gaslighting is...
Consistent with intimate partner violence.
Oh, lots of it.
Lots of it.
It's a hallmark.
So again, when you start being able to be...
When a person starts to be able to be manipulative and charming, you start to be able to win people over.
And especially when you see someone who's a victim...
It's becoming preposterous.
...who is essentially vulnerable emotionally.
Doctor, have you seen the movie Gaslight?
You see that person and then you see this calm demeanor in front of you who is very charming, very engaging, very personable.
And then all of a sudden it starts looking like the victim is just a I was essentially losing it.
And I either make they're being gaslighted.
That's not what gaslighting means, actually.
Is there examples where an intimate partner, violent perpetrator, Claims that the victim is the person who's actually committing the abuse.
Like what Amber did in that recording?
How common is that?
Very common.
Again, that is very common in the occurrence of the honeymoon phase and the calm period of the abuse cycle.
Very common during that time where the victim, where they're shifting the blame or anything along that line.
That's very common for that to happen.
And you indicated that you reviewed some audio tapes in this case, correct?
Yes.
Which ones?
Which ones, Elaine?
What evidence did you review there that correlates with Mr. Depp attempting to...
Dude, look at his hair.
What's wrong with that hair?
Get a haircut.
Brush your hair, man.
Come on.
Well, I think that was what was said, that Amber was the abuser.
Objection, Your Honor.
Why?
I don't understand the objection.
Well, he hasn't motivated it yet.
What record evidence?
Thank you.
Please continue.
So, claiming that Amber was the abuser in this particular scenario.
And what I would reiterate is that one, victims aren't perfect.
And two, it is not uncommon in the context of being a victim when you know that person is about to proceed or relapse into a substance or going to a substance and anticipating What's going to happen that you anticipate the next move and start initiating self-defense?
But, by and large, that's not what's going on here.
By and large, Mr. Depp, behavior...
Objection, Your Honor.
Behavior was consistent.
There's an objection, sir.
I'm sorry.
I'll sustain the objection.
Okay.
All right.
We can move on to the next one.
Is prior victimhood of abuse a risk factor?
For intimate partner violence?
Yes.
Go ahead.
There is something known as intergenerational theory of violence, which is basically along the line of observation, imitation, and reinforcement.
So you observe a behavior that occurred in childhood, you imitate it when you see that there's no significant negative consequences, but you do get the positive consequence of maintaining control.
Of a situation, solving the conflict in your way, if you would.
So that theory is, interestingly, it applies to not only the victims, I'm sorry, not only the perpetrators, but also the victims, because there are many victims who grew up in a house of abuse that are not abused, but they're the victims of abuse.
What are the warning signs of intimate partner violence?
Warning signs would be increasing the tension, escalations of tension.
Amber.
That's when you start seeing, hey, partners getting angry.
Amber.
Okay, starting to break down the communication.
Amber.
Starting to engage in verbal, nonverbal threats.
Following them around the house, refusing to let them leave, refusing to let them flee the argument.
And that leads you to the actual act.
So these acts progressively build, and then they occur.
The jury has to be connecting these dots.
They have to be.
Have you seen an intimate partner violence about apologies and promises?
Oh, good question, Elaine.
A lot.
Apology is part and parcel of the honeymoon phase, and promise is a part and parcel of the honeymoon phase.
And, you know, the victim wants to believe it's going to work.
They want to believe their spouse is going to be faithful to this.
And as part of the abuse cycle...
They're not going to be done before lunch.
John is not coming up on the stand today, I don't think.
In the calming cycle, like I said, the victim tries to get...
Dude, it was supposed to be ironic.
Until...
Self-deprecating.
...intention build-up phase where something bothers him.
So again...
It could be bothering someone about substance abuse.
It could be bothering someone about finance.
It could be bothering something about your career.
Anything is liable to build up tension when you have this framework of limited self-control and erratic, intense relationship.
So what, if any, record evidence did you review that reflected Mr. Depp engaging in these warning signs, including the apologies and the promises?
I think that was almost routine, that after it was all said and done, that he would apologize for letting the monster out.
They had just be better taking down it as notes.
Each and every one of these allegations.
Apologizing.
Insults.
Gaslighting.
Play a recording.
There's very well evidence of that starting as early on in the marriage in therapy for misheard.
So that's very common and very much a curve.
Recognizing what happened.
And the other part of this is, again, when you can recognize that when you're sober, even short-lived sobriety, when you can recognize that...
That things are better.
Better.
That's exactly a Fauci.
That's exactly a Fauci demeanor right there.
Better.
That, hey, there's an issue here.
There are issues here that when I don't...
That's gaslighting, by the way.
You made me do it.
Thank you, Dr. Spiegel.
I'm going to now move to the Goldwater Rule.
Can you explain...
Oh, here, we talked about the Goldwater Rule earlier today.
So the Goldwater rule is when Senator Goldwater was running for presidency.
And I'm going to be honest with you.
I think it was in the late 60s when he was, early 70s.
He's going to be honest with you.
Have you not been honest up until now, doctor?
Please don't quote me on exactly what it was.
Just hurry up and get with the answer, please.
But basically what's happening is clinicians, psychiatrists were making these quote-unquote armchair diagnosis from there.
It's too long for a title, unfortunately.
I would just call it provoke, then cry.
And therefore, it was felt that that should not be done by professionals in these public settings.
Does it have any applicability here?
Yes, this is gaslighting.
This is gaslighting.
No foundation.
It's a stupid question, Elaine.
You just want to get to why he's allowed to diagnose someone without having met them.
It's a stupid question.
Just be straight up about it, Elaine.
Is it normal to diagnose someone without ever having met them?
No, of course it's not normal.
We know it's not normal.
Is it unethical?
There have been some people who say it's unethical.
Okay, why are you allowed to do it now?
Well, I think I've read enough of the one-sided, self-serving...
Cherry-picked information that you sent me to come to a conclusion which says that Johnny Depp is entirely guilty and Amber Heard is entirely innocent.
Oh, this cross is going to be painful for this guy.
Did you hear this audio?
No, I didn't.
Okay.
Is it normal when assessing people at a distance which is borderline unethical under certain circumstances according to the APA?
Is it normal to do it in the absence of a full record?
Did you ask for these documents?
Did you know that these recordings existed?
Camille, Camille, did you know that these recordings existed?
Oh God, I hope they ask that.
Did you know that these recordings existed?
Again, you don't know the answer.
It's yes or no.
If it's yes, the answer, the follow-up is going to be, why did you not consider them?
If the answer is no, is it normal that the party...
Asking you to tell a remote diagnose someone you've never met, is it normal that they don't give you information which might be relevant to your assessment?
Dr. Spiegel, do you remember the question?
Does the Goldwater Rule have any applicability here to your testimony and your conclusions and opinions?
No, it does not.
And why?
Multiple reasons.
I'm an expert.
I'm an expert in the file.
The basics of expert witness testimony would almost be thrown away if you are not allowed to base things on what you evaluated of an individual, what you've read about an individual.
So if I'm not allowed to comment on records or...
Actually, I think they're going to end after this.
...information, expert witness testimony can't be done.
But more specifically for this case...
In the Goldwater rule, the pure version of it was the armchair diagnosis of watching someone on TV.
I've done much more than that.
I've taken a one-sided event from an interested party in a lawsuit to come to my conclusion.
That's much better.
Because, like I said to you at the beginning, I have reviewed a lot of professionals and their evaluations and their treatment course.
Video deposition, picture deposition, court filings, emails.
I mean, I reviewed a whole lot of things.
I've reviewed a whole lot of stuff that they sent me and nothing else.
Mr. Depp and his behavior.
Oh, he's slowing down.
I'm not commenting on a public opinion, and I have absolutely no knowledge of what's in Mr. Depp's history.
If I was just doing that, it would be like watching a movie.
That's not relevant here.
And in fact, I think you testified earlier you invited Mr. Depp to...
Oh, he said no.
Objection leading.
Let him ask.
Did you seek to consult with John?
I've heard my voice in my throat.
Can you imagine?
And he said no.
Yeah, they decided that it was not a good idea to have a paid partisan expert.
No, and the court did not require Mr. Depp to undergo this evaluation.
Okay.
Dr. Spiegel, these opinions that you have offered here, do you hold them to within a reasonable degree of medical and psychiatric probability or certainty?
Absolutely.
This might be why people have some severe reservations about the profession of psychiatry at large.
When I was a young lawyer, we used to do motions for confinement, which was to lock up somebody against their will.
We haven't met.
But let me ask you, let's start with what you finished with.
I'll get back to that.
I'm sorry, one more time?
Let's start with what you finished with.
You understand that the court was twice asked by Ms. Hurd's counsel to order a medical exam of Mr. Depp, and those motions were denied.
I think the...
Your team told the court you didn't want to have them, and the court ruled them, right?
I don't think the court proactively did it.
You kind of had a motion to them, right?
No.
They made a motion.
You don't get to mentally examine someone as a right.
Is that right, sir?
If you're saying that's what happened, my understanding of was that you all did not want him to undergo one.
They petitioned for it.
The court said no.
Yes.
That's what my understanding of it was.
The court said no to ordering Mr. Depp to do...
This doctor thinks like you're compelled to submit.
And there was one that was ordered, in fact, right?
There was...
I like this.
First of all, this is going to be good, and this is already good.
First of all, to Snoopy Avatar, absolutely.
Change in demeanor.
We've seen his baseline.
We don't know what that baseline was.
Maybe it was the dishonest baseline or maybe it was the honest baseline.
He got a little aggravated, a little agitated.
The last thing you talked about was the Goldwater rule.
Yes, sir.
Been around for almost 50 years, right?
I'm 59. That sounds about right.
And it's been around as a result.
A lot of people saying the same thing.
The presidential election that you referenced.
Yes.
And who has that rule?
What organization maintains that rule?
APA.
The American Psychiatric Association.
An association you're a member of.
Associated by a member of?
Yes.
Yes.
A fellow or something?
Yes, I am.
Okay.
So, and this is an ethical rule, right?
Uh-oh.
Uh-oh.
It is an ethical rule.
Yes, it's ethical.
They say rules.
It's an ethical guideline, yes.
And you know that over time, the American Psychiatric Association has amended the rules, so it's not just about diagnoses, but it's also about professional opinions.
Oh, snap, crackle, and pop.
Well, let me...
Pull up the guidelines.
Let me read this and see if you're familiar with it.
It is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion about an individual based on publicly available information without conducting an examination.
That's the rule, right?
If you're reading it directly, I will believe you.
It's not a rule.
It's just a guideline.
An ethical guideline.
It's not a rule.
However, a diagnosis is not required for an opinion to be professional.
So my question is, it's not just diagnosis that this Goldwater rule applies to, it's professional opinions.
So again, I'll reiterate that that would come down to essentially nullifying witness testimony, expert witness testimony, without direct evaluation.
Yeah.
And as we know, it didn't happen.
Yeah, because the court didn't order it.
The whole expert witness testimony thing would be basically rendered null, null and void.
Not if the court ordered it.
In fact, it contemplates that issue, doesn't it, sir?
Again, I'm just telling you the answer to the question.
Good point, Kate.
When you're reading me those statements, I'm telling you the response by the other side, who publishes also, is that...
If that was the case, there could be no expert witness testimony in the courtroom.
No, when the court orders an evaluation, doctor.
Psychiatrists are ethically prohibited from evaluating individuals without permission or other authorization such as a court order.
That's the rule, right?
Checkmate.
Again, if you're reading that, then I have to believe you're not misrepresenting it.
That's a bizarre accusation.
This whole thing on effort, we might as well get rid of all the expert witnesses we've had.
Not when the court orders the evaluation doctor.
The thing you're saying is unless a court orders it, that's what you just said, what the APA said, then therefore expert witnesses cannot do an evaluation based on an observation of the medical records.
Insurance companies cannot do evaluations solely based on...
Other people do it, so I'm not guilty.
Insurance are not subject to the APA.
So at the end of the day, you are essentially saying that unless someone has directly evaluated it, this whole medical system we have, this whole legal system we have, is null and void.
I'm not saying...
No, yes you are, sir.
You are.
Give me a second, and I'll give you more than a second.
What I'm saying, and what I am reading to you...
Yes, guys.
By the way, the insurance company is not subject to the American Psychiatric Association Code of Ethics.
That would permit the exact kind of evaluation that you say I'm eliminating.
And I think we're going in circles because I think I just said that means expert witness testimony.
So take it up with the APA dog.
And the branch of forensic psychiatry.
Would be especially hindered.
And we know the branch of forensic high does not prohibit that.
So I am a member of the APA.
That doesn't necessarily mean every single thing they put in there, everybody has to uncategorily agree with.
Because clearly, that's not the case.
Did you agree in your deposition that the professional opinions you rendered were inconsistent with the Goldwater Rule?
My question is, if we're saying...
It looks like the lawyer knows something that most people don't know.
If they're going to do this, maybe they have to put the caveat in.
Presidents and public figures such as that.
But regardless of that, because that's what it was made for.
It's not made for Hollywood, but I'll even take that as a public figure.
What I'm saying to you is that...
The Goldwater Rule is saying we cannot do any expert witness testimony.
Unless the court authorizes it.
The Goldwater Rule is saying based on exactly what you read.
And I'm just telling you what you are saying that rule encompasses.
What I'm asking you, sir, is did you comply with the ethical requirements of the APA when...
When rendering the professional opinions that you've rendered today, it is a requirement of the APA.
It's not the requirement of the APA.
Secondarily, secondarily, secondarily, secondarily.
Again, in order to not...
We waste our whole morning because of an expert witness before me.
No, that's not a psychiatrist, Doc.
That was a...
Orthopedic surgeon, not a psychiatrist.
For engaging in an act that the APA clearly says we should not do.
Doctor, who was the first expert this morning?
Who was the first expert this morning?
Was he a psychiatrist?
You're agreeing that the APA would deem your testimony and your professional opinions rendered unethical?
Again?
I'm an expert witness.
I am the science.
I am psychiatry.
That guideline is permitting that from occurring.
I would say, then, that the whole field of expert witness testimony...
Only as pertains to psychiatry, Doc.
Remember that.
And we know that's not the case.
Because if it was, we would not be allowed to do it.
And you said the rule was for presidents, right?
That was initially for presidents.
Johnny is happy.
And the name of the rule came.
It was at that moment that he realized it was money well spent.
But the rule says it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion about an individual.
That's right, sir.
It's not just presidents.
It's not public figures.
It's individuals.
Funny it was named after that.
According to your logic, if you don't put something in the title, it's not true.
That's what you told me this morning, I believe, about my intimate partner violence.
So what I would say to you then is that if you say this about an individual, again, any court would have to render an expert witness testimony invalid.
Doctor that reviews charts would have to render it invalid.
I can go on a list of doctors who do not see or interview patients directly, and that's a violation.
So basically, you are saying that unless you do a direct clinical evaluation, then all of the field of forensic psychiatry and all of managed care...
Is doing an unethical violation because we are not seeing the presence.
We deny patients medications all the time without seeing them.
We deny patients treatments, unfortunately, without seeing them.
And I'm on the receiving end of that.
So the answer to your question, again, unless you're saying to me that all of this is unethical, which is what you are saying.
This is how I'm interpreting what you are saying to me.
That unless you do the evaluation directly yourself.
Therefore, it could not be considered ethical.
And I'm telling you how that applicable to not just expert law, but also managed care and applicable to multiple brands of medicine.
It's not medicine, Johnny.
So tell me where you want me to end this.
Why don't we talk about what you just testified to?
Because I didn't ask you anything about that.
I asked you whether...
Under this rubric, under this principle of medical ethics, have you acted unethically?
Yes or no?
No.
As an expert witness, I have not acted unethically.
And if you want the jury to believe that expert witnesses are unethical, then I guess that's for them to decide.
Yes or no, sir.
You said no.
Let's go to the next question.
Right?
This is interesting, people.
Psychiatric diagnosis occurs in the context of an evaluation based on thorough history-taking, examination, and where applicable, collated, or collateral information.
He'd better get to this.
I believe I said that earlier, yes.
It only applies to psychiatrists because of the nature of the practice.
Forensic finger analysis.
...without an examination and without conducting an evaluation...
In accordance with the standards of psychiatric practices, correct?
Well, again, by the way, for the record, intimate partner violence is not a psychiatric diagnosis.
I'll start with that.
No, very good.
You're very smart.
Substance usage by themselves is not a psychiatric diagnosis.
If you want to cut to the chase, it's not a diagnosis of that.
Uh-oh, that's not me, people.
Have I been cut out?
Oh, no.
Chat.
Hold on.
Chat.
Chat's still live.
What just happened here?
What just happened?
Let me go refresh the screen.
Why did this happen at the worst possible time?
Okay, see, I'm going to refresh.
Tab out.
Oh, now we've got a commercial.
What is this for?
I don't drink this stuff.
Not interested.
Skip.
Oh, Canada's natural gas.
Or like me after three eggs on an empty stomach.
Okay, hold on.
Oh, it totally froze.
Okay, so hold on.
My goodness.
My goodness.
I like to perceive that expert witnesses are unethical.
Based on that, I am not going to sit here and disagree with you and waste everyone's time.
I think it's fairly obvious.
But thank you.
Go ahead.
We can hear?
These were your words.
I'm just saying them back how they're interpreted.
Okay.
I missed a lot.
Let's start with the easy question then.
Maybe we can...
That was pretty easy.
Go ahead.
Doctor, you're going to have to just answer the question.
Okay, this is getting amusing from a legal perspective, people.
You are not rendering any diagnosis whatsoever of Mr. Depp, today or ever.
I...
This...
Holy sweet!
No, I probably would say to you that certainly I would not say narcissistic personality traits.
Certainly from what I have read, intimate partner violence is not a diagnosis.
So the answer is no for that.
Narcissistic personality traits is not a diagnosis.
The answer is no.
But if you want to tell me that substance use disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis, the answer is yes.
But that wasn't an issue.
I don't know what face that was, but it's going to get memed.
I can guarantee you that much.
Substances.
I mean, you said you've gone through the record.
Oh my gosh.
Doc Brown melts down.
That's it.
I was just saying he's already admitted to the diagnosis.
Hashtag Doc Brown melted.
It can happen.
There's a difference between admitting to substance use and substance use disorder.
Let's go back to what you just said about...
Narcissistic personality traits.
Yes.
Narcissistic personality disorder is a DSR-5 diagnosis, correct?
Correct.
Diagnostic personality, and you haven't testified that Mr. Depp has narcissistic personality disorder.
I would certainly, if I didn't, I'm certainly thinking that, but at least I'm going to say he has traits, which are characteristics of provisional diagnosis.
Oh my God, this guy's done.
It's a provisional diagnosis, probably a narcissistic person.
But yeah, I mean, I do believe that.
Well, when you say provisional diagnosis, you know the DSM-5 requires, in order to find that diagnosis, five of the nine factors.
Let's hear it, let's hear it.
You've done that analysis.
You've never made that diagnosis.
Weasel words is right.
You've just identified certain factors that are criteria for the diagnosis.
This is Amber's witness.
You need five of nine to get to the diagnosis.
You've already told us that you didn't make a diagnosis.
You're just identifying traits, correct?
I'm identifying traits that are consistent with the diagnosis, yes.
Tabarnouche!
This is...
My goodness.
Are we...
Struggling to find the car you want?
Oh, now it's another ad.
I don't need a car.
I don't need...
I've never bought any...
Okay, come on.
Come on.
This is frozen now?
What the...
What in the what?
Hold on.
Hold on.
Oh, come on.
Did you testify in deposition that the existence of traits as opposed to the disorder...
Narcissism doesn't have a correlation with IPV.
If I said traits do not have a correlation, if that's what I said, I don't remember saying that, but that wouldn't be a correct thing.
Narcissism has a correlation with the diagnosis.
Yes, that part's true.
How far are we going to back this up?
Because there's a diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder, right?
Yes, sir.
And that one is type...
I wouldn't want to be Johnny Depp.
I want to know what he's thinking right now.
You're splitting hairs.
You're splitting hairs between the traits that are consistent with which I'm not diagnosing him.
I'm just saying he behaves like one.
Risk factors associated with IPV.
All psychiatrists get therapy, I think, or they should.
We can focus on the question I asked you, and we can get an answer that's addressed to that.
Look at the crowd, people.
Narcissistic personality disorder is a risk factor for IPV.
Yes or no?
Yes.
Yes, obviously.
You previously testified that there is no...
Literature at which you are currently aware that the mere presence of narcissistic traits is a risk factor for IPB.
Am I answering the question?
Yes.
That's incorrect.
You didn't testify that.
Cluster B traits, which narcissistic personality disorder is part of.
Oh my God, this guy's got rage in him.
Look at this clenched fist.
This is rage.
Cluster B traits include narcissistic personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, amongst others.
So the answer to the question is every, every resource on She will not see jail for lying on the stands.
Nothing is ever in the bank.
But I'll change my opinion from my initial assessments.
Any single trait is a risk factor for IPV.
Again, I will repeat.
Cluster B. Traits.
I didn't say any trait.
I said cluster.
Let me be more precise then.
Okay.
Any narcissistic trait in and of itself is a risk factor for IPV.
But you are mischaracterizing what I said.
What I said, I'm pretty sure I said cluster, if you look at all the intimate partner violence literature, and I would behoove you to do so, you will see that cluster B traits, I didn't say narcissistic per se, cluster B traits.
He didn't say per se, just said all of them, not one in particular.
Narcissive personality disorder is part of our risk factors for intimate partner violence, part and parcel uniformly true.
And I'm not sure, the thing I don't understand is I'm not sure why we're arguing psychiatry, because I'm telling you what it is.
I'm not sure why we're arguing psychiatry.
I'm only here as an expert to...
So you want to talk about...
How dare you argue with me?
I said what it is.
I am the psychiatry.
Borderline personality disorder is a risk factor for IPV.
As part of cluster B traits, yes.
Histrionic personality disorder.
Interesting.
Is a risk factor.
Oh, he's gone.
Less so.
Less so.
But it is.
I mean, it's a risk factor, but less so, yes.
Less so.
Significantly less so.
All right.
So, which traits under narcissistic...
Oh, before I move on there.
There's only been one diagnosis in court of personality disorders, correct?
He might not know.
I don't see who you're referring to.
He might not know.
Are you referring to Mr. Depp, Ms. Hurd?
I'm not sure what you're talking about.
Do you understand that there was a medical examination done of Ms. Hurd?
Oh, this is it.
This is it.
Yes, I did.
Do you understand that the testimony was ultimately that Ms. Hurd suffers from two personality disorders?
Okay, so I'm just being specific.
I just wanted to know if you're talking about Ms. Hurd or Mr. Depp.
So that's all I was asking you.
Oh, good.
But answer the question.
No to my question.
Which was, there's only one diagnosis.
Are you aware that only one?
Ms. Heard was diagnosed with that.
Yeah.
And both of the diagnoses are in cluster B, and both of them are risk factors for IPV.
Both those cluster B things are...
I'm not allowed to comment on the testing, so therefore, all I can say is...
Oh, excuse me?
He's not allowed commenting on the testing, but he's allowed diagnoses?
By the way, I testified this before, which was that...
One, I don't expect perfection from my victims.
Two, absolutely they're a cluster of betrays, misheard hat.
Absolutely.
Given that you've testified to it before, let's move on to a new question.
Okay.
All right.
You indicated...
Doctor's going to have a bad lunch.
...in your opinion today that you thought...
Well, why don't we move a little deeper?
Are you a member of the American Medical Association?
No.
Okay, so you don't know what the ethical rule...
Of the American Medical Association is relative to doing clinical diagnoses about individuals you've never talked to.
So you're saying in terms of doing expert witness evaluations?
Under that rubric, right?
I'm just asking you, do you know the AMA's rule?
No.
Under doing...
You're saying AMA's ruling under the rubric of not doing that with someone you did not see.
I'm questioning, I'm asking, so you are talking about expert witness testimony?
No, I'm talking about, do you know the rule?
I'm not a member of the AMA, so...
Okay, so then what the heck are you quantificating for?
You don't know the rule.
You don't know the rule.
I feel bad.
I now officially feel bad for the doctor.
Purported cognitive impairment.
Yes.
Yeah.
What do you use as a baseline?
A baseline for...
Processing speed?
Yeah.
For analyzing Mr. Depp before he watched his deposition.
Well, I use Captain Jack Sparrow.
Well, I use a baseline for that.
I mean, I guess my baseline would probably be how I've seen him interact in public.
How I've seen him interact with others.
I've seen him interact in media.
I've seen him interact.
And his process speed is certainly not.
Slow.
I've seen him do commercials.
I've seen him do commercials.
I saw him act as a pirate.
He was very fast when he was buckling that sword.
Mr. Depp's performance in lots of pirate movies against his deposition testimony.
What I said was I've seen Mr. Depp in movies.
Apology ads.
I remember he did an apology ad with Bad Dog with no delay in process speech.
I've seen him interact with the media regarding to that.
I saw no delay in process speech.
I saw him play a lizard.
Let me ask you about pirates, though.
You compared pirates to the depositions given in this case.
Then I apologize for what I said.
Then I misspoke.
You misspoke?
You didn't make the comparison?
Right now, just a second ago?
Just a second ago, I may have said that I'm...
This is an unmitigated disaster making it even worse for Amber Heard.
This guy is going to prove Amber Heard is the IPV.
Compare pirates to sworn testimony, right?
Yes?
Okay.
But as a decide, you can't judge someone's processing speed.
Have you ever been on set of one movie?
We all judge processing speed as a baseline.
Because what we know about each other, I would say your processing speed right now is not slow.
So, I mean, we're judging processing speed, I'm just saying.
This guy, this guy's, this guy's a, I don't use the word quack, but I'm thinking it.
Any of Mr. Jeff's other portrayals in movies, did that affect your analysis of processing speed?
Only I've seen him interact on interviews, and that was it.
When he wasn't in movies.
Right.
But Willy Wonka, it doesn't matter to you.
Sex bots are in the house, and now they are out.
You see them in that movie, Charlie and Chocolate Factory?
I saw them in Let's Eat a Gilbert Grape.
It was great.
Oh, let the memes begin, people.
Do I have to answer that question?
Let the memery begin.
I have to answer questions.
Yes, sir.
Hashtag Doc Brown meltdown.
I didn't see 21 Jump Street when it happened.
You should see 21 Jump Street is great.
From a childish perspective.
Oh my gosh.
Doc Brown meltdown.
I've never had a trending hashtag.
It's my birthday.
We can do it.
You're not claiming to be a better actor than Mr. Depp.
That's correct, isn't it?
100%.
He's a pretty good actor.
I'll give the psychiatrist a little credit.
You know that actors actually rehearse for their parts and work on the language, diction, timing of their dialogue as part of that rehearsal?
I have my preconceived notions of a psychiatrist.
I have no idea what goes on in acting.
Okay, but you don't know enough about acting to know whether...
Actors rehearse?
Sir, I am not an expert in acting.
I have no idea what an actor does.
At this point, I'm questioning whether or not you're an expert in psychiatry, Doc.
I'll tell you that much.
Holy cows.
I mean, they're all laughing.
Look at the back of the courtroom.
Look at the woman in the black.
During your deposition, what were the circumstances under which you decided to call Mr. Depp an idiot?
Oh.
I'm just going to call Mr. Depp an idiot?
Yeah, you called Mr. Depp an idiot.
You didn't do that.
Oh, okay.
So I think it was in the context.
I think it was in the...
You probably should read the context.
Oh, yeah.
Please, please let us know your medical diagnosis.
I'm trying to think back.
I'm trying to think back.
Okay?
Don't try too hard.
What I thought it was related to was if you're coming to some deposition, okay?
And again, I'm thinking back.
So I admit you have it in front of you.
I'd like to know your memory of it, Don.
I'm thinking back where he's coming in from Europe for a deposition.
Holy...
A deposition that he gave, and he took it overnight the night before.
And what I think I said was that if you're going to take a...
If you're going to do a major thing or a trial that you're involved with, I think you'd be an idiot to come in the night before.
Sure.
So I didn't call him as a definite idiot.
I certainly call that planning.
Idiot.
I didn't call him an idiot.
So I mean he's an idiot?
Or mistranscribed?
No, again, if I said it in that, if you're just reading one line, one snippet, I'm sure it was in the context I just said.
But again, you have it in front of you, I know.
I didn't say he was an idiot.
I said what he did was something an idiot would do.
I wasn't writing a professional opinion.
Is it a psychiatric opinion?
And that follows the Goldwater rule.
Did you mean idiot as in an IQ below 75?
You said that I'm not bringing a professional opinion.
I just said idiot.
So idiot is not a professional opinion?
Mm-hmm.
Is it your practice to describe people as idiots?
My practice to describe people?
In my practice?
No, I don't describe my clinical cases as idiots or patients as idiots or victims as idiots.
No, sir.
But you sent for a deposition in this case and described the plaintiff as an idiot, correct?
I said he was doing something an idiot would do.
And if I said the word idiot, it was an idiot in planning.
It wasn't making him an idiot.
I don't know Mr. Depp's IQ.
I don't know his...
He went to IQ.
It was an idiot in planning, which is what I meant to come across as.
So you did say you don't know his overall functioning.
But you made some testimony today as to some evaluations you made relative to his function.
You would agree with me that it's probably a good idea to think about the questions that are asked you in a court proceeding before answering them.
Am I allowed to answer that question?
Yes.
What I meant by function, what I said by function, I believe that his agent reported how late he was showing up to every movie while the cast is waiting for him.
I believe that would be an impairment.
If I showed up late for that, I would not be here right now.
I wouldn't have a job.
You might not have a job after this.
Don't jinx it.
In terms of balking out of treatment for substance rehab that his doctor is prescribing for him.
So if you're asking me if that's an impairment of functioning, I would say I'm very much substantiated in that.
I'm trying to understand how you got to this notion of cognitive decline.
And I thought it was based at least in part on the manner in which he testified.
I'm sorry, what?
On the manner in which he testified.
Oh, don't say that.
He's going to agree with that.
I'm not being difficult.
I can't hear.
I'm sorry.
On what?
the manner in which he testified.
I was asking you And he's gonna say yes.
about the cognitive decline Stop, don't ask this.
The testimony that you made.
Don't ask this.
And it was my understanding that at least a portion of that testimony A portion was.
And so all I'm asking you is...
Don't you think it's a good idea when you're in the middle of a court proceeding to answer questions carefully?
Again, professionally, we diagnose patients with a neurocognitive disorder.
They could object if there's something really over the top.
This is cross.
A lot of liberty and cross.
I'm just saying, age normative controls does not put a 58-year-old gentleman at that processing.
That's all I'm saying.
What's your baseline?
What's your baseline?
Captain Jack Sparrow?
Without ever once talking to the mayor.
Me directly talking to him?
Because we know how I derived it.
So you're talking about me directly talking to him?
Yeah.
No, I've never talked to him.
Right.
And this exam you gave, well, you did talk about Dr. Blaustein, right?
Yes, sir.
And you understand that the entirety of Dr. Blaustein's medical records are 12 pages of handwritten notes.
The important part was what I said.
For me, as an example of cognition, which I'm trying to prove, which is what you asked me, the important part was what I said.
And that was irrefutable.
The important part is that he gave the mini mental status exam.
It's what I said, and it's irrefutable.
Let's talk about the mini mental status exam.
Scored on a 30-point scale, right?
Yes.
And it's an exam that basically is most often used for Alzheimer's, dementia, those kind of testing.
It's an exam that tests cognition at all.
Psychiatric illnesses, not just Alzheimer's.
It was made for dementia for Alzheimer's, but it has been the standard for testing cognition in all psychiatric illnesses, substance use disorders included.
Okay.
Now, there is an element of that exam that requires drawing.
So, you don't know what...
Drawing Mr. Depp did or whether the drawing should have been fully scored.
I wasn't questioning his visual spatial perceptual skills, which is what that does.
Right.
And you don't know what score Mr. Depp received on the exam.
I was very specific.
I know three words, not remembering at five minutes.
That's all I said.
Three words, not remembering five minutes.
And he remembered one of them, right?
I don't remember.
Memory on the exam.
Out of the 30 points, what's it worth?
Three.
Three, right?
Memory is three out of those 30. Yeah, memory is three.
And again, the memory section in and of itself tests memory.
That's the only question that tests memory.
Only section that actually tests memory.
So the memory section tests memory.
It's the only section you testified about.
And for all you know...
With respect to the exam that you're relying on, Mr. Depp scored 27 out of 30. And that would be telling, though, cognitively, if you scored 27 out of 30 and you missed three points on memory.
That would be very telling.
You don't know if Mr. Depp had been up all night the night before.
Again, you wouldn't expect to not recall any words at three minutes unless there's a cognitive issue.
Give me a freaking break, doctor.
And again, oh, now that's, again, that could affect memory, but I'm not refuting that.
I'm not refuting that at all.
He could have been high.
He could have been drunk.
Smoking weed?
And that would absolutely affect his memory, which is what I said.
Yes, you're right.
So ultimately, you have no idea what state Mr. Depp was in at the time he took the exam that you're relying on.
Short of what you just said about drugs and alcohol.
It's not a hard answer.
There shouldn't be a reason why a 58-year-old also with strokes and other neurocognitive conditions.
But short of that, there shouldn't be a really good reason why someone at that age shouldn't come up with at least one.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
That wasn't the question.
That wasn't the question.
You started that question with short of drugs and alcohol and spent 35 minutes talking about his use of drugs and alcohol.
Isn't that right?
Oh, I'm agreeing.
I thought I'd agree with you.
I think I agreed.
I said that drugs and alcohol can absolutely affect cognition.
I'm not sure.
Yeah, I agree, but I'm not sure if that's a problem.
I agree with you on that.
All right.
So you don't know.
If he was drunk.
One way or the other.
If he was tipsy that day.
How he scored on the exam.
You don't know whether he was, at the time, on drugs and alcohol.
But you're going to rely on it in your testimony to say that he's cognitively impaired.
Which is what we do in clinical medicine, sir.
Can you not answer questions directly, doctors?
You don't know when it was administered.
You don't know the score of the test.
And you don't know the state of the person being tested.
But you're going to rely on it anyway.
Again, if we had to know every test, when people get the midi mental state exam, we have no idea clinically if they are high.
Wasted, stoned, stroke.
We have no idea.
So if you're going to say that, that means everybody needs a drug test before they do a minimal study, and that's not the standard of care.
And I think you know that.
I think you know that.
Oh, presuming intent.
Let's talk a little bit about this word you kept using, correlation.
Ah, yes.
Let's do this.
Oh, it's already at 1234.
They're going to break for lunch.
Correlation and causation aren't the same thing, are they, sir?
We now know that for sure.
No, they're not the same thing.
How are they different?
Correlation is consistent with causation is direct link.
Can you say that again?
So fast I didn't hear that.
Correlation is a risk for something happening.
Causation is a direct link.
Right.
Just because something's correlated doesn't mean it's going to happen.
100%.
Right.
100%.
Lung cancer, for instance.
Smoking is very highly correlated with lung cancer, right?
Yeah, and there's certainly a link to lung cancer and smoking.
Right.
But not all smokers get lung cancer.
No, not all smokers do.
Like I said, no one fits the curve perfectly.
Right.
You've made repeated testimony to all of us.
All of us do this.
All of us do that.
Your suggestion about all of us is you're just looking at the world as a sample and not at any particular individual, correct?
What I'm looking at is that I'm not talking about an individual, how they can or cannot be resistant.
What I'm saying is invariably...
When you use substances, this is going to happen.
Now, is there a 0.05% chance that someone who does?
Absolutely, there is.
But is that medical degree of certainty?
Absolutely not.
A 0.05% chance of what, sir?
Stop it, stop it.
Of developing, eventually developing, using excessively, eventually you're going to develop symptoms.
But risk factors tell us nothing about any one particular individual.
Do they, sir?
No, again, risk factors tell us nothing except that if they have it, they're at a higher likelihood of developing it.
That's what tells me.
But you did a whole litany of risk factors relative to IPV.
Yes.
Right.
And none of those risk factors tell us anything specifically about an individual.
They are not going to end this before lunch because they want this guy under cross over lunch.
Guaranteed.
Guaranteed.
So someone could have...
Every single risk factor for IPV and never commit IPV, right?
Yeah.
It would be, again, if you're going to say yes or no, the answer is they will.
But if you're saying uniformly, the answer is no.
Right.
IPV can occur without substance abuse.
Oh, sure.
Someone can abuse substances without ever perpetrating IPV?
Again, absolutely.
But, again, you are saying, different than what I said, I did not say abusing substances.
I said substance use disorder.
Those are two different things.
Because there are surely people who use substances that do not engage in any violence, do not become psychotic, nothing at all.
And that's equally true of people who have substance abuse disorder.
There are certainly people...
Who have substance abuse disorder who don't commit IPV, correct?
They are saying people who have substance use disorders, the majority of them over 50% do.
So over 50% do.
So that's medical abuse.
So the answer is yes.
As you said, not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer.
So there are significant numbers of people.
You said it was over 50. You'd say 40% of the people who have substance abuse disorder don't commit IPV?
And those are the ones that do not have IPV risk factors.
He can't answer the question.
Answer the question.
Isn't substance abuse disorder and IPV risk factors?
Oh, yeah.
These are other people that don't have other risk factors.
Right.
But again...
We're talking about people in general.
You don't know anything about any particular individual as to whether anybody's going to commit IPV.
If statistics follow through, all we can say is more than 50%, 70% will.
If you combine more risk factors you have, the more likely you're going to develop the illness.
If you smoke cigarettes once, that might not correlate to lung cancer.
If you smoke it chronically, that might.
Right, so we're talking about individuals here.
You either have lung cancer or you don't, right?
If you're smoking.
Right.
You either commit IPV or you didn't.
I mean, yeah, you either did or you didn't, yes.
Right.
So you took some issue with me because I was asking about substance abuse generally, and you wanted me to talk about the disorder.
I asked you earlier about narcissistic personality disorder.
You haven't made that diagnosis.
You've just talked about the traits, right?
Yes.
Somebody can have these narcissistic personality traits and substance abuse disorder and never commit IPV, right?
So, along that line, about About 80 to 90% of people who commit IPV have a personality disorder.
So the answer is less than about 10%.
80 to 90% who commit IPV have a personality disorder.
Like borderline personality disorder?
There are more close links with IPV for borderline personality disorder than narcissistic personality disorder.
Is this going okay?
Correct, sir?
For whom do you mean?
I'm not going to agree with that.
No.
I'm not saying there are more links.
I would say to you, there are absolute.
If you're asking me there are links, the answer is absolute.
If you're saying to me more, I can show studies and say, yeah, show studies.
That has not been absolute.
80% to 90% of IPV violators have personality disorders.
The only person diagnosed with borderline personality disorder in this courtroom that we know of, in this trial, Amber Heard.
I think they're going to save that one until after lunch.
K.O. Indeed.
This has been a...
MDMA.
Oh, oh, oh.
It's a big topic.
You sure want to get on this before lunch?
What is it?
Ecstasy.
Yeah.
What's the acronym, Doc?
And what's the normal dosage of ecstasy for people who use ecstasy?
Again, I couldn't tell you the quote-unquote normal dose because, honestly speaking, no one knows what they're getting when they're using it, right?
It's not regulated, so.
The effects of ecstasy enhance sense of well-being?
At low doses, the answer is yes.
Don't do any of this, people.
Don't do any of this stuff.
Again, at low doses, you're 100% right.
At low amounts, you are 100% right.
It is an intactogen.
We feel closer to people.
That's what people use it, say.
They feel close to people, warmth to people, 100%.
But with continual use and higher doses, it could be fatal.
Right.
So that's not well-being.
I don't know if I'd call that well-being.
So continued use at higher doses, MDMA can be fatal, correct?
Correct.
What if you took 8 to 10 tablets of MDMA?
What if you took...
Again, you don't know what it's...
It's very hard to say.
You don't know what it's...
What's the word I'm looking for?
Contaminated with?
You can't just say, hey, let me just take 8 to 10 pure ecstasy and see what happens.
That's not what I meant to bring up.
So what I would say to you, again...
Because substances are unpredictable.
They are not regulated.
No one knows what they're going to.
No one has any idea whether it's going to cause this empathic and tactogen effect at very low doses.
I'm looking this up right now.
It's like a stimulant, like cocaine, something we talked about like that.
No one knows what's going to happen.
It's not regulated.
And no one knows if you're using with other substances either.
Other stimulus.
Or if you mix it with alcohol.
Or if you mix it with alcohol.
No one knows if it's going to be potentially worse.
Right.
But this is a potentially lethal combination.
8 to 10 MDMA pellets and alcohol.
This is a potentially toxic combination.
Can it kill you?
Yeah.
I mean, it is a potentially toxic combination.
That's true.
Ever heard of someone cutting off their own finger on MDMA?
Have I ever heard of it?
Yeah.
No, I can only give you one example.
I hadn't seen that one before.
Okay.
So, Seroquel.
That one puts you to sleep, right?
Depends.
I guess it depends on how much.
If you want to phrase a barbiturate putting you to sleep, then the answer is yes.
Yeah, you heard Mr. Depp talking about sometimes being on the nod, right?
Oh, we saw pictures of it.
I think I explained Seroquel very well.
I don't know what time they're breaking for lunch.
Oh, okay.
All right.
You kept making references to street value.
Why were you doing that?
Yes!
Because that's why people with substance use disorder use Quetiapede and Seroquel.
Oh, boy.
That's why people who use Quetiapede or Seroquel...
It sells on the street because it's so barbiturate-like in effect.
Right, but you said that Mr. Depp had a prescription.
There are many substance use disorder patients who have prescriptions for Adderall and Quetiapine from their doctor.
And that doesn't mean they're not getting high out of it.
That doesn't take much.
Doctors like to believe what patients have to say.
They're not going to go in there being an expert witness testimony.
All I'm telling you is that in people who have substance use disorder, it is not uncommon.
And the thought was initially that because quetiapine was not addicting, that it's safe to give in people with substance use disorders.
When in fact, we absolutely know it has street value.
Absolutely know that for a fact.
Who gives a sweet bugger all about the street value?
Bunch of testimony about street value.
But you knew at the time you made the testimony that Mr. Depp, in fact, had a prescription.
He also had a prescription for Oxycodone.
Avoiding a question.
Does that count?
As a prescription?
Yes.
Yes, doctor.
Just because you have a prescription doesn't mean that...
I think Mr. Depp would agree with you it wasn't a good thing.
Just because you have a prescription doesn't mean you can't abuse it.
No, I'm not suggesting you're abusing it.
I'm just wondering why your testimony was in any way tied to street value.
To make him look like a street criminal.
Again, you can have prescription substance abuse, and we know that, correct?
Answer the question.
We can have prescription substance use disorders, and that's not uncommon if you look at the opiate epidemic that we're living in right now.
What the hell are you talking about?
Doc Brown meltdowns.
Unfortunate, but uncommon.
Not uncommon.
So, Seroquel, I think you described as a sleeping agent when used off-label.
When I saw what?
Sleeping agent.
When used off-label, doctor.
When used off-label, it can be used sleeping agent, yes.
Right.
So, Mr. Depp's use of Seroquel could account for some of the photos we saw in this trial.
Where he's asleep in a chair.
Again, yes or no.
If you have a substance use disorder.
What's the lawyer's name?
You are using it to be knocked out.
Yes, I agree.
But I'm not sure at the end of the day if she had a vomitus over you either.
I've never seen Sarah Will do that.
When he was passed out in the chair, he also had a vomitus over him.
I've never seen Sarah Will do that ever.
No, he didn't.
Excuse me?
Neurontin is another one of the...
I'm sorry.
Chat, was there ever vomitus on him?
Also prescribed, right?
Yes, it is.
And what's the prescription?
It wasn't vomit.
It was ice cream.
What's its indication?
What's its indication?
I mean, its indication is for seizures.
Oh, my God.
It may have one pain indication.
So, chat, people.
If the team is going to look this over over lunch, it might be useful.
Vomitus is vomit.
You're right.
And what's its effect?
That's another one that'll put you to sleep, right?
Oh, gosh.
Don't let him correct this over lunch.
Yeah, I mean, sure.
100%.
This is nerve-wracking.
This is the fun of cross-examination.
There's been testimony around that picture that Mr. Depp fell asleep with ice cream in his hand.
That's not vomitous, right?
I was told it was vomitous.
Oh, really?
Oh, really, fool?
Really?
You talked about the fact that Mr. Depp indicates that from time to time he uses an earpiece.
I was told it was vomited?
That's because you were lied to, doctor.
Did you read the testimony of Mr. Wyatt who told you what was being pumped into that earpiece?
Yeah.
I mean, if I remember right, I think it was lies, right?
No, it was music.
It was music, not his line?
So if Mr. Depp was listening to music rather than being fed his lines, does that change your opinion as to his cognitive function?
If he was never fed his lines through the earpiece, which I know he was.
Oh, a doctor being fed?
That may have been that example.
Mr. Wyatt may have said that it was music.
I guess the question is, were you having the music?
During the actual talking of your line?
Is that what you're saying to me?
This is why the Goldwater Rule exists, Doctor.
If you do two things at once, that's a pretty high cognitive function, isn't it?
Oh, my.
You know, it's a very good point, actually.
Divided attention is something humans have a lot of trouble in.
So, for instance, we have trouble driving and putting on the, you know, using our cell phones and directions.
Speak for yourself, Doctor.
Divided attention humans actually are not very good at.
Speak for yourself, Doctor.
In general, not just Mr. Depp.
But Mr. Depp is pretty good at acting.
You acknowledged that early on.
Absolutely.
Better than me, so I know that.
Let him be argumentative.
This guy's discrediting himself and his profession.
You're right.
I have no idea about acting.
And you don't know how prevalent the use of earpieces are in acting.
Of course not.
Again, I'm a doctor.
I know nothing about acting.
Irrespective of the fact you know nothing about acting, you've testified that Mr. Depp's use of an earpiece...
It's somehow a cognitive deficit.
So if I was giving a lecture and I was fed my lines, I would think there's a cognitive deficit.
And maybe I'm wrong.
Like I said, maybe I could be wrong.
That's what you want to hear from your expert in trial.
Maybe I'm wrong.
It sounded to me to be unusual if you're doing a movie and you don't know the lines.
But like you said, I'm just judging what I do with lectures and that would never happen.
Maybe I'm wrong.
If you gave lectures, you wouldn't.
Use an earpiece, but you're not going to tell anybody how to act.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Let's try that one.
Hashtag maybe I'm wrong.
I said if you gave lectures, you would use an earpiece, but you're not telling anybody how to act.
I would not use an earpiece during lectures.
Right.
But again, I don't know what the standard for...
I'm using an earpiece right now, Doc.
I had no idea.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe it was ice cream and not vomit.
Maybe he was listening to music, not being fed lines.
What do I know?
This is why the Goldwater Rule existed, so you don't make idiotic mistakes like this.
No, because I think in the basis of what I've read about it, I'm comfortable that I don't believe that actors are routinely giving their entire script through earpieces.
Drink up.
It's hard to believe.
Drink up, Doc.
There's not one whit of evidence that this ever happened here.
I guess what I said.
I just said, I find it hard to believe.
Add the flaming fire of emoji around his head.
What you found hard to believe, sir, was...
Literally, like, every line of the script was pumped through an earpiece.
Where did you ever get the idea that that occurred?
That's what I read, and the court review, the court evidence, that's where I got it from.
He's so done.
You know whether Marlon Brando used an earpiece?
Isn't he dead?
Yeah.
So the answer is no, he does not use one now.
No, I used the past tense.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Again, I know nothing.
I will concede to you I know nothing about acting.
I will concede to you 100%.
If that is the standard and people are done with acting, then I apologize and that was wrong on my part.
If that's the standard, I'm wrong.
I don't know.
This will go with that.
No further questions.
All right.
How long is your return?
A bit.
You may want to take...
All right.
Let's go ahead and break for lunch then, ladies and gentlemen.
Don't talk to him about his...
Catastrophic.
Your testimony with anybody, okay?
Catastrophic.
The courtroom, I just heard them laughing.
People, I don't often say that that was the worst cross-examination...
The best cross-examination.
The worst expert.
Drink it up, Doc.
Drink it up and you might want to add a little something to that over lunch.
That was worse.
So let's come back at 1.55 then?
Oh, 1.55.
Okay, so that's an hour and three minutes.
That was the worst thing I've seen.
It was so bad it was hilarious.
Oh, I've got to get these headphones off.
Oh.
Oh my gosh.
Oh.
Look, my kids are off school today because it's...
Victoria Day in Canada.
And I was feeling maybe a little bit negligent for not playing with them, but I'll have time to do that in the afternoon.
This made up for it.
This made up.
I will get to play with them in the afternoon.
I need to clear my eyes.
I mean, oh my gosh.
Oh my gosh.
This was along the lines of the meltdown I was expecting from Amber Heard.
This was how I envisioned Amber Heard's testimony going down.
As an attorney, I absolutely enjoyed that.
Little Rock, good to see you back again today.
That was the biggest meltdown of an expert witness the public has ever seen.
I'm sure there have been bigger and worse meltdowns in court.
That was...
The biggest, ugliest, baddest, most hilarious meltdown the world has ever seen in the history of televised court proceedings.
And I'm not...
I don't think I'm exaggerating.
Maybe a little.
Maybe a little.
I messaged GoodLogic, so if he's watching...
If he's watching, I'm going to see if he can pop on at lunch.
Do I have his text number?
Let me see here.
Nierman...
I don't think I have his...
Joe Nierman, good logic.
If you're watching, I DM'd you on Twitter.
If you would be inclined to come on at lunch to discuss what we just witnessed, that would be great.
Yeah, I don't even think I have his email address.
Holy crabapples.
That was catastrophic.
That was catastrophic.
That you want your expert who's come up there and arguably violated his code of ethics in terms of telediagnosis of psychiatric disorders of people he's never met.
You want him, after all of that, saying, maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Yeah, maybe that's why the Goldwater Rule exists in the first place.
Oh, wow.
Gage was pretty bad, but this was worse.
That was the worst thing I've ever seen.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe after having come to many, many psychiatric diagnoses, after having been cherry-picked and provided, after having been provided cherry-picked information and misinformation.
Vomitus?
I'm going to tell you one thing.
There's only one person.
If anybody told that doctor...
What's his name?
Schmeagel?
Schmeagel?
If anybody told Dr. Schmeagel that that was vomitous, there's only one person that would have been.
Amber.
There's not a snowball's chance in summer that the lawyers would have told him that.
Or, quite simply, nobody told him that.
He came to that conclusion based on his own idiotic, foregone, preconceived notions of Johnny Depp.
And he said, oh, look, dude puked on himself.
By the way, that could be for one of two reasons.
Confession through projection.
This dude must have puked on himself at some point.
Or he's dealing with patients where that would be like the more likely alternative, not knowing that it was melted ice cream.
I think the most likely alternative, this guy came to that conclusion on his own and now says, oh, somebody told me that.
What kind of crazy quack would come to that conclusion on their own without even asking the question?
Maybe one who decided to do a little telediagnosis of someone's psychiatric well-being or psychiatric state of affairs without ever having met the person.
That was a meltdown on all fronts, people.
That was a meltdown on all fronts.
And it started off...
Hold on, let me just think of where I was going to go with that.
It started off with him saying it.
The ethics issue was one aspect of it.
Oh, he...
He wasn't diagnosing Johnny as suffering from narcissism.
He was just saying he had narcissistic traits.
Then he goes in to say, well, if Goldwater Rule holds, then all forensic psychiatric evaluations by experts become undermined or become quashed, forbidden, verboden.
No!
Because you could have the court order a psychiatric evaluation because they determine it's necessary for the trial.
So the forensic psychiatric assessment is not moot or not rendered inapplicable if the court orders a psychiatric assessment.
This is...
You objected to it and therefore Amber didn't get to psychiatrically evaluate Johnny Depp as though it's a right.
As though they have the right and you have the obligation to sit there.
And if you object, it's somehow a sign of guilt.
Oh my gosh.
That was the worst expert meltdown ever.
Oh, the dark brown meltdown.
Let's see if it can happen.
Holy crap, apples.
Now the question is this.
Is Joe Nierman...
Going to see my message.
Someone said in the chat that Jack Posobiec got detained at Davos.
Hold on one second.
I have one starred.
Megapine for both of us.
This is an old super chat.
Sorry, I have to unstar that one.
Thank you, Candice.
Oh my gosh.
They ended it so...
They're not coming back.
I think they made all their points.
Only one person was diagnosed with anything by a psychiatrist, by an expert who met the patient, and that was Amber Heard, diagnosed with borderline personality disorder.
They didn't play the audio for him.
I would have played the audio for him.
I don't know what the timing is on all of this, so maybe they...
YouTube Red is $10 a month.
No ads.
Invest.
Well, yeah, I know that they get revenue.
I don't mind the ads.
Sometimes the ads are decent.
Okay, so hold on.
Give me one second.
Let me pull up share screen.
Share screen.
The TikTok videos have already begun.
Sweet, merciful goodness.
I mean, it was outrageously meltdown-ish.
Twitter.com forward slash TheVivaFry.
Oh, look at that.
Okay, so I'm not in incognito.
Let me just...
Thank you for reminding me of my birthday.
I don't know if you guys know.
It's my birthday today.
Let me go to incognito thing there just so that I don't run the risk of exposing some of my top secret DMs on the Twitterverse.
Wait a minute.
Oh, it's that...
I'm sorry, Twitter is actually notifying everyone else that it's my birthday.
Okay.
Share.
Share screen.
Jeez, I really want to make it to after lunch, but I've got a 3 o 'clock that I can't miss, so I'm out of here one way or the other at 3. Viva Fry here.
Okay, let's just see what's happening.
Okay, you got it.
I'm not allowed to record.
Isn't this a public treat?
It is, but actually I don't like it to be on video.
I can take it off.
Do you have your document on the phone?
Yeah.
Do you want a picture of it?
Yes.
Can everybody see it?
You can show me and then I take the picture.
This is why I don't go places.
I'm joking, but let's see what's going on here.
We got detained at Davos, so there's another 20 seconds of this.
Sorry?
Can you put your phone away?
Am I not allowed to film?
No.
Why not?
Not during the police police.
Why is that?
It's not allowed here.
On public street?
Yes.
Is that a law on the film?
Here it's not allowed.
Please put it away.
Not familiar with that law?
Please put it away.
It seems like you just don't want me to film.
It's a little interesting.
Let me just go Google if that's actually a law in Switzerland, but before I do that, I have seen a super chat which I am capable of reading.
Hold on one second, people.
Check this out.
I mean, this one's easy just because I know how it goes, but it goes, Okay.
Happy birthday.
So, and more.
And may you have another.
Well, happy birthday and may you have another.
But what's that last word?
Thank you very much.
Eyal Neman.
Thank you.
Who knows whether or not you're allowed filming in Switzerland?
Are you allowed?
That's a type of...
Call me a coward, and some people have.
That's the type of confrontation I would seek to avoid.
Although I can imagine, as a lawyer, why Jack Posobiec wanted to get certain information in case he's detained.
I don't want to make jokes.
It's not a question of making jokes.
In case he's detained...
And, you know, protecting himself, covering his bases.
Okay, so it says, I looked it up.
You can.
This is not legal advice if you're not in the way.
I assume also if you're given a lawful order, maybe you're not allowed.
Oh, man.
Guess Doc won't be practicing sometime soon.
That was...
How do we...
Yeah, but I am being detained is not necessarily the same rule in every country.
I don't know what the laws are in Switzerland.
Okay.
Let me see.
Let me go to my Twitter DM and see.
I don't want to talk about the monkeypox.
I don't want to talk about a bunch of stuff that's...
By the way, people should watch...
Rebel News.
Sent down five journalists.
Cancel.
I want to see what the LawTube is thinking about that cross-examination.
Okay, let's see what's going on in the chat.
I don't think you can publish photos or video in Switzerland without consent.
I'm not sure if that, yeah.
What do we talk about?
Let me see where my wife is.
Give me two seconds, people.
Where are you guys, question mark?
Oh, am I happy?
I'm not happy.
Am I excited to see how this ends afterwards?
So, they're going to have a redirect.
It's going to go on for a little bit of time.
It looks like Johnny is...
I don't know if Johnny's the next witness, but that was catastrophic.
And that actually...
It's not just that it didn't help Amber's case.
That actually hurt Amber's case.
Their expert looks like a certified quack for one, schlock for another, garbage work.
Like, he didn't do his homework.
He looked aggressive.
He looked defensive.
I mean, it's amazing.
He looked like...
I don't want to say he represents the client, but some people might think that.
Someone just said here, Viva.
Stop moving down with the chat here.
I want this one.
No, what's the problem?
I want this one.
Why would JD not want to look into the eyes of Amber Heard if he was an abuser?
Psychological terror.
Well, first of all, one way or the other, it looks a little weird.
It looks a little of a certain lifestyle, like I'm never looking at you in the eyes again.
I can imagine as a victim, you would never want to look at someone in the eyes again because it's scary.
But, yeah.
Why is Court TV saying it helped Amber Heard?
If anybody's saying that that helped Amber Heard, they're delusional.
Period.
Full stop.
Vomitus.
Viva.
Twitter is stating that Kate Moss, Johnny Depp's ex, will be testifying for Johnny.
I'm not sure how that happens now.
Johnny presented his evidence.
So I don't know how that would happen in the order of the evidence.
I'd have to double check where they are in the evidence.
I don't know how that happens.
I think this is Amber's evidence.
Now I think Johnny Depp presented his evidence.
Maybe in defense to Amber's claims, your wife got a bouncy house check in the backyard.
I guarantee you, no bouncy house would be safe in our house.
I would destroy it.
As in playing with it.
The way an adult plays with a kid's toy.
JD sees someone he once loved trying to utterly destroy him.
Might be painful to look at her.
There's no question about that.
It might be just enraging for your own psychological well-being.
Stay the heck away.
I actually think that him not looking at her in the eyes because people...
I actually think that him not looking at her in the eyes because people with her personality disorder need the acknowledgement.
And it might be a way for him to maintain power and control.
Or maybe just to irritate her in a way that he knows would irritate her.
Because that's the extent of his physical abuse.
But anyways, I don't place too much weight on that.
It's poetic and it's the life of Hollywood.
In Johnny's rebuttal, they can call her.
In Johnny's rebuttal to their evidence.
Okay, fine.
That makes sense.
But it would be risky if they call her.
Can't control it.
You can ask her in cross-examination.
And they can cross-examine her, but why would they not have wanted to call her as a witness?
Probably because the only witness they could ever get with damning testimony, damning testimony on Johnny Depp is...
What's her name?
Barkin?
What's her first name?
Emily Barkin?
No?
Oh, what's Barkin's first name?
35 years ago is the best they could get that he threw a bottle of wine.
Okay, I don't know what that...
That's not one floor of the poo-poo's nest?
No, that's not going to make it.
That won't make it quite...
Ellen Barkin.
Sorry, not Emily Barkin.
Ellen Barkin.
That was the best they could get.
You know, people were reporting Johnny Depp's ex is going to testify on physical abuse.
And I was like, you know, I didn't think they would even be able to compel an ex-wife, but an ex-girlfriend from 30-plus years ago and the worst that Ellen Barkin had to say?
He threw a bottle against a wall, not at someone, and it didn't hurt anybody, but he threw a bottle of wine.
Was it full or empty?
Since Amber mentioned Amber can't JD's team call them to...
Since Amber mentioned Amber can't JD's team call X to refute Amber.
And they can call an X. I mean, I guess they can call if they want to refute Amber's what they're trying to.
Prove.
But it's risky.
Unless you know that the individual has nothing on you and barring an outright lie for the sake of it.
Nobody has ever seen Johnny be violent.
I'm not making that as a statement of fact.
I am just reiterating that as a statement of that which has been adjuiced as evidence.
Nobody has ever seen Johnny act violently.
All that anybody has testified to.
I mean, but why on earth?
I genuinely don't know if this is a, like, if this is a parody account.
Johnny threw a vodka bottle towards people.
He's violent.
This, I read this as parody, but I know you've been here before and you seem to be legitimately or genuinely on, you know, thinking Amber has proved her case.
I don't think anybody in their, I don't think any jury member is going to agree that one incident of that, even if proven, which it hasn't been, is proof of an individual's violent tendencies.
I don't think so.
In fact, I think most people would say, if in your entire life, all that you have is one allegation that that has occurred, that that makes you a violent person.
So yeah, that's what I think about that.
Barkin was definitely cringey.
There's no question about that.
Let's bring up the Twitter feed for a second and just see what the other news is on the interwebs are.
Is it this one?
Yeah, this is it.
Okay, so let me just go.
We're seeing the same thing.
I'm going to expand this.
Just want to see what the...
What the comments to this are.
So I don't know if that's what they mean by detained.
One hour ago.
I'm not going to DM Jack and see if I can get...
He'll tweet when everything's...
Yeah, we'll see what else.
Okay, so...
Yeah.
It's interesting.
W-E-F detainee.
So I guess they released him if he's updating his profile after the incident.
He would have had to have gotten his phone back unless he is allowed to have it, but not message.
This qualifies, by the way, for anyone who's saying, well, show me the detained part.
This qualifies as being detained.
Now the question is, where is Jack now?
If he updated...
If he updated his profile, presumably he has his phone after the incident because you would not have been able to know that beforehand.
The question is, though, when are we going to get another update from Jack Posobiec?
Okay, let's just see what else is going on in the Twitterverse because there was some interesting...
I'm going to go to my Twitter diary.
Oh, thank you.
Twitter's letting the world know it's my birthday.
Okay, I'm not reading that, but you can go check that one out.
What was...
Oh, man.
Bill Gates.
We just got to watch this.
Where's the audio?
Where's the audio?
Here.
Remember, just remember, when Kang and Kodos from The Simpsons, we will move forward, not backwards, upwards, not downwards, and always twirling, twirling, twirling.
And so I think about this subject of our yellow school buses in that regard.
Because think about it.
Yellow school buses are our nation's largest form of mass transit.
How about that?
Hold on.
I would challenge that as a matter of fact.
I would think that the metro or the subway or the train is more mass transit than school buses, but maybe I'm wrong.
Someone in the chat.
Am I wrong about that?
I would think that trains, subways, and public transport would be more than school buses.
So yes, and let's applaud, because they get somewhere they need to go.
And every day, then, think about this in terms of the numbers.
Every day in our country, more than 25 million children ride to and from school on our nation's fleet of school buses.
Every day.
25 million?
I think there's definitely more than 25 million people who transit to work.
Because think about it.
Yellow school buses are...
Oh, please.
It's enough, Twitter.
I know.
I don't want to log in to see anything.
Oh, my goodness.
Do we have time for Dan Crenshaw?
Do we have time for Dan Crenshaw?
We do.
We're doing it.
I saw another super chat.
Did I miss it?
Did I miss...
Looks like a bulldog.
Okay, hold on.
It is a bulldog.
Therefore, Avatar must be brought up.
I must see the...
Bring on the bull...
Oh, it's a Frenchie.
No, that's a Boston Terrier.
Let me remove this for now.
Kate was not allowed to testify until Amber mentioned her name when testifying about stairs opened up the door to calling her.
I get it now.
Okay, good.
Thank you.
I have...
In as much as I've been following this trial more than some people like, I haven't been following it as many as, no fault, the other law tuber, YouTube, megatube, law lawyer thingy things on the interwebs.
Emily D. Baker, Legal Bytes Alita, Joe Nierman, Good Logic, Nate Brody, Nate the Lawyer, Uncivil Law, Legal Mindset.
I was watching Legal Mindset over the weekend.
He was also great.
Legal Mindset is Andrew.
You got Law and Lumber.
You got...
Ian...
That's my problem.
Ian Runkle, Runkle of the Bailey, who was in court with DUI guy.
The law tubes are exploding the interwebs in the legalist way possible, but I have not been following this trial as closely as them.
On Friday, I was livestream Twitter, mouth-tweeting the hearing of...
The hearing of Tamara Lich, which is...
It's gross.
It's legally and politically gross.
There's no other way to describe it.
So, interesting.
And if they call Kate Moss and Johnny Depp knows that she's going to have nothing but praises to sing of Johnny and bad things to say of Amber...
Vomitus.
The doctor thought it was vomit when it was ice cream.
Does that change your opinion?
Does that factual error change your opinion?
No.
It's even worse.
Can't keep his ice cream?
My goodness.
What kind of sick monster spills ice cream?
Do you know how many children that would make cry?
Let's go, Turto.
All right.
Show some love.
Okay, hold on.
Let's go back to Dan Crenshaw.
Every now and again, I don't want to improperly judge someone.
And I don't want to be unfair with them.
And I, for a long time...
Had a great degree of admiration for Dan Crenshaw.
I thought he was good.
He might still be good on certain points, but he might certainly have compromised that reputation that took him years to build.
He put out that, I want to say inane, that asinine, juvenile, CNN talking point tweet response to Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Oh, look like someone's trying to get her spot on RT.
Because she said, you know...
Maybe focus on America stuff and help Americans as American elected politicians instead of donating, transferring $40 billion of aid to Ukraine in a foreign war in which we have no real interest except for the fact that it's a proxy war by their own open statements.
I didn't like that because it's stupid arguments.
It's stupid tweeting.
And I judged him harshly and I was like, maybe I got it wrong still, but no, look, listen to this.
This is Dan Crenshaw who tweeted this.
Oh, do we still see the right one?
Okay.
Here's the full interview with Trey Gowdy, not spliced up for dramatic effect.
Watch the full thing.
I stand by every word.
Let's do it, shall we?
Joining us now is someone who has stood up for this country, and he has the eye patch to prove it, and he's been steadfast in his support for Ukraine, Texas Congressman Dan Crenshaw.
All right, Dan.
Actually, let me pause it here to say one other thing.
I liked Trey Gowdy.
Thought Trey Gowdy was badass.
Thought Trey Gowdy was amazing.
And then Trey Gowdy ducks out of politics and now I understand why.
How much is he?
It's just, it's amazing.
It's like, it's amazing.
You can't blame people for doing what's best for them.
But it can certainly cause you to question the reasons for which they were doing things prior to.
Trey Gowdy's not at Fox News.
I didn't even know that.
I just knew that he, I didn't even know that.
From Kisby, Saskatchewan.
Wishing you a happy birthday.
Thanks for always putting a smile on my face.
Cheers.
Thank you very much, Sergeant.
Solo Dolo.
Thank you.
So now I know where Trey Gowdy is.
You know?
Okay.
And I like having you on because you're a thoughtful guy and I know you make an effort to understand the other side of the argument.
So what is the other...
And let me say this also.
Trey Gowdy having served in the military and having the scars to prove it, it definitely is worthy of praise.
It's worthy of giving some respect for that.
Will it make his position on any given matter going forward legitimate just because?
No.
And it's a straw man, loser think strategy.
In as much as attacking someone's position based on what they've done, other unrelated things they've done in the past is a problematic way of addressing and assessing and critically thinking.
Lending credibility because of totally unrelated things, which might be praiseworthy in and of themselves, it's loser think.
Trey Gowdy is engaging in loser think right now, but it gets even worse.
How do we play?
Side for not helping Ukraine in its war with Russia.
Thanks for having me, Trey.
Look, there's some good arguments and there's some bad arguments.
let's just focus on the good arguments because the bad arguments that our side is making is very depressing and they're almost pro-Russia in their tone.
But the good arguments are, look, it's just too much.
Thank you.
The bad arguments are depressing.
It's a form of trying to shame someone.
And almost pro-Russia in tone.
If you disagree with Dan Crenshaw, you're pro-Russian.
That's basically where it's at.
Which is no different than disagree with me, you're a Yahtzee.
Disagree with me, you're worse than Schmittler.
Some of them are so bad.
They're pro-Russian.
I don't even have to talk to them.
Write Crenshaw.
Like people are not going to use the same strategy to write everything and anything you have to say.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Which money?
$40 billion gives you some sticker shock.
Gave me sticker shock.
Biden's proposal of $33 billion gave me sticker shock.
I think if Republicans were in charge, we would have said, look, let's use unspent COVID money.
We don't have to appropriate more money.
Let's use that.
Yeah, I was muted.
Or let's do it more incrementally.
Let's do $10 billion now.
Let's reassess in a month.
Let's do another $10 billion.
I think that's what Republicans would have done if we were able to press the perfect button.
But Trey, you've been in Congress.
Did you ever see a button that you could press that was called perfect?
I don't think so.
Did you ever see a button that you could press called...
This is the best, most convincing argument.
It's not perfect.
Maybe we would have asked for phasing out the payments, the advances.
Did you ever see a perfect button?
I don't think so.
Haha, that's so great.
That's so convincing.
That's very persuasive.
Hashtag not.
You get yes or you get no.
And so I pressed yes.
With those considerations in mind.
Now, here's the other thing.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Trey Gowdy doesn't even look like he's convincing himself.
I mean, this looks like a man who feels absolutely like he made the wrong decision.
And, you know, was it perfect?
No.
Was it bad?
Was it too much?
Yes.
Was it not what we wanted?
Yes.
But I voted for it anyhow.
You know what that makes you?
I mean, some might say that makes you principle-less.
That makes you lacking principle and conviction.
Some.
Not necessarily me.
Some.
Me.
Who else does it give sticker shock to?
Vladimir Putin.
So Vladimir Putin has a military that's been degraded severely.
Their morale is extremely low.
Their supply chains are in critical condition.
And now he just is realizing that his opponents, the Ukrainians, are going to have basically an unlimited amount of resources to continue fighting this war.
Stan, the other side would have said, look, with those severely, their morale is extremely low, their supply chains are in critical condition.
And now he just is realizing that his opponents, the Ukrainians, are going to have basically an unlimited amount of resources to continue fighting this war.
Let's just address what is absolutely idiotic about this.
Do you know who else is going to have sticker shock?
Putin.
Okay, first of all, I might actually say Putin might not have sticker shock at the...
He might be laughing himself silly at the fact that one country is in the midst of destroying itself.
One country has literally children that don't have formula to feed themselves.
One country is suffering all of that while squandering, while throwing hand over fist $40 billion.
And I think Putin is probably looking at this thing, that's not going to make any bit of difference to this war.
You can go ahead and shoot yourselves in the foot economically.
You can neglect your own country all you want.
That's not going to change anything in this conflict.
And let's just even go the other way.
If that does give sticker shock to Putin, if that does give, hey, make it 100 billion.
Really give him sticker.
Make it a trillion.
You know what?
Just declare war on Putin.
That'll give him sticker shock.
I mean, the logic does not even pass basic muster.
I don't think Putin is looking and saying, oh my goodness, they're giving 40 billion to Ukraine.
I don't think so.
I think he's saying, oh my goodness, these idiots are, they're pissing away money that's not going to have any material impact on this conflict.
Certainly not on resolving it.
And I think that, but flip side, if Putin is scared by the 40 billion, make it 60, make it 100.
Let's get back to this.
This is an investment in the severe degradation of our second biggest adversary, the Russian military.
They will not be able to invade other countries.
This is an investment.
Am I not muted?
I've got to hear this.
This is an investment in the degradation of our second biggest adversary.
Crenshaw, why not just say you want to go to war with Russia?
Why not just do it?
Oh, because you're not doing it directly?
I'm hiring a hitman.
I'm not pulling the trigger myself.
This is an investment in the degradation of our...
Crenshaw, you're saying the quiet part out loud and you think it makes you look good.
This is...
I don't even think it's a proxy war anymore.
We're investing in someone who's going to do our bidding for us.
I mean, I guess that's what a proxy war is, but typically you do it a little bit more subtly than that.
I'm not pulling the trigger.
I'm just investing in someone who's going to do it for me.
This is shocking.
Thank you for telling me to watch it.
In context, it's much worse, Dan.
...countries after this and destabilize the globe.
That allows us to do something.
It allows us to focus on our actual biggest adversary, which is China.
It allows us to refocus because we're no longer as worried as we may have been before about destabilizing Europe.
So you have to think strategically when you vote on these things.
It was a big price tag, but in the end, good investment without a single American troop being deployed.
A good investment.
You know, I think the civilians of Ukraine might disagree with you, man.
But of course, not a single American being deployed, not a single American citizen being killed.
It's a great investment.
It's like gambling with other people's money, gambling with other people's lives, so you can fight a proxy war with your second biggest adversary, so you can then, I don't know how you think it's going to end, and then move on to your first biggest China.
It's so thoughtful, and it's so generous.
We get to...
Fund a war in a foreign country.
Have innocent civilians in that war die not because people are looking for a solution, but because warmongering war hawks in America want to exacerbate that conflict because they want to fight a proxy war against their second biggest adversary, and they're willing to fight to your last civilian to do it.
I mean, it's actually disgusting.
You're right, Congressman.
You get yes, no, and present, and present really isn't an option, so...
You voted yes.
What was in the package specifically that made you say, you know what, I've got some questions, but I'm going to side with yes?
Why isn't present an option?
Why isn't no an option?
If it's going to pass anyhow, why is no not an option?
It was pretty clear-cut.
You know, a quarter of the money was actually just for our military, just to backfill our resources that we've expended.
So the other three quarters was for Ukrainian military, and that's a mix of weapons and humanitarian aid.
There's pretty good oversight measures in it as well.
And look, again, I understand the counter-argument.
It's a huge sticker shock.
But there's some bad arguments, too.
People are saying, well, we can't put baby formula on our shelves that we're sending money to Ukrainians.
And my response to that is, you know how much baby formula you can buy with $40 billion?
None.
None.
Because it's not a money issue.
It's a manufacturing issue.
And so we have to solve it with, frankly, telling the FDA to approve safe baby formula and import it from Europe.
You know, that'd be one solution.
I'm sorry.
The more I listen to Dan, the more I think he's either an idiot or he's malicious.
Now, it doesn't even matter.
Do you know how much baby formula you can buy with $40 billion?
None!
Because it's a manufacturing issue.
Do you know how many manufacturing plants you can build with $40 billion?
Let's just say one.
And that can feed American babies.
And then he's talking about importing it from Europe.
Do you know how much European baby formula $40 billion can buy?
A lot!
All of it!
And he wants to talk about bad arguments that he thinks are pro-Russia?
This is illogical.
This is bad to the point where you either have to be stupid or malicious to raise these arguments.
It's not a...
You can't buy any formula because it doesn't exist.
You know how many plants $40 billion can build?
And that's even assuming you can't import it from Europe with $40 billion?
No, but don't import baby formula from Europe to feed American babies that don't have baby formula.
Export $40 billion in arms to Ukraine so instead of saving American babies, you can actually just exacerbate a conflict that's killing Ukrainian civilians.
Oh my goodness.
Let's not make disingenuous arguments here.
Let's focus on the problem.
Let's not make disingenuous arguments here like you just did, Crenshaw.
You can't buy the formula because it doesn't exist.
So that money, what good's the $40 billion?
Don't make disingenuous arguments.
Oh, my goodness.
Every loser thinks.
Every loser thinks strategy right here.
He is doing what he's accusing other people of doing.
Oh, my God.
Oh, my gosh.
I'm sorry.
Sorry.
Accept the fact that this is a big deal.
It's a big deal when Russia has created the greatest land war in Europe since World War II.
It's a big deal.
It destabilizes the globe.
I've got to say this last thing.
It is not America first when you let Russia and China do whatever they want around the world and establish their version of a global order.
That puts America last because we cannot prosper in a global order led by Russia and China.
Dan Crenshaw, still unafraid.
Thank you for joining us on a Sunday night.
thank you for loaning us your expertise on military matters, including this you Thank you.
That's atrocious.
I mean, let me just see what the chat has.
Maybe I got something wrong.
Let me see what the chat has to say.
Very disappointing is an understatement.
Dan Crenshaw voted for the war package because that money is going to largely go to American munition manufacturers who lobby him.
Truth.
How was that expertise?
Okay, I think that has to do with the trial.
Barf, yes.
Not ice cream, by the way.
That Crenshaw interview would make one project vomitus, not melt ice cream.
Balloons, yeah.
Who said balloons?
Dude, it's my 43rd birthday, in case you haven't heard.
If you want to treat yourself to a gift, the newly launched merch store is pinned in the pinned comment to this chat, but I'm not going to push that annoyingly.
It's getpressed.ca is the company that did it, and thus far, it's glorious, and it's all hands-off.
I don't even have...
I was using Represent for shirts, but all they did was shirts.
Teespring, I stopped using, although I think that link is still in the Happy Birthday Viva.
Love from McAllen, Texas.
Thank you very much.
The Teespring link, I think, is still up in YouTube.
I can't figure out how to get it down.
Teespring was garbage products.
The mugs would fade after order if you ever got it.
I ordered from Teespring.
I never got my own shipment.
But no, that...
That interview is just god-awful.
Did my wife text me back?
Where is she?
Oh, hold on.
Someone just texted me.
Okay, so apparently Posobic is all good.
I cannot disclose my sources.
It's actually just friends who...
People have become close friends via the interwebs.
Jack is fine, apparently.
So, yeah.
What a disappointment Crenshaw is.
Okay.
I'll leave that.
I don't make fun of those types of things, but that's when you lose credibility.
And when Trey Gowdy brings it up, like I tweet, Trey Gowdy, bringing up the eyepatch and his scars from military service does not make what he's about to say more credible, any more than the new press sec getting up and talking about her racial, ethnic, sexual orientation is going to lend credibility to her.
For what she's doing.
I mean, what it basically is, is like, it's not like pity, but it's basically like, hey, what I'm about to say is good because of who I am and not because of the quality of the thought that's about to come out of my mouth.
Okay, I think I am...
I think the sentiment seems to be...
Smechel is a smart man.
Smechel is the expert in the trial.
He may be a smart man.
But he's made a very bad decision by violating his code of ethics because this is why.
Gemini Viva, no better spirit to do this.
He's doing God's work.
Thank you very much, D. Schultz.
Always trying to figure out what that avatar is from.
I think that's from a movie, is it not?
Thank you for all you do.
Marco Darko, are you related to Donnie Darko or what's his sister's name?
Jenny Darko?
In terms of foreign policy, there's historically been little difference between the Republican and the Democrat parties.
Just is what it is.
Oh, is it from They Live?
Okay, cool.
I thought it was from Goonies for a second.
How big is my epidermis?
So that was Dan Crenshaw.
Disappointing.
Let's see what else there was.
I want to go put that back as my pinned comment.
Anyone whose face appears on the WEF that does not make an active effort to remove it and issue a letter, a notice telling them to remove it, should have no place in politics.
No place in elected office.
People seem to forget who they represent.
Oh, here we go.
This is it.
This is what they should have played.
This is what?
They should have played for Dr. Schmeagel, Schmeagel, whatever his name is, Dr. Schmeagel.
And I'm not doing that.
They should have played this.
I forget what his last name is here.
Listen to this.
That's different.
That's different.
That's what one does not hate the other.
That's irrelevant.
It's a complete non sequitur.
Gaslighting.
This is gaslighting.
how you don't or do come to the door based on whether I throw positive in.
It's irrelevant.
I'm justifying how you...
I seem to think that there's this cowardice in me that runs away and I don't fight for you.
And you're justifying that by saying I throw pots and pans?
Okay, cool.
Let's talk about everything you do wrong.
I'm not the one who...
I didn't punch you, by the way.
I'm sorry that I didn't hit you across the face in a proper slap, but I was hitting you.
It was not punching you.
Babe, you're not punched.
Don't tell me what it feels like to be punched.
You know, even a lot of fights have been around a long time.
You're not punched.
I'm sorry I hit you like this.
But I did not punch you.
I did not fucking deck you.
I fucking was hitting you.
I don't know what the motion of my actual hand was.
But you're fine.
I did not hurt you.
I did not punch you.
I was hitting you.
What am I supposed to do?
Do this?
I'm not sitting here bitching about it, am I?
You are.
That's the difference between me and you.
You're a fucking baby.
You are such a baby!
Grow the fuck up, Johnny!
Did you start physical fights?
I did start a physical fight.
Yeah, you did, so I had to get the fuck out of there.
Yes, you did.
So you did the right thing, the big thing.
You know what?
You are admirable.
I gotta tell you, that actually, it actually upsets me to listen to.
It actually hurts my stomach.
I've never been trapped in a relationship like that before.
I married young.
I kept my schmeckle in my pants.
I keep my schmeckle in my pants, except when the person to whom I swore till death do us part...
Okay, I'll stop.
Got that sentence right there.
But it actually, it makes me uneasy to listen to this.
I could hear her like, you're not...
Hurt, Johnny.
You're such a baby.
Okay, maybe I hit you like this.
You're not hurt.
And he said, don't tell me what it feels like to be punched.
You're not hurt.
Quit being such a baby.
I hit you.
I physically abuse you.
I throw things at you.
I start physical fights, and then I demean, and I degrade, and I deny your very existence at being hurt by the abuse.
It actually hurts my stomach to listen to this.
Why Johnny Lawyer didn't react to the psychiatrist saying that type B personality disorders are a higher risk factor for IPV than narcissist, quote, personality traits, end quote.
But later in his testimony, he denied that fact.
They got that which they needed out of him, but I would have played that recording.
Because it goes specifically to what the doctor said.
Throwing things, gaslighting, physical abuse.
It went specifically to it.
Did you hear this recording?
You were told that that was vomit on his lap when it was ice cream.
Did you even hear this recording?
I want Schmeckle merch.
I'm going to take a picture.
Oh, the Schmeckle predates it.
I think we can do it.
Keep your Schmeckle.
Ooh!
I got an idea.
I got an idea.
Makes me sick and relive what I have lived.
This is Susan Swal.
First of all, it's a beautiful dog that looks like a Weimaraner.
That is definitely a Weimaraner.
Dogs which are smarter than me.
I'm a little scared of dogs which I think are, if not smarter than me, at the very least, close.
Weimaraners are dogs that are so smart, they're too smart for a dog that I'd feel comfortable living with.
Wake up in the middle of the night and the dog's going to be...
You listen to it.
You can feel it.
It's palpable.
I didn't hit you, Johnny.
Maybe I didn't do it like this.
Just reverse the roles.
Reverse the sexes in that recording and think of what reasonable person on earth would think of justifying that.
Just reverse the sexes.
It was Johnny Depp saying exactly that to Amber Heard.
Quit being an effing baby.
I didn't hit you with a close fist.
Maybe I did it.
Maybe.
Yeah, sure, I throw things at you, Amber.
Sure, I hit you, but you're not hurt, Amber.
You've had worse.
Quit being an effing baby.
I mean, it's like inconceivable.
It would not occur.
And the fact that anything in the media, anyone in the media is even tolerating, is even entertaining the idea.
Where was that article?
Hold on.
We're going to pull up that article while we're at it.
People saying that this trial is a distraction.
This is why it's not.
It's my birthday.
I'm going to stop with that.
I wish Twitter would stop those bubbles.
It was an article that was put up, by the way, gas yesterday was $2.11 a liter.
I took my hair out of the man bun for that, or the samurai ponytail, as I call it, and it stayed in position.
Where was the article?
That said, believe...
Oh, that fish was good.
That was a good fish.
Give me a second to get...
Here we go.
It's in Nate's tweet.
Let's get to the article.
And I'm going to bring it up over...
Oh, tell me I don't have to subscribe to this garbage because I don't want to.
Which one, people?
Show purposes?
Any special purposes in here?
Movie reference?
Oh, I feel dirty.
I feel dirty.
Why it's time to believe Amber Heard by Raven Smith.
Where to begin with the online cesspit that is Depp v.
Heard.
Cesspit.
I would have gone with cesspool, actually, but not cesspit.
Unless you've been living under a rock for the past few weeks, you'll know that ex-spouses are back in court.
Johnny Depp is seeking damages, 50 million, yada, yada, yada.
The details of both Depp and Hurd's testimonies are harrowing all by themselves.
Gruesome, violent, and containing deeply intimate anecdotes about the relationship.
Here's the thing.
We've heard details about their respective testimonies.
What we haven't seen in equal proportion is evidence to substantiate those testimonies.
You know, minor details.
When it comes to trials, we've heard harrowing testimonies.
Agreed.
The testimonies have been harrowing, have been disgusting, have been over the top, have been some of the worst things you can possibly imagine and allege.
What hasn't been following in equal proportions are the evidence to substantiate those allegations.
Broadly speaking, witness testimonies can be persuasive.
Yeah, they can also be unpersuasive when you don't substantiate them with evidence.
Photographic evidence, video evidence, recording.
They can be persuasive and they can be wholly unpersuasive when they are extravagant, outlandish, salacious allegations with no evidence to substantiate them.
Johnny Depp held me down, punched me in the face repeatedly, struck me in the back, kneed on the back, inserted a bottle in me, and here's a picture of him napping.
Here's a picture of him with melted ice cream on his pants.
Here's a picture of writing on a wall and a broken light.
And with two actors on the dock, yada, yada, yada.
Oh, here.
Still, despite the fact that London's High Court previously found allegations that Depp was a, quote, wife-beater to be, quote, substantially true, end quote, based on statements which themselves hadn't actually been tested.
You know, that's a legal...
It's a legal issue that...
Oh, my nose still hurts from banging it over the weekend.
That's a legal issue that...
The statements themselves were never challenged.
Whether or not Johnny should have challenged the statements first before going after the news outlet for reporting them.
But whatever, it's true.
Johnny Depp lost his defamation suit against The Sun in the UK because they determined that when they referred to him as a white beater, it was substantially true or sufficiently true.
I'm not sure what the exact words were.
The internet appears to have overwhelmingly picked Depp's side.
Yeah, just like that.
The internet arbitrarily, randomly.
You know, willy-nilly has decided to take Depp's side.
It has nothing to do with the recordings that we've all heard with our ears.
It has nothing to do with the allegations, which are new allegations, which are unsubstantiated at all, period.
No, it's just, it's whimsical.
Last week, Justice for Johnny Depp was trending on Twitter.
Yesterday, it was Amber Turd.
Yep, just like that.
Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that...
It seems Amber or her friends took a dump on Johnny's bed.
Nothing to do with that.
Go on H.E.R.D.
Go on social media.
The anti-H.E.R.D.
sentiment is palpable.
Could be a good reason, by the way.
The memes have been ferocious, sometimes consisting of spot the differences, comparison with domestic abuse victims, and at other times televised courtroom footage has been appropriated to openly mock her appearance.
I'm not sure what this means.
It is plain misogyny.
My, my, my good God, sir.
It's plain misogyny to say, I don't believe this person.
If this person happens to be a woman, I'm sorry.
You are guilty of plain misogyny.
You may think it's good misogyny now because you are just saying, I believe this person because she's a woman.
But that is misogyny.
Treating a woman differently because she's a woman is misogyny.
Treating them better?
Let me treat you better because you're a woman?
Treating someone differently because of their gender, when it's not the material thing too, that's misogyny.
Hold on one second.
Let me just see.
Look up misogyny.
I want to see something here.
Dude, look up.
Can I look this up?
I'll look it up afterwards.
I will argue, even if it's not technically in the definition, treating someone differently because of their race, gender, sex, is the very discrimination that this individual is complaining about now.
I believe Amber Heard because she's a woman, despite the dearth of evidence.
What was the word that Dr. Fauci used?
Dr. Fauci once used a word to refer to an absence of.
Oh, if the chat gets that.
I made a video about it at the time.
Anyway, yada, yada, yada.
We all understand that Depp fans will side with Depp.
Wrong, wrong.
I'm not a Depp fan.
And I actually started off thinking Depp should not have sued.
I actually started off thinking the evidence would be a lot worse on Depp.
He is a confirmed, admitted drug addict.
I thought there'd be a lot more skeletons in his closet.
That was the way I started off.
I thought Johnny Depp is confirmed drug addict.
Confirmed former alcoholic.
Entered rehab many times.
Multiple times married.
I thought there would have been a lot more dirt in his closet that would have made this a lot more of a poop storm for him.
I didn't start off on Team Depp.
I didn't start off as a Depp fan.
I like Rango.
I don't really care for the Pirates of the Caribbean.
My kid likes it.
But I didn't start off on his side.
I now am thoroughly convinced that Amber Heard is a lying abuser.
Period.
But even the less aggressively depp-pilled of us want to believe that the Caribbean Pirates is blameless.
No.
No, straw man.
Read loser think.
He's not blameless.
He might actually be blameworthy for certain things, but not others.
It's not because he's a drug addict who did bad things in his life that he's guilty of domestic violence.
Bad things.
He's certainly not blameless.
But that does not mean that he's guilty of everything and anything.
Amber Heard says.
And to believe that just because Amber Heard is a woman, it makes you someone who discriminates based on sex.
Sorry, I had to say it, Smith.
Raven, what your name is.
I don't want to think about what this is saying to victims of abuse who are considering coming forward.
Maybe you want to talk to them.
This guy's named Raven Smith.
Maybe you want to talk to them, Raven.
Because in the chat, we're talking to them.
And a lot of them are saying when people make up stories, it makes it harder for victims to come forward.
And a lot of them are saying, you may not have talked to people about this because it's a lot easier drafting this driveled garbage in your ideological silo at the Vogue.
You may want to talk to them.
They say this stuff hurts real victims.
People faking it, lying about it, makes it more difficult for victims.
It makes it more difficult to be believed, which in turn makes it more difficult for them to come forward because when people have lied about racist hate crimes, a la Jussie Smollett, it makes it harder for other people to come forward because people are immediately going to say, is this going to be another Smollett?
Actual victims are actually saying, Raven, if you're interested, that Amber Heard is doing them an injustice by what she has done and continues to do.
Operating on the basis that she is, in fact, not a bona fide victim.
Which, according to...
Which, from the evidence in my humble assessment, seems to be the case.
And regardless of what Heard did or didn't suffer...
Listen to this.
And regardless of what Heard did or didn't suffer at the hands of Johnny Depp, isn't the relentless memeing of her a form of violence in itself?
Hmm.
Regardless of whether or not she actually lied in an attempt to destroy Johnny Depp, is the public backlash against her not a form of violence?
This is sick and twisted logic.
This is sick and twisted logic that actually attempts to protect the victimizer yet again.
It's like, I mean, yeah, I lied.
Don't get mad at me for lying.
You getting mad at me for lying?
That's abuse.
Okay, I lied about the abuse.
Regardless, my goodness, regardless of what Heard did or didn't.
How about if she didn't suffer at Johnny Depp's hands?
How about if she didn't?
You think people aren't entitled to get mad at her for that?
Oh, no, but making fun of her for lying is a form of violence.
So she's a victim yet again.
This is pathological.
It's pathologically delusional.
I want to skip to the end of it.
Where was the punchline?
Oh, here we go.
This is it.
Oh, I hear a dog down here.
I may have to break for a...
I'm just going to take a dog outside and squeeze her so that she pees not on the floor.
Though I felt myself veering towards it.
Oh, though I felt myself veering towards being swayed by the evidence, I can no longer.
I can't.
It's no longer both sides this.
You're right.
By the way, it should never be both sides.
It should never be one side.
It should be what does the evidence show?
Raven, you've had a three-week trial.
You've had enough time to look at the evidence.
It isn't a both sides thing, actually.
It's time to draw a line.
It's time to believe women.
All women.
What a patronizing, misogynistic thing to say.
What an absolutely patronizing thing to say.
Believe all women, even the liars?
Do you think women are incapable of lying, Raven?
It's time to believe her.
I know, it's time to believe her because she sure as heck doesn't have the receipts to substantiate her allegations.
The British courts believed Depp beat his ex-wife.
No!
Actually, you're either misinformed or misinforming.
Oh, dear God.
I hear the dog.
She found me.
You might have to give me a second, people.
And this is what led to the Twitter misunderstanding with Michelle.
Johnny Depp, say you identify as a woman.
Checkmate Ravensmith.
Meltdown.
When you want to believe people based on gender, sex, identity aspects, and not on evidence, hey, dude.
That doesn't go far.
People, give me 30 seconds.
30 seconds.
I'm going to leave it run here.
you can read this rubbish.
Hold on.
Hold on.
Hold on.
Hold on.
Okay.
We haven't had proof of life of Pudge in a while.
Hopefully she's not pooping on me.
Here, people.
Let me...
That was a close one.
I got the poop out.
Not the poop, I got the pee out.
Pudge, what do you have to say?
Oh, it's just the best dog on her.
She's a good dog.
This is Pudge.
The paralyzed Puggle.
I'm sweating because I know she had to pee because I haven't taken her out.
To pee.
She's paralyzed in the back legs from a slipped disc, but she's gotten some movement back.
But in order to avoid urinary tract infections, I have to, when she pees, it's proper practice to tickle her so that she contracts and then squeezes out the pee so that she doesn't retain any pee that then can develop bacteria.
Hasn't happened in years.
I've developed this technique.
Unfortunately, I seem to be among the only people in the family who can do it.
So the dog is thoroughly my responsibility.
Let me see if I can make sure that we're live in the background.
Believe I'll win.
It's beyond patronizing.
Who thinks that that's logical?
You think it makes you a better person to say, Believe all women?
I mean, I don't even want to substitute the word woman with any other race, religion, or whatever.
But just imagine how stupid it would sound to say, believe all, fill in the blank.
Let me rephrase it.
Believe all, just believe all, fill in the blank.
How stupid can a sentence be?
There is no demographic of any group on earth.
Who do not lie, except for people who all tell the truth.
So, believe all people who tell the truth.
I would agree with that statement.
And arguably, I might say that there's nobody on earth who always tells the truth.
And in which case, you don't believe all anybody.
You don't believe any one individual at all times.
Trust, but verify.
And by the way, if...
Believe all dragons.
Well, that's not where I was going with it.
I was going with just stupid.
It would sound so stupid if you said...
Believe all Jews.
Believe all blacks.
Why not believe all men?
I know what you're saying.
It's women who allege to have been victims.
Believe all people who claim to be victims.
Phrase it that way.
Has there never been someone who has lied about being a victim?
Believe all people despite empirical, definitive evidence that some people claiming to be those people were lying about being those people.
Well, I'm not a vet.
I'm not.
Hold on a second.
Someone said I'm a vet.
No, I am.
Hold on.
Where is it?
Someone said you're a vet.
I am not a vet.
I just determined the technique.
It's really quite...
And it's quite funny.
The other thing is the trick works as well for poop.
So one thing we haven't fully mastered, but I've done it a couple times, is I can actually hold Pudge over the toilet, tickle her when she has to make a number two, and it actually comes out occasionally.
But I just use that trick outside, and it looks...
Exquisitely weird.
But she's been getting some movement back in her legs so she can walk a little bit, but if she drags too much.
And other than that, damn happy dog.
She wasn't paralyzed when we got her.
I took her because I could not stand for the dog to be euthanized when she was happy.
And other than that, happy to be alive.
She likes eating.
She gets great pleasure out of mealtime.
I'm a woman.
Your hair is not crazy.
Why, thank you, Patriot Asylum.
So is that guy, I mean, there's any number of jokes that you can make about that guy drafting that article and why.
Someone said, you know, how much did that cost to write that article?
How much did Amber Heard's PR team pay that, you know, did they?
I don't make those accusations, but I'd be curious.
Is that a freely drafted piece?
Or was that, you know, a favor?
I'm a woman.
Little Caesars, better than Domino's.
Okay, I think I see what's going on here.
Okay, now by the way, so even if we go live again, they're supposed to go live in a few minutes, I'm going to have to duck out before 3 o 'clock for something that I have at 3 o 'clock that I can't get out of.
Then I'm going to call it for the day.
I just hope we get Johnny Depp before I have to leave.
Tonight, for my birthday, all I ever want to do on my birthday is the same thing.
It used to be a round of golf or a day of fishing and a barbecue for dinner.
With a nice, cold martini.
That'll never change.
But, um...
Hold on, hold on one second.
Hold on one second.
Hold on.
I've got to get to...
The chat is going down faster than I can scroll up.
It said, Viva, don't ever change.
And now I have to see...
Oh, gosh, come on!
It was a green avatar.
It was a greenish avatar.
I'm going to get it.
I'm going to get it.
I've lost it.
It's too late.
Darn it.
Yeah, that's all I want to do.
I'm going to go for a bike ride.
That's what I might do after this.
A nice mountain bike ride.
Now, there's no fishing here.
I'm back in the city, but I can go for a bike ride in the mountain.
I got a new mountain bike this year, and it's gloriously beautiful.
I have been riding a Specialized Stump Jumper since, I think it was 2002, and it was the best bike I ever got.
And I...
I recently got a new bike, and it's a Trek Fuel, and it's amazing, but it's a much bigger bike.
For anybody, it's a much bigger bike, bigger, like, handlebar width, and a much bulkier ride than the Stump Jumper, which was, like, really great for...
Get a crab claw and make a decked-out Caesar.
What's a Caesar?
Oh, a Caesar, a drink.
I'm going to go walk my three dogs, Candice.
Walk them.
I have to...
I know Winston is...
I wish I could show you what was going on on the ground there.
Okay, let's see here.
I'm going to go back and just see if the...
Oh, my goodness!
I'm an idiot.
What's my problem?
I came off the channel, and now I don't know if they've gone...
What the...
What in the what?
Oh, son of a beast thing.
Are we live?
Okay, we got a commercial.
Give me one second here.
Give me one second.
Another ad.
Come on.
Yeah, it's amazing.
It's smooth.
And I'm getting the hang of it.
The Trek fuel.
Oh my gosh, they're back on!
It's my problem.
Yeah.
What's up, dude?
The second one that you discussed was sense of entitlement.
Do you recall that testimony?
Is the audio good enough, people?
What record evidence is there that Mr. Depp exhibits behavior of needing a sense of entitlement?
This guy's not anywhere near as confident as he used to be.
Uh-oh, I just muted it.
Oh, for goodness sake.
That was the case.
Was, in my opinion, very entitled.
All right.
And the third one you discussed was exploitative.
Do you recall that?
Yes.
Okay.
And what is the record evidence that Mr. Depp exhibits behaviors that are exploitative?
Again, I think the whole concept of...
Court audio is too low.
Hold on.
Okay.
Hold on.
The fourth one was...
You're going to say the court audio is going to be too loud if I go back to law, crime, Depp.
...violence and the control you have over someone.
I'm sorry?
Can I be heard?
Okay.
Is this better?
Okay, we'll see in a second.
Yeah, now I think the audio is going to be too loud.
Remind me to keep this chat up.
I'm going to keep a chat up the entire time.
Do you have a lunch over?
Put on Amber Heard.
Yeah, I missed that.
Okay.
Tell me if the audio is too loud.
I'm just going to ask you to...
Give the record evidence of Mr. Depp's lacking empathy that you know of.
Yes.
Am I allowed to elaborate?
Yes.
Just a little different than what you said before.
Okay.
So, if one does...
So, I'll make it more direct.
A lot less confident he is right now.
With what Mr. Depp has to say.
You are no longer useful, okay?
Therefore, you don't really care about others for others.
You care about others for your benefit.
This guy is absolute projecting psychoanalyst garbage.
Dr. Kipper setting some boundaries on substance use protocol, substance detox, is an example of lacking empathy and not really caring what other people have to set.
All right.
Another one of the characteristics that you cited was envious.
Do you recall that testimony?
Yes.
What is the record evidence that Mr. Depp exhibits envy?
I think jealousy is a good start for that.
What is the evidence of why you have a career?
Start with that, beyond what she has.
And the jealousy parts of Mr. Franco and...
And I think others commented this week, Ms. Burst, sorry, last week Ms. Burst commented about things about jealousy.
What was the evidence was the question.
Okay.
And the next one you listed was fragile self-esteem.
Do you recall that?
Yeah.
And what is the record evidence of Mr. Depp exhibiting that?
So fragile self-esteem would be more along the line of a Cluster B trait.
I should put that in.
It's not necessarily the criteria for narcissism, so it's a trait.
And basically what that means will be that the combination of poor self-control and rapid mood states is fragile, self-esteem fragile.
So it's going to be rather than per se narcissistic.
All right.
Now we've seen Mr. Depp during this trial doodling and eating candy.
Oh, objection.
What if any evidence would that suggest that he has narcissistic traits?
Objection, Your Honor.
No foundation.
The jury heard it, though.
What a stupid thing.
That's bad law, people.
That's bad law.
You were asked about the Cluster B, and counsel for Mr. Depp came back and said, are you aware Ms. Hurt has been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder or histrionic personality disorder?
Now, you reviewed...
Who's to like me?
I think you testified at the beginning.
You reviewed the therapy and counseling and medical records for Ms. Hurd, correct?
Correct.
What, if any?
What, if any?
Evidence was there that Bonnie Jacobs diagnosed Amber Hurd with either borderline personality or a histrionic personality disorder?
Objection, Your Honor.
That's fair cross.
He asked the question.
He ate.
He ate during a trial, which lasts all day for three weeks, four weeks.
Thank you.
Gosh darn.
So, if I could start Ms. Jacobs.
Demonstrating no type of personality, sort of borderline or otherwise.
And on a review of Dr. Corrine's records.
Objections beyond the scope of the question.
I'll ask each of them separately.
And you also reviewed the medical therapy records for Ms. Hurd for Connell Cowan, correct?
Yes.
What if any evidence was there at any time that he diagnosed and were heard with borderline personality disorder or histrionic personality disorder?
Not only did he not, he referred to Mr. Depp as a narcissist.
Okay.
Now, you also reviewed all of Don Hughes' records and her testing, correct?
Yes.
And what, if any, evidence did you find in any of that extensive testing and note-taking that she had found that Amber Heard had borderline personality disorder or histrionic personality disorder?
Objection leading.
None.
Okay.
And you also reviewed Dr. Curry's notes and her testing, correct?
Yes.
All right.
And what, if any, evidence did you find in any of Dr. Curry's testing that Amber Heard had either borderline personality disorder or histrionic personality disorder?
She had traits.
She did not meet the full.
On Her own evaluation, she did not have the full, endorsed enough criteria to meet the criteria for borderline personality disorder.
And or histrionic personality disorder.
She definitely had traits.
She did not have the disorder by going by the strict number of criteria.
Oh my gosh.
Now you mentioned in response to Mr. Depth Counsel's questions, you started to talk about battered wife syndrome.
What is your experience with battered wife syndrome sometimes being mistaken with borderline personality disorder or histrionic personality disorder?
Objection compound.
And bleeding.
Overruled, Kyle.
So, bad or wise syndrome, which is more subsyndromal or not quite PTSD, has 70 symptoms of PTSD.
And if you hear some of them, you'll see why someone might think that.
By the way, he didn't test Amber Heard either.
Even if it's not upon reminders of...
They do have hyperarousal.
They do have hypervigilance, which is very easily mistaken for the emotional reactivity of borderline personality disorder.
They do have avoidance symptoms, so they avoid...
But emotions, activities, people, and if that can't be happening, they start becoming much more anxious, much more hyper-aroused.
They have disturbances in relationships.
I think John is a better psychiatrist than this guy.
Intimacy problems, again, which could also resemble borderline personality disorder.
So those description traits that were there...
A, did not meet the full criteria for borderline, and B, could readily be explained by batter-wise syndrome, a form of PTSD.
Thank you.
Now, you also indicated earlier that you reviewed the deposition of Amy Banks, correct?
Yes.
And what, if any, determinations did you make based on her deposition from her meetings with Mr. Depp and Ms. Hurd?
So, Dr. Banks...
This doctor may have been very well respected.
We'll see after this.
She had a chance to meet them in relationship counseling.
You're on or not responsive?
It's not non-responsive.
I said, what, if anything, is she fine?
Tell the jury about Amy Banks, the significance of Amy Banks.
Dr. Banks found that she fully believed Ms. Heard's version of what was going on.
Objection to hearsay.
He's going to be allowed to answer that.
I reversed those.
Let me do it again.
Please tell the jury...
Please tell the jury about the qualifications of Dr. Amy Banks.
This is the one who saw both Ms. Heard and Mr. Depp.
Dr. Banks is a professor at, I don't know whether it's an assistant or associate professor at Harvard University Medical School.
One, if not one of the two top medical schools in the world.
I think he wants out.
Who specializes in violence.
She is above all people who understand if someone is a victim, perpetrator, because she does this, researches this for a living every day.
And that's her qualifications.
Can I say what she reported?
Then I'm going to ask you, what, if anything, did Dr. Banks indicate relating to histrionic personality disorder or borderline personality disorder for Ms. Herb?
Dr. Banks didn't mention anything about personality disorder at all.
What she did mention was whom she felt gave a more accurate version of...
Objection, Your Honor.
What's the objection?
That's a credibility testimony.
I think he can testify to that.
I'll sustain the objection.
Next question.
What, if anything, did Dr. Banks' report, not saying what the ultimate conclusion was, what, if anything, did Dr. Banks say about what was reported to her by Ms. Hurd and Mr. Depp and how they responded?
So Ms. Hurd discussed the, in trying to, again, as a victim trying to save the relationship, discussed with Dr. Banks.
These accusations, these facts of intimate partner violence.
Mr. Depp, objection, hearsay?
I think he's entitled to rely on hearsay, and he's not given what ultimately was...
He's entitled to it.
You can rely on hearsay, but you just can't state the hearsay.
Don't do that.
File ethics report on people that have been your doctor or lawyer.
Although I do think he...
Mr. Depp said nothing when misheard.
I accused him of intimate partner violence.
Mr. Depp said nothing.
And what is the significance of that?
Objection, hearsay.
And what is the significance of that?
The significance of that is with...
Objection, no foundation.
Sustained.
Oh boy.
We'll move on.
Move on.
You were asked about MDMA and what the impact could potentially be.
Of taking 8 to 10 of these pills.
Do you recall?
Yes.
Okay.
Now, I'm going to take you to Australia 2015.
You've reviewed testimony over that, right?
From Mr. Dapp, Ms. Hurd, and the number.
Okay.
Do you recall that Ms. Hurd also said that she found dime bags of cocaine in drawers at the end of that three days?
Yes.
Okay.
I'm going to ask you, Michelle, can you bring up...
1828, it's already in evidence.
What, if any, effects do dime bags of cocaine have on a nose?
And if we can publish that...
Okay, we can.
Thank you.
I'm going to...
This is one of the pictures that was taken in Australia, and the testimony's been that these two canvases of Ms. Hurds were painted completely over.
Oh, my gosh.
Is that something that could be the impact of having 8 to 10...
Tablets of MDMA and combining that with cocaine and alcohol.
Objection, no foundation.
Speculation.
The foundation's already been laid, Your Honor.
Now do Jackson Pollock, Doctor.
What if anything, if you look at the painted canvases on this one, what if any...
He's going to object and it's going to get sustained.
Evidence is that...
That reflecting behaviors indicative of taking a lot of MDMA, cocaine, and alcohol.
Objection, speculation, no foundation.
Same question.
Sustained.
What a stupid question.
Look at this.
You testified earlier about property, destruction of property.
Do you recall that?
Yes.
Okay, could you tell the jury what...
How that relates to the correlating factors of risk factors for IPV?
Again, destruction of property is a form of psychological abuse, psychological mistreatment.
And so destruction of property uses intimidation and as means of control.
Focus on the destruction of property and the name calling.
Michelle, can you bring up 1829?
...that have never been proven.
This is a Jackson Pollock painting.
What, if any, conclusions about MDMI usage?
And this has already been admitted.
Yes, thank you, Your Honor.
And what, if any, evidence does this reflect as correlating behavior to risk factors of IPV?
I would say that, one, that demonstrates a good deal of violence and psychological abuse.
I think it's pretty clear that they're trying to be intimidating.
I don't think...
Objection, Your Honor.
Over there.
Thank you.
Please continue.
It would be...
People who would misuse ecstasy without coke, without cocaine, are prone to agitation, suspicion, jealousy, violence.
This is just Red Bull with carbonated water.
But we're seeing their sweetness and to make it last longer.
That presentation.
Thank you, Michelle.
Can you now bring up 1831?
30, I guess.
And that's already been admitted into evidence as well.
Your Honor, I'd ask that it be published.
What if any?
I mean, are people on MDMA and Coke, do they often spell properly?
Does this correlate with behavior indicative of IPV perpetration?
Again, this is intimidation, psychological abuse, where you're solely trying to emotionally...
Objection, Your Honor.
Can we be heard?
Okay.
Oh, but just ask him, and Doctor, So, do you know whose handwriting that is on the wall?
That won't be Elaine's question.
This will be more of a...
Do you know whose handwriting that is?
If I were to tell you that that were Amber Heard's handwriting, in red on the bottom left, would that surprise you?
Would you then conclude, perhaps, that this is not indicative of anything you think it is?
That's a Bansky.
Show him a Bansky.
Would you conclude that, from this picture, Johnny Depp is a grotesque IPv-er?
Yes, I would.
That's a Bansky painting.
This line of questioning is so, so super...
Can you imagine showing pictures of a mirror and not a picture of a victim?
If you can answer the question, what, if any, evidence is this correlating to the risk factors for IPV perpetrator?
Again, I think the violence comes through.
Objection, Your Honor.
Just the evidence of risk factors.
I'm sorry.
The evidence of risk factor would be accepting a more than average degree of violence as well as psychological abuse.
Okay.
Are you aware of any record evidence of misheard writing on walls, mirrors, countertops, or painting canvases?
No, she didn't tell me that.
She never told me that.
Thank you, Michelle.
You can take that down now.
Now, you were also asked about Seroquel and some of the other prescription medications.
Did you, during the course of your review of evidence, see the lists of medications that Mr. Depp was on at one point?
Yes, I read that list.
Michelle, I'm going to ask you to bring up Defendant's Exhibit 301.
He's an expert.
He's there to give his opinion.
That is the evidence.
The only question is what weight you place.
Dr. Spiegel, it's not into evidence yet.
I'm going to ask you to take a look at this.
Is this one of the documents that you had that reflected?
The amount of medication that Mr. Depp was on as of October 26, 2014.
Yes.
Okay.
And this was an email from Debbie Lloyd to Dr. Blaustein, his treating psychiatrist, correct?
Yes.
Okay.
Now, can you tell the jury that we've got Seroquel, 50 MG.
Objection hearsay.
Can you just tell the jury?
I haven't finished asking the question yet.
So, let's approach.
Okay.
So to the person who said, why is this guy's opinion relevant?
That's what an expert is.
They come out with their opinions, only their opinions.
Experts don't testify on facts.
They assess.
They provide an expert opinion in a report, yada, yada.
And then at the end of the day, you pick which expert you think is more credible when there's diverging experts, which there tend to be.
For whatever the reason, every expert seems to say exactly what their clients want them to say.
So you're going to have to, at the end of this, compare this expert.
And I'll say expert.
He's recognized as an expert.
Compare this guy's expert testimony to Dr. Curry, for example, and see who you think is a more credible expert.
I did not come in with any preconceived notions.
Dr. Curry is exponentially more credible than this doctor.
exponentially.
Michelle, can you scroll up just so I can see all of them at the same time?
Thank you.
So, Dr. Siegel, if someone was taking 50 milligrams of Seroquel, 25 milligrams of Seroquel, and 50 milligrams of Seroquel, and 50 all in one day, How would that impact them?
How much do they weigh?
Obviously, this is not for sleep, because presuming you're not wanting to sleep in the morning, noon, and from 4 to 6, although you're sleeping at night.
What I would say is he's using it for one purpose, as I say, with substance use disorder.
They're using it to calm down.
They're using it just to sit down and relax.
And given that you're taking 45 milligrams of Adderall a day, To stay awake, and that's more than the strive for adults and children, for that matter.
The combination makes very little sense at all to me.
And if a person was taking 300 milligrams of neurotin, I'm going to pronounce that wrong again.
You're on.
Four times a day and 600 later in the day, how would that impact?
Again, you're looking at medications that are there solely for a substance use disorder patient to get them up and to calm them down.
That's all this regimen is about.
Gabapentin doesn't have a psychiatric indication other than, actually doesn't have a psychiatric indication, although it does calm me down.
And as I mentioned before, similar to Adderall.
Gabapen is also abusable.
Cimidiquitiapine-Ceroquel is also abusable.
So you're getting these kind of unusually calming effects from these medicines.
The bizarre acting out was indicative of someone on drugs.
It's called a supertherapeutic dose or an excessive amount of Adderall.
And for the record, adults are only indicated with Adderall for the extended release, not the immediate release preparation.
And why that's relevant is the immediate release preparation is more abusable.
You get more high quicker.
The extended release goes out throughout the day.
The immediate release gets you up right away and then down.
Now, in ADHD, this medicine is very effective.
But from what this is being used for, clearly based on the combination of gabapentin.
I don't know what gabapentin is.
All right.
Do addicts lie?
Yes.
All right.
Now, you were asked about Mr. Depp passing out.
Do you recall reading testimony of Mr. Depp passing out in the bathroom in his vomit?
Yes.
Okay.
Does that help refresh your recollection of what you recall?
I mean, for the record, I don't think that falling asleep with ice cream on you is an objection beyond the scope of the question.
I would have let him answer that.
Keep going.
I don't think...
Taking Seroquel at night and falling asleep with ice cream on you is not what Seroquel is indicated for.
It's not meant to put you out in a state where you don't even be able to stay awake to put ice cream away.
Michelle, if you can pull up Defendants 1090.
Oh, show the picture.
Gabapentin is more common in veterinary surgical pain.
Gabapentin is prescribed mostly for nerve pain.
Dr. Spiegel, does this look like, would this be evidence correlating with behaviors consistent with IPV perpetrator risk factors?
This would be, Carly, a person who is completely knocked out, and it's usually only one way someone gets knocked out that badly, and that's with pharmacological assistance, whether it be legal or illegal.
They make it to the bed.
They don't sleep with their head on.
A game box in a furniture.
That doesn't happen to people who sleep.
No matter how tired you are.
I've been a resident in the past, and I was up for 40, 45 hours.
Objection beyond the scope.
Objection.
Keep your anecdotes to yourself.
Michelle, can you pull up 109.5, please?
Does not make you high, so not abusable.
It takes a while to low.
Okay, interesting.
I'm going to ask you the same question, Dr. Spiegel.
What, if anything, does this indicate relating to risk factors for IPV perpetrators?
Again, you know, colloquially passed out and there's very few ways to get like that.
Without pharmacological assistance.
Oh, my God.
If any of the jury is not repulsed by this expert, I'd be shocked.
defense and that's also been admitted And now we have the ice cream picture.
And what, if any, indication does this have?
Objection.
Speculation.
No foundation.
What if any correlation?
Oh, I agree.
What if any evidence is this?
Against Johnny.
Correlative with the risk factors for IPV?
Who takes a picture of their spouse sleeping or passed out with us?
Who does that?
One of the major risk factors and precipitating factors for the mid-partner violence.
Objection.
You are so to strike.
All right.
Sustained.
Strike it from the record.
Next question.
You've got to strike it from the jury's ears.
We'll just move on.
Move on, Lincoln.
You were asked about earpieces.
Do you recall reviewing Tracy Jacobs and Joel Mandel's depositions?
Yes.
All right.
And do you recall them both testifying that Mr. Depp had someone on salary to feed him his lines?
Yes.
Okay.
Now...
You've testified that you reviewed a substantial amount of evidence in this case.
Did you find any evidence that Amber Heard exhibited conduct or behaviors indicative or consistent with any of the risk factors for perpetrators of IPV?
Objection beyond the scope.
Well, it was suggested with the borderline personality.
But you did find that for Mr. Depp, correct?
Yes.
Okay.
And did you find...
Record evidence that Mr. Depp had a substance abuse disorder?
Severe substance abuse disorder.
All right.
Did any of the questions asked by Mr. Depp's counsel change any of your opinions in this case?
Nothing.
My opinion has not been swayed in iota.
Okay.
Do you hold them all still within a reasonable degree of medical and psychiatric probability or certainty?
Absolutely, yes.
Thank you very much, Dr. Spiegel.
All right.
Thank you.
So you can have a seat in the courtroom or you're free to go.
Thank you.
Alright, your next witness?
My next witness is Catherine Arnold.
Oh, I thought it was going to be Johnny.
I'm telling you, I'm going to miss it or I'm going to get lucky and it's going to be tomorrow.
Nothing I heard today has changed my opinion on anything.
The fact that it wasn't vomit but ice cream doesn't change my opinion.
The fact that...
Terrible.
Terrible.
Raven Smith, if you watched that and you think that that expert proved anything and that doesn't cause you to question anything...
Good for you for treating people based on their sex, religion, race, whatever.
Thank you.
Can you please state your name for the record?
Catherine Arnold.
And what is your profession?
I am an entertainment industry consultant and I also serve as an expert witness.
And can you please tell the jury your educational background?
Yes.
I've been in the entertainment industry for over 20 plus years.
I started as an assistant at ICM, which is one of the largest talent agencies in Los Angeles that represents actors, writers, and directors.
And I worked with a talent agent there.
And then I also worked at William Morris, for William Morris, as a script reader.
So I was working on scripts that they were delivered.
And submitted to for their actors, writers, and directors.
After that, I went into development of film and television projects for a company based in New York called the Maltese Company, which actually produced animated television shows and feature films based on Wall Street animated product, like toys.
And then I went to work...
With a company called the Goober Peters Company.
And Goober Peters was, at the time, one of the largest production companies in Los Angeles.
They did films like Batman and Rain Man and Tango and Cash.
They did TV shows like Witches of Eastwick.
And there I was involved in the development of scripts.
We worked with the studio directly in terms of what cast would be attached to the scripts and brought directors and talent to those projects.
I then went on to...
Work in...
There's a lot.
I went on to work in the independent film world as a film producer.
So I found the material.
I would get the financing.
I would get the cast and the director attached to the project.
We call that packaging.
And then we would go and obtain financing for that either through equity sources or international sales and financing and bank financing.
And then I also went on after that.
I produced five or six films with actors that you may know, including Salma Hayek, Vincent D 'Onofrio, Kirstie Alley, Thomas Jane, Ethan Hawke.
And then I worked with an international sales and production company where I was the head of production, and I worked again on the development of scripts.
and the procurement of financing.
So I worked in both the independent world and the studio world, meaning independently financed or financed by the big studios like Warner Brothers and Disney and Paramount and such as that.
Did any of your films win awards?
A couple of them did.
So a couple of the independent films that I produced, one of them won the Venice Film Festival in its category.
And then I also produced another film that won the Heartland Film Festival Award.
It's called the Crystal Award.
And what other video production projects have you been involved in?
So throughout that time, in between those jobs, I also worked in the corporate world.
So large studios like Warner Brothers and Disney and CBS would need corporate videos for their live events.
So I would interview executives and interview their talent and then edit the piece together to create video and media for their live sales conferences that they had at that time.
So early on in my career, I worked at the Los Angeles...
Olympic Organizing Committee and I worked in the licensing department where we handled the licensing of the Olympic logo.
Let's see what she has to talk about.
We also worked with sponsors and suppliers who were funding those games.
We'll get there.
Give it a second, Pete.
So it was a lot of contractual negotiations with the use of the logo as well as raising money for the games and working with those corporate sponsors throughout the two years prior to the games and then during the games themselves.
And what of any experience do you have working on film festivals?
Well, I've had films in festivals.
I've actually been very lucky to travel the world and gone to a lot of festivals with my films, both here in the United States and elsewhere.
And at one point, I was also hired to raise sponsorship funds for the Sundance Film Festival.
They had a new program that they were starting to do online festivals.
And so I raised about a half a million dollars for them in about a month.
All right, and do you have a degree, a college degree?
Yes, I graduated from UCLA with a bachelor's degree in economics.
What does your current consulting practice entail?
So as an entertainment consultant, having been in the business in both the independent and the studio worlds as both a producer and an executive, I work with investment companies and production companies who are looking to navigate the various inroads of Hollywood.
It's a business that's very different and unlike anything else, and very relationship-based.
So I use my 20 years of experience to help them get cast, get financing, understand the distribution process, marketing process, and get them set up.
To be able to produce their films.
Have you ever testified as an expert witness in the field of entertainment industry?
Yes.
Approximately how many times have you served as an expert?
I've been involved in somewhere between 85 and 100 cases as an expert from beginning stages to testifying in court.
And have you ever testified as an expert on damages and defamation cases?
Yes, I have.
Approximately how many times have you qualified as an expert on that?
On defamation?
Yes.
I believe three or four times.
Okay.
That's not that much.
Have you ever been admitted to testify as an expert on damages?
Yes.
Okay.
And how many times have you qualified as an expert on damages?
Good question.
Almost all my cases have some form of economic damage related to the case.
So I would say in all of the cases that I testified in.
This is boring.
Have you served as an expert for both plaintiffs and defendants?
Yes, I have.
Okay.
How much of your current practice involves consulting as opposed to serving as an expert witness?
So over the last 10 or 12 years, it's been about 50-50, so I spend half my time working as a consultant and the other half working with lawyers on their cases.
Your Honor, I'm going to move to qualify Catherine Arnold as an expert in the entertainment industry, standards and practices, and related economic damages.
Any objection?
All right, so moved.
Thank you.
Now, you have a dual role here as an expert, correct?
Yes.
You're going to be testifying with respect to Mr. Depp's claims of damages, and you're also going to be testifying to Amber Heard's damages, correct?
Yes.
All right.
Well, I'm going to start you with Mr. Depp's claims for damages.
Okay.
With respect to Mr. Depp's claim damages, on what subject have you been asked to offer your opinion?
So I was asked to assess any alleged damages that the op-ed piece in the Washington Post that Ms. Hurd wrote, whether that impacted his career in any way, particularly did he lose any income or any economic opportunities because of the op-ed piece specifically.
And have you been asked to limit that to the period of December 18, 2018, with the date of the op-ed?
Through November 2, 2020.
Yes.
Okay.
Now, what materials did you review in making your analysis?
And whether or not they coincide with his own...
There were a lot of documents.
I reviewed the pleadings of the case, the complaints, the discovery items, the responses to what they call interrogatories, which are the questions that the lawyers ask both sides.
I reviewed Mr. Depp's deposition testimony.
I also reviewed the deposition testimony of the experts that were proffered that had to do with the entertainment industry.
You know, the agents and the management teams of both sides.
Ron Schnell, the data expert.
I also reviewed emails and texts between the parties, between their families, between their management teams, the audio recordings, the visual recordings that have been presented in this case and the previous cases that have been involved in the last couple of years.
I also did my own independent research from general publicity and press and investigative articles, as well as those that are specific to the entertainment industry and utilize some entertainment industry specific sources to get some information that was helpful to my case, to our, to the case.
Thank you, Ms. Arnold.
Please describe for the jury your observations with respect to Mr. Depp's career trajectory.
Has she been acknowledged?
Did I miss something?
Mr. Depp has had an extraordinary career over many years, so it's a long one to look at.
Obviously, he was a rising star in the late 80s and in the 90s, starting with 21 Jump Street.
And you've heard all the films that I'm sure he's been in.
He really started to break through when he worked with Tim Burton, the director, and, of course, his character Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean was, you know, world-renowned.
Amber looks angry at his career.
And probably his biggest role.
And he was, you know, a well-liked, both critically and within the industry and within the public, as a movie star.
And at the same time...
Okay, I was not paying attention for a sec.
His behavior, both on and off the set in his personal life and in his professional life, start to interfere with what we would say what everybody saw was his great talent.
And it started, you know, there's some stories of issues that started back in the 80s and the 90s, but I would say really in the mid-2000s, between 2006 and 2010, Is when the behavior started affecting his work to a certain extent in terms of lateness on set.
And then as Ms. Jacobs, his talent agent, discussed with you in her deposition, it really started to affect her ability to get roles and the industry's willingness to work with him, given the issues that he was having with both behavior, tardiness, drinking, and the drug abuse.
And, you know, other issues in his personal life.
So it got more complicated for her to find him work, and I think it got harder for production companies and studios to hire him due to the challenges that that would put on a production.
She has no idea what she's going to be talking about.
And when did Mr. Depp's career downturn begin, based on your review of all the record evidence?
Well, again...
According to Ms. Jacobs, his agent, she mentioned that it started getting more challenging for her around 2010.
The lateness on set was being made aware of that more and more often from production executives and the producers that she was working with on the Pirates movie.
And not only Pirates, it continued on on the other films, including Mordecai and Murder on the Orient Express.
And in around 2014, when he had the appearance, it was presumed that he was under the effects of alcohol at the Hollywood Film Awards in 2014.
Objection, Your Honor.
Nonresponsive.
Life is about finding someone.
She's answering the career downturn.
Go crazy.
Please continue.
Get married.
Thank you.
Make sure it's a good match.
In 2014...
When Mr. Jeff appeared in the Hub Film Awards, Miss Jacobs received many phone calls from both producers, casting directors, and production executives asking her, what is going on with your client?
What's going on with his behavior?
Can we get him under control?
And then I think it really started to shift around the Pirates 5 movie in Australia.
This is very boring.
I'm not.
Issues with the finger that stopped production and things of that nature.
And then it just, it got harder and harder.
Now, based on your analysis, what has caused Mr. Depp's career downturn?
Objection.
No foundation.
Overruled.
Objection.
Please repeat the question.
Come on.
Based on your analysis, what has caused Mr. Depp's career downturn?
Based on your analysis.
And I realize you've said a number of those, so is there anything else?
Sure.
Well, we've talked about the erratic behavior, the tardiness, the drugs and alcohol abuse.
The lawsuits have had a really big impact, not just this lawsuit, but previous lawsuits that Mr. Depp has been involved with because there's a lot of publicity around anything that he does.
And every time he has filed a lawsuit, it is brought to light various issues with respect to whatever that lawsuit was about, whether it was about, you know, irradic behavior or domestic abuse or drugs and alcohol.
And even spending habits.
So every time a lawsuit has been filed, the press and the publicity has just been charged up and brought everything back to light.
And it's been an unfortunate problem on that level for the industry to continue to work with him, even though all this is out in the public.
For the films that were shortly before Pirates 5, how successful were they?
For God's sake.
We're talking Mordecai.
Awful, awful questions.
Alice Through the Looking Glass.
I think you testified to some of those.
The Lone Ranger, Tonto.
Right.
Objection compound.
Yeah, it is compound.
Break it up.
Of course, Mr. Depp has had some extremely, obviously, extremely successful films, but also in the, you know, the...
Four or five years prior, through Pirates, there were films that didn't do well at all and were considered what the industry calls a bomb, which could have been Alice in the Looking Glass, The Transcendence, The Lone Ranger, and Mordecai were films that just didn't perform, although they were...
Valued in their financing based on Mr. Depp's star quality and acting ability.
Unfortunately, they just didn't perform.
So as many hits as he's had, he's also had a lot of recent what they call failures in the business.
And what, if anything, did Mr. Depp do with respect to showing up for a press conference in Japan for Mordecai?
Ms. Jacobs mentioned in her deposition testimony that Mr. Depp didn't show up for the press conference in Mordecai, which he was not only an actor for, he was also a producer, and he didn't show up.
Apparently he was sleeping, so he wasn't able to make it.
What if any impact did the Brooks litigation have on Mr. Depp's career?
Is the jury familiar with this already?
Well, I think you can, I mean, okay.
So the Brooks litigation was, it was, there was a litigation around Mr. Depp had punched someone on one of the, I think it was a location manager on the set of a film called City of Lies.
I don't know exactly what happened to that litigation.
However, of course, again, it was written a lot about in the press and unfortunately came to the forefront that he had, You know, violent behavior yet again.
Yet again.
So in 2018, and I'm going to say before the op-ed on December 18, 2018, was there any negative articles, negative press about Mr. Depp?
For quite a while.
When you're a celebrity such as Mr. Depp, you're in the limelight and everybody wants to look at everything that happened.
After every movie or after every incident, there was usually press.
But the ones that were more significant were the ones in the Hollywood, a couple of them in the Hollywood Reporter and one of them.
So in 2017, there was an article in the Hollywood Reporter where the journalist discussed, I think the article was called Pirates of the Caribbean, the Diminishing Returns of Johnny Depp.
That Pirates, the last one was five, right?
And that one didn't perform nearly as well as the other previous Pirates of the Caribbean films.
And there was some discussion that the character...
Objection, hearsay, Your Honor.
I think you should explain generally.
Agreed, Sam.
Okay.
Let me ask you this.
When was that Hollywood Reporter article on diminishing returns of Johnny Depp?
That was in the spring of 2017.
Okay.
And you said, and I just want to make sure we understand, how well did Pirates 5 do compared to 1 through 4?
It performed less well by over $200 million.
Okay.
What if any other negative press was there in this time frame?
We'll take 2017, 2018, before the op-ed.
So in 2018, there was the Rolling Stones article that was an in-depth expose on Mr. Depp's life.
Again, his erratic behavior, the money he was spending on wine.
Objection, Your Honor, hearsay.
I think she can give generally, Your Honor, the negative.
All right.
What, if any, knowledge do you have of whether Disney saw the Rolling Stone article?
There were emails between...
The publicity department and the co-chairs and some of the senior executive Disney that they would forward the articles as they came out, both the Hollywood Reporter article.
And the Rolling Stones article.
And they would make commentary.
And Alan Horn, who is one of the co-chairs of Disney, used the word sad.
And I think one of the other executives used depressing, that their film star was now being shown in this light to the public in a Rolling Stones.
Section hearsay.
Sustained.
All right.
Was there any more articles about the Pirates of the Caribbean prior to the op-ed in December of 2018?
There was an article in October 28th, the Hollywood Reporter, October 28th, 2018, where the journalist had spoken to two writers of the film, and they were talking about removing the franchise.
She's entitled to rely on hearsay, and she's just giving the general.
She's not approached.
She is entitled.
She is entitled to rely on hearsay.
That's because she's an expert.
Yeah, I tried to watch...
I tried to start Gone Girl last night after the live stream, but unfortunately, the kids were still up.
By the time kids went to bed and I ate dinner, it was 10.30.
And I wasn't starting a movie at 10.30 at night because I am not a spring chicken anymore.
As many of you may or may not know, I'm 43 years old today.
All right.
And the kids are off school.
I've been...
Not neglecting them.
They've been preoccupied with other things.
But I'm going to go play with them.
Oh, I got it.
So I've got something at 3. It might only last a half an hour.
So I might actually be able to just leave this up, pull myself out of the stream and leave it go and then join back in at 3.30.
And if there's a break, it's going to be the most boring break ever where you're going to be chatting with each other.
In the chat chat.
chat chat um 1979.
Year of the Goat.
Thank you.
Yeah, this witness, she looks credible.
She looks exponentially more credible than...
Who was the nurse in One for a Little Cookie's Nest?
Nurse Ratched.
So without saying what the article said, this is proving nothing.
Okay.
So in October 28th, the article was about whether the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise would be rebooted without...
Please continue.
In the article in October 2018 was about whether or not the Pirates franchise was going to be what they call reboot, you know, redefined without Johnny Depp.
And that was in a...
Regarding two writers that were on the project.
Okay.
And there was one other one.
Okay, go ahead, please.
So there was another article.
There was an expose on the president and production.
It was also in the Hollywood Reporter.
And this is the one that Mr. Marks, Mr. Depp's expert, pointed to regarding the op-ed's impact on Mr. Depp's career.
And the online article was, as Mr. Marks pointed out, It was published on December 20th of 2018, but the same article was in print on the morning of December 18th of 2018, which is the same morning of the op-ed.
So that Hollywood Reporter article that Mr. Marks used to say...
Objection, no foundation.
Please continue.
Mr. Marks had used that article to show that Disney wanted to let go of Mr. Depp because of the op-ed, but it was actually printed in the reporter the same morning that the Washington Post article was printed.
So there's no way that the Washington Post article had any impact on what the Hollywood Reporter journalist wrote.
They were on the same morning.
They were released simultaneously, interestingly enough.
And the one that was two days, Okay, thank you.
Now, what, if anything, was there about press in 2018 relating to The Sun?
And Dan Wooten and any litigation that Mr. Depp was bringing.
So a lot of press was about the U.K. trial in the lawsuit that Mr. Depp brought against the Sun in the U.K. about the wife beater title that they used.
So there was a ton of press around that, both at the time that it was filed and throughout as documents were being shared with the public and then, of course, during the trial itself.
I prefer steak to cake.
What is your understanding of when the article, the Wife Beater article, first appeared?
I believe it was in July of 2018, about six months before the op-ed piece.
What is your understanding of when Mr. Depp filed suit against the son of Mr. Wooten?
Is Elaine sucking on a candy or something?
Again, in 2018, I believe.
June, would it be?
Would it refresh her?
Would it refresh your record?
It was in the spring or summer.
It was fairly shortly after the article, so it was long before the op-ed piece was out.
Okay.
And what, if any, impact did Mr. Depp's litigation in the Sun case have on his career?
That was a really tough one on Mr. Depp's career because everything, every allegation of abuse and every text, every email, all the audio, all the visual stuff was brought to light and made public.
And so not only did the public get to see it, but the industry was watching closely.
And it's hard for studios, especially a studio like Disney, who's family-oriented, be connected to a star that has Texts about burnt corpses and violent behavior in video.
So it was a big conflict for a lot of the people in the industry to how to navigate that if they're going to work with Star.
And what if any impacted Mr. Depp's other litigation against Mandel?
This is to show that Johnny Depp was losing work already.
He was becoming less valued.
As I was trying to say earlier, every time Mr. Depp brings a lawsuit, because he's such a well-known public figure, the spotlight goes on him.
So every time a lawsuit was filed, whether it was against his business manager, against his former lawyer, even when he fired his talent agent, it becomes news.
And then everybody talks about what could have preceded that.
Why would that lawsuit have happened?
And then they look at the details.
So again, the erratic behavior and the financial issues and the drinking and drug abuse was all part and parcel of every one of those.
And it was brought to light yet again each time.
What is your understanding of Mr. Depp's claims regarding Pirates of the Caribbean 6 and how that impacted?
Mr. Depp is claiming that he's lost money on Pirate 6, but Pirate 6 hasn't even been made yet, nor is there even a script that has been what we call greenlit, moved towards production.
So I don't know how you lose something that hasn't happened.
So I think that's what you're looking for.
And in fact, since Mr. Depp's damages are limited November 2, 2020, and nothing since, and that hasn't happened, is there any way he could claim damages for Pirate 6?
Objection leading.
No, that's going to be overruled.
Again, you can't claim damages for something that hasn't even happened, whether he was in it or not in it or was going to be in it or might have been in it, whether it was 2018 or now.
You can claim damages for something that's not going to happen.
It's the reason for which it's not going to happen.
Not only did he not have a contract, even back in the day, 2018 or after that, no contract had been signed for a Pirate 6. It doesn't exist.
Objection, legal conclusion.
I sustained the last part.
How do you know he doesn't have a legal contract?
Well, Ms. Jacobs said he didn't have a legal contract, and also his agents at CAA said he had not yet negotiated a contract for Pirate 6. And again, there is no script, so they haven't greenlit it.
As we say, they don't have a caster with the director yet.
Okay.
Based on your analysis, what, if any, impacted Ms. Hurd's op-ed have on whether Mr. Depp could claim a loss for Pirate 6?
Zero.
Someone is sucking on a candy that's driving me nuts.
Again, well, many things.
The movie doesn't exist yet, so that's one.
But even as important is that Disney, in their file for this trial, did not have the op-ed piece as part of all of the information they had read and looked about and discussed.
I know people hate her.
I still feel bad for Amber.
She might be fitting through the consequences of fractions.
I got five minutes.
The cost over rents at that cost, which can go from hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars when you have crews sitting around for two to four hours, eight hours, or even several weeks to a month when the finger incident happened.
On top of that, Mr. Depp is an expensive actor.
He can earn between $20 and $25 million per movie plus back end.
So it's very expensive.
So when you put that all together, the rising cost of Mr. Depp's talent, the challenges that they had to keep it on budget because of his lateness and his tardiness and all the other allegations that would affect a brand such as Disney, right?
Someone talks about a burnt corpse does not necessarily coincide with the brand of Disney.
That's the only example she can think of.
So there are many problems.
And interestingly enough, there was a lot of conversation internally in the industry.
Objection to hearsay.
She's entitled to rely on hearsay, Your Honor.
Sustained.
You can't say it's hearsay.
All right.
Please.
Please continue without saying what the discussion in the industry was.
The Jack Sparrow character had been exhausted in terms of where it could go creatively.
And I think the studio is looking for a way for it to renew the franchise, but not necessarily base it entirely on the Jack Sparrow character, which is where it had ended up the last couple of years.
Okay.
And evidenced by the lesser box office of Pirates 5 compared to the earlier ones.
And was there any article that came out on November 5, 2020, three days after the damages are cut off relating to Pirates of the Caribbean and Mr. Depp's chances of being Jack Sparrow?
I think they reiterated the fact that he was probably not going to be in the movie.
Oh, I thought you just said that it was not, that wasn't proven.
What impact has the op-ed had on Mr. Depp's career?
Very little.
Hardly anybody even knew the op-ed existed before he filed C. Okay.
If anybody that I know, but certainly not Disney.
Okay.
And what impact has the op-ed had on Mr. Depp's Q-scores?
According to what I read of Mr. Alan Jacobs, an expert in...
Statistical analysis.
And from my own research on websites that are available to us, Mr. Depp's Q-score, or if you're familiar with IMDB, which is Internet Movie Database, which is available to public and to the professional side, his Q-score did not change.
Dramatically, it was kind of in the middle of exactly the high and low of his Q scores overall.
It was in the middle.
It was at 113, which is where it was a couple weeks before and a couple weeks after.
So the op-ed didn't have any effect on his Q score.
And that was reiterated by Mr. Jacobson's deposition testimony.
And then you testified in response to an earlier question I had that nobody seemed to notice the op-ed until Mr. Depp filed suit.
No, that was on March 1, 2019.
Do you recall?
Yes, that's when the lawsuit was filed.
And why do you say that they didn't notice until then?
Because the op-ed piece, for most people in the industry, kind of came and went without much fanfare or much conversation.
It was much more about the...
I don't think very many people even know it was written until the allegations were made by Mr. Depp in the lawsuit.
It kind of...
Came in and out of the radar very quickly, if anybody even saw it at all.
All right.
Between December 18, 2018, and November 2020, November 2, 2020, our window here, has Mr. Depp continued to star in films?
So, Mr. Depp, so the article came, the op-ed piece came out December...
18 and 20 of 2018.
In January and February of 2019, he shot a film called Minimata, which was an independent film that was what we call a passion project.
He loved the script and wanted to do it, so he was able to film that after the op-ed piece.
And then the Dior campaign, Sauvage, I don't know the exact dates of filming, but I know that it did air throughout 2019.
And it's my understanding that he still may have that contract with Dior, so he continued that product endorsement.
And then in April, or sorry, in the spring...
In the fall, I believe it was, Mr. Depp was able to do press for the film Waiting for the Barbarians.
He went to the Deauville Film Festival.
He went to the Venice Film Festival.
He was well-received at the press conferences.
Life was at the same level for him in terms of his popularity over in Europe.
He was still working on press for the films.
And then, of course, he was scheduled to film Fantastic Beasts in early November of 2020.
And that's no longer the case, is that correct?
Objection, Your Honor.
What's the objection?
Can we approach?
Okay.
And that's no longer the case, correct, on Fantastic Beasts?
I don't want you to say anything more than that.
It's no longer the case, correct.
He's no longer in that film, correct?
He was paid for, but he does not star in the film.
Okay, thank you.
Now, what if any effect did the op-ed have on Mr. Depp's fan following?
I don't think it had any effect on his fan following.
Again, his cue scores didn't shift.
Clearly has a strong fan base.
In your opinion, what or who has caused the damage, if there is any, to Mr. Depp on his career and reputation between December 18, 2018 and November 2, 2020?
Objection, speculation.
Overruled.
Mr. Depp, and why do you say that?
Well, again, filing the lawsuits, bringing to light the issues.
Is Mr. Depp doing that on his own accord?
And any statements that were made by his team, Mr. Waldman or anyone else, is associated with Mr. Depp and those statements that came out, the defamatory statements, which we'll talk about in a minute, were also put out by Mr. Depp's team.
So in actuality, he's causing his own demise by bringing these lawsuits forward and continuing to kind of ignite the fire of Negative publicity around both of them.
Okay.
Are all of your opinions to whether a reasonable degree of probability or certainty with respect to Mr. Depp's damages?
Yes.
Okay, thank you.
Now I'm going to move you to Amber Heard's damages.
With respect to Amber Heard's claims for damages, on what subject have you been asked to offer your opinion?
So I was asked to look at the reputational harm and economic loss that Ms. Heard incurred due to the defamatory statements that Mr. Waldman, on behalf of Mr. Depp, made in April of 2020 and again in June of 2020.
And what materials did you review informing your opinions?
Again, many of the same materials that I reviewed for Mr. Depp's case, which was the deposition testimony, the pleadings, the discovery, all of that was included, as well as expert testimony that was based on statistical analysis of...
Negative social media campaigns that were created, as well as what happened.
I talked to Ms. Hurd's agents.
I read their depositions.
I talked to her publicist.
I read her deposition.
I talked to Ms. Hurd herself to get a first-person accounting of what happened from her perspective after those defamatory statements were made.
And then I looked at the, you know, again, emails back and forth and texts back and forth with the studio Warner Brothers and other producers that the management team is working with to get Ms. Hurdmore work.
Okay.
Now, before I go into the questions that I'm going to ask, I'm going to go ahead and just kind of define this so that we're all on the same page going through it.
The jury has seen the three defamatory statements, their defendants 1245, 1246A, and 1247.
And I'm just going to refer to them as the Depp slash Waldman statements in asking you all these questions.
Will you understand what I'm talking about?
Yes.
Okay, good.
Please describe Amber Heard's career prior to the publication of the Depp-Waldman statements.
So Amber's had a long career for someone who is not, you know, is fairly young still.
She was in over 50 productions.
I believe including Aquaman and Justice League, but let's just say close to 50 productions.
Well, certainly 50 productions before the defamatory statements were made.
She had, you know, a consistent working actor's career.
Her agents were strategic.
As she started getting more work, that they wanted her to work with better and better directors, to have, you know, The Danish Girl is a film that had a strong director and a strong critical.
And then she went from that to getting Justice League, which is on the bigger budget, is the bigger scale movie, and then, of course, Aquaman and Aquaman 2. So her career was following a very nice, steady rise, and she was on the precipice of a meteoric rise with Aquaman and Aquaman 2 prior to the statements.
Was Aquaman a successful film in terms of box office sales?
Aquaman was an extremely successful film.
It made over a billion dollars, and I believe it is the highest-grossing DC comic film ever.
Now, what, if any, accolades did Amber receive for her role in Aquaman?
And sometimes I'll call it Aquaman 1 just to make sure we don't get confused.
Right.
So in Aquaman 1, there were many emails from the director.
And the producer.
Objection hearsay.
She's just characterizing her.
She's not quoting them.
I don't know where it's going.
I'll overrule at the moment.
Thank you.
She got emails from the director and the producer stating that they loved her performance.
Objection hearsay.
You can't say what the emails say, but you can summarize them or characterize them.
Can you do that?
Is there accolading emails?
Emails of accolade from the director and the producer.
What type of press opportunities did Amber have prior to the Depp-Baldwin statements?
Loved working with Amber.
She was on the cover of many magazines after The Danish Girl, after Justice League, after Aquaman.
She was the cover girl.
I think it was Marie Claire or Elle in the UK.
She had a cover story of a big magazine in Mexico and Australia.
One magazine called her Woman of the Year.
Another one called her Role Model of the Year.
So she got a lot of press.
You know, she did a lot of press, both in magazines, but also in the press tours and the press junkets that she did for the films.
And were some of those California style, Marie Claire, Elle, Shape?
Yeah, there was a lot of them.
Overruled.
There was a lot of them, so I don't remember all of them.
But it was, you know, GQ, Elle, Marie Claire, you know, the big magazines, both here, the UK, Eastern Europe, in Latin America and in Australia.
And what about after the release of Aquaman, which was December 2018?
How was her press then?
Well, the press tour was doing well, and they wanted to give her a lot more press.
And I think up until the defamatory statements came out, she was on deck to do a lot of press.
Objection, no foundation.
Please continue.
So the press and the request for press went silent after the defamatory statements were made and which then the negative social media campaign and Now, what factors relating to social media does the entertainment industry rely on when considering an actor for a role?
Social media becomes a big part of how studios decide to use an actor and actress in a film because they want to know how the general public feels about them.
They want to know what the consumer feels about that actor.
So when there's positive social media, that's a good thing for the actor.
When there's negative social media, it can be very bad because not only can social media be directed at the actor or the actress themselves, but it can also be directed towards...
The movie, towards the movie company, towards the product that the actor or actress is working with.
So it becomes very complicated and it can get very messy to continue working with an actor or an actress if there's a lot of negative social media around them.
And after the Depp Waldman statements, what happened on social media?
After the Depp Waldman statements, social media blew up with negative...
Tweets and Instagram posts and, you know, Facebook posts and Snapchat and trolling, as we call it.
It was just negative.
According to Mr. Schnell, there was over 1.2 million negative tweets about Hamburg using hashtags that used the words in the statement of the Depp Waldman statements.
That 1.2 million negative statements between April of 2020 and November or January of 21. It's a lot of negative publicity.
And there was just a lot of what we call noise around Ms. Hurd and her work.
of any kind.
Can you please describe to the jury what a negative social campaign is?
So a negative social campaign would be when a fan base or in this case according to both Both the forensic statistical analyst as well as Ms. Hurd's agents and the product that she was working with, L 'Oreal, and her publicist.
It was a campaign that included both live accounts, live Twitter, you know, people that actually have individuals, as well as what we call...
Objection.
May I be heard?
all right you you you you you you
you Thank you.
Other than the bots, please describe the rest of the negative social media campaign.
The fan base was very energized by the Depwald staff.
Yeah, let me just ask you.
Is it Depp Waldman?
I'm sorry.
It's a lot of my brain right now.
It doesn't matter.
Why don't I do this?
Let me formulate a different question.
How has the negative social media campaign been used against Amber Heard since the Depp Waldman statements?
Great.
So the negative campaign has been used both to, you know, let's fire Amber off of Aquaman to the product that she had an endorsement contract with with L 'Oreal.
The makeup.
And every time that L 'Oreal mentioned Amber Heard and the product together, they would get harassed.
Her publicist company was harassed.
Any kind of movie that she was related to or television project that she was related to got negative attention from the social media world.
Even the charities that she was involved with were getting hammered, if you will, or bombarded by negative Okay.
because negativity was brought to their product service or film.
And is that negative social media campaign ongoing to this day?
Yes.
Okay.
And you were talking a little bit before I think about Remove Amber Heard from Aquaman 2. What were your observations with respect to that in connection to the Depp-Waldman statements?
Again, the social media campaign, whether it's called Remove Amber from Aquaman or negativity for her relationship in that film, it always tended to use words that were inside the defamatory statements.
They became hashtags.
If it was said in the defamatory statement, they were often reiterated in the tweets and the posts.
How difficult is it for an actor to repair this type of negative social media?
Well, first of all, it has to stop.
So once it stops, then an actor and their team can work slowly and patiently in both, maybe it's press interviews, maybe it's relationship with charity, maybe it's a small role in a movie and they do well and they kind of rebuild their career.
But it can take Two, three, four, five years or more to rehabilitate your career.
But first and foremost, it needs to stop.
You know, it just needs to stop so that they can, the consumer can get beyond it, and then they can reactivate their career by doing their work again.
Describe Amber Heard's reputation after the Depp Waldemann statements.
Well, the reputation, I guess, depends on...
Who you're talking to, but in the public, it's been very negative.
In the industry, they like her work, but they can't work with her right now, again, because every time her name is mentioned, the negativity flares up again.
So it doesn't make sense for them to try to make a movie which costs millions of dollars and then have a lot of negativity towards the film or the TV show or the product.
So her world has been...
Silence in terms of opportunities and even things that she wanted to work on are no longer available to her.
Has Amber been able to obtain roles after the Depp Waldman statements?
For a long time, no.
Very recently, she was able to do a small independent film from some people who get their financing out of Europe.
But up until that, no, she has not worked.
No.
Based on the fact that Amber came out of Aquaman, what should her opportunity, what would you have expected following the release of Aquaman December 2018 up to what's going on now?
I like to call Aquaman really, you know, Amber Heard's star is born moment.
It was that moment where not only was she a good actor, but she was now world renowned because she was in the most successful film.
Almost of all time, if not all time, and certainly for DC Comics, she was on the poster with the very handsome Jason Momoa, and they were this couple, and she was strong and beautiful, and it was just this extraordinary moment for her career to take off, right?
You know, her agents were excited.
The producers were excited.
Everybody just wanted to hit the ground running, and let's do more.
Let's do more work.
What, if anything, happened to Amber's participation in Aquaman 2?
So for a moment in time, in February 2021, there were conversations that Amber's, I'm going to be technical with you, her option for employment was not going to be exercised.
So they may not have hired her again, even though she had a contract for it.
There was some question as to whether she was going to be hired again on Aquaman 2. All right.
And did ultimately then she still get hired for Aquaman 2?
She did.
Her management team fought very hard and they ultimately ended up hiring her, but also not only because of what her management team did, but Jason Momoa, the star, and James Wan, the director, committed to her in an email saying, if we are involved in this movie, you will bring it.
Objection, no foundation, hearsay.
Don't say what the email said, just...
Summarize it or describe it, please.
I'm sorry, I'm just trying to understand this world.
So, her management team worked hard, and Jason Momoa and the director were adamant that she was in the film.
Objection, hearsay.
She has to be able to say that.
Well, sustained as to hearsay.
Right.
So, what if any assurances did Mr. Momoa and Mr. Wan give Amber, that she would be an Aquaman too.
Objection here saying.
What if any, are you aware of any chemistry issues between Amber and Jason Momoa from Aquaman?
According to the fact that they did a chemistry test with Ms. Heard, Ms. Heard, and Jason Momoa, in order for her to be hired, that is a good indication that they thought the two of them had good chemistry.
Obviously, when you look at the movie, they have good chemistry, and the poster, they have good chemistry.
So I think it's general awareness that they had great chemistry.
And what, if anything, would also suggest, with respect to Aquaman 2, that Jason Momoa believed they had good chemistry?
He wanted her in the movie.
Okay.
I think she has to be able to rely on it.
Sustained.
Strike it from the record.
In your review of all of the record evidence, what, if anything, did you see in writing anywhere that there was ever any chemistry or creative issue with Amber Heard and Jason Momoa from Aquaman 1?
There were no communications whatsoever that there was no chemistry between the two.
And what, if anything, did you, in all the record evidence, did you see that the producer or Jason Momoa did not want Amber Heard and Aquaman 2?
I did not see any evidence of that.
In fact, the opposite, correct?
Correct, again.
I overruled.
Thank you, Your Honor.
Now, what if any leverage did Amber Heard have to renegotiate her salary under the circumstances of the discussions you were talking about with not exercising her option?
She had zero leverage.
She was fighting for her life to stay in the film.
Okay.
Now, is it typical for an actor to be able to negotiate an increase in their salary after a successful franchise?
So you may know this already, and so I apologize if you've heard it before.
I don't know what's been brought to your attention, but in a franchise such as, a potential franchise as Justice League and Aquaman, the customs and practice is that the studio will make an agreement with the actor that incorporates potential future films.
So if Justice League does well, they want to know what they're going to pay the actor for the next one and the next one and the next one.
And in those, Successive terms in the contract, the fee for that actor customarily goes up.
It can go up by 10%, 20%, 100%, double, what have you.
And in the case as Ms. Kovacevic stated in her testimony that In a successful franchise, a movie that's made a billion dollars, the actors, agents will go back and try to renegotiate that upcoming price tag.
So if it was going to be X, they might want it to be 2X or 3X.
And that's very standard in the industry to renegotiate your contracts when there's many films in one single contract that each have their own price points.
What if any other actors in Aquaman 1 were able to renegotiate their contracts?
Jason Momoa negotiated his contract very significantly from Aquaman 1 to Aquaman 2. Do you know roughly how much more?
It went up from somewhere between $3 million and $4 million to $15 million.
Did Amber have a contract for Aquaman 1?
Yes.
How much was she paid for Aquaman 1?
Aquaman 1, she was paid $2 million.
And if...
And did that same contract provide for if she was in Aquaman 2?
I'm sorry.
I apologize.
Aquaman 1, I believe she got $1 million.
Aquaman 2, she was supposed to get $2 million.
I apologize.
There were a lot of numbers in that one contract.
So Aquaman 1, it was $1 million.
Aquaman 2, it was going to be $2 million.
All right.
Now, based on your experience and knowledge in the industry, how much would Amber Heard have been able to negotiate?
Right.
Well, as you can see from Mr. Momoa's contract that went up exponentially, up to $15 million.
Ms. Hurd, I don't know if she would have gotten $15 million for the movie, but she certainly could have increased it by $1 or $2 million or even doubled it.
So if it was $2, it could have been $4 or even $5 or $6, depending on the enthusiasm.
If it had just rolled from Aquaman 1 to Aquaman 2 without any of this.
Negativity that was created by the Depp-Waldman statements.
What, if anything, happened to Amber's role in Aquaman 2 after the Depp-Waldman statements?
It was diminished.
Now, why would Amber have been featured more prominently in Aquaman 2?
Objection, no foundation.
Only a foundation.
Okay.
What usually determines, are you able to speak to whether Amber should have been or would have been more prominently featured in Aquaman 2?
Well, a couple things.
Wait, I'm trying to get your foundation.
Are you able to speak to that?
Yes.
Okay.
And please tell the basis of that and then your opinion.
So there's two things.
When two actors do well in a romantic relationship and, you know, they get married or they're going to have a baby, you know, you want to follow that through because part of what did well in Aquaman was not only the action sequences, but to have a strong female character having a relationship with a strong male character, it's very empowering, right?
So that was working for them in the first place.
The poster of Aquaman that went around the world, one of the main posters, was of the two of them together standing proud and strong.
Right?
Being that couple.
And so naturally, as you go and develop scripts in the industry, you want to follow on the things that are working.
And according to Ms. Hurd, when she read the first script for Aquaman 2, she had a strong romantic arc for the entire film.
And then she also got to do some great action sequences at the end of that storyline in that script.
So she was featured predominantly throughout the script of Aquaman 2 when she first read it.
And then what happened?
Well, she didn't hear anything, so she wasn't getting the scripts.
When her colleagues were getting the scripts, she heard that through her agents.
And then when she got the script, it was pared down from the first script.
Dramatically, they had her in the hospital very shortly in the first part of the movie called Act One.
They had her in the hospital, and they pretty much had her in the hospital, and then she was going to do this action sequence in the end.
She trained five hours a day for several months for the trainer to do this big action sequence.
And then when she got to set, two things happened.
One, the costume designer said, I don't know what happened to your role.
It got diminished.
Objection, hearsay.
Sustained.
Go ahead with the second one.
More importantly, though, this big action sequence that she was going to do at the end of the movie, in the third act, was cut out.
And they took it away from her.
So it was radically reduced from what it was in the script and what she even trained for while she was preparing for the movie.
And what, if any, changes were made to the storyline?
I haven't seen the movie yet specifically, so I can't really speak to that yet.
All right.
And when you say she was in the hospital, what do you mean by it?
Was she injured in the first scene?
I believe that in the first act of the movie, she was injured somehow or has something to do with the baby.
I don't know exactly.
I'm just going with what Ms. Hurt told me about was that she ends up in the hospital early in this new Aquaman 2 movie and doesn't really come out until the end to kind of wrap things up.
But all of the interactions with, you know, Momoa's character and certainly the action scenes were taken out.
Okay.
How has Amber typically been involved in promotions for her films?
As we talked about earlier, actively involved in the press and the promotion, whether that was on the press junkets, what we call when they tour the world and the actors tour together and answer questions from the press at various screenings and film festivals.
And then also she was on the cover of magazines, usually after her movies, especially after Justice League.
And how was the promotion of Aquaman 2 affected by the Depp Walden statements?
Amber has not been involved in any of the promotion that's been done to date, or very little, particularly in teasers that I've seen, we call, you know, short little films about the making of and so forth.
She's not featured in them.
And also, very specifically, there was a big event that Warner Brothers put on during the fandom.
I think it's a DC fandom event, which is a big kind of like Comic-Con style event.
And they invited all of the actors, the majority of the actors that had strong roles in film, to participate both in the posters and the artwork and also participate at DC fandom.
And Ms. Heard was not invited to either be in the poster or be at the event.
And in fact, they told her she cannot come.
Now, can this hurt Amber's career, not being allowed to be in any of the promotional materials?
Absolutely.
It means that nobody knows about her.
She doesn't have the same part in the film.
It's not going to take her on to her next movie.
She's not being associated with the tremendous amount of promotion that's going to be made for this, you know, movie that everybody's looking forward to see.
So she's not a part of it because of this negative campaign.
How have the Depp Waldman statements affected any other films or TV project promotions for Amber?
So, prior to the defamatory statements, but either around the, you know, after or around the time that Aquaman 1 came out, she was in the TV show called The Stand.
It was based on a Stephen King novel.
So, big book, you know, going to be a big TV show, and again, it sort of didn't do any press or promotion for that for the same reasons.
And what, if any, plans were there to have Amber Heard on the cover of L.A. Style relating to Stand before the Deb Baldwin statements?
Right.
So Ms. Heard was in, and they had done an article about her participation in this TV show, The Stand, the Stephen King novel-related TV show, and they were going to give her the cover picture and cover story, and they took that away.
I don't know even if the article existed, but they certainly took away the cover.
Picture in the cover story.
Okay.
How have the Depp-Waldwin statements affected press requests for Amber?
There aren't any.
So, yes, they affected it because there used to be a lot of press requests, and now there aren't any.
Has Amber Heard obtained any roles since the Depp-Waldwin statement?
Again, for many years now, for a good period of time, a year and a half, two years, until she got this small movie called Into the Fire.
Has Amber obtained any studio movie roles since the Depp-Waldman statements?
No.
How, if at all, have Amber's philanthropic opportunities been affected by Depp-Waldman statements?
Again, she had some passion projects.
She was invited to do some charity work, and she also had her own passion projects that she loved and wanted to be involved with and even travel for.
But they decided it wasn't going to be a good idea because every time she appears anywhere, the social media negativity campaign starts up again.
So she hasn't been able to do any charity work.
What is an endorsement?
So an endorsement is when an actor associates themselves with a product, either for Print promotion or commercials like Jennifer Aniston doing the water or Matt McConaughey doing the car commercial.
That's a product endorsement.
He's paid to say that the product is good and be associated with the product.
How important are those endorsements to the actors in the entertainment industry?
Well, very, very important on two levels.
One, they bring a good amount of income to them when they're not shooting a movie, so it's a good way to make money in between film roles.
And then also, it shows the studios and the production executives and the financiers that the actor is relevant in the community because they're being associated with a product.
So if it's a well-known product, that's really great.
If it's a medium product, that's great, and so forth and so on.
So you want to be, if you can, and if that's something that you like to do, not everybody does, but if they like to do that.
Then they can get a lot of value out of those product endorsements because then the studios see that there's a connection with the consumer, not just on the film, but also with product.
Did Amber have any endorsement activities prior to the publication of the Depp Waldman statements?
Yes.
Please explain.
So Amber was hired by L 'Oreal.
to be a product and endorse their product the makeup line and she had a 1.5 million dollar contract for two years and they were able to They had 20 days of her work.
You know, they had the right to work with her for 20 days.
And she started the work.
And then when the defamatory statements came out, they essentially put a pause on working with her.
So they no longer brought her to photo shoots.
They no longer had her do public events for the product.
And basically said, we love you, but we can't work with you right now because it's just too much.
Objection, hearsay.
All right.
I'll sustain the objection.
No question.
Have the Deb Baldwin statements affected that deal in any way with L 'Oreal?
Well, A, they put it on pause and haven't done any of the work, so she's not out there in the public eye related to the product.
And they have decided to continue working with her at some point once, as I said, this all quiets down, this trial is over, and hopefully the negative campaigns will stop.
So they extended her contract, but they did not pay her for that extension.
And has Amber been hired for any other endorsement deals since the Depp-Waldman statements?
No.
Now, did you assess Amber's losses as a result of the Depp-Waldman statements?
Yes.
What did you do to assess those?
Well, first of all, I looked at Amber's career directly, so I wanted to see, you know, as I said earlier, she worked consistently, and then she was on this kind of...
Very large upswing with the big movies, Justice League and Aquaman and all of that, and The Stand with the Stephen King project.
And then it stopped, right?
So her work stopped.
And then I looked at other actors that kind of grew up at the same time frame, grew up meaning...
They started their career and had the same time frame to start going from the smaller projects to the well-known director projects to the big movie projects.
And I looked at those actors and I then saw...
I have not been following for the last 30 minutes.
Did I miss anything?
I wanted to see where their careers went.
So I looked at several actors to see, including Jason Momoa.
She's still going on about the damages.
Chat, one or two.
Have I missed anything?
Yes or one.
No or two.
Why did you use that method of analysis?
Is it a very common methodology in the entertainment industry to work with what we call comps?
I think Ms. Kvacevic even used that word, comp.
With films, you try to find comparable films.
With actors, you look to see comparable actors.
It's not a distinct, actual, this is going to happen, but this is the probability with a reasonable certainty that with the right management team that she had and her acting ability and her looks and the press...
was getting and should have continued to get that her career would have been similar to these other actors.
Have you used that method in other cases in which you've been an expert on damages?
Yes, I have.
Who did you select as comparable actors for your comparison?
Well, I wanted to look at actors that were in superhero films that had done really well at the box office.
So I looked at Jason Momoa, her co-star.
I looked at Gal Gadot, who was in Wonder Woman.
I looked at Anna de Armas, who was in...
Blade Runner.
Thank you, Blade Runner.
I looked at Zendaya, who was in Spider-Man, and I looked at Chris Pine, who was in Star Trek, and also Wonder Woman.
About the, you know, similar age range, all attractive actors, all with good acting skills, all able to do stunts.
So I was, it's not, there are not that many actors to look at who do superhero characters.
So it was a small pool to work from, but I took a wide range from...
Those actors, both men and women, to see what could potentially happen to Ms. Hurd's career.
Do you consider all of them to be identical for purposes of measurement?
Well, absolutely not.
I mean, no two actors are identical.
You can only look at that within a range of characteristics and work history management team and so forth.
And we've heard from Mr. Banya.
Did you review Mr. Banya's Q-score analysis regarding the comparables you used?
Yes, I did.
And what, if any, opinions have you formed in reviewing Mr. Banya's analysis regarding the comparables you selected?
So Mr. Banya looked at calendar years to assess what happened in December of 2017 or 2018 or 2019, what happened in June, what happened in a very specific time frame, which works on some statistical analysis, but when you're talking about actors and their relationships to Q-scores,
Q-scores are related to the actors' viability and the consumers' I don't know.
It doesn't coincide from actor to actor just because you look at it over time.
You have to look at it specifically after each of those individuals box office success with a particular film, you look at the cue score high or low during that, and then you look at how low it drops.
that brings them into the limelight again.
So it's not about time, it's related to a specific activity or event, and he did not do that.
Okay.
What did your comparison show in terms of films that those actors had been in since their breakout roles?
Oh my goodness.
I'm talking about the comparables.
In terms of their, I'm not quite sure.
It's like they're comparing houses in a market.
What happened with these other actors after they had their...
Oh, unrelated to Q-scores.
Right, right, right.
Okay, sorry.
So all those actors' careers, the ones I mentioned, they all either were a steady rise or even a meteoric rise in terms of where their career went after their Star is Born moment.
Then they got some other good films, and maybe they got another film that performed extremely well.
So it was a range, but they all were on an upward trajectory.
Oh my gosh, they hadn't started cross-examination.
And what does this mean for Amber?
Have they started cross-examination yet?
With a reason, I mean, the way that the...
The kind of industry works.
Unless there is a force majeure or some really negative event, her career should have followed that same upward swing in about the same time frame, give or take six months to a year.
But it would be very reasonable to believe that her career would have been on an upward trajectory within the range of those other actors.
What if any comparisons did you make respect to endorsement deals of these actors with Amber?
Oh, my good.
You know, again, all those actors that we've talked about all did...
Multiple endorsement deals after their big movies or after their big series of movies.
Jason Momoa is on Rocket Mortgage and Harley-Davidson as well as five or six other companies.
Zendaya is Lancome and Fashion and Water and Jewelry and Gal Gadot and Chris Pine and Ana de Armas.
They've all done either a couple or many and all of them have associated with our brand.
Yawning is contagious.
Unlike Amber, who hasn't even been able to work on the one contract that she had.
Speaking of drones, I really want to go fly my drone.
So what did your analysis show with respect to Amber Heard's losses but for the Depp Walden statements?
I'll bring it down to your soccer game.
They were significant.
If we follow the trajectory of her, you know, colleagues.
Well, let's start with Aquaman.
Oh, God, let's end with something.
What was she realized there?
Well, as I stated earlier, so...
From Aquaman 1 to 2, it went from a million dollars to two million dollars, right?
So that was a pre-written contract.
It doubled.
So the agents were very excited after the success of Aquaman to go and negotiate a much higher fee like they did for Jason Momoa.
They weren't able to do that.
So in that instance alone, it was more than likely a two million dollar loss just from that movie alone.
Two to four, you said before.
It could have been four.
Objection leading.
The stuff is in USD.
What about other films?
I got away in time, oh gosh.
So once as Amber's agent, Ms. Kvatch, Kvatch, okay, Kvatch, okay.
Kovacevic.
I was doing okay.
They've been keeping themselves busy.
Don't ask.
One's on my iPhone right now, but he's playing a learning game for kids.
That kind of looks like the baseline for any other movie she would have done.
So any other studio movie, what it started from there, and depending on the success of Aquaman and how much press she did, maybe she worked on another great director, independent film, whatever, that $2 million for a studio film, and had it jump to $4 million with the renegotiations.
That then would have been the basis.
So any future studio film that she would have done, any big budget film, would have been the basis at $4 million and then most likely have gone up from there if she was able to get others, which she should have, just like the other actors.
Let's talk about TV for a minute.
What were those losses?
Well, On the Stand, which was about the same time as Aquaman, but got...
The press and the promotion got cut off because of the...
This might be too boring to continue with.
She got paid $200,000 an episode on the stand.
So on a TV series of nine episodes, it's $1.8 million.
So if she had, again...
done other TV shows, it's very likely that whether she worked with a streamer or with one of the networks, that that fee would have gone up from there.
Her agents would have been able to use the leverage of the success of Aquaman 2 to put her, if she had done another television show, given rise to even What is it?
In his TV show, Got One Million Dollars.
She's comparing Amber Heard to Jason Momoa.
Who is Jason Momoa?
What about endorsements?
Endorsements?
Same thing.
All the other actors were doing, over the course of a couple years period, anywhere from five, six, seven other endorsement deals.
And Ms. Heard...
Realistically, should have gotten endorsement deals and other categories.
L 'Oreal is makeup, so probably not in makeup, but maybe water or clothing or jewelry or...
Wellness or it could have been anything else.
And so she too should have, with a reasonable degree of certainty, gotten other contract deals based on the success of the films that she's been associated with and the TV shows she's been associated with.
And what would that have translated into in terms of dollars?
So in terms of dollars, okay, so if it was $1.5 million for L 'Oreal for a two-year contract and let's give her...
For other $1.5 or $2 million deals, which all those other actors, especially the ladies, have gotten, then you're looking at an additional $8 million of income over time.
I'm not saying this is in one period.
We're looking at as far back as the defamatory statements of 2020 to now, which is almost two years.
And again, as I said earlier, even when this...
is quiet, it will take three to five years for her to rehabilitate her career if she can.
So we have to look at it as a period of a minimum of five years.
So when I say eight million dollars for endorsement contracts, it would have been over time.
What if any losses relating to production or film activities?
Jason, Amber Heard's lack of chemistry.
That's what I just read in the news.
These other actors that we looked at, and there's a wide range of them.
Some of them did bigger films, and some of them did gigantic films.
but it is very reasonable to assume that once you are in an Aquaman style film, you'll either continue to do those, right?
Some of these franchises, as we know, or she would probably have been in another studio film that had nothing to do with Aquaman.
I want to go check out Sussman now.
She would have been in at least one film a year at a minimum of four million dollars because that's...
What her precedent would have been had she renegotiated.
And it's important to note that in her Justice League contract, if there is an Aquaman 3, her price is set at $4 million.
So it's very reasonable to assume and to believe that if she did a film a year for five years, a minimum of $4 million a year without any negotiation, which probably would have happened.
But let's just say that baseline.
That would be another $20 million over that timeframe.
What if any opinions do you have about Amber Heard's earning power over time?
Oh, it goes up, obviously, because she's a star.
It would continue to rise.
It's customary in the industry, as I've talked about earlier, that the negotiations, especially with her agents at William Morris.
Her fees would have gone higher.
So I'm just using the baseline without any ability to foresee in the future.
But I already know she got negotiated for $4 million from Aquaman 3. So if we use that as a baseline minimum, but it very well would have gone up had her agents done the work that they wanted to do.
So combining all of these opinions and calculations that you've had, what, if any, range are the losses you are estimating?
$5,200 million.
Loss of revenues, loss of endorsements, loss of compounded interest over time.
So let's just say a minimum of five years that we're going to talk about these losses, and it could be more, but at minimum, if you look at the film, the television, and the endorsement contracts, it's very likely that Ms. Hurd should have earned between $45 and $50 million over that time period.
Are all your opinions to within a reasonable degree of probability or certainty?
Yes.
All right.
Thank you very much.
All right.
Let's go ahead and take our afternoon recess, ladies and gentlemen.
Not doing any outside research.
Do not discuss this case with anybody.
Can I step down?
Yeah, you can step down.
That's fine.
When are you coming back?
No, that's okay.
That's all right.
I appreciate it, ma 'am.
When did they say they're coming back?
Minor court is still in session, please.
50. Million dollars is what Amber is claiming were her losses.
Alleged losses.
I think Johnny might be exaggerating at 50. Alright, so let's come back at 4 o 'clock.
Thank you.
Alright, so here's the question.
Oh, let me take these off.
Oh my...
Focus.
Dramatic focus.
People.
It's not just that it's a sunny day outside.
Kid needs...
Did you go biking yet?
You want to go biking?
No.
Okay.
I don't think I...
I mean, I think I'm going to watch that cross-examination this afternoon.
That...
That's not much.
Just imagine.
$44,000 million.
She'd have to...
Yeah, outrageous.
So we got maniacal...
I can't read that.
WF Davos and UN Who Global...
Dude, I don't even know if I can read this.
I should read this.
Dude, we're already on this.
I'm going to go to Twitter just to see.
I don't think I'm going to come back to this today.
Because I don't think this...
The cross-examination might...
Between cross and redirect...
This is the last witness of the day.
And it's boring as all.
It's boring.
It's more boring than watching.
It's boring.
Let me just do one thing.
I want to stop screen share and see if there's any news from Jack who was detained.
I'll say temporarily by the account of it.
I believe.
I believe he has been released and he's okay.
But let's just go see.
What the deal is.
We are following what's going on at Davos as well.
Talked about it very, very, you know, lengthily last night.
Okay.
Oh yeah, look at those balloons.
That was tremendously painful.
And I missed a half an hour of it.
Not painful literally, painful spiritually, metaphorically.
Okay.
It was painful because it was just boring and offered nothing.
Breaking, detained at Davos.
Let's see this here.
It's awesome.
What else?
I don't know.
Oh, thank you.
Awesome.
It's pretty heavy.
Okay, this is interesting.
What's going on here?
Yeah, that's Jack.
Nobody's telling this person to stop recording.
Excuse me, can I ask you why you're detaining this journalist?
Can I ask you why you're detaining this journalist?
I don't answer your question.
Is it not able to report here?
Can I ask you guys why you're detaining?
Yeah, can you please stop filming?
Then we can talk.
Why do I need to stop filming?
Because I asked you to.
It's my personal right because I don't like to be filmed and it's a right in Switzerland.
If I don't want to be filmed...
But can I ask why he's being detained then?
I won't point the camera at you then.
I won't film you, but I would like to know why this journalist is being detained on public property.
What's detained?
Can you explain the word?
How come he's being surrounded right now?
Is he allowed to leave the area?
We're just making a normal police control because, you know, it's WEF, everything is very sensitive.
Is there a reason he specifically was targeted?
There is a reason, because we have to have a reason to control...
It looks like he's wearing a little cone hat, but...
I don't have to tell you that.
Why are you asking me that?
A journalist.
There's many journalists here.
Being detained.
There is a reason.
But everything is clear now and we're about to leave.
There is a reason.
That's even more...
Can I ask you please to delete your...
Well, if you ask her to delete it, you can see her in the next video.
Thank you.
Am I still live?
Am I still live, people?
Oh, I got him here.
I'm going to end up and...
You want to come say hi?
Okay.
I may have to go, people.
Well, so I'm still live, right?
Because it went black for a second.
Okay, we're still here.
Let's go see the comments on that.
So he's been released.
Apparently there was a reason.
And the reason is now taken care of.
We don't need to play that again.
So we don't need to play that again.
Let's just see what the comments are.
What's my problem?
Also, the WEF has their own police force, apparently.
Wow.
What a world and what a time to be alive.
Yeah.
That's not terrifying at all.
This is so weird.
Is it all legal?
He was detained.
It does not look like he was arrested, but it's...
And there's a reason.
I'd like to know what that reason was.
I doubt we're going to get it.
The logo of WEF Police looks like...
Was there a logo of the WEF?
Let me see if I can enhance.
Oh, there is an enhance here.
Look at this.
Oh my goodness.
This is actually there.
Thank you.
I'll be up there in two minutes.
The World Economic Forum Police.
That's not scary.
2022.
What are those things on that?
Holy crab apples.
That's very interesting.
And what's the next one here?
I don't know much about anything.
But I don't...
Oh boy, he's not happy.
Someone in this thing here.
Okay, well, they actually have patches.
They have embroidered patches.
They have actual embroidered patches that were made, obviously, beforehand that carry what authority?
World Economic Forum Police.
Wow.
Now, Jack has been pretty reliable, so I don't think that that photo is photoshopped.
All right, people.
I'm going to duck out because I don't think this afternoon is going to get any more entertaining than what we've seen this morning, and I don't think it's going to get any more interesting cross-examination.
They're going to come back at 4 o 'clock, give or take 4 or 5. They're breaking it.
I think they end at 5.30.
And so, an hour and a half for cross-examination and redirect for an examination in chief that lasted nearly two hours.
Don't plug that in there.
Interesting observation as well, by the way.
Hold on one second.
Aggregate knowledge of the interwebs.
No, no, seriously, don't put that in there.
That jack doesn't go in there.
Kid's going to stick an earphone jack in a plug where it doesn't go.
Hold on, let me get back to that.
I want to put it in somewhere where it doesn't go.
Here, here, here.
It goes in here.
Let me see this here.
Is it on a Velcro patch?
It is.
That's what it appears to be.
Okay.
I can't zoom in any more than that.
What does the one on top of it say?
I know that that's in a language that I don't understand.
It says, Okay, well, that's very interesting.
On a Velcro patch.
So you can take it off, put it on.
Very interesting.
Now, I don't know much about law enforcement, but that looks greasy.
That looks weird.
That looks...
That looks interesting.
Okay, people.
Rakeda.
Legal Bites.
Emily D. Baker.
Nate the Lawyer.
Joe Nierman Good Logic.
Law and Lumber.
DUI Guy.
Ian Runkle.
Go watch the rest of it.
I'll be listening.
Maybe as I'm biking, I'll be listening to a trial.
Thank you for joining me today on this day of my 43rd birthday.
I hope it has been educational.
I hope it has been fun.
I hope you have gotten something out of it and you are now slightly more informed and entertained.
More entertained than you were this morning?
Oh, and it just went yellow now.
It was green all day.
It was good all day.
Maybe it was the WEF discussion that got the algorithm going.
Go!
Enjoy the day.
I'm going to go get some exercise.
I'm going to go watch my kid play soccer.
Fly a drone.
Have a barbecue.
Have a martini.
And then back at it tomorrow, people.
Go!
Thank you for everything, everyone.
This morning was as...
By the way, this morning was as good as Court ever gets.
Oh, did you see the chat?
Oh, here we go.
Happy birthday.
Viva.
Have a fantastic evening.
Thank you very much, Robin.
Okay, I hear my wife coming back downstairs.
Let's do it.
Thank you all.
Court does not get more exciting than what we saw this morning.
You know, except when they were reading the verdict for Rittenhouse.
That was not exciting.
That was nerve-wracking.
All right.
Enjoy the day, people.
Thank you for being here, and I will see you all tomorrow.
Peace.
Booyah.
You know what to do.
▲
Export Selection