Lies in the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial
Watch the live defamation trial to learn how to recognize deception
On a spectrum of one to 10 for interest in Johnny Depp’s defamation lawsuit against his ex-wife Amber Heard, I’m about a three.
The people at 10 on the spectrum are the mostly female fans who stand in line outside the Fairfax, VA courthouse every morning to get one of the 100 tickets to sit inside the courtroom and watch the trial.
The people at one interest on the spectrum haven’t watched any of the live TV celebrities, real-life soap opera.
I dip into the trial at night on YouTube and stop watching when it gets too disturbing about domestic violence, child abuse, excessive drinking and drug use. I just don’t need to fill my mind with these things before bed.
But I wanted to share with you one part of the trial I watched last night that is really gripping and, to me, sums up Depp’s legal position that Heard is a liar.
Depp gave Heard $7 million as a divorce settlement. Heard said she was dividing the money between two charities, the ACLU and Children’s Hospital. It came out earlier in the trial that Heard hasn’t given the money as promised.
(Although Elon Musk, who was her boyfriend after Depp, gave some money on her behalf.)
During cross-examination, Depp’s stellar attorney, Camille Vasquez, asks Heard if she gave the $7 million. Heard looks at the jury (to her right) and said she did. Her shocking way of lying on the stand is to say that a “pledge” to donate the money is the same as actually donating the money.
I was yelling at my TV while watching Heard repeat the same lie about not giving money to charity and the lawyer who stayed laser-focused on stopping her. I thought I’d share this with you to watch too:
You know that I’m a big fan of the YouTube show “The Behavioral Panel” which neutrally breaks down whether people are lying by body language.
They’ve done a few shows on Johnny Depp and Amber Heard from the trial. But this week they focused on whether Heard was lying about the alleged physical abuse. They concluded she was flat-out lying.
What got my attention was Chase Hughes said that in all the shows they’ve done, this is the only time that all four experts agreed on clear “deception.”
So my second recommendation is to watch their show because it’s informative in showing how it’s clear Heard is lying in court and, in general, how to discern when you’re dealing with a liar.
Let me know in the comments if you’ve been watching the Johnny Depp trial or not and why. If you have been watching more than me, tell me why you think this trial has captured the nation’s interest for this long.
If you didn’t get a chance yesterday to read about the American citizen who broke from U.S. government advice to get himself home, read my latest investigation: EXCLUSIVE: American father escapes Afghanistan on his own (Part 3)
Gun control politics update:
On his way to give a speech in Buffalo today after the horrifying mass murder, Pres. Biden said this:
"We can keep assault weapons off our streets. We’ve done it before. I did it when we passed the crime bill last time. And violence went down, shootings went down."
That's not the full story. His “assault weapon ban” came into effect in 1994 and the crime from the 1980s was already declining. Then gun crime started to going back up again during the ban. Congress let it expire in 2004 because the FBI said it wasn’t useful in fighting crime.
I found this graph I made back when I was working on my book, Emily Gets Her Gun, that shows the exact numbers for homicide stats before, during and after Biden’s assault-weapon ban. He’s deliberately not telling the truth because he has an agenda. But the facts matter.
Emily Posts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
This is the first time I've read anything about this and it's only because you wrote about it. I didn't read about this for the same reason I don't read about the royals: I have a life of my own.
So weary of hearing about forbidding assault weapons. The only problem is...to me as as a trained Infantry soldier for the United States Army, even though I'm not active duty, assault weapon simply means any object (or person) capable of destruction and damage to people and property alike. As for disallowing access to combat weapons used by military entities, this only functions for those persons who are willing to abide by the laws regarding this. Unfortunately, since it seems that individuals have proven willing and able to harm at will for whatever objective, the best way to prevent being harmed by these individuals is to have a good working understanding of human beings and how to treat all people with courtesy...and then, should you encounter one of these individuals, move towards the thickest obstacle possible between the individual who intends harm and your own self. Should you be fortunate to have a firearm for defense, I discourage attempting to reason with the subject, and aim to wound center mass. Of course, should the proper authorities be present, they have coverage for whatever happens...we as general public do not