Depp’s legal team presented a powerful rebuttal case, challenging key aspects of Amber Heard’s testimony and accusations. This recap delves into the testimonies of Depp’s witnesses, highlighting their contradictions of Heard’s narrative and the potential implications for the trial’s outcome.
Dr. David Culber, a plastic surgeon who treated Depp’s hand injury following the 2015 Australia incident, cast doubt on Heard’s claims of Depp’s aggression while wearing a cast. Culber testified that the cast Depp wore would have made it difficult to inflict the kind of violence Heard alleged, and he found no evidence of damage to the cast itself.
Johnny Depp's hand injury
A significant point of contention was the alleged damage to Heard’s career due to Adam Waldman’s statements, which she claims were made at Depp’s behest. Heard’s team asserted that she suffered financial losses, including a reduced role in Aquaman 2, due to a smear campaign orchestrated by Depp and Waldman.
To counter this, Depp’s team called Walter Hamada, President of DC Films at Warner Bros. Hamada testified that neither Depp nor Waldman influenced decisions regarding Heard’s role in Aquaman 2. Instead, he attributed casting concerns to a lack of chemistry between Heard and Jason Momoa.
Hamada’s statement directly refuted Heard’s claims, indicating that any career setbacks she experienced were not a result of Depp or Waldman’s actions. This testimony aimed to undermine the basis of Heard’s defamation counterclaim and the alleged financial damages she sought.
Depp’s legal strategy involved a series of expert witnesses who challenged the testimony of Heard’s entertainment industry expert, Catherine Arnold. Arnold had claimed that Heard lost between $45 million to $50 million in potential earnings due to the negative publicity surrounding the allegations.
Richard Marks, an entertainment lawyer, refuted Arnold’s assessment, deeming it “wildly speculative” and lacking a foundation in industry deal-making practices. Economic damages expert Mike Spindler echoed this sentiment, finding insufficient support for Arnold’s calculations.
Amber Heard and Johnny Depp in court
Further dismantling Heard’s claims, intellectual property consultant Doug Bania contradicted both Arnold and Heard’s social media expert, Ron Schnell. Bania asserted that there was no correlation between Waldman’s statements and any escalation in negative social media sentiment towards Heard. He also challenged the comparison of Heard’s career trajectory to other A-list actors.
Dr. Richard Shaw, a psychiatrist called by Depp’s team, directly challenged the testimony of Dr. David Spiegel, a psychiatrist who had testified on behalf of Heard. Spiegel had diagnosed Depp with substance abuse disorder and suggested he exhibited behaviors consistent with intimate partner violence.
Shaw criticized Spiegel’s methodology, stating that his opinions were unreliable due to the fact that he had never personally interviewed Depp. He argued that Spiegel violated ethical guidelines by rendering a professional assessment without a proper evaluation.
Dr. Richard Shaw testifying in court
Adding another layer to the rebuttal, Morgan Knight, owner of the Hicksville Trailer Palace in Joshua Tree, California, contradicted Heard’s claims of Depp’s violent behavior at the location. Heard had alleged that Depp sexually assaulted her and caused significant damage to the trailer.
Knight, who was present during the time in question, described Depp as acting “cowered” and “almost afraid” during an argument with Heard. He also refuted the extent of the alleged damage, stating that it was limited to a broken sconce that Depp paid to repair.
Jennifer Howell, a former employer of Heard’s sister, Whitney Henriquez, provided testimony that further complicated Heard’s narrative. Howell revealed an email exchange with Henriquez where she expressed concern about Henriquez’s alleged dishonesty in supporting Heard’s claims.
While the specifics of the email were not fully disclosed during the trial, court documents suggest that Howell had previously claimed Henriquez admitted that Heard was the aggressor in the relationship and responsible for Depp’s severed finger.
As a final blow to Heard’s credibility, a representative from the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles testified that Heard had not fulfilled her pledged donation of $3.5 million from her divorce settlement. The representative stated that the hospital had only received $250,000, contradicting Heard’s previous statements.
Depp’s legal team strategically presented a case that directly challenged Heard’s accusations and the testimony of her witnesses. The use of expert witnesses aimed to discredit Heard’s claims of financial damages and paint her as an unreliable narrator.
This impactful rebuttal phase cast a shadow of doubt on Heard’s case, leaving the jury to weigh the conflicting narratives and determine the trial’s ultimate outcome.
