Depp-Heard trial returns to the much-discussed severed finger

Placeholder while the article action is loaded

As Johnny Depp-Amber Heard Defamation trial Entering the sixth week in Fairfax County, the jury was greeted Monday morning with a horrifying photo of Depp’s bloody, amputated finger.

Two years after filing for divorce, Depp (58) called his ex-wife Amber Heard (36) a public figure representing domestic violence in a 2018 Washington Post editorial. I am suing for defamation. And restraint order. Depp, who denied all allegations of abuse, said his editorial (which did not appoint him) ruined his reputation and career. After his lawyer told the media that her claim was a hoax, Haad argued the actor for $ 100 million in defamation.

Depp claims that Hard abused him, During his testimony Last month, when he was filming the fifth “Pirates of the Caribbean” movie in Australia in March 2015, he and Hard argued, she threw a bottle of vodka at him and the tip of his middle finger. Said that he had amputated his finger on his right hand. I heard she denied this, Testimony That same night, Depp sexually assaulted her with a bottle, and at some point the next day, his finger was injured.

North Carolina-based orthopedic surgeon Richard Moore was called to the defense witness stand and told the jury that he didn’t think Depp’s finger was injured when a bottle of vodka was thrown. Moore added that he had reviewed a “tremendous” amount of material, including medical records, photographs and testimony records from Depp and his doctor, “medical data is not definitive. What we see. Does not match. Described in injury pattern or clinical photo. “

In other words, Moore testified that if Depp’s hand was flat on the bar and the bottle squeezed his finger from above, he would have expected injuries to his fingernails and other parts of his finger. However, according to Moore, his nails and nail bed appeared to be intact. (The jury saw a photo to support this.)

As a result, Moore said Depp’s explanation of what happened did not match the evidence Moore reviewed — and he saw glass shards and other lacerations and injuries in his hands. did not. Using a radiograph of the finger shown to the jury, Moore said that type of injury usually occurs when the finger is squeezed between two hard, facing surfaces.

In a cross-examination, Depp’s lawyer Camille Vasquez claimed to have explained that Depp actually put his hand on the edge of the bar and rounded the edge slightly — Moore, even if he misunderstood it, about mechanics. Of the injuries he said would not substantially change his opinion. He also agreed that he had no personal knowledge of what had happened, given that his impressions were based on explanations and available medical records.

After going back and forth several times, Moore said he couldn’t “exclude” the injury caused by a bottle of vodka, but based on the evidence, the injury happened in the way Depp explained. I didn’t believe it.

The defense was then called David Spiegel, a Virginia psychiatrist who specializes in substance and alcohol abuse and the violence of an intimate partner known as “IPV.” (Dep’s lawyer objected to being called the latter expert.) Spiegel spends a lot of time talking to the jury about how alcohol and drug use affects the brain and memory. — Depp’s substance use was a major issue in the trial — and based on his review of evidence, Depp said he acted in line with substance use disorder and the violence of his close partner.

“Alcohol and cocaine use has also been found to significantly increase the risk of intimate violence independently,” Spiegel testified. When he talks about matter and IPV, “you are not quoted, colloquially,” playing with fire. “

Depp’s lawyer Wayne Denison interrogated Spiegel and was particularly worried about the fact that Spiegel had never evaluated Depp directly, but Spiegel should only testify on subjects personally evaluated by experts. If allowed, the entire legal system would be “invalidated and vacant.” Denison asked Spiegel if anyone had any risk factors for close relatives violence and would never commit close relatives violence. rice field. Spiegel replied that he could do so, but he uniformly answered no.

The last witness on Monday’s defense was entertainment consultant Kathryn Arnold, who both Depp and Hard testified to each other’s claims for damages to their careers.

She said she started with Depp and analyzed whether Post’s editorial had a negative impact on the actor’s career. Arnold testified that his actions on and off the film set had no effect, given that he began to interfere with “what everyone considered his wonderful talent.”

Arnold pointed out another issue raised by Depp’s legal team. In a Hollywood Reporter article published December 20, 2018 (two days after the editorial), Disney executive Sean Bailey confirmed that Depp wouldn’t move forward as Jack Sparrow. Caribbean franchise pirates. According to Arnold, although it was posted online that day, it was actually published in print two days before the editorial, so Heard’s editorial influenced the writing of the Hollywood Reporter’s journalist. There is no such thing. ” , She said.

She reiterated that Depp caused further damage to his career in a defamation proceeding against the British tabloid Sun (lost in 2020), including his vulgar text messages and claims of his actions. Was in the limelight. “In fact, he has filed these proceedings and is causing his own demise by continuing to ignite the fire of negative publicity around both,” she said.

The cross-examination also put a statement to the media by Depp’s lawyer Adam Waldman (calling her allegations of abuse hoax) endangering the actress’s reputation and career, giving her about $ 45-5,000. An opportunity to primarily deal with Arnold’s testimony that he caused a loss of $ 10,000.

Denison ridiculed this idea. In particular, Jason Momoa (Hard’s “Aquaman” co-star), Gal Gadot, Ana de Armas, Zendaya, and other actors Arnold called “comparable” to Hard’s potential career track before Waldman’s remarks are very high. It is famous. , Denison pointed out that she goes by one name. Arnold is looking for a comparison with actors who have also appeared in superheroes and action movies, she said. They were simply comparable and not identical.

Depp’s lawyer also pointed out that Heard reserved only one acting role after “Aquaman” in 2018. This was what Arnold called her breakout moment until Waldman’s remarks in 2020. Arnold agreed that it was true, but its role was a big deal because it was based on the television show Stephen King’s novel.

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *