We are joined now by amber heard's attorney, elaine charleston breto hoff. Good morning to you, it's good to see you first question. How is amber doing we saw her hearing that verdict. It took a long time to read.

It was a sweeping verdict for johnny depp. How did she handle it? You know one of the first things she said is. I am so sorry to all those women out there. This is a setback for all women in and outside the court.

Wait a minute now look who's trying to get the 50 minute of fame that we're talking about so wrong, and she feels much feels well knowing the case and knowing the law as you certainly do it. Frankly, it favors defendants like amber heard. Are you stunned that the jury essentially rejected her story? Well, you know really what happened here. Is it's a tale of two trials? Johnny depp brought a suit in the uk for the same case, and the burden of proof was easier for him.

There. The son had to actually prove that it was true and, and the court found there and we weren't allowed to tell the jury this, but the court found that mr depp had committed at least 12 acts of domestic violence, including sexual violence, against amber wait. Well, i don't get it so they they win in public, then they lose in public. Then they lose in court and now she's trying to again to win in public by saying which you can't send a court of law.

So what did depp's team learn from this demonize amber and suppress the evidence? We had an enormous amount of evidence that was suppressed in this case. That was in the uk case in the uk case when it came in amber won mr depp lost, but here's the thing you were able to get some evidence that you say demonstrated abuse. You certainly had her testimony. There were pictures documents all kinds of evidence, but in point of fact, the jury rejected it.

You argued in your in your closing arguments that if they found even one instance of abuse - and it did not even have to be physical abuse, that they would have to fight for amber heard and they didn't - and the other part to bear in mind here - is Nothing changed. The op-ed didn't even mention mr depp, by name uh, and so what, basically, they did here is demonize her and they did they were able to suppress them. The medical records seemed like i feel bad for their team that they were. They were working with her because and because i'm not trying to be rude, i'm not now.

I feel like um they're, not working uh, with a with a correct set of data because they're working with delusion, literally what she's saying right now if she believes it, if they were working with her and their team, when building the the defense i mean dude, how Can how can you win with it with this? With this perspective, which were their perspective, is flawed in the get-go very, very significant because they showed a pattern back going all the way back to 2012. of amber reporting. This to her therapist, for example, we had significant amount of texts, including from mr depp's assistants, saying when i told him he kicked you he cried. He is so sorry that didn't come in.

Is there any other way to interpret this verdict, though, that this jury, for whatever reason - and i hear you on some of the evidence that they didn't hear listening to amber heard, did not believe a single word. You know and that's because she was demonized here. A number of things were allowed in this court that should not have been allowed and it caused the jury to be confused. They weren't we weren't, allowed to tell them about the uk judgment, so the damages is completely skewed.

There are no damages. It stopped at november 2 2020, which is when the judgment came down in the uk. Let me ask you about social media in this case. Unlike any celebrity case, certainly i've ever covered or ever seen.

Social media was a part of this and it was incredibly lopsided. Yeah she's spending the london thing i mean, and it was incredibly lopsided and vitriolic against amber heard. Do you think that had an effect on wait? Wait guys? Yes, i don't mean to diminish victims or whatever the this is a simple question. What, if what? If what? If somehow, okay, instead of writing all this right, what if she had um pursued him a criminally right uh before this technically, she would have won right.

What i'm just i'm just saying, i'm not asking what's up what on the case, absolutely you think jurors were aware of it. They weren't supposed to be they're, admonished every single day. Don't look at it. Do you think they did see it can't they use? Oh, i get it, i get it, i get it i get it i get it.

Oh i understand, i don't know, let me go back a little bit. This is interesting. I've never covered or ever seen. Social media was a part of this and it was incredibly lopsided and vitriolic against amber heard.

Do you think that had an effect on the case? Absolutely you think jurors were aware of it. They weren't supposed to be they're admonished every single day. Don't look at it? Do you think they did see it? How can you not? They went home every night, they have families, the families are on social media. We had a 10-day break in the middle because of the judicial conference.

There's no way they couldn't have been influenced by it and it was horrible it really. That goes both ways. Lady. This goes both ways.

Why do they act like a problem? Only works one way really was lopsided, and i appreciate your saying that it's like the roman coliseum, you know how they viewed this whole case. I was against cameras in the courtroom and i went on record with that and and had argued against it because of the sensitive nature of this, but it made it a zoo. Does your client want to appeal? Oh absolutely, and she has some excellent grounds for it. We even had tried to get the uk judgment in to dismiss his case because he already had his shot um and that's one of the issues.

No one hated depp, i'm going to go ahead and disagree with you, the wave of a hatred for death when the first thing started happening right. It worked as equivalent when the opposite happened. What are you talking about? It's just called riding the wave when it happens. It's called riding the wave.

What about it, but also a number of the evidentiary issues? There was so much evidence that did not come in. Is she able to pay a 10.4 million dollar judgment? Oh no, absolutely not! Finally, in in closing arguments, amber's team argued that this would send a message that it would send a message that, no matter what you do, it was the tabloid the sun times versus johnny. Moreover, the judge is a very close friend of rupert murdoch. Uk judge sun works for yeah yeah yeah yeah, she's, she's yeah, of course, they're skewing it it's.

This is a one-sided thing compared to some other right, technically guys. I have a question: technically: okay: okay, if the sun made an article about me hitting somebody, the full story is that they snapped on me boom would be right right, because i i did commit assault in that regard, right so technically them saying that i assaulted somebody. They they would have grounds for that right. So i think that's like a this is a complete different uh set, no much love felix.

She spare kate out test pog today as an abuse victim. You always have to do more. You need to be perfect in order for people to believe you if she did not get a favorable verdict. What message do you think this sends it's a horrible message for school and it will be a lawyer if this lady passed the bar exactly it's a significant setback, because that's exactly what it means unless you pull out your phone and you video your spouse or your Significant other beating you effectively, you won't be believed.

Thank you charleston. Thank you very much for your time this morning appreciate it. Thank you guys, because winner loss, they get their billable hours right, so what it gets. What if they go through appeal, new trial dog, their their fur, makes like, like 10 mil a pop right, so why would she give a they still get billable hours right, they're making money regardless? It's not that much.

I mean they testified on the road that it was six million for that trial. Just for just for that, this is six mil it's bad for rep. I don't agree. I i i'm not going to disagree.

They st they still did as best they could in a court of law, and they they defended it as best they could and they didn't they. They looked bad, they lost, but they weren't, like clowns, amber, still won a portion of money or whatever i can't they can be that bad for their rep. That they're gon na go bankrupt. On this give me you.