Johnny Depp sued Amber Heard over an op-ed she wrote for Washington Post in 2018 in which she called herself “a public figure representing domestic abuse” which was seen as a clear reference to her ex-husband by his lawyers as she accused him of being violent in their marriage during their divorce process. Amber Heard’s words damaged Depp’s career so he seeks to clear his name with this defamation lawsuit.

The lawsuit started on April 11 of this year and among all of the 120 people who were invited to be witnesses in this case, the most important ones are the ex-spouses, Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. Depp finished his testimony on April 25 and Bored Panda made a post on the reactions people had then that you can find here. And on May 17, Amber Heard also finished telling her side of the story.

We can only guess what the jury thinks about what is happening, but what is for sure is that one of the tw will have to face cncequences. We reached out to Peter L. Tragos, a Partner at the Law Offices of Tragos, Sartes & Tragos in Clearwater who also has a YouTube channel where he and his colleagues comment on the trial.

We wanted to find out what these consequences could be. He explained to us, "Defamation is a civil claim and only carries with it monetary remedies. Only the government can take away someone’s liberty and enforce a jail sentence through criminal charges. The only way someone ends up in jail in a civil action is if the judge holds them in contempt for certain bad behavior and I don’t expect that to happen in this case."

As Johnny Depp finished his testimony, he claimed that he was the one who experienced abuse, so the audio in which the actress is heard saying “You're fine. I did not hurt you. I did not punch you. I was hitting you” was addressed. Amber Heard explained, “I'm talking about the difference between a punch, which Johnny did often, and me having to hit him in my defense."

When Depp’s lawyer showed a photo that should have been evidence of Heard being abusive towards him as it showed dark bruises under his eye and a swelling nose that was taken on the couple's honeymoon in 2015, the woman’s response was, “I've seen this picture before, and he's not injured in it. This one is photoshopped.”

Heard kept repeating that she was always scared of what her ex-husband could do to her and that she believed he might kill her, even if it was unintentionally. So it was very peculiar to hear her response when she was asked if she wasn’t afraid of sending pictures she took of Depp sleeping passed out to her friends as he might have been mad about it.

The lawyer asked, “You weren’t afraid that opiate Johnny or ‘the monster’ as you called him, would get upset that you sent this picture to your friend?“ Heard replied that she believed the photo would have upset Depp and that truly was scary, but when the lawyer then reformulated her question to “But it didn’t stop you from sending this picture to your friend, did it?” the woman’s response was “Why would it?”

Actually, Peter Tragos was quite impressed with the work Depp's lawyer did in her questioning, as many people were. They admired her ability to control the conversation and make Heard tell her what she needed.

But Tragos didn't think Heard's lawyer was incompetent either, "I do not think Ms. Heard’s lawyer is incompetent. I think she was caught flat-footed on re-direct and was not prepared to rehabilitate her client. Mike Tyson famously said, 'Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth' and once Ms. Vazquez punched Ms. Bredehoft in the mouth with those objections she could not adapt and think on her feet fast enough to formulate questions to illicit the testimony she needed from Ms. Heard. One of the most important skills a trial lawyer needs is the ability to think quickly and adapt to the unexpected."

We also were curious about the infamous moment when Heard's lawyer objected after asking Depp a question. It looked like a scene from a comedy about a lawyer who doesn't know what they're doing, but our expert had a simple explanation, "When you ask a bad question, sometimes you get a bad answer, and when you get a bad answer, you want it to stop. Normal reaction for a lawyer would be to object, it’s just not great when it’s your own question!"

Another detail that was very much talked about before Heard's testimony was the dog or human poop on the couple's bed. Heard denies that she left it there as a prank: “First of all, I don't think that's funny. I was not in a pranking mood. My life was falling apart. I had just been attacked on my 30th birthday… it was not really a jovial time, and I don't think that's funny, period."

Heard was also confronted by Depp’s lawyer about the $7 million she received as her divorce settlement that she pledged to donate to the American Civil Liberties Union and Children's Hospital Los Angeles as proof she wasn’t doing this spectacle for money. 

The settlement was finalized in 2017 and until now the actress still hasn’t kept that promise, but when Camille Vasquez asked about it, Heard tried to evade the question and started explaining that in her mind ‘pledging’ means the same as ‘donating’ but later said "I fully intend to honor my pledges. I would love [Depp] to stop suing me so I can."

However, all of these things that Heard said weren't convincing enough to the people who follow the trial. People online mocked her facial expressions that didn’t match up with the emotions she was supposedly experiencing, they were pointing out all the irrelevant information she was giving and how illogical her stories sounded by trying to reenact the events, according to her words said during the trial.

Peter Tragos has a theory why Heard might overshare, "I actually think these details are a way Ms. Heard believes will prove she is telling the truth. At one point in her testimony, she said “why would I add these details if I was lying” or something to that effect. Less detail would be easier, and she is right, but more detail doesn’t make it true on its own."

Despite her effort, it sems that people more and more believe that every word Heard says is a lie, especially after people started remembering what one of Depp’s witnesses, Dr. Shannon Curry, said about Heard possibly having borderline and histrionic personality disorders and accurately predicting her behavior.

Another thing that Peter Tragos noticed was "is the amount of arguments Ms. Heard and her lawyers try to make in the presence of the jury about inadmissible evidence. They are trying to plant seeds that there are all these photos and medical records that exist that they can’t see."

He gave an example of this, "At one point, Ms. Heard’s lawyers said the jury is 'entitled' to see evidence the judge deemed inadmissible. All trial lawyers play by the same rules, and those are the rules of evidence. There is nothing more frustrating than feeling like one side refuses to play by those rules."

The attorney was also surprised about Heard's provocations directed to the jury, "We all know the jury can’t go home and google anything about this case. However, multiple times during her testimony Ms. Heard almost baits them to break this court order by looking directly at the jury and saying 'look me up' or referencing the UK trial or articles not entered into evidence."

What was your impression when you were listening to Amber Heard giving her testimony? Do you think nothing she says is true? What were the moments that made you think that? Which moments do you think show that Amber Heard is being genuine? Let us know in the comments and upvote the reactions other people shared that you agree with the most.