We're gonna talk about Amber Heard. This is part 4. Greg tell us about the videos we're gonna watch. Yeah guys, this is as close as we're gonna get to live on anything. This is the first two hours of cross and this is Depp's attorney's taking her story apart. And if I have to tell you what this story is, you've probably been in a coma. And he tells you you will not see my eyes again, doesn't he? Uh, yes he does in that recording. And he kept that promise, hasn't he? As far as I know, he cannot look at me. He won't look at you, right, Mr. Heard? He can't. One of the first questions your counsel asked you on direct is, why are you here? Do you remember that? I do. Let's please play plaintiff's Zibbit 357A, which is already in evidence, your honor. And for the record, it's 21-22 through 21-40. That's your voice on that recording, right? Yes it is. You were speaking with Mr. Depp? Yes. And you said to Mr. Depp, quote, you can tell, you can please tell people that it was a fair fight and see what the jury and the judge think. Tell the world, Johnny, tell them Johnny Depp, I, Johnny Depp, a man, a victim too of domestic violence, end quote. That's what you said, right? I was saying it to the man who beat me up, yes. I thought it was preposterous. And the man you beat up, numerous times, right Mr. Heard? I could never hurt Johnny.  I know that he is suing me and has sued other people or corporations that have said that as well. You didn't think he would tell the world he was a victim of domestic violence, did you? I found it hard to believe that he could or that he would do that considering the relationship he and I had. I thought it would be crazy for him to do so, knowing what I know we lived through. Or, as you said to him in that recording, who was going to believe that Johnny Depp, a man, is a victim of domestic violence, right? With all due respect, I wasn't saying it because he's a man. I was saying it because he's a man who beat me up for five years. Mr. Depp is your victim, isn't he? No, ma'am. All right, Greg, what do you got? So I'm going to be a little long winded on this one because there's so much here. And then I promise I'll try to keep it tight as I can.  When she looks at the jury, this should tell you how involuntary a request for approval is. It doesn't mean you're lying.  Every time she turns her head, it's like she's got a little switch right here. And when her jaw passes a certain break point, her forehead goes up as she looks at the jury. It doesn't happen as much when she's looking at the attorney. Kind of interesting. Then when she gets to this place where she's saying that she's rejected and that he is denying her and that he's done with you a year ago, downright eye movement, which we associate classically with with emotional information. And then there's a whole lot of blink rate increase there where there's a flutter or a blink rate.  This is the core issue that denial of her is here. Then I see her go to legitimate sadness with a kind of a slack lower jaw and her head kind of leaned down. I'm not talking about when she's reading. I'm talking about when she's feeling all of this pressure. Remember her baseline is that disdain thing, but she does some resignation with her lip drawback when she hears herself saying these words.  She says, I couldn't hurt him. That might be the issue. I'm disappointed I couldn't hurt him. I could hit him as hard as I want. And then she goes back to it.  She does that.  She exhales an exasperation and she says, I couldn't hurt him and does that one shoulder rise. Maybe she equates that whole thing with if I can't hurt you, then it's not domestic violence. When she does a lip compression, then she starts to navigate words. I'll leave it at that because there's so much one last thing. There's so much else here when she says no ma'am. If you're not Southern, you probably associate that with her being polite. If you're Southern, Texas, you probably associate that with a emphatic. No ma'am, no sir. That's emphatic. That's the way people talk down here. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, not seeing Johnny's eyes. Let's look at that. In fact, let me just look on Johnny Depp here. So there's been a lot of media speculation around why he's not up and why he's not getting eye contact and a lot of media speculation that he can't look his victim in the eye. And of course, what the what the prosecution here do is is try to deal with that in this moment as well and bring up this tape where he says he's committed not to look her in the eyes. And so they've reframed this idea of being antisocial into the idea of being committed to a cause, which I think is a really good spin on that true or not. I'm not quite sure. Well, he says that anyway. But but here's what I do know is that his eyes tend to be down because he's writing or sketching. And both of those things are classic ways to keep your cognitive mind at the forefront and that primitive reptilian brain in the background so you don't get triggered emotionally by what's going on around you. So it's a class technique that I train other people in as well. If you're in an environment where you think you're going to get triggered by what's being said and get emotional, just write down what people are saying, sketch out what people are saying. Now in the recording that we hear, I think it's interesting that Herd says, I, Johnny Depp, a man, I am a victim too of domestic violence. And he goes, yes. And how strong that yes is good downward intonation jumps in on that with a lot of power or a lot of exclamation. I think he's feeling at this point positive that that is the truth and and seen by this.  Now, at the same time, he doesn't deny the idea of I2 as a victim of domestic violence. So once again, we don't hear a denial that he's any part of of domestic violence. And we don't have a denial from Amber Heard. But this consistent with what we were talking about in the last video, nobody seems to deny it in any way. Chase, what do you got on this one? Yeah, they did a great job of these questions. I will say that. There's some of them that have problems and we'll talk about that. But at the moment she's saying, I was saying it to the man that beat me up. There's immediate mouth closure following her answer, which suggests, especially with her baseline, some stress or deception. And this is a calculated answer. And so she has a baseline in court here at the position of injecting data. And like I'll ask her a question about one thing, she'll inject data about something else. And the problem with thinking like a lawyer instead of a person who was victimized is that it comes out looking like a story or a pushed narrative. And right in the same moment, there's a complete absence of emotion that we saw initially in response to all these events. So when truthful people are on the stand, they will show the same emotion, whether being examined and during cross examination, you'll still see the emotion there. And right at the moment where we're hearing, you didn't think he would tell the world he was a victim. There's a huge inhale followed by a postural retreat. Greg talked about the eye flutter. These are stress behaviors is what we're looking at. And there's a missing perpetrator here. She's not talking about the severity of what happened to her or how bad this other person is. And this is more indicative of a made up story because it's focused on the suffering of the victim. And her shame about doing that, if this is deceptive, the shame of doing that softens the manufactured malice of the aggressor. So I'm ashamed of this. I'm just going to focus on my suffering and not make that person out to be the worst human being ever. The large exhale is probably due to this question being a little bad, this last question here. There's no anger. There's no confusion present here. Only the story, just the story. And what you're seeing here is not testimony of a victim. In my opinion, you're seeing delivery of a narrative, this constant looking to the jury to answer all of these questions is very strange. And you don't typically see that unless the person's more focused on a narrative than they are with their own suffering. So with her tendency to insert all this data that we just talked about, this is the part where we would see it right at the end. This is the part where the real truthful data would come in. And one of the diagnosis, I'm sorry if we're going long, I promise this is the only one I'm going to do this on. One of the diagnosis that she potentially received is revolving around histrionic personality disorder. And to help you unpack this as we go along, we're going to unpack eight or nine videos here. There's eight diagnostic criteria for histrionic personality disorder and each one of these clips I'll give you one. So verbatim from the diagnostic manual has a style of speech that is excessively impressionistic and lacking in detail. Strong opinions are expressed with dramatic flair, but underlying reasons are usually vague and diffuse without supporting facts and details straight out of the diagnostic manual. And we'll get another one next time. Scott, what do you got? All right. When it starts out, she looks right down the barrel of the camera and I've never seen eye engagement this odd before in court.  And we see those eye flutters or the eyelash flutters or the eyelid flutters. And that's, I think, deals with personal pain because that color off guard when she said, he said you'd never see his eyes again. So I've never heard anything that cool before and I don't think she has either. I mean, who's heard that? I mean, Greg says it's probably from a movie or something. But yeah, but that's that's pretty hardcore when somebody talks to something like that and you're not ready for it. So when she brings that up, I think it's a little bit embarrassing for her. But at the same time, I think it's a little bit painful for her. And when she says, as far as I know, he cannot look at me. She looks at him twice. I mean, she looks at him two times. So I think the attorney's playing hardball with her and it's got her upset and addled. And they're going back and forth. And it's sort of a contest to see who's who can be this the snarkiest and the smartest as it goes along.  And those are just attempts at those expressions. She's trying that really hard.  And then she does that thing where she turns her head to the side and then blows out air. I've never seen somebody who wasn't lying when that chin went over there to the right or to the left where it is when it goes toward the shoulder. Usually it's that one shoulder shrugging the chin goes toward it. There are no absolutes. But every time I see that, I think that person, I go right to that. And I've been right every time when I've seen the head go to the side and the chin almost touches the shoulder. I don't know why that is. Greg and I were talking about somebody else one day. You got home and said, what do you think about this guy? I said, I think this guy is being dishonest. And that was the cue that we talked about there for a second, Greg. And just before she says, I know that he's suing me. We see her mouth wide open with the chin jut. And that indicates she's trying to control the situation or control herself. And it happened so, it was so odd, but it happened so naturally. I think her brain, when somebody verbally attacks her, that's her reaction, is to just blow up. But I think she's controlling it. But I think her face automatically goes into that thing where a chin comes down and out and her mouth opens up wide. I think that's why we keep seeing that. That's all I got. And he tells you you will not see my eyes again, doesn't he? Yes, he does in that recording. And he kept that promise, hasn't he? As far as I know, he cannot look at me. He won't look at you, right, Ms. Hurd? He can't. One of the first questions your council asked you on direct is, why are you here? Do you remember that? I do. Let's please play Plaintiff's Zibbit 357A, which is already in evidence, your honor. And for the record, it's 21-22 through 21-40. That's your voice on that recording, right? Yes, it is. You were speaking with Mr. Depp? Yes. And you said to Mr. Depp, quote, you can tell, you can please tell people that it was a fair fight and see what the jury and the judge think. Tell the world, Johnny. Tell them, Johnny Depp, I, Johnny Depp, a man, a victim too of domestic violence, end quote. That's what you said, right? I was saying it to the man who beat me up, yes. I thought it was preposterous. And the man you beat up, numerous times, right Mr. Depp? I could never hurt Johnny.  I know that he is suing me and has sued other people or corporations that have said that as well. You didn't think he would tell the world he was a victim of domestic violence, did you? I found it hard to believe that he could or that he would do that considering the relationship he and I had. I thought it would be crazy for him to do so, knowing what I know we lived through. Or, as you said to him in that recording, he was going to believe that Johnny Depp, a man, is a victim of domestic violence, right? With all due respect, I wasn't saying it because he's a man. I was saying it because he's a man who beat me up for five years. Mr. Depp is your victim, isn't he? No, ma'am. You said he hit you and he was wearing rings, right, Mr. Depp? So he hit you with rings on every finger? I don't know if I've ever known Johnny to not wear rings. Mr. Depp, you testified to an incident in March of 2013 where Mr. Depp hit you in the face multiple times. Do you recall that? That's correct.  That's correct. So Mr. Depp hit you in the face multiple times while he was wearing rings on this occasion, correct? Which occasion in March are you referencing? The testimony that you gave on day 15 of this trial? March of 2013. You weren't specific us to the day. There were several incidents. The one where he hit you several times in the face? There were, there were, I'm sorry, just so I understand better, there were several incidents in March, which one are you asking me about?  Well, he pretty much always... March of 2013. Right. What are you asking me? I'm sorry. He was wearing rings on that occasion? I pretty much always knew him to wear rings. Okay. Let's please pull up Defendants Exhibit 170A, which is already in evidence, Your Honor. You testified this is the picture you took after that incident, right, Mr. Heard? Yes, that was one where he grabbed me. And hit you in the face so many times that you don't remember. Isn't that correct? That's correct. And there's no injuries to your face in this picture, are there? Not that this picture shows. And there's no medical records reflecting that you saw treatment after this alleged incident either? I did not seek medical treatment at this time. So there's no medical records reflecting any injuries to your face after he hit you several times? I did not need to go to the doctor at the time. Despite hitting you several times that you lost count with rings on your, on his fingers? That's correct. I did not seek medical attention. Other than my therapist. All right, Mark, what do you got? Yeah. So vocal clicks, which are the things that go like this before somebody talks. And we're going to hear a lot of those from Amber Heard and we hear a lot during this. Now, what does that mean? In my view, when I hear those, I'm always looking out that there may be some stress around what's about to come. Does it mean somebody's being deceptive? No, not at all. But with other clusters of information that we're going to get, it starts to become a larger probability. And that's what we're dealing with here is the probability that somebody is being deceptive, not the actual fact that it's that it's happening. Another one that I would put in that cluster. She does not state that he hit her with rings on. That's never stated. What she says is I've almost never known him not to wear rings. Well, look, I'm not saying she hasn't been hit and I'm not saying she has been hit. But if you had been hit, my probability would be on saying he hit me with rings on. That's where my mind would go. That's where I'd expect other people's minds to go. Now, we all know with violence going on, all kinds of things can happen in somebody's psychology. But all of that said, we've got almost never and a double negative. There's nothing wrong with a double negative, but there's easier ways to say yes than not no. And if somebody's taking the difficult way around to something, that suggests to me they're making a journey that they don't really need to make. And why are they making that journey? Why are they having to circumnavigate such an easy route to a yes to that? So alarm bells go off for me on that one. Scott, what do you think? I think this is a situation where the witness prep got a little bit out of hand. I think she went too far into it and she's trying to do exactly what they said. She's repeating the answer so it sounds odd. She's the whole thing just sounds weird and nobody said, hey, listen, man, you need to dial it down a notch from when they took a break or something, because that's just too much. Her answers sound odd as she's going through that. She still answers all the questions. They're still short, tight to the point. And I think she's beginning to realize her snarkiness isn't working on this attorney and that's starting to bug her a little bit. And she's not sure how to go forward since it's not working. So she can guard her ego properly or the way it should be guarded.  So that's what I got. Chase, what do you got? So with this witness prep, Scott, I think the reason that so much coaching is involved in this is because there's one thing they can't tell her. Just tell the truth, which is what a lawyer should be telling their client. But let's break this one down in reverse Quentin Tarantino order, which means in regular order, she smiles, corrects the expression to artificial sadness, then looks at the jury to display it to them. Then she looks back at the council with a cold emotionless face. This is in like two seconds, this rapid shift of emotion. And right at this moment, Mr. Depp hit you in the face multiple times. This look to the jury here is horrifying to me, personally horrifying, watching it this morning. It was before the sun came up, it was dark in my office. I was a little scared. There's a weird awkward smile while putting her head down. Then she looks back at the council with no emotion, then back to the jury with a sad face. In my opinion, body language and behavior profiling is a lot like meteorology. It's based in science and gives you likelihood, where we deal in terms of likelihood. But this is a rare occasion where I'm going to say there's a 99 and maybe 100% chance of precipitation here, which I mean deception. There's no emotion, no willingness to insert details on top of her answers, which is her baseline. And the jury, I think, are all unconsciously processing this nonverbal behavior. So in reality, they're in the courtroom. The jury is processing her behavior through this mammalian part of our brain. We've been communicating nonverbally for a million years. And they see these little rapid shifts in emotion, and it sends a signal, which gives us what we call a gut feeling. Since that part of the brain doesn't speak English, we're like, something is off. But it's likely nobody can really put their finger on it, because the mammalian part of our brain doesn't really speak English. So when we see something off, we get that gut feeling. So part two of histrionic personality disorder obviously has nothing to do with this case, and I'm not diagnosing anybody. I'm just randomly inserting this in here. Diagnosing criteria two displays rapidly shifting and shallow expressions of emotions. Criteria two. And that's all I got. Greg, what do you got? Yes, I'll add on top of your clusters as I go through this, but I got a handful of things to talk about. Number one, there's that swivel switch.  Every time she looks at the jury, if you don't think she's working the jury, then pay attention to the fact she looks at the jury when she's asking a clarifying question. That would not happen if she was not working the jury. Now, is that okay? Yeah, it's okay. And she's probably probably been prepped by her council that she needs to make a contact with that jury.  I think she's containing and I think what we're seeing here is well prepared to prevent her from doing what she did on the stand in 2016 or on the deposition in 2016, where she was snarky and talking down and aggressive. You don't want that coming out here. So if I'm the person who's prepping her, I'd say that's correct is a fine answer. Don't be snarky. That's correct. That's incorrect. You can see that she has absolute... They're a handful of things that we know that we can read. She has contempt and this is not her usual drawn back left side of her mouth. It's full bore contempt when she looks at that attorney. She does a light sway. We're talking about clusters now, so we start to see things. She does a light sway as they're asking her questions about punching. Mark, again, you hit a dead on. She avoided anything about did he hit you with rings on? Well, he had rings on. Okay. She also used a provocative statement, a provocative statement saying there were many or several incidents and a provocative statement is a way to get your part of the story out by having the person ask you the next question. John Nolan, confidential. He's a master. He was my instructor to teach me all of that. So you look at those pieces, you start to say, okay, we got clusters here now. She's avoiding a question. She says that's correct. We see she's locked down. She does that provocative statement trying to give you more information, trying to take you off path. She does some discomfort in her movement, meaning it's rigid. It isn't fluid. We associate that with fight or flight. So all that together. Now we start to say, can we tell she's lying? No, but we would certainly want to go after her and this attorney wants to go after her. That's it. You said he hit you and he wear, he was wearing rings, right? That's her. So he hit you with rings on every finger. I don't know if I've ever known Johnny to not wear rings. Yeah. Mr. Art, you testified to an incident in March of 2013 where Mr. Depp hit you in the face multiple times. Do you recall that? That's correct.  That's correct. So Mr. Depp hit you in the face multiple times while he was wearing rings on this occasion, correct? Which occasion in March are you referencing? You weren't specific. The testimony that you gave on day 15 of this trial, March of 2013. You weren't specific as to the day. There were several incidents. The one where he hit you several times in the face. Sorry, just so I understand better, there were several incidents in March, which one are you asking me about?  Well, he pretty much always- March of 2013. Right. What are you asking me? I'm sorry. He was wearing rings on that occasion? I pretty much always knew him to wear rings. Okay. Let's please pull up Defendants Exhibit 170A, which is already in evidence, your honor. You testified that this is the picture you took after that incident, right, Mr. Yes, that was one where he grabbed me. And hit you in the face so many times that you don't remember. Is that correct? That's correct. And there's no injuries to your face in this picture, are there? Not that this picture shows. And there's no medical records reflecting that you saw treatment after this alleged incident either. I did not seek medical treatment at this time. So there's no medical records reflecting any injuries to your face after he hit you several times? I did not need to go to the doctor at the time. Despite hitting you several times that you lost count with rings on his fingers. That's correct. I did not seek medical attention. Other than my therapist. Mr. Hurd, you testified that in January of 2015, there was an incident in Tokyo before Mr. Def's Mordecai, the film Mordecai's premiere. Is that correct? That's correct. You told this jury that on this occasion Mr. Def was kneeling on your back. That's correct. In the closet. And you also told this jury that you wore a backless dress to the Mordecai premiere that very same night. I did. And you testified that you were checking for bruises in the car on the way back, on the way to the event to make sure that there were quote no visible marks, right? I was checking on my phone after the event to see to make sure that nothing that you couldn't see anything. Your testimony was that you were checking in the car on the way to the event to make sure that there were no marks on your back. Perhaps I misspoke or misunderstood. It was on the way back from it was after. I was concerned after, you know, concerned that there would be marks in any photographs since we were being photographed at Johnny's precedent.  I don't know what you mean. I'm sorry. You didn't show this jury a picture of you at the Mordecai premiere wearing a backless dress. Did you? I haven't had the opportunity to. Okay. I assume you have it. I do. Let's please pull up plaintiff's exhibit one, two, five, six. This is a picture of you and Mr. Dapp or the back of you at the Mordecai premiere in Tokyo, correct, Ms. Hurd? That is correct. Your Honor, I move to admit and publish this picture. All right, one, two, five, six, and evidence. This is you in the backless dress at the Mordecai premiere in Tokyo, right? That is correct. You would agree that there are no bruises or visible marks. On your back in this picture. No, not that I could see. All right. I'll go first on this one. All right. But this is one of the largest micro expressions of anger I've ever seen. And when she says the word after her entire face shows anger, you can slow down, take a look at it. It's huge. And you saw it. You may not realize it, but you did see it. And it shows, she shows her lower teeth, that chin juts outward, and her brows furrow, everything. She squints everything shows anger on that. It's very brief, really, really brief. It's micro expression. And it actually happens twice, right there, which she says after, and then right there, right after it. And then on the word concern, we're seeing anger as well. And all the hallmarks of anger in that spot. And I think this is a fantastic study of full on, full facial micro expressions, because these are, every now and then you'll see them, like in the O.J. Simpson case. What's that little fella's name that had the long hair? Yeah, Kato Kalan. We saw him with some anger as well in there a couple of times. I remember, I think it was that minute, put a couple of things out. Or maybe it was Joe, put a couple, Joe Navarro put a couple of things out. Pictures were just captured, that anger face. But I remember that, like it was yesterday. But that's what this reminds me of. And I'm going to pull those, actually, I'm using for training. They're so good. Greg, what do you got? Yeah, so if you think this is a good one, wait till next video. In the next video, there is one of the most profound anger faces I've seen in forever. And to your point, Chase, it is rapid. It moves so quickly, if you're not paying attention or if you don't stop the video, you'll miss it. But in this one, here we are with a swivel switch again. Turn her head, brow goes up. Turn her head, brow goes up. She says that's correct and qualifies in the closet. Well, I don't know why in the closet matters, but that's to her baseline, because she gives us more information when something is actually going on. She said I did, and that's in baseline, she does that kind of scrunched face. That eyelid flutter that starts is recognition that she's about to have to answer a question about wearing a backless dress after she had been beaten up. So I think she knows that, she sees it. And then when she tries to get away from the question, she narrows her eyes and does a faint misunderstanding so she can say, I don't know what you mean. She purses her lips, makes eye contact with the jury and then goes back to the attorney with I've not had the opportunity. And she raises her shoulders in helplessness. That's all congruent messaging. So we think, well, that's at least looks truthful. A lot of this other stuff doesn't. But then we see another uncertainty is her brown knits. And she says, I assume you have the photo. Well, yeah, that's not what you want to see, but of course she does. And then that's it for this one. There's so much going on in this story, but she is working the jury the way she's been told. She's doing correct. I did very short answers to prevent doing the wrong thing. And Mark, I think this goes back to your cognitive control thing about doodling or doing something else.  Chase, what do you got? If these sketches ever appear on eBay, I'm probably going to just splurge and get one. But again, here we're seeing this weird face-making for the jury display. And I do think, in my opinion, and this is all my opinion, is the display. There's, when this picture comes out of the screen of this backless dress, this ability that you're witnessing here is either the only human on earth who can go through several emotions in mere seconds or the most talented emotional manipulator that you might ever see. That's my opinion. That's jury, sad victim, attorney, cold calculating. Jury, smile, back to the attorney, cold. Just during that one piece. And that's all I'm going to focus on is this rapid shift of emotion. And what we're seeing here is not really testimony. We're seeing a performance that's directed at an audience at very specific times, looking at them, scanning the jury, which you can see in this video. See if you can spot it. There's a moment where the jury's being scanned during a question to see how they're responding to that question by misheard. And let me give you a number three, diagnostic criteria three for histrionic personality disorder. This shows self-dramatization theatrically and exaggerated expression of emotion. Number three, verbatim. Was I the last one? No. Oh, sorry, Mark, go ahead. Lovely, thank you. So let me tie a few of those things together, because we've talked a lot about the anger, the contempt, the disgust that we're seeing popping up. But we have to recognize that that's part of her baseline. In one of the first videos we did of Amber Heard, we saw that popping up when she wasn't under stress. And so you might think, well, great, that's probably a good thing for her that it's part of her baseline and we might be able to discount some of those elements a little bit. Well, unfortunately, probably not, because there's a study out of Switzerland. It's just one study, so you can count it or discount it. But it found a massive correlation between the emotions shown in the face of anger, contempt, and disgust, and something called borderline personality disorder. Now, borderline is different for different people. And so you won't see this in everybody, but in this particular paper, they saw a good correlation. Now, I'm not conflating borderline with histrionic, they're two different things, but you can have both of them at the same time as well. And so all of this is pointing towards potentially quite a difficult person to be around. Not impossible, but difficult to be around. And so I think we should keep that in mind that there may well be... The thing is with emotions popping up in people's faces. When they pop up now and again, most emotions don't last really much more than I would say 10 minutes, because it's quite hard work for the body to deal with. Okay? When they pop up for longer than 10 minutes, we tend to call that a mood. Somebody's got into a bit of a mood. It won't be high intensity, but it lasts a long time. And moods can last for hours or parts of days. But usually when somebody wakes up the next morning, that's why it's sometimes good to sleep on it. When somebody wakes up the next morning, a whole bunch of calcium has moved to another side of a neuron and things are kind of forgotten about. And you can't kind of be like, what was that problem that I had yesterday? You can't quite remember it. Now, if the mood goes on for a long, long, long, long time, days and maybe weeks and even months, we tend to say that that might be an effective disorder. And we'll start to see the same behaviors in people day after day after day. And then we might start to move it towards, well, maybe it's a personality disorder. So I just wanted to bring that up. You will see all of these things in her baseline, but that might point towards an effective disorder or a personality disorder in my little opinion there. Where are you, Mark? Where are you? I am in Banff. I am in Banff in Canada in Calgary. If you could see out the windows there, you would see magnificent mountains snow-capped with incredible trees. But what you're seeing here is basically any Fairmont hotel that you've ever been in in your life. You'll recognize these lamps from any Fairmont that you've ever been in. Almost home. Almost home. I slept in my hotel a few weeks ago. Ms. Hurd, you testified that in January of 2015, there was an incident in Tokyo before Mr. Depp's Mordecai, the film Mordecai's premiere. Is that correct? That's correct.  That's correct, in the closet. And you also told this jury that you wore a backless dress to the Mordecai premiere that very same night. I did. And you testified that you were checking for bruises in the car on the way back, on the way to the event to make sure that there were, quote, no visible marks, right? I was checking on my phone after the event to see, to make sure that nothing, that you couldn't see anything. Your testimony was that you were checking in the car on the way to the event to make sure that there were no marks on your back. Perhaps I misspoke or misunderstood. It was on the way back from it. It was after I was concerned. After, you know, concerned that there would be marks in any photographs since we were being photographed at Johnny's press event. You didn't show this jury a picture of you in that backless dress, though, did you? I don't know what you mean. I'm sorry. You didn't show this jury a picture of you at the Mordecai premiere wearing a backless dress, did you? I haven't had the opportunity to. Okay. I assume you have it? I do. Let's please pull up Plaintiff's exhibit 1256. This is a picture of you and Mr. Dapp, or the back of you, at the Mordecai premiere in Tokyo, correct, Ms. Hurd? That is correct. Your Honor, I move to admit and publish this picture. All right, 1256 in evidence. This is you in the backless dress at the Mordecai premiere in Tokyo, right? That is correct. You would agree that there are no bruises or visible marks on your back in this picture? No, not that I could see. You testified that after this alleged incident, you had cuts on your forearms, right? Yes, that's true. And you testified that you had cuts on the bottoms of your feet as well? Yes, that's true. And you testified that you had a bruise across your jaw from when Mr. Dapp, quote, clocked you in the face, end quote? That's true. You didn't take any pictures of these injuries while you were in Australia, did you? I don't think, you know, I don't think I took any pictures. You just took two pictures of Mr. Dapp's writing on a mirror. Isn't that right? I believe so, yes. So you had your phone on you, right? At some point I did have my phone. And your iPad? I had my iPad, I believe. You testified that you were also in Australia, right, Ms. Herd? Yes. You testified you bled from your... Yes. There aren't any medical records reflecting that you sought medical treatment for any of these injuries, are there? I did not seek medical treatment after Australia, no. Not for... No, I did not want to tell anyone. Not for the cuts? No. Not for the injuries to your face? I didn't need to. Chase, what do you got? Yeah, we see this thing happening with the liquor bottle there right at the beginning. There's emotional accessing and there's hesitancy there, which is a little unusual. Not a giant mountain of behavioral clusters. And then there's this discussion of bleeding. And this is a different yes than any of the others. It's shortened with other, some more emotional accessing there. And the cross is talking about medical treatment, the attorney. And Herd scans and calculates the emotional reactions of the jury to the information that's presenting itself during this question about medical treatment, which I find very, very strange behavior. So the third mention of this our word thing, there's a backwards head retreat. And I think the questions could have been a little bit better here. Something like, can you explain why you didn't need any medical attention? So more open ended to get, we're helping the jury to see the personality of the person that we're talking to. I'm going to leave some of the other nonverbals alone here. I'll give you a histrionic personality disorder, point number four here, completely randomly. Uncomfortable in situations where he or she is not the center of attention. May do something very dramatic, such as makeup stories or create a scene where they aren't the center of people's focus. And that's all I got. Scott, what do you think? I think I will spill this water. Okay, each time she says that's true, we see contempt. There's a little muscle right here called the buccinator muscle. And that's what pulls that part of her mouth back. And on the third time when she says that's true, both sides are pulled back. Now, some people are going to think they're seeing doopers delight. It looks a little bit like it, but it's not. If you're slowing it down and going frame by frame and all that, you'll see what looks like that. It's not. I promise you it's not what it is. Because what's happening is when you see her emotions, they're flipping from one to the other like a card. Bang, bang, bang. Just pull them out really quickly. We're not seeing that morphing from one to the other. Usually when you go, not usually, every time you see a true emotion, you'll see the emotion and you'll see a blend with the next emotion as it changes into that emotion. We saw this on the last in part three where it was just boom, boom, boom. She was just clicking through these emotions like flipping through cards. And they would just change automatically. And she's changing. She has a face she's showing. The attorney, she has a face she's showing the jury. And you can watch that thing change when she's looking that way. Bang, it changes as she gets where Greg's talking about halfway through. Those eyebrows go up and she looks over that way. It's fascinating how she's trying to pull that off. But she doesn't know not to. If she watches this, she will. But so when the attorney says, you didn't take any pictures of those injuries when you're in Australia, did you? Again, we see macro expressions of anger, two of them. At the same time, we're with her mouth open really, really wide as she breathes out or she breathes in at that point. And that chin comes down and we see some teeth there. Time's really, really fast. But you'll see if you pay attention. And again, I'm going to say what I think her brain is doing is reacting the way it normally would when she's being attacked by somebody verbally. Be it a boyfriend, be it a husband, be it a friend, whatever. And when somebody attacks her, she automatically just snaps into that reply of an attack. And I think that's just like a flinch for her at this point. We'll see that in this volatile type of personality. And but she's controlling it. But that's what those, when you see her mouth wide open like that and those teeth come out and that chin come forward, that's what we're taking a look at. Or that's what we're seeing at that point. I'll stop there. Greg, what do you got? Yeah. So that rate, one of the best anger micro expressions, full blown expressions I've seen in a long time is it 25 seconds? When she says, I don't think there's real anger there. Let's talk about what anger looks like.  So she's focusing on you. There's anger there when she's responding to that question. Then she does something really interesting. Chase, to your point about all this emotional change. She does confusion in the brow then back to anger and then back to confusion. There's three times like that. It's rapid. And I say all that movement in her face, I think is real based on what she's feeling. Scott, I think you're dead on. She would usually be very aggressive, I think, and she's been coached to contain all that. And when all that happens, it's got to go somewhere. Well, hopefully you do it in your hands or your feet or somewhere else.  I don't think she's sophisticated enough for that. I think that emotion is coming to the surface and it's going where it goes. When she answers, when she says, starts off by saying, yes, that's true to the question you testified that she does a vocal tick or vocal click to your point mark in this one, which is an odd place, the only one. And then after she answers the question, she does smug face, that little thing where she is looking down her nose at the woman. Then she goes back to contempt. Well, after the confusion and the brow change, she does the head wobble. That's a not a yes and not a no. That's a head wobble. She doesn't know how to respond and she's moving her head around. That means something in some cultures, but it doesn't in ours. So it has no assigned meaning. It's her confusion.  You pointed out Scott in the narrow mouth. You can't miss that. And she finally answers after being saying, yes, that's true. She went from yes, that's true in the last yes to just yes. So something is going on. Do I know that she's telling the truth or lying? No, but what I do see is a pattern. There's a vocal tick. There's anger. There's telegraphing of her emotions stuff travels through her face rapidly and then she shows anger and she closes it out with a shorter answer. All those are indicators. What do they mean? Not sure. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, we'll see that head wobble, the yes and the no together in a video coming up at another important point, I think, Greg. Yeah, we get that vocal click. Yes, that's true. Yes, that's true on the second one. Now no vocal click before that's true, but a big chin raise there. So with everything that everybody else has put into that, I'm really not sure that anything there is particularly true. Now, when we get onto did you seek medical attention? We all understand that there are all kinds of reasons why somebody who may have been through a real trauma will not seek medical attention. We get that completely. She says, and it's very rational for this situation, I didn't want to tell anyone. I think that's a very fair thing to say. But she says later on, I didn't need to. So I didn't want to tell anyone. That's why I don't seek medical attention. And then later on, I didn't need to. Well, this seems a deviation from the first story. And I'm not saying you can't have both at the same time. But I'm saying it's a little bit overly complex. And we know these situations can be complex. But personally, I want to go, well, which one? Which of the ones was it? Was it? I didn't want to tell anyone or I didn't need to. Because both of them at the same time feels a little overly complex to me. Now, I know you'll be able to think of all kinds of reasons why that complexity could happen. But it's fitting into a pattern for me of complexity where it doesn't really need to be. And so I worry that if there's complexity where it doesn't need to be in other places, that here's a place where complexity doesn't need to be as well. And here might be a place where there's deceit or a story or it's not quite accurate. So it looks not good to me. I don't quite buy it. That's what I've got on that one. Thanks. Well, we're going into this next one really quick. And people can take just a second while we're doing this to hit that subscribe button. What do you guys think of this one video? One to a hundred. What do you think the likelihood of deception is? Just this one clip that we just looked at. Yeah, put it in the notes. Yeah, you're talking about, yeah. Yeah, I'm talking to you guys. Oh, us. Oh, 88. I think 88. I'm going to 88. Yeah, I don't know.  All that negativity in her face to Mark's point makes it difficult to say when she's doing contempt for her. And I think it's normal for a person to have contempt for the attorney who's questioning them. I just don't think she's sophisticated enough to block it and hide it. So I would go two thirds of the way there. I wouldn't go as high as 88. My opinion. I'm going to go back. I'm that's a tough one, man. I think I'm going to go. Well, hi, man. I think I'm going to go. I'm 75 percent. I think I think she's, you know, too much going on there. And I agree with you, Greg. Those she's getting ready. She wants to attack so bad she can't hardly stand it. And that's driving her nuts, man. But I'm going to go with 75. OK, so we're going to hedge. I'm going to hedge down from 75 somewhere in between Greg and Scott there just because I can probably fit in there. There's nowhere left for me now. Here's what I think. I'm not going to say deceit, but there's a struggle going on. It feels too much of a struggle going on. And that's what I don't like. Do I know it's deceit? Do I think there's a struggle? Yeah, struggle. And that struggle could be her overriding her desire to say I think so, yeah. Yeah, like we saw in the other. So this is where body language alone is so paralyzed compared to controlling the conversation, asking the next question, using an elicitation technique or interrogation of ploy to psychologically prod them. We have no control over that part. So, yeah, I think it's a good question, Chase. Yeah, what would you say? Chase, I just wanted to know what y'all know. We're going to put it in. I think it's a good thing to put in. Yeah. Yeah, what was your percentage, Chase? What was it? 88. Okay. Okay. Well, I'm up there close to you.  Well, I like you more than everybody else now. I don't know. Jesus.  But you belong to the last person ever seen of me. You testify that after this alleged incident, you had cuts on your forearms, right? Yes, that's true. And you testified that you had cuts on the bottoms of your feet, as well. Yes, that's true. And you testified that you had a bruise across your jaw from when Mr. Depp, quote, clocked you in the face, end quote. That's true. You didn't take any pictures of these injuries while you were in Australia, did you? I don't think, no, I don't think I took any pictures. You just took two pictures of Mr. Depp's writing on a mirror. Isn't that right? I believe so, yes. So you had your phone on you, right? At some point I did have my phone. And your iPad? I had my iPad, I believe. You testified that you were also with a liquor bottle in Australia, right, Ms. Herd? Yes. You testified you bled from your as a result of that. Yes. There aren't any medical records reflecting that you saw medical treatment for any of these injuries, are there? I did not seek medical treatment after Australia, no. Not for... No, I did not want to tell anyone. Not for the cuts? No. Not for the injuries to your face? I didn't need to. This is your medical record for December 17th, 2015, isn't it, Ms. Herd? That's correct. And this record doesn't document any physical injuries on you, does it? I don't think so, no. I don't think I spoke to Kipper. I didn't speak to Kipper that day. But you went to Dr. Kipper's office and were seen, correct? I went to Dr. Kipper's office for a concussion check. Right, okay. And this medical record is from that visit, correct? Partially, yes. Scroll down, please, if we could. The signature Kipper down below, this is the entirety of the medical record, right, Ms. Herd? Yes, what I meant by partial is I didn't talk about what happened to me, I didn't get into my injuries, I didn't get into what happened, or asked for anything other than should I get some sort of scan done. All right, but this record doesn't document any physical injuries on you, does it? I'd have to read it in full, but I don't know. Well, let's do that. All right, Mark, what do you got? Yeah, look, what comes up for me is Greg in my head on this one. When I've heard you in various interviews with subjects and interrogations, go in, here we go, negotiating, negotiating, and this is what's happening here for me is there's negotiation of the parameters, okay? I don't think so, no. I don't think I spoke to Dr. Kipper. I didn't speak to Dr. Kipper, the idea of partially in there, I mean, there's lots more in there, it's just full of negotiation. Now, does this mean deceit? I think in some cases it does. Certainly there's a struggle going on, but maybe in a court we should expect some of this negotiation and semantic, well, we get a lot of semantic negotiation, come on, later on, we should expect some of this negotiation. However, I want you to look over the whole of these videos and think, does she negotiate some of the parameters when she doesn't really need to? I think in some of these cases she does and in some she does. I think I've got a case further on where I think it's very fair that she negotiates the parameter. By the way, and I just want to call out, I'm sure as we all do, I think it's Camila Valchez who's the questioner, who's the examiner. Oh, man, she's awesome.  I think always going to be on demand. What an incredible lawyer. What a brilliant example of calm, assertive, a little bit snarky when she needs to just to kind of twist the screwdriver a little bit, but just incredible. Greg, what do you got on this one? Yeah, I agree with you. She's negotiating a question at every turn. She does a single shoulder and I'm going to hit just very few. If you're always going to say that is correct, that is incorrect, that is true, that is not true, you suddenly don't start stammering around things where you need to negotiate.  And that's why source leads when you're talking to a person in the interrogation room and they always give me short one word answers and they suddenly give me a long answer. Guess what? There's the bear trap. And that's what she steps into here and she thinks that she's going to dance around a little bit and this attorney does a great job of locking her down. So she starts with that's correct. She does a single shoulder rise at one time out of baseline when she doesn't, when she says I didn't talk about my injuries. Well, why would be my question? Why? And she gives just rambling information to try to cover that why so that she doesn't have to answer anything. A little bit of chaff there, a little bit of spitting out information so that you'll let her move on. She edits as she speaks when she says I don't think I didn't. I'd stop right there and say which is it? You don't think or you didn't? Which is it? Which is it? Which is it? And you lock her down. Of course, she's got an attorney who will stop that from happening. One other thing, if you're her and you're drinking a glass of water, this is free advice to you. If you're on the stand and you're drinking water and somebody asks you a hard question, don't gargle the water and damn near choke to try to help them out by answering their question. Take your time. Finish your water. Set your bottle down and answer the question. Give yourself time to think. Interesting. She didn't do that. She tries to avoid the question by saying I would need to read in full.  And she goes, well, okay then. And you see the uh-oh occur in neighbor's face. It's a beautiful moment. Scott, what do you got? I think we're seeing all the cues of someone thinking while they're trying to appear at ease. And I think it's because she's in cognitive overload. She realizes when the attorney brings up this, the health document, there's going to be trouble there. It's going to be against her. So what she's doing, she's trying to think and run these scenarios of what she's going to answer about what she thinks the question is going to be. Mark's hotel, room, may I help you? Room service. So she's running these scenarios of what the, of what, how the answer might end up and what her answers are going to be. Before, even finishes, that's what's put her in cognitive overload. That's why she starts stuttering. And when she says she went to the doctor for a concussion check, she shows a stress mouth or disappearing lips or lip compressions. Some people call it, I call it stress mouth because that's what you see, for example, in congressional hearings when someone, especially when they're, their integrity is questioned, you'll see those lips disappear. They'll compress them and they'll completely disappear and that's what we're seeing in this case. That's, I call it stress mouth because they're under a lot of stress at this point. Also, her eyes are wider than they've been up this point in this series of videos we've been watching. That's because she's keeping her eye on the attacker. Also, watch how many times she doesn't look at the jury during this. Well, you check that out and that gets worse as we go along when she's, again, when she nails her with something. But I think she's, when she goes to the doctor and she's supposed to be being beaten, she doesn't show me the injuries. I understand that like Mark was saying earlier about not talking about that, that makes sense. Some people don't want to talk about that. But I think we're seeing her in panic mode and she's trying not to derail herself as she gives these answers and try not to give anything away. But I think she's in cognitive overload and it's just like I get, when I get on here and I get talking too fast and words start running into each other. That's what's happened to her. She's trying to think about what she's going to say next. Chase, what do you got? I agree with the guys. I've been crossing stuff off of my list here nonstop. And that's one of the things like if you don't know this, we don't review this before together. We don't compare notes. We don't do any of that stuff. So when you see a lot of us kind of looking down and doing that kind of stuff, we're crossing off with somebody else's covering. But right at this moment where there's, the words concussion check. Right at that moment. The lips tighten around the teeth. They start stiffening while still leaving the lips parted. And I was struggling with this this morning going through these videos. And I had to call in the big guns. So I spent 20 minutes on the phone with Joe Navarro this morning, sent him this clip, had him analyze it, go to this exact thing because I needed some feedback from the Godfather here. So this is from Joe Navarro here. Communicating severity is what this means. It's hard to fake. And it typically indicates negative emotions that a person is going through or thinking about negative emotions. And I told Joe I would say this just to basically brag that I had his number. Joe's response was the biggest brag you can do on YouTube is that I picked up the phone. But that's from Joe, not from me. But let's quickly talk about what I mean with this small movement of the muscles on the face. When somebody wants to fake something, it's going to be big. It's not often going to be small because they want it to be seen by other people, especially if the jury's 30 feet away. And right at this moment when we're hearing I didn't talk about what happened, she literally told the doctor that she bumped her head while standing up. You know how I know that? Because it's written on the medical paper right there on the screen. Very strange behavior here. So let's let's move into histrionic personality. Segment number five or quality number five considers relationships to be more intimate than they actually are. Direct quote from the DSM will refer to physicians early on in care by their first names. Interesting that we saw that here and it's literally written inside the DSM. So that's all I got. This is your medical record for December 17th, 2015. Isn't it, Ms. Herd? That's correct. And this record doesn't document any physical injuries on you, does it? I don't think so, no. I don't think I spoke to Kipper. I didn't speak to Kipper that day. And I didn't... To Dr. Kipper's office and we're seeing, correct? I went to Dr. Kipper's went to Dr. Kipper's office for a concussion check. Right. Okay. And this medical record is from that visit, correct? Partially, yes. Scroll down, please, if we could. The signature Kipper down below. This is the entirety of the medical record. Right, Ms. Herd? Yes, what I meant by partial is I didn't talk about what happened to me. I didn't get into my injuries. I didn't get into what happened or asked for anything other than should I get some sort of scan done. But this record doesn't document any physical injuries on you, does it? I'd have to read it in full, but I don't know. Well, let's do that. Directing your attention is referred to the photograph. This is the photograph you took in March of 2013, right? That is correct. And this was taken at your apartment in Orange? Yes. And this is your breakfast table? That is correct. And it's your testimony that Mr. Depp left this breakfast table just the way you took it? That is correct. So this is what the table looked like after Mr. Depp had been doing cocaine? Well, clearly he has yet to snort these lines. There are four lines of cocaine on this table, right, Ms. Herd? In this picture, I see four lines. There isn't any cocaine residue around those lines, right? Not that I can tell, no. Doesn't really look like anyone's been doing cocaine off that table, does it? With all due respect, I'm not sure you know how that works. I'm asking, if you do, you've testified you've done cocaine? I have. Doesn't really look like Mr. Depp or anyone was doing cocaine off that table, does it? I beg to differ with you on that. When you snort cocaine, typically it goes into your nose. And there doesn't stay on the table? There's residue from that cocaine when your lips and nose touch the table, right? Will the tampon applicator next to the driver's license that you see is a device that I believe my sister had taught him to use in order to put the cocaine in your nose? Mr. Depp is a pretty heavy smoker, right? He is. And that's a cigarette in the ashtray in the back there? Back right? Yes. It looks like one of his hand rolls. There's no other cigarettes in that ashtray, are there? I see one cigarette. The one that's not smoked? That's correct. There's no ash in that ashtray, either, is there? Not that I can tell in this picture. It's pretty clean. In this picture, it looks like it, yes? It's a pretty neat table. Wouldn't you agree? Um, depends on what you would call neat, I suppose. And you sent this picture to your friend, Rocky Pennington, as well, didn't you? I sure did. And when you sent it, you said, quote, look at my morning or something like that. Is that right? Yay for mornings. So you have it as a habit of sending stage photographs to your friend, Rocky, don't you? I had a habit of communicating with my best friend about what was going on in my life. You don't have any pictures of Mr. Deb actually consuming cocaine, do you? I don't think I have a picture of him mid-snort, no. You don't even have any pictures of Mr. Deb with cocaine. What do you mean by that? Holding cocaine, standing next to cocaine. Um, sitting next to cocaine? I don't know. I don't know. Well, you haven't shown any of those pictures like that to the jury, have you? I don't know. No, I haven't. And you were never able to catch Mr. Deb with cocaine on film either, were you? I never tried. But you were able to catch him sleeping, right? I have seen him pass out in all sorts of places, yes. Chase, what do you got? These are some rapid and quick answers. And then we're seeing after these in the beginning here, we see some backpedaling, some not answering questions at all. So one thing I will continuously tell since you're subscribing as we speak, you're going to hear this quite often. What's being concealed in the story? Is there emotion? Is there details? Is there sensory detail? What's being concealed or removed from a person's story? So instead of just looking at the verbal stuff, the nonverbal stuff, what's being hidden in the story? Right when she says not that I can tell, no. This is the most strongest indicator of anger that's not the anger facial expression that I could possibly see. And this is a dominant shoulder retreat. The dominant shoulder starts moving away from the person that's asking questions. Because I think as this next question is loading, she knows where it's going. And there's a lot of lower teeth exposure here. And right when she's saying I have a habit of communicating to my best friend, there's some closed eye talking going on there, which typically indicates in some people pretentious feelings or self-pride. And you haven't shown any pictures to that jury. We hear that elicitation statement in there again, John Nolan. This is another bizarre expression, kind of flash to the jury. You can watch it right on her face. You can see it. The video is going to come up as soon as we're done. Flashes to the jury. And I want to talk really quickly about true and false facial expressions. True facial expressions will fade off of the screen or fade off of a person's face over time. A false facial expression is more likely to drop or fall off the face quickly. But throughout this whole thing, she's failing to answer questions. A lot of these questions are kind of like designed to sound snarky on purpose. I'm not sure. I think they could have been word a little bit better, but I think she's doing a great job either way. Staging photos question is, like, I think a way it could have been asked is, like, is your testimony here today that you didn't adjust a single aspect or detail of a single object on this table before taking this photograph? And that might elicit a different response. So let's get to histrionic behavior profile indicator or diagnostic criteria number six. This person is suggestible, easily influenced by other people or circumstances. And keep in mind, there's eight of these. You only need to have five to have a diagnosis via licensed psychologist, which is not me. Mark, what do you think? Yeah, I think there's some great examples of elicitation here. And I think the examiner here is doing a tremendous job of playing heard here. Heard comes in with a bit of a snarky comment, which is basically around, you wouldn't know how to snorkeke at all.  And so what happens is, is the lawyer plays into that. And so I think the lawyer well knows the residue that's being talked about here, which is the residue that happens once the line has gone. There will be something left there. But she plays into the idea if she doesn't know what's going on here and goes, no, no, no, it's like when, because your nose gets really close, which then a lit that innocence, that naivety, which is a great elicitation technique, then elicits from her, a whole diatribe about, no, my sister came round and, you know, facilitated Johnny taking enabled him taking drugs, like the whole family are involved in Johnny taking drugs. And you notice that this may sound like she's going off on a tangent, but the examiner is letting her run. With this, the examiner has got exactly what the examiner wanted from her by playing the innocent here. I think that's really quite interesting. I saw that, that, that eye block of superiority there, Jason and thought of you. I think it's a great, great example. Here's what I'm most interested on this. No pictures of Johnny with cocaine, but pictures of Johnny passed out, or as he calls it, napping. Now we've already heard from Amber, this idea of cocaine is, is taking cocaine is pretty cool because she sends pictures to her friend going, yay, it's the morning. This is me on my morning. Okay, this is a cool morning to be had. But she doesn't take pictures of Johnny doing cool stuff like that. She takes pictures of Johnny passed out or asleep. I believe because that's embarrassing and not cool. When you get to a certain age and you can't handle your drugs like you used to be able to do as a young rock and roller, gets a bit embarrassing. And so these are, I think, opportunities for Amber to get evidence of the old man, of the, the disheveled, past it, rock and roller, which will obviously raise her status as his goes down and think about a personality that might like to raise their own status. And if they can't have their status high, well, they just need to lower other people's and have evidence of that to bring theirs up. Interesting stuff. Greg, what do you got on this one? Yeah, one thing that you'll notice in this case that is missing. She has been very engaging with the jury up to now. And you'll notice she starts off engaging the jury with that switch. She looks over her brow rises again. And then she forgets that and she starts to get in a bind. She shows some absolute contempt and some disgust as she engages the attorney after she first looks over to these guys and goes, well, clearly you don't understand or whatever her words were there. And she's trying to bring the jury along with her, but suddenly she steps into that trap. And I think Mark, you're dead on. The attorney uses naivete, which means I'm feigning not to understand a complex thing. So you explain it to me. It preys on our natural instinct to teach. So what you're doing is she then starts to spill information and she has a rational response for why there is no residue left and that kind of thing. And then as she's moving through that, you can't miss that she forgets to engage the jury for a long period of time in there. That means she's fallen into this and her brain is working on whatever the problem is. And I think she starts to realize then that she's fallen into this. You watch her stretch her neck in some awkward kind of craned around, let me see, as she's trying to answer, that's correct. She moves her neck around to say, let me see. And her whole body moves in an awkward fashion and she's stiff.  You see her shrink. She does a shrinking target. What you guys have always called turtling. I just call shrinking target. And she actually asks a question that I think she's asking for real clarification. When she says, what do you mean by that? Because I think she's doing a little bit of squirrel in the road. I think her brain is going, oh, what do I do now? When she's asked, do you have pictures of Johnny? She does. It looks like she's looking at the jury, but she isn't. What she does is she first goes to her visual accessing side and starts looking for, Hey, do I remember pictures? Are there possibly pictures? And you can see that's when she's scrambling in the road and then she purses her lips into disapproval. This is a place where it looks like to me. She's fallen into it and she's kind of in a bind. And it's maybe the first place we're seeing her actually starting to come to realize that this woman is actually a threat. The rest of it, I think she's been pretty prim, pretty direct with her and kind of short and snarky. And I think here she fell for something she shouldn't have. I agree with you, Mark. Scott, what do you got? You guys got almost everything. So it's about to be fairly quick. So we're seeing, I'll just say we're seeing all the classics of facial expressions here, everything from happiness, sadness, fear, worry, anger, contempt, disgust. We've seen the chin jets and plenty of micro expressions. And I think she's so focused on the attacker at this point which I think she's seeing the attorney as. At this point, she's not even after that first section, she doesn't even look at the jury. She's just answering right to the attorney. So she's seeing her as the attacker. So at that point I think that's what we're seeing there. Now I think what's happened is this is almost turned into a ping pong game. I was trying to see who's the most snarky and smartest as they go through this. And I think Amber's in the corner. She's got her head down. She's swinging as hard as she can. It's not helping her at all. She's just still trying to control that anger. Since we're talking about micro expressions, there's a woman named Melinda Ozel. And I found her on LinkedIn. She does these great things. I know we're all friends with her I think on LinkedIn. Has these wonderful little videos, short videos that tells you exactly what these little muscles are around your face, the obituary or the ocular. She goes through everything really short. Some of them are under a minute and explains where all these little micro expressions are. That's her specialty. So if you get a chance, check her out. Melinda Ozel as a Googler. You'll see what I'm talking about. All right, are we good? Yeah. All right. Directing your attention has occurred to a photograph. This is a photograph you took in March of 2013, right? That is correct. And this was taken at your apartment in Orange? Yes. And this is your breakfast table? That is correct. And it's your testimony that Mr. Depp left this breakfast table just the way you took it? That is correct. So this is what the table looked like after Mr. Depp had been doing cocaine? Well, clearly he has yet to snort these lines. There are four lines of cocaine on this table, right, Ms. Hurd? In this picture, I see four lines. There isn't any cocaine residue around those lines, right? I'm not that I can tell, no. Doesn't really look like anyone's been doing cocaine off that table, does it? With all due respect, I'm not sure you know how that works. I'm asking if you do. You've testified you've done cocaine? I have. Doesn't really look like Mr. Depp or anyone was doing cocaine off that table, does it? I beg to differ with you on that. When you snort cocaine, typically it goes into your nose. And there's residue from that cocaine when your lips and nose touch the table, right? Well, the tampon applicator next to the driver's license that you see is a device that I believe my sister had taught him to use in order to put the cocaine in your nose. Mr. Depp is a pretty heavy smoker, right? He is. And that's a cigarette in the ash tray in the back there? Back right? Yes, it looks like one of his hand rolls. There's no other cigarettes in that ash tray, are there? I see one cigarette. The one that's not smoked. That's correct. There's no ash in that ash tray either, is there? Uh, not that I can tell in this picture. It's pretty clean. In this picture, it looks like it, yes. It's a pretty neat table, wouldn't you agree? Um, depends on what you would call neat, I suppose. And you sent this picture to your friend Rocky Pennington as well, didn't you? I sure did. And when you sent it, you said, quote, look at my morning, or something like that. Is that right? Yay, for mornings. So you have it as a habit of sending staged photographs to your friend Rocky, don't you? I had a habit of communicating with my best friend about what was going on in my life. You don't have any pictures of Mr. Depp actually consuming cocaine, do you? I don't think I have a picture of him mid-snort. No. You don't even have any pictures of Mr. Depp with cocaine. What do you mean by that? I don't know. Holding cocaine, standing next to cocaine? Um, sitting next to cocaine? I don't know, I don't know. Well, you haven't shown any of those pictures like that to the jury, have you? I don't know, no I haven't. And you were never able to catch Mr. Depp with cocaine on film either, were you? I never tried. But you were able to catch him sleeping, right? Uh, I have seen him pass out in all sorts of places, yes. You testified under oath that, quote, the entirety of your divorce settlement was donated to charity, and, quote, didn't you? That's correct, I pledged the entirety. No. Ms. Hurd, my questions. Your counsel will have time to redirect you after. You testified under oath, quote, the entirety of your divorce settlement was donated to charity, and, quote. That is correct, I pledged the entirety. I'm going to move to strike everything after, yes. Uh, all right. There's nothing to strike here. No. Ms. Hurd, this is really inappropriate. I'll sustain the objection and we'll just move forward. Thank you. Let's move forward. Next question. Under oath, that statement wasn't true, was it, Ms. Hurd? I'm sorry, I don't follow your question. Sorry. You testified under oath, quote, the entirety of my divorce settlement was donated to charity, and, quote. That statement wasn't true. It is true. I pledged the entirety to charity. The statement. When you say you buy a house, you don't pay for the entire house at one time. Ms. Hurd, specifically. You pay it over time. I'm not asking Ms. Hurd. All right, next question. Please. Thank you. That statement isn't true today. As you sit here today, is it? It is true. I pledged the entirety to charity. But you didn't donate it. Unfortunately. You didn't donate it. It's a yes or no. I haven't been able to obligate, I mean, to fulfill those obligations. So that's a no, right, Ms. Hurd? I made the pledge. I want to be very clear. I pledged the entirety. I haven't been able to fulfill those pledges because I've been sued. You had all of the $7 million for 13 months before Mr. Depp sued you and you chose not to pay it to the charities, you pledged it to. Isn't that correct, Ms. Hurd? I disagree with your characterization of that. All right, Greg, what do you got? I'll try to keep this one as tight as I can. She starts off with a real hard contempt face looking at the attorney. She conditions the question. Here we go again. Instead of saying she donated, she said I pledged. Then she goes to eye blocking. The attorney puts her on notice and starts to illustrate and tell her exactly what to do.  That's pre-conflict body language all day. If you can't recognize that, you're probably going to get in an argument with someone today. Then she conditions the question again with I pledged. Then she goes to heart eye contact with low blink rate because she realizes this is a threat. And then this is her saying what she thinks she's going to be able to get away with and she doesn't. She goes to full on rejection, Desmond Morris tongue jut for rejection. Her chin out in defiance. She changes her cadence.  Her blink rate increases. And then the final blow is she conditions the question, softens the question and distances the question with I disagree with your characterization of that. Now what's happening here is all that stuff that these attorneys have caused her to put in place to cover up. 2016 Amber has slipped and we're starting to see 2016 Amber slide out of here. Chase, what do you got? Yeah. One thing you'll notice is she's using the same tactics around avoiding truth around donation as she is around all the instances of violence. Right when the judge says, let's move forward right here. I want you to watch this. I think her thinks that her games are working and wrongly assumes that the sustained objection means that her attorney won. I do think that that's exactly what we're seeing. She sits upright. There's condescension on the face. The chin goes up. This is a challenge behavior. She's showing genuine joy in the game that's going on right now with this word salad testimony. And we can upgrade this maybe to Mark's favorite word. It might be a word lasagna. But under oath, that statement wasn't true. Was it misheard? So we hear that from the opposing counsel. And I want you to watch the eye flutter. This is strange because it really stands out here. And this helps her to delay the process and continue the game of deception that I believe she is genuinely enjoying. In my opinion. And when she says, I disagree with your characterization of that, there's a dismissive head tilt. She feels, I think, entitled and almost proud to have learned these new methods of linguistic manipulation. And those words are from her attorneys. I would, I would bet on it. At least $4. On a side note, this stone cold attorney sitting next to depth is finally showing some emotion. This is the first time we're seeing him doing anything. I think the entire courtroom is in disbelief right here and how someone could weave such a deep rooted web so openly and blatantly. And it might help us to ask ourselves the question, what kind of person would be comfortable doing all of this. So finally, histrionic number seven or eight here. Personality disorder indicator uncomfortable in situations where she is not or he the center of attention. Does things dramatic like creating stories or a scene to make themselves more of people's focus. And one more is using themselves or their body to gain attention from other people. Scott, what do you got? All right, I think she knows he's busted. And that's where a nose goes up and that chain goes out and she looks down and knows that the attorney and almost every blink like you were talking about chase. Every blink is a double blink. It's really, really odd. It's really, really odd because she does the I'd lash flutter the eye blink flutter and all that earlier on. But this time every one of them is a double. So I guess that's something to point out there that just lets us know her stress is just jacked really hard. At the same time, she looks back and forth from the jury. We see that head when she turns her head does a thing where it goes back and forth like this. And it's just a so wavering thing back and forth. I think that's an adapter. Any repetitive behavior, we see it as an adapter way to get rid of that built up stress or tension. And she's really tense and really stressed right here. And I think that's what's happening. Mark, what do you got? Yeah. So negotiating the criteria here. It's argumentative and it is semantic. It's a semantic word lasagna. I think there, but I actually think that's what she's doing is has some reasonable nature to it at a semantic level. And she is accurate that in large gift giving, you don't give it all at once. Just in the same way. However, that Anna Sorokin was accurate when she said rich people borrow money. That's true as well. Okay. But really what's happening here is, is the trying to get out of that timeline of you didn't give all the money immediately. Well, I pledged it. Yeah, but you didn't give it. So there's a semantic argument going on here. Johnny Depp's kind of sidekick there. Who's a who's an interesting little character doesn't seem to do very much apart from this moment where he suddenly realizes he has a piece of information about the timeline and he's just desperate to give it. And so when he gives it across and he hears the, the questioner, the examiner, read out what he's put forward. He's there nodding his head. And when it doesn't beat her because she is going to argue this one to the very, very last because that's the kind of person she is. And it's to her benefit to keep on arguing this one. When he, it doesn't go his way. He simply can't believe it. He's like shock with the rest of the court. Like, I can't believe this is going on. But I think there is something quite reasonable in some ways about what's going on here in a court. But you wouldn't want this kind of arguing day to day outside of a court because that could get really taxing on a day to day basis. And it may be that this particular personality might do this kind of argument on a daily basis, which could be quite taxing. That, that's all I got on this one. All right. You testified under oath that quote, the entirety of your divorce settlement was donated to charity and quote, didn't you? That's correct. I pledged the entirety. No. Ms. Hurd, my questions. Your counsel will have time to redirect you after you testified under oath quote, the entirety of your divorce settlement was donated to charity, end quote. That is correct. I pledged the entirety. I'm going to move to strike everything after yes. All right. There's nothing to strike here. Ms. Hurd, this is really inappropriate. I'll sustain the objection and we'll just move forward. Thank you. Let's move forward. Next question. Under oath that statement wasn't true, was it, Ms. Hurd? I'm sorry I don't follow your question. Sorry. Ms. Hurd, you testified under oath quote, the entirety of my divorce settlement was donated to charity, end quote. That statement wasn't true. It is true. I pledged the entirety to charity. The statement. When you say you buy a house, you don't pay for the entire house at one time. Ms. Hurd, I'm not asking Ms. Hurd. All right. Next question, please. Thank you. That statement isn't true today. As you sit here today, is it? It is true. I pledged the entirety to charity. But you didn't donate it. Unfortunately. You didn't donate it. It's a yes or no. I haven't been able to obligate, I mean to fulfill those obligations. So that's a no right, Ms. Hurd? I made the pledge. I want to be very clear. I pledged the entirety. I haven't been able to fulfill those pledges because I've been sued. You had all of the $7 million for 13 months before Mr. Depp sued you and you chose not to pay it to the charities, you pledged it to. Correct. I disagree with your characterization of that. All right.  I'm still around the room and we'll wrap up what we think is going on here and our thoughts on it. Mark, you want to go first? Yeah. I would just say this. There is huge struggles going on for Amber Hurd during this storytelling. I'm not going to talk about it in terms of what's the truth and what's deceit personally. I think it probably moves towards deception quite a lot of the time. But I can say for sure there's a struggle going on when really there shouldn't be a struggle going on. If it were a true story, it should be super easy to get across. Even if there's stress and pressure and angst and all kinds of horrors that have really happened, it still should have a certain ease to it that it doesn't have. Chase. I think most of what we're seeing here is just like that game called Two Truths in a Lie. I think there's a lot of weaving going on here. I think there's a truth and lies that are mixed together in a way that every lie has three pieces of evidence that kind of almost sort of support it a little bit maybe. That's what we're seeing. There's a lot of stuff going on that's truthful and there's a lot of lies underneath. Greg. Yeah, we'll never know exactly what happened. We know there's some kind of chaos going on in this relationship. The mere fact that they were married for like 13 months or something, this thing was a mess. We don't know whether he hit her or she hit him. All we can do is tell you that that's not her job. Her job is to convince the jury. And if she's believable, likable, looks innocent and delivers the right details to win over the jury, she'll win $100 million because she countersued him for 50, I think is what they said. At the end of the day, we'll not know any of that. What we'll do is tell you that we see discomfort, that she came in there very prepared to cover up something that would make the jury not like her and we see some of that slipping.  I'll leave it at that. Scott, what do you got? All right. Yeah, I agree with all you guys. It sounds good. And I think, I think to me what we're seeing is a great example of someone who is winning something thinking they could, everything they said would be taken for a fact and it just isn't. And she's fighting for her life in here, fight for $100 million or $50 million or whatever it is. So I think that's what we're seeing. She's back in the corner. She's coming out swinging all at the same time, trying to show that she's not angry and trying not to be angry. That's the fascinating part of it is watching this personality type, try to stay in control as somebody attacks the ego here. So that's what I got. All right, fellas. I think this is another good one and I'll see you next time. Have fun. See you.


um is by Pei Ling Wang at the University of Victoria um and it will still stay on the terrestrial domain and like look at quantifying land use impacts. Thank you for having me here. My name is Pei Ling Wang. I'm very excited to share with you part of our very big project. I work with Professor Johannes Fedema at University of Victoria. So we want to quantify human-induced soil degradation. So we know human activities depend a lot on soil and we also constantly change soils all the time and that affects soil water holding capacity and infiltration rate and as a result it will affect water energy and biogeochemical cycles. We know this from a lot of small scale studies however in most of the earth system models despite the land use and land cover changes in the history the soil properties in those models often stay constant and that will affect model projections and impact assessments. So that's why we would like to fill in this missing piece to put the soil degradation model. So the first question we ask is what type of soils do we like? So to make the question even easier we group different types of soil into four groups based on the hydrological potential. So group A is more sandy and so group D is more clay and then we want to see what type of soil is the best. So we introduce we look at the major land uses and land cover and we rank those land use and land cover in by its importance to human beings. So the most important land use is crop land then it's pasture land grazing secondary vegetation and the primary vegetation. Then the next step we overlaid globally those land use land cover with the distribution of different type of soils then we count how much portion of each land use located in each type of soil group and if the soil get more important land uses then we consider it's a more important soil. So the result with five soil group B the loamy soil is the most important one followed by clay soil sandy clay loam and sandy soil is the least preferred soil for human use. So once we get that if we get a data map in a single grid we know the portions of this much of land use then covered in this grid and we know there are this much of different type of soil in this grid then we can link land use with soil based on the most important land uses located on the best soil and the least important land use on poor soils. So we can do this for globally. So this is an example we allocate land use land covers in 850 on four different groups of soils. So as you can see soil B is the best soil so you can see most of the agriculture and pasture located in the best soil while soil A is poor soil so in 850 most of the soil A is remain untouched. So using the same methodology we can do this for land use for the time history from 850 to 2015 based on the land use and land cover history. So we allocate land use then covered to four types of soil and you can see time goals soil B has a lot of increases in important land use of crop land and pasture and soil A although is poor soil under the population growth soil A we start to see more than more human land uses. So if you are interested to know more of the detail we just published this in global biogeochemical cycles. So the next question we want to ask is how soil properties are changed by land use then covers. Here we focus on soil organic carbon texture and bulk density because those properties affect soil hydrological properties. So to answer this question I read more than 1,000 papers and try to collect observations of soil samples under primary vegetation and disturbed condition and because I only want observations from comparing to soil that's never be disturbed and most of the studies they look at so compared to soil on the secondary vegetation which is being disturbed in the past. So I end up have 140 papers with 700 pair observations and in addition to the soil data from the literature we also include a global data set of MPP and moisture index. So these figures we plot soil organic carbon change along with death under four different land use land covers then we calculated the average at each soil layer so we have we defined seven layers here and for each layer we have an average to represent the different land use impact and we can see how the impact change along with death. Then with that we also include environmental factors such as MPP then we do a forward modeling to see how land use MPP and the soil texture can affect soil organic carbon change. So this is the model we come up to predict soil organic carbon change based on human land use MPP and the clay content of the soil. So this model can nicely explain how the soil organic carbon change varies on the different land use and in on the different environment. And then with this model you can see the soil organic carbon change decreases with increasing clay content and the changes also a negative change in soil organic carbon decreases with increasing MPP. So with the similar methodology we also use that to to build models to predict how sensual clay and soil bulk density change under various human land use and land covers. So with that now we have a couple of models that can be used to predict soil property change on the different land use land cover and on in different environmental conditions. So the application of the results first is we can use that to conduct impact assessment of land use land land use on the different environments. And then we want to incorporate land use land cover history to model human induced soil degradation over time. Then finally we want to apply the soil states we got from the human soil degradation model into the earth system models to estimate the impact of soil degradation on climate. So that is my presentation. Thank you.