On the twelfth day of the Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard trial, the #MeToo movement finally took center stage. At the heart of the defamation lawsuit that Depp filed against Heard is her article that ran in the Washington Post, which previous testimony revealed was crafted by four ACLU attorneys on Heard’s behalf. Depp’s legal team has argued that he lost his career after the publication of that article, which referenced Heard’s alleged abusive marriage. Two days after the op-ed was published, Depp says he lost the iconic role of Captain Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean.
On the stand today, an expert witness for the plaintiff, Richard Marks (an entertainment attorney who has been working in Hollywood for fifty years), testified that the Washington Post piece torpedoed Depp’s career.
“At the pinnacle of sensitivity are the family-friendly companies like Disney,” he said. “They are particularly sensitive, not in a general way but in a specific way.” When asked how the Washington Post article was received in Hollywood, Heard’s lawyers leaped up to object to expert testimony, claiming it was “personal testimony.”
RELATED: Bombshell Testimony: Amber Heard Stiffed the ACLU and a Children’s Hospital
Nick Rekieta, an attorney who runs the Rekieta Law YouTube channel, said there is no difference between the personal opinion and expert testimony of the expert in question. Heard’s lawyers objected furiously and often to Marks’ testimony, seeming desperate to keep him from answering this question. Judge Penney Azcarate overruled the objection. “That op-ed for the first time was in a mainstream publication called the Washington Post. This is a flagship journal, if you will, of American news,” Marks answered, pointing out the well-known status of the paper. “We’re not talking about a trade paper. We’re not talking about a rag. We’re talking about the Washington Post.” Marks then went on to point out that the article itself was written for the benefit of Hollywood executives. “It is geared to Hollywood,” Marks testified. In fact, Heard very clearly addressed Hollywood executives and accused them of protecting her former husband in the following passage from the Washington Post article:
Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out.
Friends and advisers told me I would never again work as an actress — that I would be blacklisted. A movie I was attached to recast my role. I had just shot a two-year campaign as the face of a global fashion brand, and the company dropped me. Questions arose as to whether I would be able to keep my role of Mera in the movies “Justice League” and “Aquaman.”
I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.
Imagine a powerful man as a ship, like the Titanic. That ship is a huge enterprise. When it strikes an iceberg, there are a lot of people on board desperate to patch up holes — not because they believe in or even care about the ship, but because their own fates depend on the enterprise.
Marks pointed out this passage and said, “It says two years ago”–pointing to the time frame of Heard’s divorce from Depp. “Amber Heard is saying….’Hollywood, you stood up for my abuser.'” Heard’s attorneys continued to try to interrupt this devastating testimony but failed to stop Marks from giving his testimony to the jury.
“Amber Heard was calling out Hollywood since 2016 for supporting her abuser and she felt the wrath of Hollywood,” Marks continued, referencing the editorial’s disputed claims. “She was calling them out to do something in the Washington Post and on the eve of her biggest film,” he pointed out. “There was lots of publicity and news out there. This was the height of her fame and she used it at that moment to call Hollywood out,” he said, as Heard’s lawyers looked for another opportunity to object but came up empty. “They heard that plea loud and clear,” said Marks.
This is what the heart of this case is about. It’s not about who pooped in what bed or if someone threw a phone over a balcony or threw some clothes down the stairs or even kicked a few cabinets during a temper tantrum. This trial is about the harm that Depp says he suffered because of Heard’s continued claims of spousal abuse allegedly committed by Depp that were published in the Washington Post and echoed and amplified by the #MeToo movement. This movement holds immense power in Hollywood and has destroyed many careers over abuse allegations, some confirmed cases of abuse and others that have been denied and not confirmed. It has been a frightening time for due process and the concept of “innocent unless proven guilty.” (You can pick up my book on the subject, “Believe Evidence,” here.)
The #MeToo machine was revved into high gear when Heard made her allegations, and all the pieces fell right where the activists wanted them to, regardless of the truth of the matter. Nobody wanted to hear Depp’s side of the story. Depp was canceled while Heard’s career took off both in Hollywood and in the activist sphere where she became a spokesperson for the “Women of Worth” at L’Oreal, an “Ambassador” for the ACLU in “gender-based violence,” and a “Human Rights Champion” for the UN. She was flown all over the world to speak and advocate. Heard became like her stated hero, Angelina Jolie, who does work on behalf of refugees through the UN. Heard would not have been given these opportunities without such high-profile people in the #MeToo movement like Roberta Kaplan, her former attorney and founder of Time’s Up; the ACLU; and others who pushed her to the forefront based on her allegations against Depp.
RELATED for our VIPs: Why the Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard Trial Matters to Conservatives
Depp’s manager Jack Whigham also testified on Monday and said Depp lost all major film developments after the published article in the Washington Post. After testifying that the Washington Post article was “extremely impactful,” Whigham testified that between December 18, 2018, when the op-ed was published, and October of 2020 all the studio jobs dried up. Whigham also learned that Disney executives were planning on casting someone else, Margo Robbie, in the starring role of Pirates of the Caribbean 6. “It became clear they [Disney] were going in a different direction,” said Whigham.
Further testimony showed that Whigham was not able to get Disney executives to rethink their position. “I was not successful in rescuing Pirates for Johnny,” said Whigham. “After the op-ed, it was impossible to get him a studio film.”
If Depp’s team can hammer home these losses to the jury, the chances of Depp winning this case increase dramatically. Defamation must prove that there was financial harm as a result of the stated claim and so far the harm appears obvious. Heard’s defense has yet to present its case and will begin as soon as Tuesday.
Team Heard is having a difficult time with public opinion and, in fact, Heard fired her PR team just days before she’s due to take the stand. According to the New York Post, she fired her PR team because there are too many negative headlines out there about her. But PR firms aren’t magical wizards that can wave a wand and make the damning testimony given under oath just disappear. During my live stream of Monday’s trial, I read the NY Post article explaining Heard’s decision; you can watch it below. I’m covering this trial in detail on my YouTube channel, so join me! There are mega-pints and live chats, and a good time is had by all (well, everyone except Amber and her PR team, I imagine.)
Join the conversation as a VIP Member