 We're going to talk about Amber Heard again, and this is from an upcoming interview she's going to do, and Greg, while we tell her to tell us about the videos we're going to watch. Yeah, these are clips from a one-hour interview that will air Friday night, so guess what we may do again. But there's a one-hour video coming up Friday night. This was for today's show, and this is Savannah Guthrie interviewing her. One thinks about me or what judgments you want to make about what happened in the privacy of my own home and my marriage behind closed doors. I don't presume the average person should know those things, and so I don't take it personally, but even somebody who is sure I'm deserving of all this hate and vitriol, even if you think that I'm lying, you still couldn't look me in the eye and tell me that you think on social media there's been a fair representation. You cannot tell me that you think that this has been fair. All right, Greg, what do you got? Let me start by saying these are snippets. These are clips from the entire thing, so there could be some context we're going to miss when we're covering these snips, but that's the danger of doing it this way. That's okay. She shows contempt, meaning Amber Heard shows contempt right out of the gate, but we also know her baseline is contempt and disdain and a whole lot of negativity in her face. It's part of what makes it hard to love her when she's sitting across from the jury, and she turns and does that. It made it difficult for her, but she does show some contempt well within her baseline, but her voice is metered and contained, not harsh like it could have been in her testimony. She does some right eye accessing, goes down into emotion. That looks believable. She does some confirmation nods, meaning we're going yes, yes, yes. She looks down into her right, which we associate with emotion. Oh, that's good. Then she does deep breath, prepares to deliver her on her key points, and all of her body language shifts immediately when she goes to butt. She says butt. She exposes her lower teeth, juts her chin, and that's defiance and at least some version of anger. We know all that stuff is tied up in her baseline, but she's doing a pretty good job here of containing any demonstrative kind of behavior that caused her not to do so well on the stand. And remember, these are all our opinions. We're going to tell you what we see, and we'll go from there. Chase, what do you got? Yeah, I think this is just a monumental statement to begin with, because this being fair thing, her sharing private things that went on behind closed doors that also apparently didn't happen at all, is the beginning of all of this. And she's now changed her narrative to reflect that after taking photos of Johnny passed out, secretly and illegally recording video of him and even sharing the video of him with TMZ. And now she would rather things stay private, her stuff stay private. But you see this perfect facial expression of contempt here on the face, our faces do this as people when we feel disdain or like disrespect, or maybe even superiority to other people or topics. And this expression comes on her face, the moment she's pretending or directly addressing someone who doesn't believe her. And that's pretty interesting. And this whole thing about fair, I think this trial was more fair than the article that she published, and also had zero representation from, you know, the other person whatsoever. And her fascination with fairness, even if you think she lied about it at all, is astonishing. There's maybe a few things that make her able to do this interview at all. And I think her view of her ability to persuade people is pretty high. Her view of other people's intelligence, I think is very low. And there's a desperation here, probably, in my opinion, that she needs to become hireable again. Scott? All right, I think she starts off like if you're getting if Marcus to get after you for something, I think he would start off with when one thinks one is not necessary, it would start off with the word one in there somewhere. What one thinks about me. And that's what she does. And that puts her I think it makes her feel like she's above everyone else. And what I've noticed over the years is when someone uses the word one, and they're referring to someone and one reads a book like this when one does something, they either spend an enormous amount of time alone and they read a whole lot. I mean, they read a lot. Or they're parroting something they've heard someone else say who's a lot smarter than they are. And I think that's what it is. I think it's number two there. What I think she's parroting something she's heard before. And once again, we're seeing the queen of micro expressions, she's still lording over her throne. And you may think you've missed some of this, but you haven't because you saw anger more times in this little section that we saw almost the entire other videos we've done so far. And when she says the word even that whole word is not even the micro expression is the expression of anger in there. So I thought that was fascinating. She's still coming on strong with all that she still has so much hate in her heart. And and I think she's frustrated. And that's why we're seeing a lot of that. But at the same time, we see about an even number of contempt expressions or micro expressions. So much so that I'm starting to think she might have a tick where she's just doing that all the time because we're seeing contempt or disdain the whole time, almost the whole time through on some of these, especially toward the end. She's got her head cocked back and that that chin jutting forward. That just that's narcissism writ large. And again, we see those micro expressions of disdain and contempt altogether. You've seen anger discussed, disdain, scorn, and even sadness, but it's all fake sadness. And we know most of these expressions are almost all of them, except for I think the contempt are fake because they're moving from one expression to the other like clicking. They're not they're not morphing from one of the other slowly. They're just one, two, three, four, five, six. She's just knocking those on her face real quick. It's really it's it's wonderful behavior for training and to show to pick out and say, look, this is weird. This is how you know someone is not experiencing experiencing what they're telling you they are. Someone use this stuff in training. All right, Mark, what do you got? Yeah, so you're absolutely right. We have this kind of onslaught of anger and disdain and contempt and disgust and hawker scorn, as you say, all kinds of other things in there. But though that packet of those negative feelings, when you get a lot of them in a baseline that is some good evidence to suggest it's connected with borderline personality disorder, or just a general melee, just a general unhappiness with the world around. So it could be an effective disorder or it could be a personality disorder. It's a possibility. There's also the possibility that she's layering these on. She's creating some of those. It's the possibility that there's both going on at the same time. But what we now know is this is very much a baseline for her or a baseline for her in these kinds of situations where she's under this stress and pressure. Now, behind closed doors, she says, and there is and I'm going to say disdain. Why disdain rather than contempt, contempt and disdain are exactly the same in the face. But contempt is about individuals. I feel contempt for that person over there. I feel disdain for that group. So disdain is a social cue. Same same stuff happens in the face. Okay, but it's more about social. So she's just disdain for the judgements of social media on her private life. She says it's not personal. But of course it is that the the group outside of her that she feels she doesn't belong to because they have a different judgment than her. She feels that they're impinging on her how she's seen as a person. She feels that society has judged her unfairly. Now we'll come to this later on because we need to understand what's happening here is that she conflates, she confuses, she pushes together unfairness and a sense of what would be the right word, a justice, unfairness and justice. Those two things are not the same thing. So what is unfair to me isn't necessarily unfair to Chase or to Greg. They might go well that sounds fine. I go that's really unfair on me. Now justice is a different thing because if we're all in the same community, the idea of justice being served is equal amongst us. She's conflating the two. Also, she shows disgust on even even some people who are sure. So I don't take it personally, but even somebody who is sure. So again, there's this this sense that social media is is unfair in its representation. Look, here's what we need to understand is that social media simply because people are detached from it. They don't necessarily use their own names. I'm not physically in front of somebody when I'm tweeting them their safety there. It's a cheap signal. It costs me nothing to send out a tweet. Whereas if I stand face to face in front of Chase and say something to him, like that's an expensive thing to do. I have to take a plane to do it. So that's not a cheap signal anymore. So I'm going to be a lot fairer when I'm not making cheap signals. I'm going to be a lot more social if I take a plane to go and see Chase and say, Hey, Chase, here's what I think about you. Okay, I'm going to be a lot fairer about that. If I send a tweet about him, well, who cares? So ultimately, social media is going to be more anti social than real face to face life. And all of us, I, you know, you Amber heard need to understand social media will never be social. It'll be anti social more than it's social. And it will never ever be fair. Okay, never be it fair because we're all different people. And it's not a justice system either. So it'll never be just one things about me or what judgments you want to make about what happened in the privacy of my own home in my marriage behind closed doors. I don't presume the average person should know those things. And so I don't take it personally, but even somebody who is sure I'm deserving of all this hate and vitriol, even if you think that I'm lying, you still couldn't look me in the eye and tell me that you think on social media there's been a fair representation. You cannot tell me that you think that this has been fair. There's no polite way to say it. The jury looked at the evidence you presented. They listened to your testimony and they did not believe you. They thought you were lying. How could I put it this way? How could they make a judgment? How could they not come to that conclusion? They had sat in those seats and heard over three weeks of non-stop relentless testimony from paid employees and towards the end of the trial randos, as I say. So you don't blame the jury? I don't blame them. It wasn't, I don't blame them. I actually understand he's a beloved character and people feel they know him. He's a fantastic actor. Their job is to not be dazzled by that. Their job is to look at the facts and the evidence and they did not believe your testimony or your evidence. And again, how could they, after listening to three and a half weeks of testimony, about how I was a non-credible person, not to believe a word that came out of my mouth? Chase, what do you got? Right at this, they did not believe you. More contempt on the face there. Though this disdain probably is, as Mark would say. And you can see her preparing the face she needs to answer, right when the camera switches to her for a very small second. Right when it pans back, you can see her preparing the facial expression. Facial expressions when they're truthful happen simultaneously with or just before someone begins speaking. She's somewhat paid employees. All the people she called up there are many were also paid to be there. And right when she says randos, I know you guys are going to dig into this. Scott, I can already tell that this little canned line in facial expression, I think we're planned. It's similar to her intro when she was introduced in court. When this whole trial started, painting herself to look cute like she can relate to people, painting her flaws as adorable so we can admire them on camera, casting credible people as random people. So if they weren't paid, they were just random, random people that they drove off the street like, I don't know, Kate Moss, totally random, weird. But there's some eye fluttering there which indicates some mental stress and cognitive load. We all, if you watch our other videos, we talk a lot about spotting signals of stress. But one other big one is spotting these signals of cognitive load when there's basically a whole bunch of apps running at the same time in your brain. And this is just high mental processing. And what we're really seeing here is cognitive load. And there's a load of scientifically proven deception indicators that go along with cognitive load processing. She says, I don't blame them, I actually understand. There's disgust on the face. And she's saying, Johnny isn't a beloved person to her. He's a character. And I think this was very rehearsed. You can hear her emphasize the word with her face and her tone. And she says people feel that they know him. He's a fantastic actor. So she ties them together. You feel like you know him because he's an actor, not because he's just a dude that you happen to like. And right when she's saying an incredible person, this is what her and her legal team did to Johnny the entire time. And he might have accused you of being an incredible Amber, but at least he didn't accuse you of being a man. That's all I've got. Mark. Yeah, I did not. They did not believe you. So that's, that's from Savannah Guthrie, who is interviewing here, journalist and lawyer. Very credible job she's doing here. Interesting though, she she's not managing to keep this facially neutral. Let's just say that because she absolutely herself shows contempt there or maybe disdain on they did not believe you now. So therefore, is it contempt in that she's contemptuous of this person for potentially lying? Is she showing disdain on behalf of all the jury to say on their behalf, we see you as outside of society? Or is she showing, is she is she acting out the part of the juror being contemptful of Amber heard line? I don't know. I don't know. But all I'm trying to highlight to you is the difference between contempt and disdain in that it's situational. The image is the same. The face does the same thing. It's the context that it's in makes it one or the other. And people will even act out the feelings that they think other people would have. That's what we call theory of mind, the theory that you have about what somebody else is thinking and feeling and then being able to put it on your own face and project it to somebody else. So you can see how body language is actually pretty complex and you really have to think about it quite carefully. And when you think about it quite carefully like that, you kind of realize how your gut instinct doesn't do that kind of thing. So what we're doing here is not exactly what your gut instinct does, though you would get a gut feeling about Savannah Guthrie there and her feelings towards that person. But you don't necessarily necessarily know where those feelings come from. But I'm going to, oh yeah, I will just just put on top of this chase that I actually understand. Yeah, we see anger there. So she doesn't understand. She's angry at people for thinking what they've been thinking. Then I'll leave it at that. Greg, what do you got? So let me give you a data point. Really interesting data point. Let me back up first. When they are going at it here, you're right. Savannah Guthrie is signaling and it's not subtle. It is very, very powerful signaling. She's amused and she shows contempt in her face when she's talking to her. She has a big teeth and she's smiling when she's asking a hard question. They didn't believe you and running down that path. They listened to your testimony and they did not believe you. They thought you were lying. So I started thinking, okay, there's a whole lot of disdain and reflection back from Amber Heard. So I dug in just before we got on here and said, what's going on? Guess what? Guess what? I'm Savannah Guthrie's husband does for living. He's a communications guy. Guess who one of his clients was during the trial? Johnny Depp's defense team or Johnny Depp's team. You think there's some baggage associated with that? And so you'd see a lot of that and that starts to feel, let's assume that she told her before. I know she disclosed it. I see a pattern here. Look, Johnny's got fans and his fans love him. That's number one. She's going to say people were unfair. You heard her say people were unfair. Later we're going to hear her talk about being a martyr. I mean, she's thrown herself on the railroad tracks for the world and then she'll soften it by saying, you know, I did do some things wrong. But here what we're seeing is the beginning of her fairly well contained for who she is responding to that interviewer and you see anger. You see some anger when she's asking her the hard question. Why didn't they believe you? Now she should have said, look, I told the truth the whole time. That's not what we saw. She went the other way and said, because they were given all these witnesses. Now if I were sitting in Savannah's case, I would have said, and why would all those people lie against you? Because that's not what she asked her. But if you watch her, you can see in the beginning when she pushes her, when she pokes on her, those lower teeth exposed, her jaw jut forward. And if we believe the diagnosis that she has histrionic personality disorder, that is a trigger. Anytime you poke a histrionic personality disorder, even a question about what, why they think what they think can turn into a trigger and force that anger. She retent, she controls that anger if she's really angry, very well. And then she does some serious emotional eye accessing, looking down to the right, drops back over to her left, drops down, tries to figure out exactly what to say. And then she delivers whatever her answer was. All that considered, I think she's doing a pretty calm job. She's bleeding body language and mark to your point. We can't always gut tell that our gut goes, something's wrong, something's wrong, something's wrong. It takes a lot of intellectual processing. Guys, you should know that all of us watch this individually before we come here and we don't talk about it until here. This is a tough one. There's a lot of, because her baseline is so angry and skewed, it's, it's a tough one to read. Scott, what do you got? All right. I think we're seeing all the hallmarks of a narcissist who's trying to protect their failures and their flaws and explaining them away about how I think that's, and this is a great example of that as well. Because again, we see those expressions that are so fake because they just, she just clicks right through them. Just one, two, three, like that. The beginning, she tries to look all sad and pitiful, but watch how that changes so quickly. And this, it changes so quickly. And then like you were saying earlier, Chase, that part where she calls people randos, she's trying to make that so it's not bad nomenclature. I think when it dawns on her that the interviewer must have made a face or something because she tries to do this smile like, it's just what I call them because I'm adorable. That's what they are. That to me. And she's talking about people they don't, that she doesn't pay or Johnny doesn't pay and people they don't know and who aren't famous straight like regular old people. So she's talking about them like that. And then she does that smile like that little cutesy smile. But we know that's fake. A lot of people are going to say, well, I know it's a real smile because there's wrinkles on the sides of her eyes. Those are just squint wrinkles. Anybody can do that. You can make, you can make your, your face look like your smile. However, the difference in that is when you do that, when you smile and squint and you see those little wrinkles there, that's because you're just pushing up on them. But when your brain does it, they don't go like this. Those little wrinkles don't come down like this. They come in at an angle. And that's how you know somebody's been, is a real smile or a lot because those things go all the way back here because they start back there when they do it. So that's somebody who laughs a lot and is probably usually in a pretty good mood. So I think I just keep this short. I think this is a great example of just more fake, more acting. And I think she's calling on her acting skills. If you want to call them skills to get through a lot of this. So that's what I got. You got, you got to piss her off, Scott, because she gets on that in the next video. Hey, let me add one thing. I'm going to date myself with this one. There's a beautiful thing she does that Ronald Reagan did when he was running for president against Jimmy Carter. She does that when the person asked her the question, she does that dismissive smile and kind of nervous and then look back up. Ronald Reagan did that to Jimmy Carter and said, well, there you go again about hyperbole. It's exactly the same move. If you go watch, if you go watch Reagan and compare it to her, she's exactly the same thing. There's no polite way to say it. The jury looked at the evidence you presented. They listened to your testimony and they did not believe you. They thought you were lying. How could I put it this way? How could they make a judgment? How could they not come to that conclusion? They had sat in those seats and heard over three weeks of nonstop, relentless testimony from paid employees and towards the end of the trial, randos, as I say. So you don't blame the jury? I don't blame them. It wasn't, I don't blame them. I actually understand he's a beloved character and people feel they know him. He's a fantastic actor. Their job is to not be dazzled by that. Their job is to look at the facts and the evidence and they did not believe your testimony or your evidence. Again, how could they, after listening to three and a half weeks of testimony about how I was a non-credible person, not to believe a word that came out of my mouth? More than a week since the verdict. As you sit here with me now, has it sunk in? How could it? Serial and difficult in part, yes. This has been a long time coming. Do you stand by your testimony and your accusations against Johnny Depp about abuse? Of course, to my dying day, we'll stand by every word of my testimony. All right, Mark, what do you got? Yeah, so let's just get into some of the linguistics, the patterns of words that I'm hearing throughout this. How could it? How could they? How could they not? You still couldn't. So we've seen that throughout, what are we, three videos in and we've seen, heard all of those and repeated a number of times. The idea here is to completely deny and destroy the premise of a question. Yeah, go back, take a listen to that, destroys the premise of the idea, basically goes, that idea just cannot exist in the universe of the way it functions for me. It's unbelievable that somebody could. It's unbelievable that they couldn't. It's unbelievable that you could or still couldn't. So this constant pushing against the premise, that's just, you know, could be just really good ordered spin. And so all credit to her because of that, because in this situation, she is on the back foot here and she is going to have to spin it. And she is doing that and she'll have had some help with that. And she's not bad at it, to be honest. At the same time, it could be this general Malay that she's in as well, this general bad feeling about the universe and the world and the way it functions and the way it doesn't function for her. So again, could be that idea of always pushing back at the premise of an idea because it doesn't fit her universe, could be about an effective disorder, could be about a personality disorder because it keeps coming up and keeps coming up. Same time, could be just really good spin. Scott, what do you got on this one? I'm just going to focus on the answer to the question. And what we're seeing here is a bobblehead. Quite often you'll see someone, if they're saying yes, but their head is barely shaking, no, then you can look at that and say, that could be deception. That might not be true. But then you have what I call a confirmation now where you go, did you do that? Yes, I did it. I've told you four times I've done that. That's a confirmation now because you're doing that and you're leaning into it and you're confirming that. Same thing goes with the yes. Did you do that? I told you I did not do that. But the head keeps shaking like I did not do that. That's when you want to start thinking. Is that a little bit of a question? Because quite often that the big head shake yes or the big head shake no is just confirmations when you see them slightly going. That's when you really got to pay attention. Paul Ekman really focused on that a little bit. That's where I want to go with that. That's all I want to have on that one. Chase, what do you got? Yeah, so this is interesting. There's a large inhaler at the beginning in this eye shift to internal dialogue. And when we talk about these eye shifts, the eyes move around for us to access data. And you can think of your eyes moving around as kind of like a file clerk. And in a lot of people, the file clerk goes to the same spot to get similar data. But she starts making her a facial expression at the wrong time again here. Before she picks up her head, you can see it clear as day. There's an attempt at confusion, but it's missing a lot of the elements here and it disappears from the face. Real facial expressions fade off of the face. False facial expressions just drop off the face. And it's my opinion that it's because real facial expressions are chemically rooted and that chemical has a little half-life inside of her brain. Then Amber nods for an affirmative in these videos like Scott was just talking about. And this is one case you'll see, I think, where she's shaking her head while saying the word, of course, she's shaking it. No, this is what I call jastral disagreement. There may be a term for this already. A lot of experts are going to use this little nugget and try to apply this to every person without knowing their baseline, which is how they normally act under normal circumstances. And 90% of the time when you see someone saying this nodding and saying no or shaking their head, saying yes, that's that person's baseline. But you'll hear experts on the internet tell you that there's some kind of deception going on. And when she's talking about standing by her testimony, standing by your testimony until your dying day is a lot different than reassuring someone that it's actually true. Greg? Yeah, we're all most the same thing. So I'm not going to pound them in the ground, but agree with you. She's got kind of an exasperation inhale, then she goes to, you see her drop her eyes down into her left. That's a really heavy weighted thing for her because she's internal conversation. What she's doing is thinking, how do I word this? That would be my guess when I see that. Now she does this smile, this weird little smile where she's got anger in her brow, concern in her brow, an old friend of mine, call it the mother-in-law smile because his mother-in-law looked in that way all the time, I guess, but kind of a harsh smile with concern in the forehead at the same time. It doesn't look friendly and there's no way to make it look friendly. You got all the rest that stuff going on that she does in her face. And the facial expressions don't stay. You hit all those. She says something very peculiar. This has been a long time coming. Interestingly, it's the most congruent body language of her entire statement. Everything's aligned. It all looks like she's saying what she thinks. And maybe she is. Does she mean that it's been a long time coming for him or for her? Because she's the one who has stepped in it right now. And so maybe she's doing an embedded confession. No idea. And then that last statement where she says, I stand by my statement, there's a whole lot going on in that. I'm just going to run down the list. There's a request for approval. There's a bobble head. You hit it earlier. There's chin jut of defiance, but there's also chin boss involvement, like shame. We usually associate with shame or grief, probably shame in this case. All those clusters together start to say something. She also clenches her lips very quickly and she does a little lip withdrawal of disappointment, not of disapproval, but of disappointment. You compare that everything else she's done and it's not tight to her baseline. We see a lot of disdain in that. That one for me makes her look deceptive because of all of those clusters of behavior pulling together. That's what I got. More than a week since the verdict, as you sit here with me now, has it sunk in? How could it? Serial and difficult in part? Yes. This has been a long time coming. Do you stand by your testimony and your accusations against Johnny Depp about abuse? Of course. To my dying day, we'll stand by every word of my testimony. I think vast majority of this trial was played out on social media. I think that this trial is an example of that gone haywire, gone amok. And the jury is not immune to that. You think the jury saw it? How could they not? I think even the most well-intentioned jury, it would have been impossible to avoid this. People online and crowds outside the courthouse made it clear where they stood. Every single day I passed from three, four, sometimes six blocks. City blocks lined with people holding signs saying burn the witch, death to Amber. After three and a half weeks, I took the stand and saw just a courtroom packed full of Captain Jack Sparrow fans who were vocal, energized. Can you put into words how that felt? This was the most humiliating and horrible thing I've ever been through. I have never felt more removed from my own humanity. I felt less than human. Let's go back to the day of the verdict. Were you feeling confident? That's a great question. I wish I could say yes to that. I want to say yes to you, but it wouldn't be true. Even if you think that I'm lying, you still couldn't tell me, look me in the eye and tell me that you think on social media, there's been a fair representation. Do you find- All right, Greg, what do you got? Yeah, so this is an interesting one for me because we see some energy come up. Like I think she's about to boil over there for a second and then it disappears, but I think part of that's the edit. That's an awkward edit. I wonder what happened exactly in this video. We'll see in the one hour hopefully, but she does a chinge out of defiance. We typically associate putting your chin up with defiance or indignation, whichever you want to call it. And she's got a downward tone where she's telling. I think she really believes how she starts this whole thing. She's saying, look, it couldn't have been my performance. And and then she hits this tripwire. And when she starts poking on her about how she was treated, then you hear her energy coming up. You see her face just wrenching that sorrow face when she first starts, when she says she was in room from humanity, but then going to contempt. She shows real pain in her brow and furrows with the sides of her mouth down that and then there's some asymmetry. I think that's how she really feels. Regardless, remember, when we talk about human beings and perception, perception is reality. If she feels like she's treated unfairly and all the people playing in the kazoo outside were unfair to her, then that's what she feels. And so she's going to show that this is some of the most genuine that I've seen her in the entire thing. Then she goes to this place where when she asked her, I'm sure by the way, I'll show you why in a few minutes, but I'm sure she had these questions beforehand because she asked her this question about how'd you feel her respiration changes. She stammers around that whole humanity thing. And then when she says, where are you confident? Look at the narrowing of her eyes and the disdain and that disgust in her face, narrowing of her eyes, disdain with that withdrawal, which she does all the time, but disgust. And then her face kind of goes flat. So altogether, what I'm seeing is more of the same. I think she really believes what's going on here. I think she believes that she's been mistreated. Johnny's got fans who supported him. All those people along the way changed the outcome. And it's just not fair. And you can see in this case, that's the best body language you've gotten from her, in my opinion, even, even when she was on the stand. Mark, what do you got? Yeah. So look, she, I think it is indicative of the way she thinks the world works. She is quite adamant about her emotions around this. And she says, how could they not impossible to avoid this? How could they not? I think even the most well-intentioned or it would have been impossible to avoid this. That is really an ordering of the world. It's impossible to avoid this. Well, you and I know from our angle, it's not impossible. It's maybe it's probable or improbable, but it's not impossible. Okay. Now, here's what she does now is she makes everybody in the court Captain Jack Sparrow fans. Now, what that means is she infantilizes that court because Captain Jack Sparrow is essentially a kid's character. I know we've all shown up to the films ourselves. Yeah, but it's a kid's film. It's a Disney film. It's for kids. Okay. So she's basically saying instead of going look Johnny Depp fans, which would be a different thing, Captain Jack Sparrow fans means they're all just a bunch of kids in that court. So she lowers their status to childlike status. She infantilizes the court. Then she says she was removed from her own humanity when she was on there. Well, that's that's fair. That can happen. She says, I felt less than human. Okay, that's a possibility. Like that could easily happen. I'm with you on this. But there's no clear metaphor around that. Usually what people will do when they're talking around how inhuman they are is they'll say I was like, it was like, you know, I was like a worm there or I was like, you know, I just felt like a rat in there. They'll give you a simile or a clear metaphor that helps you understand just how low they were. Now she does talk about, you know, burn the witch, which is that's a metaphor. But witches are not subhuman. They're actually superhuman. They fly in the air. They can only be destroyed by fire. So that's a that's a superhuman thing. That's not a subhuman element. So look, you know, oh, and then when she gets to the, did you feel confident area there? Though I think you're right, Greg, that she's been given these questions ahead of time. For me, she takes a long time over that one. I don't think she's quite able to quickly conjure the feeling that she thinks she could give there. And she has to buy a bit more time by going, that's a good question. Okay, so I think she's like, what do I do with that one? What did I decide to do with that one? Or what did we say I was going to do with that one? Or it may be one that's been thrown out there. I don't know, could be a new one. But but somehow she hasn't got the answer immediate, or she isn't able to immediately conjure the the emotion and the reply that she'd like to so she stalls for more time there. Great locks in there. Chase, what do you what do you got on this one? Totally agree with both of you guys. I have a friend of mine who I served with in the military. And he is exactly like Jack Sparrow. He falls ass backwards into success every time. And everyone loves him. Yes. But I totally agree. She's infantilizing the viewers. And that's definitely going on there. And she said this entire trial played out on social media. It did not. It played on social media. It played out in the courtroom in Virginia. Think about two hours from me. And this is an example of how she sees people as kind of unintelligent or easily manipulated. And she also thinks that social media contributed to her conviction, which means that she thinks the jurors are also law breaking idiots who are surfing and doing things that they shouldn't be doing when they're leaving the court every day. And when she's saying every single day, some interesting emotional recall where her eyes go down into her right. So it's about seven o'clock on the clock face for us. And she wanted to clarify what city block means. She didn't say blocks. She said blocks. And then she wanted to re clarify city blocks because she thinks you might need that kind of clarification. And she says this courtroom is packed full. She waits a minute and then says full just in case you don't know what packed means. After three and a half weeks, I took the stand and saw just a courtroom packed full of Captain Jack Sparrow fans. And during the question, how did that feel? Now we're seeing the real emotion for her being humiliated. I think that humiliation and embarrassment are the main things that she experienced in this relationship and during the trial. And that's the only point. We've analyzed the entirety of the trial. The only point that I've ever seen these genuine expressions is around embarrassment, abandonment, or ridicule, some kind of stuff like that. She's saying I wish I could say yes. There's a strong look of disgust, super strong facial expression of disgust. Like the disgust facial expression, if you can just imagine putting your whole nose and mouth into a bag of like a rotten cheese and taking a big smell like it pulls everything toward the middle. That's kind of what disgust does. And when she says it wouldn't be true, there's lip compression and lip, I'm sorry, lip modulation. So I want you to watch very closely. You can see her lips start moving here. This is common when someone's trying to connect and manage their facial expressions to build sympathy with another person. The non-conscious part of the brain wants to move the face around. The conscious part of the brain is trying to hold it all together, pin it down. So this is maybe lower and upper brain disagreeing with each other. And that's what those small movements are on the lips and you can see them in the replay. Scott, what do you got? All right, you guys got everything. I'll go with one thing that nobody covered. We see a bold face lie here just right down the barrel line here. And she says every day I saw signs of death to Amber. She never saw a sign of death to Amber. Nobody ever did that. I looked. I looked. I looked everywhere. I googled it for about two and a half hours looking just for that. And I'll tell you what I'll do. The first person to send me a picture, it's got to have the right metadata with it to show that it happened during the trial of somebody with a sign out on one of those streets saying death to Amber, I'll give you a hundred bucks. I'll Venmo you a hundred dollars. The first person to send that to me. And you said it at thebehaviorpanel at gmail.com. I think vast majority of this trial was played out on social media. I think that this trial is an example of that gone haywire, gone amok. And the jury is not immune to that. Do you think the jury saw it? How could they not? I think even the most well-intentioned juror, it would have been impossible to avoid this. People online and crowds outside the courthouse made it clear where they stood. Every single day I passed for three, four, sometimes six blocks. City blocks lined with people holding signs saying burn the witch, death to Amber. After three and a half weeks, I took the stand and saw just a courtroom packed full of Captain Jack Sparrow fans who were vocal, energized. Can you put into words how that felt? This was the most humiliating and horrible thing I've ever been through. I have never felt more removed from my own humanity. I felt less than human. Let's go back to the day of the verdict. Were you feeling confident? That's a great question. I wish I could say yes to that. I want to say yes to you, but it wouldn't be true. Even if you think that I'm lying, you still couldn't tell me, look me in the eye and tell me that you think on social media there's been a fair representation. Do you find the trial handled with the same, dealt with the same substantive issues that had even more evidence in? In fact, my evidence was largely kept out, really important pieces of evidence, kept out, done differently, handled differently by a judge instead of a jury. Some evidence is admissible in a UK court that is not admissible in a US court. Do you think that maybe he just had better lawyers? I will say his lawyers did certainly a better job of distracting the jury from the real issues. For some people, they just were frankly disgusted by the whole thing and don't have much sympathy for either one of you. Can you understand that? Absolutely. I would not blame the average person for looking at this and how it's been covered and not think that it is Hollywood brat at their worst. But what people don't understand is it's actually so much bigger than that. This is not only about our First Amendment right to speak. But here's the thing about the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects free speech. It doesn't protect lies that amount to defamation and that was the issue in the case. Yes, exactly. You can't go into, the free speech does not protect you if you you know, go into a crowded theater and you scream fire. We get the concept of free speech from the Greeks. My understanding of what that means is not just the freedom to speak. It's a freedom to speak truth to power. The truth is the word and that was the issue. And that's all I spoke. And I spoke it to power and I paid the price. Wow. Okay. Greg, what do you got? Yeah. So there's one surefire way to make it better. That's to make it that I'm not on trial. Everything on earth is on trial. She puts the US court system on trial. She puts everybody on trial. Remember, I said he has fans. People were unfair. I'm a martyr. Well, listen to what she goes through. First of all, let me point out something to you if you don't know this. The First Amendment prevents the federal government from doing something to prevent you from speaking. It doesn't prevent somebody from punching you in the face because you say something. It has nothing to do with that. It's simply a restriction on the federal government affecting your freedom of speech. And so she jumps on that. She's suddenly become a university lecturer here. Now I'm going to rant on her for a minute. She's talking about Greece and that's where freedom of speech came from. Probably not so much. It came from right here in good old USA. And as we walk through the mechanics of this whole thing, she wraps herself in the flag. She takes it even bigger. She's going to take a swing at Gandhi and at Mandela and at, you know, Tutu. She's going to this whole concept of truth to power, which is how you fight authority when it's unjust. Now she's making it about the mob coming to help her. Come on. I mean, anybody who's listening to this and doesn't have a different level of disdain for her, I don't get it. But then she goes into this isn't the way and she walks down the whole process. I've got a note here that says if she's trying to appeal to Betty in Idaho, this ain't the way. This ain't Bob in Fairfax. This is how you appeal to people who are at an intellectual level, who are, you know, thinking all theory and that kind of thing, not saying that those people don't think that way. But why do you take this as your approach? You attack the legal system. You attack every, there's just about anything she could do. And then when she's asked, did he have better lawyers? You can see she does the eye roll away from emotion. My guess is she's got a trigger and she knows when she's triggered. And when she does the eye roll up, people that you see her trying not to cry do this all the time. Instead of looking down the right, they look back up to their left to try to avoid crying. That's pretty typical in people. Then I see the interviewer's eyes light up and she goes back to teeth smiling and that whole thing when she talks about people are disgusted with you. Do you think that's triggering her a little bit? Probably you see all that disdain and everything show up again. And then when she asks her, did you, I'll drop that one. But then let me leave the last thing when she says, I spoke to power and paid the price. There's a simple thing that people who are indignant and defiant do that's missing. Her chin's not up. Her chin is back. That's a basic defiant move. Your child, if your child is three and you take away something they want, watch that chin. That's not here. Something's missing there. I'll leave it at that. I think I ranted on her enough. Scott, what do you got? All right. Here we're seeing the largest illustrators we've seen so far. Everything's been pretty much under control for the most part. But here they're getting big. They're getting huge because she's trying to make sure each point that she's making gets across. That's, this is the one that gives me the feeling she had these questions beforehand. She said, okay, send me the questions. She checked off, yes, on these and rehearsed them, which she's been good at rehearsing because she got, she was like that in court a lot of the times for the answers that she was pretty sure were coming. So that's what I think we're seeing here. When someone is being honest, you don't see a whole lot of, from Alder Ray did a study on this we've talked about on here a thousand times. And what he found out in his studies were that people who are being deceptive most often their illustrators will go away. They almost disappear. They don't use them very much at all. But when you're being honest, you start using a lot. So here she's not lying. She's just trying to get her point across using her illustrators to the maximum here. So this is the most we've seen so far. Mark, what do you got? Yeah. So let's look at who she's lifting up and who she's demoting. So it would have been better if it was judge instead of jury. So better to have an auto crap than a democracy, essentially I would say. The average person is not going to get this right. Okay? The average person. So if you're thinking along the same lines as the jury, which really should have been a judge, an auto crap who would have got it right, you think along the same lines as a jury, you're just an average person. Because what people don't understand, what people don't understand. So now it's all people. Here's what they don't understand. So she's at the level of understanding. She's at the level of you need an auto crap to get proper understanding, not the demos, not the democracy, the demos. That's a Greek word, by the way, because the Greeks. Pretty sure of that. Yeah, it did invent democracy, though most people didn't ever get to vote. Just like free speech in Greece, most people didn't get to say whatever they liked. It was a very tentative version of free speech and democracy at the time. So what people don't understand. So there's a pattern of demoting the status of people and levelling herself up. So what she does is to take her case, just as Greg was saying, up to the level of human rights and First Amendment is putting it at that level. Now, rightly, that gets taken down by, look, it doesn't protect you from lies that amount to defamation. And we get a full eye block on that because she knows that's true. And that's really, you know, made that's the case closed essentially there. But she comes back because she's pretty good. She's pretty good at spin. She creates a truism, speak truth to power, just speaking truth to power. Why is it a truism? Because it sounds true, but it's not true. It sounds plausible. It sounds good. We've heard it enough that it goes, yeah, that's a really good thing, speaking truth to power. I should be speaking truth to power. But if you just unpick it a little bit, you kind of go, well, what's that really about? And what do you mean by power? And what is truth anyway? It doesn't take long for a truism to be destroyed. And so she calls out the element of truth to an ideological stance of this kind of epic struggle against power. So once the idea of truth to power is destroyed, she goes, yeah, but I was doing that. And so of course, I lost because you always lose when you speak truth to power because power is always all powerful. Now, at that point, you've created a grand narrative that essentially most human beings are going to go, God, yeah, you're right. Because power is really hard to be up against, isn't it? And we've all had those moments where we have tried to take power down and we've lost and that's called a tragedy. And when we take power down and we win, that's called a comedy. And so she's playing this tragic narrative of here, of you just can't win. It's a brilliant maneuver of taking the authority of democracy, of juries, down to nothing and basically saying, you need an autocrat there who will do the honest and true thing because a democracy is going to be, well, they're going to lie and cheat and do the wrong thing, aren't they? They're going to sneak off and watch social media and not take their vows that they've taken correctly. And you just can't win because essentially the world is corrupted by power. The world is corrupted by power is a truism and it's an ideology. That's what she's putting forward. It's quite, I quite like it. It's quite nice because it's quite skillfully done and by the end of it, I'm like, oh, yeah, it's just rotten, isn't it? Just rotten being a human being. I don't like it at all. Who haven't we had? Greg, what have you got? No? Scott? Chase. Chase, what have you got? Chase. I think, Mark, I'm going along the same lines. Let me just add on to this. His lawyers did a better job at distracting the jury from the real issues. The subtext here, the jury liked the intelligence so much that they aren't able to pay attention to the real issues. And what people don't understand, but like you were saying, Mark, is because they're perhaps incapable of understanding is actually it's so much bigger than that. And then there's the average person thing. This is just insane how this is just layered into this whatever 45 second clip here. She wants to also teach us what free speech is using the exact situation they teach us in elementary school. And it's a little strange. And I think she does this because she believes that most people won't understand and most people are not aware of this. The average person that she's talking to. And right when she says, and that's all I spoke. Right at the end here, there's immediate mouth closure. There's more head shaking. No, while she's affirming something, there's an eye flutter at the precise moment of potential deception. And maybe this is even just more defamation coming out. The trial handled it with the same dealt with the same substantive issues that had even more evidence in. In fact, mine, my evidence was largely kept out. Really important pieces of evidence kept out. Done differently, handled differently by a judge instead of a jury. Some evidence is admissible in a UK court that is not admissible in a US court. Do you think that maybe he just had better lawyers? I will say his lawyers did certainly a better job of distracting the jury from the real issues. For some people, they just were frankly disgusted by the whole thing and don't have much sympathy for either one of you. Can you understand that? Absolutely. I would not blame the average person for looking at this and how it's been covered and not think that it is Hollywood brats at their worst. But what people don't understand is it's actually so much bigger than that. This is not only about our First Amendment right to speak. But here's the thing about the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects free speech. It doesn't protect lies that amount to defamation. And that was the issue in the case. Yes, exactly. You can't go into the free speech does not protect you if you, you know, go into a crowded theater and you scream fire. We get the concept of free speech from the Greeks. My understanding of what that means is not just the freedom to speak. It's a freedom to speak truth to power. The truth is the word. Yes. And that was the issue. And that's all I spoke and I spoke it to power and I paid the price. Closing arguments, the deaf lawyer said, called your testimony the performance of a lifetime and said you were acting. What do you say to that? Says the lawyer for the man who convinced the world he had scissors for fingers. I'm the performer. I had listened to weeks of testimony insinuating that or saying quite directly that I'm a terrible actress. So I'm a bit confused how I could be both. The deaf team argued that you were the abuser, that you instigated physical violence. Did you? I never had to instigate it. I responded to it. When you're living in violence and it becomes normal, as I testified to, you have to adapt. Chase, what do you got in this clip? She is physically stopping herself from nodding along with the acting question here. And when she's saying scissors for fingers, either the world is stupid because they were convinced or Johnny Depp is brilliant because he convinced them. And I doubt she's going with the Johnny Depp is brilliant route. And I think this is really petty. And maybe what about the man who destroyed my life? Or what about the man who did all these things to me? That's maybe what we would expect to hear from a victim. And there's a weird moment of self-reflection, awkward self-reflection here when the interviewer doesn't acknowledge this. It's just a little pause of awkward silence. And you could see the contemplation of the universe there for just a few seconds. But there's more genuine sadness here in this clip. You can see it on her face at being called the terrible actress. There's still no sadness about any of the abuse or lead sexual assault. And right after she says the word actress, I want you pleased. I hope we have a replay here. So people are looking at this. Look at her face immediately after the word actress. You'll see a microfacial management movement. She's modulating expressions and rehearsing expressions right there. And the same way she did in court, except right here, we have like this 1080p version of it. And right when the interviewer says you were the abuser, she nods again during this part. The Depp team argued that you were the abuser, that you instigated physical violence. Interesting. And she's saying living in violence and it becomes normal. You can see perfectly here. There's no real deception indicators piling up. But why are we not seeing deception around her living in violence? Because I think she believes that she was abused by these words. And she was abused by Johnny Levy. And this is what we see on her face and body a million times throughout the trial. But only when she's discussing him leading or her being embarrassed. It's not about the sexual abuse. And I think that she equates physical violence with being left or embarrassed in her mind. And I think Mark is trying to show us what the abandonment really looks like. It's a demonstration. You need some cold hot chicken. She was the violence of Johnny making her feel abandoned or made fun of. And our tribal brain, if you think about our ancestors, a long time ago in the tribal brain, this embarrassment would cause us to be outcast and abandoned by the tribe. So that's the reason the embarrassment could potentially lead to the abandonment. Scott, what do you got? I think from now on, when somebody's picture goes out, I'm going to put one of those pictures that I send you guys where I text you in. It's those pictures of us making weird faces right in the middle of a conversation. And it looks weird. And I'll show you some examples of that now. You know what I think it is? It's the sun is streaming through the window here and this camera is getting extra hot. Now, you can see it on my face there. You can see how incredible the sun is right now. Okay. All right. Well, I think that that bit about the Edward Scissorhands thing and the attorney, I think that's the lamest comeback from someone I've ever heard in my life. And I was a professional kid. I knew all the good comebacks when I was like in the fourth grade, man. I was, you'd look out because I had them all and that is the lamest I've ever heard in my entire life. Now, I think at that point, Chase, where you were talking about the saddest part we were seeing and she was, and the interviewer wasn't even responding to that, what she should have said was, you know, most people think, and they're all saying that Johnny Depp's attorney was much hotter than you are. What do you think about that? Top of her head would have flown off and whatever's in there would have climbed out and choked that interviewer to death. That's the level of narcissism I think we're seeing at this point. So that's all I have on that one. Greg, what do you got? Yeah, a couple of things. There are two non-answers, two, two non-answers in here. One is an extended non-answer. And one is just, yeah, she just goes out of her way to say something about Johnny Depp. Now, let me also share something we always talk about, provocative statement. She just made a provocative statement. She doesn't realize it. But what happens in the amateur person who makes a provocative statement, the guy who commits he had scissors for fingers? That's a provocative statement. That's what she's trying to do. She wants a response. But she's not crafty enough and she sits with a blank face and you can tell she's waiting on a response. When you do it well, you don't wait. It feels like a natural part of conversation. But that's okay. When they say she's a bad actor, there's some interesting stuff mixed in there. But when she first asked her the question, she does disapproval with her mouth when she's before she says a thing about Edward Scissorhen. And Chase, I'm with you. Watch her face right at when they call her a terrible actress. Watch that emotion. Watch that wrench of her mouth, her eyes drift down right, and then it fleets through her face rapidly like a child would. It's an interesting twist. It's something we've been noticing. And I would do 100%. We saw heavy emotion throughout this trial when it was about disrespect. And disrespect is more important in some people's case than physical violence. And they equate it to physical violence. So they feel like they're entitled to do physical things to you when you disrespect them. We've all been around them. I mean, I spent a fair amount of time in the military myself. If you've been in the military, you knew somebody like that, guaranteed. You did you disrespect me? And sometimes it wasn't even that. I got some funny stories offline about some of these and they're often very dumb. But when she said, I was going to point out, you can do the performance of your lifetime and still not be a good actor. That doesn't mean you have to be a good actor to do this. So she's upset because she can't understand why they would say that about her. When she asked the other question about instigating violence, what's the right answer to that? If you ask me today, did I instigate violence against anybody in my life? I go, no, not. I never had to instigate it. I responded to it. I never had to instigate it. I responded to it. That's a long drawn out distancing way and admitting violence at the same time. So what instigated it? Don't know, but she responded to whatever instigated it. She didn't say I went in the first person to hit him either. That's all I got. It's a good one. Oh, sorry, Mark. We're all doing this today. Thank you. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I need some hot chicken on my head. It's yeah, I need hot chicken on my camera today. I'll tell you. We're still going to do the hot chicken day at Vegas, right? Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. We're going to decide what day that's going to be. It's planned. Okay. I think it's... Give me to pitch it back again. It's Friday. Yeah, let's leave it in there. I've got it all ready. Ready to go. You don't need it if it's good hot chicken. Okay. Are we done with the hot chicken? I'll give my... Yeah, we're done with the hot chicken, I think. Give my Amber Heard analysis now. Okay, sorry, guys. My fault. Look, yeah, it's a good... It's a great day to be alive on the planet Earth today because somebody said... Somebody said, said the lawyer of the man who convinced the world that they had scissors for fingers. For the man who convinced the world he had scissors for fingers? And that is like... That's like a David Bowie lyric. That should be in a David Bowie song somewhere. It is so beautifully crafted. So, great day on the planet Earth. Somebody just said that. Just extraordinary because it doesn't really make any sense. There is no real logic to it there. What I want to comment on really is, in the end, she's saying... Well, she's saying it isn't fair. It isn't fair in this social arena. The social arena has not been fair. I think she's saying, you know, social media has not been fair. The courts have not been fair. I'll say it again. Fairness is an individual thing. What I believe is fair isn't what they believe is fair. It's not social. It's individual. But has social media been just? Well, I mean, probably not. I mean, social media is quite antisocial, so it probably hasn't been just. But have the courts delivered justice? Well, either you support the court system or you don't support the court system, but ultimately, courts aren't designed to be fair. They're designed to be just, not fair. There's nothing in a court that says it will be really fair. There's lots in courts where you just go, well, that isn't going to be fair, but they're trying to move towards justice, which isn't fairness. Now, it's the same with social media. Social media is antisocial at times, and sometimes it's social, but it vacillates between the two. It isn't fair at times, and sometimes it does seek for fairness, and there's no way it's just at sometimes, but sometimes it does deliver for some people justice, but it isn't organized like a justice system. Anyway, really what I'm saying is, and I'm reiterating what I said at the start, the two things are not the same. Justice isn't anything. Yeah, courts aren't social media. They aren't the same thing. What she's doing is conflating the two, and you've got to watch out for that, because it's a really nice spin manoeuvre. To take one thing that isn't the other thing, and put them together, and convince you that they are the same thing. They're just not. Closing arguments, the deaf lawyer called your testimony the performance of a lifetime, and said you were acting. What do you say to that? Says the lawyer for the man who convinced the world he had scissors for fingers. I'm the performer. I had listened to weeks of testimony insinuating that, or saying quite directly that, you know, I'm a terrible actress. So I'm a bit confused how I could be both. The deaf team argued that you were the abuser, that you instigated physical violence. Did you? I never had to instigate it. I responded to it. When you're living in violence, and it becomes normal, as I testified to, you have to adapt. You say you were responding, but there is evidence. There are tapes in which you acknowledge hitting. There are tapes in which you say, I started the fight. I know much has been made of these audio tapes. They were first leaked online after being edited. What you would hear in those clips are not evidence of what was happening. It was evidence of a negotiation of how to talk about that. With your abuser. But I am looking at a transcript that says, he says, you start physical fights, and you say, I did start a physical fight. I can't promise you I won't get physical again. I mean, this is in black and white. I understand context. But you're testifying, and you're telling me today, I never started a physical fight, and here you are on tape saying you did. As I testified on the stand about this, is that when your life is at risk, not only will you take the blame for things, that you shouldn't take the blame for, but when you're in an abusive dynamic, psychologically, emotionally, and physically, you don't have the resources that, say, you or I do with the luxury of saying, hey, this is black and white, because it's anything but when you're living in it. But then there are other times, there's another tape where you're taunting him and saying, oh, tell the world, Johnny Depp, I, a man, am a victim of domestic violence. 20-second clips or the transcripts of them are not representative of even the two hours or the three hours that those clips are excerpt from. Could your side have just put the whole three hours in then? I'm not a lawyer. As I testified to, I was talking in those recordings as a person an extreme amount of emotional, psychological, and physical distress. All right, Greg, what do you got? So let me just start with some psychology up front. I'm not the guy who is always going to play psychologist, but let me tell you what stress psychology does to you. The first thing it does is under that kind of high duress, everything becomes about you. When you're standing in a formation and the bad guys come to get you, for example, in seer school, you're going, oh no, oh no, oh no, it's me, and then Chase is next to me, and they grab him and start doing stuff, and they go, even though I like the guy, because it's about me. Everything's about you when you're in that kind of duress. The second thing that happens is everything becomes black and white. Exactly the opposite of what she's saying, but she's doing some kind of conceptual speak here, and it's partially because it's her style. So I won't beat her up for that, but I do want you not to believe that. When you're under that kind of duress, everything becomes black and white. Well, at least he didn't kill me. At least he didn't break my jaw. At least he only knocked one tooth out. That's how that goes. That's how people's minds work because we're simple. This interviewer is aggressive. Let me say aggressive in a way that I read the comments, always people say I would panic if Greg walked in the room. This woman's pretty harsh. This interviewer is pretty harsh. She is putting pressure in a wonderful way and with subtlety. That smile, that toothy smile, and her face lighting up is putting real pressure on Amber Heard. If you don't believe it, watch the way she responds to that kind of pressure. I could tell you really quick, if you were being interrogated by Greg and you didn't know who he was, you wouldn't know that you're being interrogated. That's what I was trying to say to people. That's the job. That's the midway point. Then you would. It should be a conversation where you suddenly go, uh-oh, that was a mistake. That's the way it should work. But she's signaling dislike with that toothy smile and that is powerful. You see the brow start to come in on Amber Heard when Savannah starts to read her words because she's like, oh, how do I back out of this one? And then she goes, it's about a little bit of tape and it's all, you can't do black and white. And she goes, well, hold on a minute. Then why didn't you play three hours of tape? Uh, uh, uh, you hear her brain shift gears and she starts stammering and stuttering because she hadn't thought of that. And so there's a real stress moment. She steps in it. That's an interesting thing to watch because after that, her body shrinks. She rolls down in the chair. She does what we call turtling or I call it shrinking target, trying to get away from something. And then when the interviewer goes out of the second time, you can see there's this kind of glee in her face and her chin's up in defiance. There's a whole lot of subtlety going on here. There's a big dance going on between these two people. That's beautiful to watch. And she's putting real pressure without having to be the bad guy. Scott, what do you got? Mark, what do you got? Yeah. So yeah, look, if she is saying, hey, in an abusive relationship, you will do whatever you need to do. She's absolutely right. If that's what she's saying, that's absolutely accurate. If you are under extreme stress and pressure and abuse, you'll say whatever. You'll do whatever you have to do. We know that. It's absolutely true. And so she just needs to say that. That would be fine. What she does say is though, but look, this three-hour tape was cut. There was the context. It was leaked. It was displayed in front of everybody. She doesn't need to say any of that because we all understand you would say for three hours whatever you needed to say in order to get yourself in something of a better position of an awful situation. But she doesn't leave it at that. She puts all of that around it and so it doesn't ring true. And that's people's problem with her. There's elements in there which have an element of truth either because it could be true or she's read it somewhere or heard it from somebody else. And then around that, and as Chase has said many times, French braided into it, knitted into it, is other stuff that doesn't really make, doesn't ring true. And all of the time throughout this she does not say no to the idea that she started fights. Again, you could just say no. No, I never started a fight. She could. She could have, her lawyers could have admitted to evidence the full three hours of a tape. It's perfectly reasonable to do. Could have done that. They decided not to. Somebody decided not to show, not to give those three hours. Now I want you to notice throughout all of this we're starting to see the asymmetry in her face just increase and increase and increase. In the next one, we're going to see her most fully in asymmetry all the time. I would suggest that is because she is now in constant conflict in this interview. This is, as Greg was saying, it's a hard interview now for her and she's given so many ideas and so many stories and they're now colliding with each other that she's once again, she's not in a good place for herself. Now one last thing, which is again how she raises herself or detaches herself and demotes everybody else. She says you don't have the resources that say you and I do. So she's now talking about other people. When you're in abusive situation, you don't have the resources that say you and I do. Hang on, you were saying you were the person in the abusive relationship but now you've taken yourself out of it and you've put all of us, average people in that situation. You're saying we don't have these resources. She's taken this high resource ground and she's left everyone else in this abused and position of weakness essentially and given herself a massive status gain. There's a personality type that would most likely do that kind of thing. Constant demotion, demotion, demotion of everything around so that their status will stay high. Chase, what do you got on this one? Totally agree. Right at the beginning here, there's a huge eye flutter right when they're talking about the tapes being leaked and we know from watching her for, I don't know how many hours, it's probably embarrassed. I would be embarrassed if I figured out how many hours we've been doing this with her. But this shift, Mark, that Mark was just talking about to you is called a shift of a referential index. That's the official name of this thing as far as I know. And we're shift from eye to you and notice how she shifts the entire explanation. Not just that one thing, the whole thing away from her. Every time she's trying to get you to think that she's talking about her situation, she's using the word you. She's not talking about herself or this audio tape. She's talking about a random ethereal you. And again, makes no denial. Mark, like you've pointed out, I think she says psychologically, emotionally and physically. And physically, you can see it clear as day. The tone goes up. There's a longer pause before she says it. And most of all, there is a completely different facial expression on her face right at the moment she says physically. Take a look again. It's a little shocking. Talking in those recordings as a person, an extreme amount of emotional, psychological and physical distress. That's all I got. Greg. That's me. I meant for Greg to pass it to Scott. So I'm sorry that Greg didn't get that. I'm sorry. Scott. All right. Yeah, you guys pretty much got everything, but I'll go back to her illustrators again. Now, she is under pressure here. She's got her she's got her pinned. So when when she's explaining things, her hands are really low and everything's coming from like right just above her thighs, as she's explaining stuff, her illustrators. So again, going back to the studies that talk about the person being honest, is usually usually uses a lot of large illustrators, larger illustrators, and the person who's being deceptive most often uses the smaller ones. But doesn't mean she's being deceptive here, but it sure would make me question the veracity of what she's talking about at this point. You say you were responding, but there is evidence. There are tapes in which you acknowledge hitting. There are tapes in which you say, I started the fight. I know much has been made of these audio tapes. They were first leaked online after being edited. What you would hear in those clips are not evidence of what was happening. It was evidence of a negotiation of how to talk about that with your abuser. But I am looking at a transcript that says, he says you start physical fights and you say, I did start a physical fight. I can't promise you I won't get physical again. I mean, this is in black and white. I understand context, but you're testifying and you're telling me today, I never started a physical fight. And here you are on tape saying you did. As I testified on the stand about this, is that when your life is at risk, not only will you take the blame for things that you shouldn't take the blame for, but when you're in an abusive dynamic, psychologically, emotionally, and physically, you don't have the resources that say, you or I do with the luxury of saying, hey, this is black and white, because it's anything but when you're living in it. But then there are other times, there's another tape where you're taunting him and saying, oh, tell the world, Johnny Depp, I, a man, am a victim of domestic violence. Twenty-second clips or the transcripts of them are not representative of even the two hours or the three hours that those clips are excerpt from. Could your side have just put the whole three hours in then? I'm not a lawyer. As I testified to, I was talking in those recordings as a person an extreme amount of emotional, psychological, and physical distress. He says he never hit you, never. Is that a lie? Yes, it is. What about the witnesses who said they have seen you instigate physical violence? I've seen firsthand how people will file rank and support the person they depend on. Did they all come in and lie in court? I am not here to call any of his witnesses, any names. I'm here to just kind of talk about it from what it felt like for me as a person who sat there. When I asked his lawyers, why do you think you won? And the answer I got was because she never took responsibility for anything she did in the marriage. I did do and say horrible, regrettable things throughout my relationship. I behaved in horrible, almost unrecognizable to myself ways. I have so much regret. Freely and openly and voluntarily talked about what I did. I talked about the horrible language. I talked about being pushed to the extent where I didn't even know the difference between right and wrong. I will always continue to feel like I was a part of this, like I was the other half of this relationship because I was and it was ugly and could be very beautiful. It was very, very toxic. We were awful to each other. You know, I made a lot of a lot of mistakes, a lot of mistakes, but I've always told the truth. All right, Mark, what do you got? Yeah, on the yes it is, which is quite affirmative there. I do see bitter taste in the mouth, however. So I would question that a little bit. There's a little bit of poison in there. There's a little bit of bitterness in there. Look, as this interview has gone on, and especially in this one, I can't think where I've last seen so much asymmetry in the face without somebody having a viral infection, you know, palsy of some sort. It's massive, which makes me think she is now under a lot of pressure and a huge amount of internal conflict going on and doesn't have a lot of control. There's no repose there at all. So much regret, she says, which is great words to say, but I don't see any shame. There's so much, I have so much regret freely and openly and voluntarily. There, which I would expect if the regret were true and I don't see any anger on that because often with regret, you'll get anger which is turned inwards, which is kind of depression. Essentially, often when people are very regretful, they get depressed because they're so angry with what they've done and anger turned inwards is often a route to depression. So I see none of that there. So I'm not buying even the regret there. Huge turmoil going on here. Scott, what do you got on this one? I think mostly what we're seeing, I think that part of her mouth for contempt is just, it's almost a tick at this point. It just goes up, there's like Elvis just the whole time. It looks like a bitch she's doing at that point. That's all I'm going to have on that. Well, Chase, what do you got? If you guys see me mimicking the behaviors you're starting about, I do that like almost involuntarily. Like I want to replay it on my own body just to kind of see how it feels. And maybe you can try that out. But going through all my college and medical training, every time we'd come for symptoms, I would think that I had like, I'm like, oh, yeah, I think it. Oh, maybe I do have Parkinson's. I don't know. So I'd be going through that too. So maybe that's a bad thing. So right here, we're dodging a question with a hypothetical explanation is what we're seeing here. And it's, there's no answer really. And it's unwilling to say that these people are lying. If they're lying, it wouldn't feel guilty to call them liars. If they're telling lies, then people, truthful people will be comfortable saying that stuff. So we can see she is definitely under a lot of stress and pressure, as you would hear from Mark pretty regularly. She's unwilling to say that they're lying, but willing to say that Johnny is lying. And then wants to redirect right there. I think it's probably truthful that she was hit before, whatever that word means in her own mind. Because keep in mind, when we all hear the word hit, even us four here that you're watching on your screen right now, we all four have a different definition of that and what that really means. And right at what she did, which is kind of horrible language, and she says, it's pushed to the extent where there's a long pause and boom, someone else's fault. So what she did, she's talking about her actions. She's pushed to the extent where it's somebody else's fault. And she's saying, I used horrible language, which so basically all she's admitting to that she actually did is I used horrible language. And then all the other stuff was that was me being pushed to that extent. So that was somebody else owns that. And this is while she's trying to explain away her lack of accountability, which is fascinating. She's saying I was part of this. There's contempt again like Scott was just saying about. And then she says, but I've always told the truth. Stunning. Greg. Truth is a relative thing to some people. Facts are not truth. Truth is what they feel. And she says feel. So let's go down the list of things we see from her. First of all, the interviewer is very threatening now. She has her chin up in defiance, a big toothy smile and her eyes are lit up. If you can't read that and you're sitting across the table from her, you're lucky because you would feel the pressure. He says he never hit you. Is that a lie? This is the, if she spoke this way every time on the stand, people would have believed her. She says, yes, it is. And then she has a quick mouth close and nothing else. He says he never hit you. He never. Is that a lie? Yes, it is. Amber heard, by the way, people say I get checks all the time. That piece of advice is worth a boatload of money. When you go back to trial, you can send me a check. How's that? This is what you need to do. You need to respond in a seemingly truthful way every time you're asked a question. And it should be pretty simple, but it's out of baseline for her, for everything we've seen, because she would say, yes, it is because one time the dogs, she goes on and on and on. So she's hard to believe. And that's part of why people sitting across the audience are going, she's making too much eye contact. She's talking too much. And there's another one where she doesn't answer a question. And they ask her about whether these people are lying. And she goes, this is when I know she's prepared this. This is the parakeet floors moment of this interview. Parakeet floors, if you remember back when, she's sitting there and she's talking about parakeet floors. Somebody had written down, you slid across the parquet floors and she read it as parakeet. And so she said it that way. Here either her brain is scrambling or somebody has written people join rank and file to help out this guy. And she says file rank or something weird combination of that. I've seen firsthand how people will file rank and support the person they depend on. So it's again, she's prepared before she comes here. That in an interrogation, in a police interrogation, in a criminal interrogation, in an intelligence interrogation is often how we find people. Because diction or choice of words that you make in your daily life is pretty consistent. And if you use a word that doesn't fit, you either prepared it for me or you've read it somewhere. And so it's always a place I micro-interview and go, well, hang on, what are we talking about? File rank, hold on. Then she gets to this cadence around witnesses. Did the witnesses lie? And then she shifts gears from that to I feel. This is how I felt. I'll come in and lie in court. I am not here to call any of his witnesses any names. I'm here to just kind of talk about it from what it felt like for me as a person who sat there. Now we're back to her truth. Then she goes into this whole trying to assuage herself of whatever guilt she had in the relationship by she's going to confess to us publicly now. Why didn't we hear any of that stuff before? This makes her hard to like and hard to believe. By the way, keep your answers shorter when you go back to court and you'll do a lot better. He says he never hit you. Never. Is that a lie? Yes, it is. What about the witnesses who said they have seen you instigate physical violence? I've seen firsthand how people will file rank and support the person they depend on. Did they all come in and lie in court? I am not here to call any of his witnesses any names. I'm here to just kind of talk about it from what it felt like for me as a person who sat there. When I asked his lawyers, why do you think you won? And the answer I got was because she never took responsibility for anything she did in the marriage. I did do and say horrible regrettable things throughout my relation ship. I behaved in horrible, almost unrecognizable to myself ways. There's so much, I have so much regret. Freely and openly and voluntarily talked about what I did. I talked about the horrible language I talked about being pushed to the extent where I didn't even know the difference between, you know, right and wrong. I will always continue to feel like I was a part of this, like I was the other half of this relationship because I was. And it was ugly and could be very beautiful. It was very, very toxic. We were awful to each other. You know, I made a lot of mistakes, a lot of mistakes. But I've always told the truth. All right, well, let's throw it around the room and talk about what we think we saw during this. See if we can keep it 30 seconds or less. We'll start with Mark. Yeah, well, look, Hollywood loves a good comeback. You know, people love a good comeback, but I don't think this interview is it. I don't think this is going to have anything that we need for a comeback, for a resolution, for anything of the regret that will need to be shown in order to come back. Chase. It's everybody's fault. The government, social media, the people, it's every single other person's fault in her life. And what we're really seeing here is her desire to educate you, not tell you. She wants to educate you because you are unaware or ignorant of certain facts. So that's the reason that this all happens because you lack the education or the capacity, Greg. Yeah, look, she may be a wonderful person. Don't know a thing about her, but she's hard to like because of a series of things. Number one, the facial expressions. If you monkey your face when you're talking to people, they feel awkward when you're sitting across from a jury and when you look back and you do that, she's doing it all the time. She's facing this woman and that is not likable. Now, is there some truth in there? We said, you know, he said, she said stories somewhere in the middle is always the truth. We're not taking that story apart. We're looking at this interview and saying this interview is she believable in all these situations? She's attacked everybody but self, and then the end kind of throws you a lifesaver. Scott, what do you got? I think it's a great example of her trying to act again and showing the different expressions that she goes through. Just click, click, click through them. And she tries not, I don't think she's aware she's shown so much contempt and disdain in this because it's just overblown. It's just so much of it there at that point. But I think it's a great study. I think it's a great, literally a great study. And I'm going to use, as I know you guys will, to this some of these clips and training. So all right, fellas, I think this is a good one and we'll see you next time. Deal. Take care. Live and hate your pen. Mark, the other direction. Oh, look at that. I'm excited. There you go. No, the other direction. Behind her. Or that way. That way. Yeah. You know. Me too. You're good, Chase. Right where you are. What are we supposed to be doing just this? Yeah. I'm going to go like this. I'm going to go. Right. Like that. Up at this corner. Like we want the top corner of our box. Yeah. Me and Greg want the bottom corner of ours. Yeah. So we look at it. So come closer. It's a little bit closer, Chase. A little bit closer, Greg. And we just want faces not hands. I can't get any closer than that. Yeah, just go. I just can't do all these. You know. Yeah. You ready? So, yeah, but Greg, you look down the corner. Yeah. Yeah, there you go. Okay. You ready? Here we go. Hey, Elk. Hey, Elk.