Thread by @nickwallis

Good morning. It’s Thursday 16 July and we’re back at the Royal Courts of Justice for Day 7 of the Johnny Depp v NGN libel trial. He is suing the publisher of the The Sun newspaper for libel after it claimed he was a “wife-beater”

First off my apologies for managing to change not one but two names in last night’s thread about Kate JAMES’ evidence. I managed to spend a couple of tweets calling her Kate Jones. And I also started off calling Johhny Depp’s barrister Robert Sherborne. He is, of course, David...

… Sherborne.

Everything else in that tweet thread was accurated tho as it was copied and pasted from the transcript.

The news from the Press Association about today’s schedule is as follows (this was sent last night):

“On Thursday in the trial of Johnny Depp's libel claim against The Sun, the timetable is subject to confirmation but the court is expected to hear evidence from Sean Bett, Mr Depp’s head of security, Vanessa Paradis, Mr Depp’s former partner, Starling Jenkins and Alejandro Romero

respectively a security guard and concierge at the Eastern Columbia Buildings (where the couple lived in LA). All witnesses except for Sean Bett will appear over a video link.

The lawyers said at the end of Wednesday’s session that Thursday’s timetable will not be confirmed until the morning.”

Looks like we’re not getting any Winona. Todays anyway.

The action, as ever, is happening in court 13 - the principal court for the purposes of this trial.
Proceedings are due to start today at 10am BST. I will be live-tweeting throughout the day from the reporters court (38) which is connected by videolink.

Usual reminder that I cannot record video, audio or take any pictures whilst anywhere in the court or court precincts. It is a potential criminal offence to do so.

With regard to the live-tweeting I have a legal and professional responsibility to be “contemporaneous, accurate and fair”. I can’t speculate or answer any questions as to how I think it might be going for either party.

Also - what I am writing is a summary of what is being said in court. I am paraphrasing the exchanges in order to keep up with people as they talk. Nothing is a direct quote unless it is in “direct quotes”.

For direct quotes you will need to read the transcripts which I am now posting each evening after proceedings have finished. You can read the first seven days here: nickwallis.com/depp-trial plus witness statements.

I am reporting this trial on a day-by-day basis depending on my other commitments and the general affordability of doing so. My work is entirely crowdfunded and there is a tip jar pinned to the top of my twitter feed. Thanks so much if you have made a contribution.

Please feel free to continue to do so, but please don’t go overboard unless you’re fabulously wealthy. If this is like reading a novel or a daily newspaper, think what you’d be prepared to pay for that.

Please also don’t make donations “for the week” as I am only doing this day-by day and may have to split soon - I have a big commitment coming up which I can’t put off forever.

If you can’t get the payment portal to work I have a paypal me account: paypal.me/nickjwallis

I am now getting more 1000 replies a day and my DMs are stuffed. Whilst this is obviously amazing please accept my apologies if I simply don’t have time to respond. I am grateful to everyone for getting in touch.

Right now there are 14 other journalists with me in court 38 awaiting proceedings to begin in 10 mins.

Lunch is, as yet, undecided.

It’s also my 15th wedding anniversary today. Where better to spend it than in court watching the multimillion pound fallout from an extraordinary marriage. It was a lot hotter here in England 15 years ago. Today is a bit grey.

Things that have gone wrong already: I called it day 7 and it’s day 8 and I forgot to post some pictures from outside court.

So welcome to Day 8 of the Depp v NGN libel trial. Here is a picture of a man with a camera on a pole on a traffic island.

And here’s a quick spin around...

We are underway - there is legal argument about the details of the divorce settlement that Edward White did or did not offer to provide to the court. AH got $7m we know + $525,000 costs plus “many millions” of liabilities wiped out.
Sasha Wass (QC) also asking for earnings...

… during the period they were married.

The back and forths are taking some time...

Johnny Depp (JD) is sitting on his own in the back of court 13 in a light grey (?) suit with his glasses on. I hesitate on the colours given the contrast on these cameras.

We’re going into scheduling.

Vanessa Paradis and Winona Ryder will not be called to give evidence.

Because JD’s assertion he has never hit a woman was only tested by the defence with regard to Amber Heard - therefore there is no need to call them to testify.

First in the witness box today Sean Bett.

Sean Bett is here in London. He has an American accent, he is wearing a plain dark suit (inc a matching waistcoat), white shirt and light patterned tie, with a pocket kerchief. He has closely cropped hair and I would say is probably in his 50s.
He worked in the LA county...

sheriff’s department in the 90s.

David Sherborne is taking him through some minor corrections in his witness statement.

Sasha Wass (QC) on her feet.
QC you’ve worked in security for 17 years…
SB yes
QC and JD for 14 years
SB yes
QC and you worked for the LAPD
SB that’s incorrect. I worked in the LA county sheriff’s department.
QC you’re absolutely right

QC and presumably as an officer you had to make statements and give evidence
SB yes ma’am - that’s correct
QC and you had to give evidence accurately
SB based on recollection
QC and you were trained to do this
SB correct
QC and you know the difference between first hand...

… evidence, hearsay and tittle-tattle
SB I don’t know what tittle-tattle is
QC explains - multiple hearsay
SB I understand
QC your job for JD was security and his driver
SB yes
QC and you would provide security for AH and JD when they were together, but not AH when she was on..

… her own
SB no occasionally I would look after AH
QC how many times
SB 2 - 5 times I would presume
QC over a period of 4 years
SB yes
QC and was she polite
SB yes
QC your job was not to transport her
SB occasionally I would
QC how often
SB maybe 15 - 20 times
QC was she polite

SB yes
QC you had to stay in the background, you weren’t part of the family - you didn’t eat meals with them
SB I did
QC infrequently
SB no lots of times on trips
QC and in the US it was rare for you to go in their properties
SB no I’ve been inside many times

QC but when you were in LA you would drive him, you would park the car, travel with him in the lift and leave him at the door
SB no we would go inside and check what was needed
QC do you know what I mean by the guard shack
SB yes it was where security personnel stayed at the...

… Sweetzer Avenue address where we could look at the CCTV and monitor the property and the street
QC and there was a place at the ECB - what was that called
SB we used to call it the cubby hole, supply room, storage area - we being the guards
QC and if JD wanted to be left...

… alone that’s where you would stay
SB correct
QC it was actually part of PH5 (pentouse 5 in the Eastern Colombia Building)
SB yes
QC you say AH never told you JD had hit her
SB correct
QC the nature of your relationship was that there was no confidentiality between you...

… and AH - it would have been completely inappropriate
SB what do you mean confidentiality
QC you were the employee of the husband who was hitting her - isn’t it no surprise she didn’t tell you anything
SB no I would say it would be normal
QC AH had no reason to confide in you

SB correct. but she did
QC on 21 May
SB not necessarily on that day
QC when
SB I would take her home after an argument many times with JD and he didn’t want her to drive upset so she would talk to me on the way home saying she didn’t want to argue
QC there were lots of arguments

QC but you were never there throughout
SB no but there were plenty of times when she seemed to start an argument
QC but you were not party to the background to these arguments. You came in at the end
SB on many of them I had
QC majority - not all
SB majority, yes

QC you also said AH behaved badly when she had been drinking
Did you see AH drinking
SB on many occasions
QC JD
SB yes
QC did you see him drunk
SB I saw him intoxicated - what’s drunk
QC aggressive and incapable
SB no
QC did you see him drink red wine in the morning - a pint?

SB I’ve seen him drink glasses of wine in the morning after being up all night
QC large glasses
[there’s a discussion about metric and imperial sizes]
QC ever seen him smash anything
SB I’ve seen a video on TMZ where he appears to be smashing cupboard doors or something

[this has thankfully spared us seeing the cupboard-smashing video again]
[we go to the AH 30th birthday incident]
QC you were asked to take JD away from PH3 after the argument in the apartment after that birthday dinner
SB I did
QC did you take him to Sweetzer Avenue?
SB I did

Judge intervenes - other than the ECB and SA properties did JD own or control any others in LA
SB I believe the *********** property where his children and Vanessa Paradis reside.

Judge - did you ever drive him there
SB no
QC so after that incident you drove JD home to SA address.
SB correct
QC and in support of that you say you took him to the party and then you took him to SA and he told me that AH had punched him causing him to sustain an injury

QC which you took a picture of
SB correct
QC and you put it in your evidence
SB yes
QC and being an officer of the law with your training you would check to make sure it was the right picture
SB i thought it was, but it was an oversight.
[we are going to a file]

QC this is the photo you appended to your WS which you said was taken on 21 April 2016.
Judge - is that the one
SB yes this is the one I attached yes
QC it was not a screenshot
SB I was sent this photo by one of JD’s attorneys and it looked awful similar to the one I took

QC was his name Adam Waldman by any chance
SB it was yes
QC so AW sent you this photo with your WS
SB he sent me this photo and asked if I recollected it and my answer was I do remember taking that photo.

… which now I know was not the one I took, but awful similar
QC that was taken on your phone
SB or JD’s phone
QC if it was taken on your phone there would have been no need for AW to send you the exhibit would there
SB I’ve been through 3 or 4 phones since that time so I had...

… a look, but couldn’t find it, so I assumed I must have took it on JD’s phone and that the one that AW sent me I thought was correct
QC so if you took a photo that night - you now can’t find it
SB correct
QC so when did you become aware that photo was completely wrong?

SB a few days ago - when I saw the timestamp
QC why has it only come into the public domain today
SB i noticed it a few days ago and contact JD’s attorney
QC so you were sent this a few days/ a week ago and you would have seen the date was 23 March when AH admits she punched...

… JD in defence of her sister
SB I don’t know anything about that
QC but this is quite a serious error isn’t it
SB I would say so
QC it is the only photo that has emerged of any injury of this kind to JD and you tried to use it to back up your witness evidence

SB I took many photos of his injuries and I couldn’t find the one regarding this incident
Judge - you;’re being asked about this photo
SB it looked very similar to the photo I took
QC but as things stand there is no photographic evidence of the injury allegedly sustained by JD

… on that evening
SB no ma’am as yet
[we go to the May 2016 incident when JD went to the ECB to pick up some personal belongings]
QC you didn’t go into PH3 with them
SB we did
QC you say when you arrived you say you saw candles and an open bottle of wine
SB yes
QC but you...

… didn’t go into the flat
SB yes we did
QC there were no candles
SB there were
QC no you saw a bottle of wine when JD was there
SB no there were candles, an open bottle of wine, music was playing low
QC we agree to disagree. once JD had settled you went outside
SB yes
QC to PH4

SB we did
QC and then back to the shack
SB no we went to stand outside the flat
QC were you expecting an argument
SB from AH, yes
QC did JD say there was going to be an argument
SB no
QC why did you not go back to the guards shack
SB because we thought there was a danger there...

… might be an argument.
QC why not go back to the shack - you might be outside that door for hours
SB we’re used to that
QC and you say you were there for 10 mins
SB give or take
QC you arrived at 7pm and left in the lift with JD at 8.30pm
SB I don;’t know the exact times but...

… we weren’t there an hour and a half
QC want makes you so sure
SB could have been 20 or 30 minutes
QC sure?
SB yes
QC think you could be wrong?
SB no I’m not wrong
[we go to CCTV]

Judge - Ms Wass is the point of showing this clip to the witness to show the time of the recording
QC yes
Judge - DS is there a dispute about the time of the recording?
[DS confers]
DS no I can’t dispute what’s on the recording, that doesn’t mean I accept that’s the right time.

Judge - what does it say on the screen? [his eyes aren’t great]
DS 21 May 2016 19:02 - we don’t accept that is necessarily the right time given the timings on the CCTV can be out after a certain period
Judge - yes but now I don’t need to squint
QC you are going to show you...

QC I am going to show you you arriving and you leaving. Let’s start at 19:02 [the lift camera shows them walking in - Jerry Judge, JD and SB]

[we go to the next bit of VT from the same camera - with JD and JJ and SB coming back into the lift]
DS it is 20:29 - 8.29 in th evening
Judge - thank you DS
QC do you agree there is a 90 minute interval between you arriving and leaving
SB looking at the screen yes

QC so your estimate is incorrect
SB slightly off
QC you said 20 minutes 30 minutes - you were there an hour and half
SB okay
QC does this surprise you that you were that far wrong
SB it was a long time ago
QC but its in your statement
SB based on recollection

QC well - your recollection was wrong. You had been in the ECB an hour before you went into the apartment - Rocky Pennington was there
SB yes
QC AH was sitting, crying and upset
SB she was standing
QC was she crying
SB I don’t know she was agitated and upset
QC and she said

QC “if he hits me one more time, I’m going to call the cops”
Judge - did she say that?
SB words to that effect
QC and you say she was unmarked. Are those your words
SB yes
QC not written by Mr Waldman
SB it was dictated to him by me
QC you are certain there was no injury

SB correct
QC you told me you were 20 feet away and couldn’t see if she was crying
SB it’s hard to see a tear, but an injury is different
QC maybe if there was a bleeding wound, but if there was a slap or a punch it would be hard to see
SB no there would be redness

QC how long were you looking at her
SB all the time I was in there
QC really
SB she was shouting at the top of her lungs
QC and you didn’t see anything
SB no
QC you are lying about not seeing anything
SB no ma’am I’m telling the truth - you can call me a liar a hundred times...

Judge - well SB, QC is here to put the case of her clients. All I am interested in is your answer. Is her case correct?
SB it is not
QC and JD was extremely agitated when you left in the lift
SB he was
QC and you didn’t leave the building. He went into PH5 and started throwing...

… beads around.
SB he didn’t throw anything around
QC there was another woman and Josh Drew
SB yes and a dog
QC and Mr Depp was threatening JD and the woman
SB that’s not true - JD told JD and the female to get out of his apartment
Judge - but not threaten them
SB no sir

QC and he threw a bottle of wine which smashed on the wall
SB there was no throwing or smashing
QC did you see any damage
SB I didn’t
QC you knew the police had been called that night
SB I did
QC how did you find that out
SB the estate manager at the time Kevin Murphy sent me a..

… text.
QC and you found out the names of the officers who attending
SB not till the deposition was made public
QC we’ve heard there’s no way the public would have access to the names of the officers who attended that night.

SB correct
QC how was the ID of the officers released to the Depp team in order to depose those two officers
SB I have no idea
QC it was hve to be someone on the inside
SB absolutely not
QC everything is logged - if someone went into the station and asked who responded...

…. the station commander could release it.
(sorry that was SB)
QC could release it
SB yes if they had a deposition or were involved in a litigation or they were involved themselves
QC you would need a court order
SB correct
QC do you know of any applications for a court order...

SB no
QC and you say you didn’t do it
SB no
QC despite your connections with LAPD
Judge - if you are going to ask him if he did it
QC I can’t. I am only saying he has the means
Judge - then SB doesn’t need to answer that

[we go to a file]
[I’m starving]

[we go to LA times piece 2nd Nov 2012 - a prof can seek damages from JD in concert scuffle… a professor - Robin A Eckhert says she was roughed up by JD’s bodyguards at an Iggy and the Stooges album last December - JD’s guards bear-hugged her and tried to take her phone...

… she was dragged through the VIP area and was dropped to the phone. At some stage during the proceedings the guards tried to pretend they were police, showed her handcuffs and pretended to arrest her draggin her 40 feet]
QC does this sound familiar?
SB it does but it’s not...

… factually accurate.
[we go to a legal statement]
QC you see Marty Singer’s name?
SB I do
QC do you know who he is
SB I know the name
QC he was JD’s lawyer
SB at the time
QC and after
SB but not now
QC no - he’s nothing to do with this case

16 April 2012 - claim filed...

… and amended to add the name - Joshua Sean Bett. Is that you.
SB it is
QC okay lets go to the section headed “facts common to all counts”
SB I see it
QC later after the band started playing JD, security gurads and others arrived to the VIP area - one of them was you
SB correct

QC she describes 2 people Security Guard 1 and 2. She says SG2 attached handcuffs to Doe and SG1 grabbed her arm. Both forced Doe into handcuffs then SG1, 2 and 3 dragged her through the theatre.
QC how many guards were there?
SB just two
QC were you one with handcuffs?

SB no
QC you worked at the sheriff’s office - did you say you were a police officer?
SB no
QC Doe’s hands were yanked up, and her pants were removed from torso and hips exposing her buttocks
Judge - where is this going?
QC SB said JD was never involved in violence against women

DS oh come on this is ridiculous
Judge - how am I helped by investigating this completely separate incident
QC I want to ask if he agrees with the description
Judge can we get to the question then
[DS strenuously objecting to all this]

[DS this is a stunt - he explains why]
Judge says ask if the allegations of the complainant are true, but if you wanted to suggest JD was involved, you had your chance.
QC may I ...
Judge no let’s get on with it
QC do you agree you were involved in violence against a woman...

… as JD’s bodyguard…
SB no - and it was proven in corroborating evidence
QC there was a settlement
SB yes
QC this is not the only time - there is the litigation against JD by Rocky Brooks - which DS has just reminded me of
SB that’s ongoing

[no further question from QC]
[DS is on his feet]
DS during that incident - was JD on his own or with his children
SB with his children
[we go back to SB’s contact with AH and JD]
DS you say you were with them 5 - 7 days a week
SB yes
DS did you see them frequently
SB frequently

… it depends on the day and what they were doing
DS you said AH confided in you
SB yes
DS and you described how JD wanted to make sure AH got home safely after an argument.
SB yes
DS you said she was crying sometimes. Did she ever say he’d hit her
SB no
DS been violent
SB no

DS that she was afraid of him
SB no
DS did you ever see any marks or bruising
SB I didn’t
DS you explained your mistake over the photo. In terms of what you saw - you say you saw injuries very similar to the ones in the photo March 2015

SB yes
DS and in that she accepts she hit him (ie the March 2015 time in defending her sister) - did you ever see any other marks on JD
SB yes once more in December 2015
[we go to a file]

[it is a photo of JD - we can’t see it]
SB I took this photo on 15 Dec 2015
DS is that IMG20151215 on the top
SB yes - when I saw this photo it depicts an injury on the top of his nose and it’s a photo I took on my personal cellphone
[we go to a new photo]
DS what can we see

SB you can see what appers to be slight redness and 1 and a half to 2 inch vertical scratch and you can see slight redness next to it
DS is that round the eye
SB that’s correct sir

DS and this other photo of the same time
BS scratch on his nose and redness on his cheek
Judge - do you know the cause of these injuries
SB "Mr Depp told me Ms Heard had slapped him roundd the face a few times"

[we are going to SB’s WS]
DS how many years. did you work in the LA SD
SB 13 years
DS did you get many calls related to DV
SB indeed I did
DS you say you didn’t see any bruising to AH’s face or body.
SB not at all
DS It was put to you that’ you’re lying for JS
SB that’s incorrect

DS you say that JD was upset at having been accused of hitting AH
SB he was
DS had you seen him in this state before
SB no
[this is the going to get personal effects incident at the ECB]
[no further questions]

[court rises - 10 minute break]

The photo SB got wrong in his witness statement.

Just to recap - no Winona or Vanessa oral avidence as the NGN case is that JD hit AH - not anyone else. Therefore WR and VP not required to be cross-examined. That’s agreed between parties.
So their written evidence will not be challenged by NGN.

I was too hungry to photograph my lunch. It will remain a mystery, like a tree falling in a forest.

The break is taking rather longer than 10 mins as there is either a problem with the videolink or the next witness who is finishing a night shift in LA and may not be around yet.

I have made a mistake and need to correct a tweet I sent about Winona Ryder and Vanessa Paradis. I have received an email from solicitors acting for NGN. It reads as follows:

"Your tweet just now at 12.10 Is inaccurate. Paradis and Ryder have been abandoned as witnesses by Mr Depp.

Their evidence is NOT agreed by NGN and had they attended would have been cross examined by us….

…

To avoid confusion I suggest you amend the tweet. We will raise this issue in court but thought it best you should know this to ensure fair and accurate reporting of the case.”

I am happy to correct my tweet in this way and would ask if you retweeted my initial tweet...

… you do the same with the above.

I would also like to apologise to SMaB and their clients NGN.

[This is now being discussed in court - not my tweets, but a request for clarification from the Press Association on the status of Winona Ryder and Vanessa Paradis’ witness statements and whether they can be released to the media]

DS for Depp in court now saying they haven’t abandoned WR and VP as witnesses, they are just not calling them.

I’m confused.

The Authorities are being consulted on whether or not to release the WR and VP witness statements.
DS says team Depp entirely neutral on this issue.

DS the defendant didn’t want these statements introduced
Judge - but changed their position so I didn’t have to make a ruling.
DS yes and now I’ve said what I’ve said about the way the case has been put by the defence.
Judge - has just asked @samiotobin for the press association

@samiotobin … to address the court. He has legged it out of court 38

Sasha Wass QC is saying she WOULD wish to cross-examine WR and VP if called.

DS appears to say there is no xe that could be had of WR and VP

@samiotobin Here we go @samiotobin has made it to court 13 and been welcomed to the court 38 by the judge.

judge says - @samiotobin wants WR and VP witness statements to release to the media and now Mr Depp has chosen not to call them there is some debate as to whether he can have them.

Welcomed into court (ignore the 38 - he’s just come from there - sorry my brain is still scrambled by the status or WR and VP)

[DS seemed to be claiming they weren’t abandoned but NGN solicitors very clear they have been and they would xe their statements if they were called]

Let’s move on. @samiotobin making the point that even tho WR and VP are now not being called, their statements have been referred to in earlier hearings and therefore have been put before the court and therefore could be released.
Both Depp and NGN counsel say they are...

@samiotobin … neutral in this matter.

Ms Wass has nothing to say - other than they would have liked to cross-examine the witnesses. But nothing about the application.

DS there is no basis for Ms Wass to Cross-examine the witnesses as she did not put it to Mr Depp...

@samiotobin … so there is no permissible way for her to do that.

Judge now deciding whether or not the Press Association can receive the WR and VP WS’s.

Judge is going to release the witness statements of Winona Ryder and Vanessa Paradis in full to the Press Association with the explanation that the witnesses were not called, and WSs are being released only because they were part-quoted from on a previous occasion.

[Judge rises for the short adjournment.]
[@samiotobin returns to court 38 and gets a round of applause from assembled hacks]

A reminder that all my work is crowdfunded and quite hairy sometimes. If you could possibly make a small donation I would be most grateful. We return in 59 minutes.
store29806256.company.site

VP WS - (herogramme to @samiotobin):

6 March 2020
I, VANESSA CHANTAL PARADIS of Paris,
France, will say as follows:
1. I work as a musician, singer-songwriter, actress, and fashion model.

2. I confirm that save where otherwise appears the facts stated in this witness statement are within my own knowledge and that those facts are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Where facts are not within my own knowledge, I confirm that they are true to the best of my

information and belief and the source of that information is set out.

3. I make this witness statement in support of the Claimant’s claim in these proceedings.

4. I do not know the full details of the Claimant's claims against the Defendants in these proceeding

5. I have known Johnny for more than 25 years. We’ve been partners for 14 years and we raised our two children together. Through all these years I’ve known Johnny to be a kind, attentive, generous, and non-violent person and father.

6. On movie sets the actors, directors and entire crews adore him because he is humble and respectful to everyone, as well as being one of the best actors we’ve seen.

7. I am aware of the allegations which Amber Heard has publicly accused Johnny of for more than 4 years now. This is nothing like the true Johnny I have known, and from my personal experience of many years, I can say he was never violent or abusive to me.

8. I have seen that these outrageous statements have been really distressing, and also caused damage to his career because unfortunately people have gone on believing these false facts.

9. This is so upsetting as he has helped so many persons in his personal and professional life, with kindness and generosity.

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
Signed
VANESSA CHANTAL PARADIS

And Ms Ryder:

I, WINONA RYDER of Los Angeles, CA, USA, will say as follows:

1. I work as an actor under the professional name of Winona Ryder.

2. I confirm that save where otherwise appears the facts stated in this witness statement are within my own knowledge and that those facts are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Where facts are not within my own knowledge, I confirm that they are true to the best of my information and belief and the source of that information is set out.

3. I make this witness statement in support of the Claimant's claim in these proceedings.

4. I do not know the full details of the Claimant's claims against the Defendants in these proceedings.

5. I am aware of the violence allegations that have been made publicly for the last few years by Johnny Depp's ex-wife Amber Heard.

6. I knew Johnny very well years ago. We were together as a couple for four years, and I counted him as my best friend, and as close to me as family.

… I count our relationship as one of the more significant relationships of my life.

7. I understand that it is very important that I speak from my own experience, as I obviously was not there during his marriage to Amber, but, from my experience, which was so wildly different, I was absolutely

…. shocked, confused and upset when I heard the accusations against him. The idea that he is an incredibly violent person is the farthest thing from the Johnny I knew and loved.

… I cannot wrap my head around these accusations. He was never, never violent towards me. He was never, never abusive at all towards me. ...

…. He has never been violent or abusive towards anybody I have seen. I truly and honestly only know him as a really good man - an incredibly loving ...

…. extremely caring guy who was so very protective of me and the people that he loves, and I felt so very, very safe with him.

8. I do not want to call anyone a liar but from my experience of Johnny, it is impossible to believe that such horrific allegations are true. I find it extremely upsetting knowing him as I do.

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

WINONA RYDER
8 March 2020

ENDS

Court is in session.
Starling Jenkins is in the LA witness box beamed into court 13 via videolink. He is being sworn in.

There is an horrendous echo on the line. I can guarantee this will cause problems.

The echo is as loud as the “original” words being spoken, and comes in a second after it. So if Mr Jenkins says more than 3 words we’ll lose them.

QC you’ve worked for Mr Depp for 27 yers
SJ yes
QC you made a statement this year about events of 2016
SJ yes
[we go to 21 April 2016 - the AH 30th birthday incident]
QC di your shift that night end at about 11pm
SJ yes
QC the next day you spent some time trying to find JD’s

… phone
SJ 3.5 hours ma’am
QC and it was AH’s phone as well as JD’s
SJ negative
QC the next day you drove AH and some friends to Coachella
SJ yes
QC and the party spent the weekend at the festival
SJ yes
QC were they drinking?
SJ yes
QC you joined them or were you apart

SJ I was working ma’am
QC and you say you saw AH throw up in the parking lot
SJ yes
QC and she asked for ginger ale and crackers
SJ ginger ale, crackers, pedialyte and gatorade

QC you remember all this very closely - the festival, the drinking etc - but it was not AH who was sick it was Whitney Heard
SJ no it was Amber Heard - I know the difference between the two sisters
QC presumably the person vomiting had their face away from you
SJ Ms Heard...

… was vomiting
QC you saw a blonde woman vomiting and you saw the back of her head
SJ she was away from me, but she was wearing the same dress as AH
[no further questions’
[DS on his feet for Depp]
DS you say AH asked for ginger ale, crackers, pedialyte… what is pedialyte?

SJ it is a drink which will rehydrate you quicker than gatorade or water
DS are you in any way confused as to the difference between Ms Whitney Heard and Ms Amber Heard
SJ no
DS have you any doubt at all that the person throwing up in the car park was AH
SJ no doubt whatsoever

DS when you were at Coachella did you stay with the group or well away
SJ I was shadowing the group
[DS asks if he can ask a question which QC put to JD re SJ taking JD to the set of the Keith Richards documentary. Can I ask him 2 questions on this?]

Judge - what date was this
DS in dispute - 20 - 22 March 2013 - but it was only one trip

[Judge won’t let him]
[DS wants to ask if SJ saw JD hang a dog out of the window]
[Judge won’t let him]
[DS takes SJ to a photo instead.]

It is a photo taken by SJ on 23 April 2016 -
DS this is Coachella - which one in the photo is Amber Heard?
SJ [straight away] Right in the middle - wearing the white dress
[we can’t see the photo]
[no further questions]
Judge thanks him
SJ no problem your honour

DS asking to adjourn to tomorrow morning to start with Mr Baruch who was previously unwell.

Judge asks if there’s any legal argument to raise
[neiher of them do]
Judge can I say something to the two of you. I have 13 lever arch files of paper. Quite a few have been referred to in the course of evidnce and when I come to consider my judgement I will of course look...

… back at them. But what about all the others?

I will look at all 12, 13 volumes of paper if you want me to, but I wonder if there might be

DS my Lord the vast majority of documents have been put in by the defendants, as far as we are concerned - WS - docs within, Opening...

… statements and skeleton arguments. Obviously we haven;’t heard AH”s all important evidence, but I sincerely hope we can limit the documents your lordship will have to look at given the volume of information that hasn’t yet been referred to
Judge so do I record that...

… you want me to look only at docs that have been referred to
DS can I reflect on that
Judge - of course - I just want to make use of the time this afternoon.
Judge - you want Monday and Tuesday of Week 4 as to when submissions will be made
[so we will overrun]

Judge - can I have a reference in a written closing submission - ie the documentation you are relying on for your various points
DS yes
Judge I am not insisting… but I would find it helpful. The point about submissions is that they draw on the evidence from the trial...

QC we would invite my Lord to limit yourself to the docs referred to in the closing submissions and we will invite the court to review a number of documents in the submissions and also docs around what we will call critical dates and we’ll provide chronology with refs in respect

… of those dates.

We would invite my Lord to be guided by the submissions of the defendant.

Judge - good. that is helpful. thank you. What I had in mind in particular there are references to text schedules which encompass rather a lot of text messages… if you want me to look

… at particular texts I will, but ploughing through a naked schedule will be quite a lot of work and if you both consider I can limit myself to evidence in closing submissions or the evidence as we’ve gone along that would be helpful
QC we can certainly offer that comfort to the

court.
[Judge is happy. Court adjourns for the day. Early bath!]

No Amber Heard tomorrow I’m afraid - we’re running a day behind.

Tomorrow’s witnesses will probably be:
Isaac Baruch - artist and friend of JD
Travis McGivern - building manager
Katherine Kendall - actor and #MeToo advocate

Well I don’t quite know what to do with myself...

I’ll definitely be back tomorrow, I’ll definitely put up today’s transcript as soon as I get it (which may be a little earlier) and I’ll get the Witness statements from today up here too:

nickwallis.com/depp-trial

By the way - let me know if you can open Hilda Vargas’...

… witness statement. I’ve had awful trouble with it.

And thanks for the kind tweets and comments.

And apologies again to NGN for incorrectly stating their position.