Trial shocker: Amber Heard abuse expert never met Johnny Depp | LiveNOW from FOX

okay good morning good morning okay interrogation thank you john good morning dr hughes I'm wayne dennis and we don't know each other no good morning good morning you testified yesterday you should pay special attention to gender stereotypes, that's correct uh, when you talk about internal violence As a couple you have to pay attention to the gender ethos and during your testimony, in fact, you paid attention to gender stereotypes, right, I'm not sure what you mean, well, you said we were going to have to pay. Attention to gender stereotypes and then testified extensively where he made reference to both men and women.

He paid attention to those stereotypes during the course of his testimony. Please correct what I was saying: You need to pay attention to gender stereotypes when doing these assessments. You can't assume all the time that the man is the perpetrator and the woman is the victim. You have to go into the evaluation understanding that the man could also be a victim of intimate partner violence; In fact, you are aware that there are big differences. The scale studies that say that intimate partner violence against men exists, of course, is fine, and every time yesterday you referred to the characteristic of a victim of intimate partner violence, you used the pronouns she or her, right?

I was using the pronouns she and her. in this case, because my determination was, like I said, that the lady

heard

was a victim of intimate partner violence, that's why I was using the pronoun she, you, infected women get into relationships for all the right reasons, that's what you said women get into. the relationship for all the right reasons and then you say that it is difficult for her to get the victim to release more and she goes on to say that she can and should over and over again, she is right. I think in this case I did it because I was referencing this case where I discovered that I mis

heard

being a victim of intimate partner violence, that doesn't mean men don't get into relationships for all the right reasons too.

I think they do it almost every time you reference the ipv perpetrator you use, you hear it. I respond and it goes back to the same reasoning as I am describing my understanding and my assessment on this matter, of course, men can be perpetrators and victims of intimate partner violence, which is well established in research and in my clinical practice. like Well, isn't the reason you used the pronouns you did because you're almost always testifying on behalf of a woman? That is not right. You don't even remember the last time you testified on behalf of a man.

Well I do not. put her to the test but testify on behalf of someone I testify about the results of my evaluation I frequently treat and evaluate male victims of childhood sexual

abuse

who are entering treatment for

abuse

by their boy scout leader for their cat with a trainer for their teacher for a trusted adult I see them in therapy I see them in forensic matters in criminal cases so I treat and evaluate men all the time I didn't ask you about the treatment I asked you about the testimony you spoke up you broke your practice between treatment and testimony I'm not asking about the treatment When was the last time you testified on behalf of a man?

I recently testified at a deposition on behalf of a man who was traumatized because he was wrongly convicted at the time of his deposition six weeks ago. He could not. Remember just one time you testified on behalf of a man. I testified in my deposition that I testified in a case of a man who was wrongfully convicted for about 20 years and suffered a physical and sexual alliance in prison and I detailed the traumatic effects of that. What happened to that gentleman okay, why don't we take a look at his deficit? okay, thank you, yes, thank you, okay, transcript of the statement that you gave on March 28, 2022, right, yes, okay, let's go to page 77. let's see page 70 comes to eight, so no can't remember a single case where I have been retained by the attorney representing mail in an ipv matter right in an ipv matter not in a trauma matter or a child sexual abuse matter okay so that's the distinction that you Never remember testifying on behalf of a man in an IPV matter, as I said yesterday.

The first case I testified in was not a same-sex dating violence case in which the man was the victim of Another man, I routinely treat and evaluate same-sex couples if the woman may be the perpetrator of another woman. and the man can be the perpetrator or the victim of his partner, so let me get this straight: you testified in a case where a man is alleged to have engaged in an ipv against another man right, that's fine, but that's the only the one you're with, is the only one you remember, remember, no, I've done this often, as you well know, most cases don't go to

trial

.

I worked on hundreds and hundreds of cases. You have limited yourself to testimonies. Many cases do not go to

trial

, but I have issued reports and worked on many same-sex intimate partner violence cases where men are the victims, but I asked you. about the testimony and I limited your question to the testimony and the only testimony you remember is that they are both the same sex cup, there were several same sex couples, I think I tried, they testified in court at the trial, I think so, they all . true, but you didn't remember that in March, I did remember that in March, okay, you're a professional witness, right, that's not right, no, you make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year testifying in court, right, not testifying in the court.

I thoroughly conduct comprehensive psychological evaluations of people who are involved in a court case, most of those cases

never

appear in a courtroom and half of my practice and half of my income is related to my clinical work with people who come to me to receive therapy. I don't ask him about the other half of his income. I ask him if he made hundreds of thousands of dollars a year testifying as an

expert

witness in court. While you ask that question, that is not correct. That would be the amount of income I generate from my forensic practice I testify maybe once or twice a year, the best thing is that most of the work is done behind the scenes, evaluating people and issuing reports, but you will agree with me that a big part of that practice is providing

expert

witness testimony that's not right no, that's not a big part of your practice if I testify twice a year that's not a big part of my practice the rest of the time it is Doing the work for cases and evaluating people and issuing reports, what percentage of what work do you spend on forensic psychology, like I said yesterday?

I say half and half clinical, half forensic, but I also have a substantial amount of time that I use in professional activities and I serve on a professional board, so what part of your practice do you provide? expert witness services I think you are using expert witness services synonymous with the forensic psychology practice part, so the forensic psychology practice that I do here today is a part of it and it is a smaller part compared to all the evaluations and People I am evaluating, your practice is successful enough to maintain your offices on Madison Avenue in New York properly.

Correct. I've had that office since 2005. Right, and it's successful enough in its forensic work to be able to. perform unpaid work in a hospital right right and I also do pro bono work there um in fact, you educate others on the use of expert testimony in court cases right on the use and understanding of trauma and abuse violence in the courtroom and how for advocates and people who might not have this level of training or experience, how to get into the courtroom and talk about very difficult domestic violence issues. Yes, can we open the px1241? Do you recognize that document?

Yes, it looks like the cover of a powerpoint presentation and it is a powerpoint presentation made at home by me and marianne dutton who is a very well known and respected researcher and clinician in the area of ​​domestic violence and what is the topic of the powerpoint in who you are giving expert witness testimony in cases involving domestic violence and who gave this presentation to which went to the national clearinghouse for the defense of battered women which is an organization that provides legal services to women who have assaulted or killed their couples in self defense and primarily people that these individuals women have seen in treatment are through shelter based programs or through advocates and those are people that really don't know how to get into the courtroom and talk and That's what this presentation and training was for. to move uh px 1241 to the avenue any objection, okay 12 41 in evidence, do you want it to be published or yes, let's publish it to the idiot?

Thanks, okay, why don't we pull up px1242? Do you recognize this action, yes, this also looks like a powerpoint presentation that I gave, sorry, what is the name of this powerpoint presentation? This is called the use of psychological experts in domestic violence cases. It was presented to the Kings County Bar Association, which is in Brooklyn, and what was talked about in this presentation was some of the things that I talked to you about yesterday the myths and misconceptions about intimate partner violence when women use force what happens if they withdraw protection orders how they present themselves in court and that's what this presentation was for the bar lawyers okay, but this is another presentation you made about the use of psychological experts and he gave it to a bar association, right, they were prosecutors and defense attorneys who attended that association.

Your statement, you testified that they were going to pay you one hundred dollars an hour for your time in this case, I did not testify that you did not do it. that is an error in the transcription oh that is not so that is not correct that is correct then and you corrected the transcription we did not make a typo in the transcription at this point so that you know there was an error in the transcription but you did not correct it there was several errors in the transcription but the area was not corrected, there was no time to correct them that is correct, so they don't pay you 100 per hour, how much is it?

They pay me 500 an hour, 500 an hour and that's what, um, and that's the bill that you set for your deposition, 500 an hour, right. You sent several revelations in this case. You haven't formed an opinion. on whether mr

depp

committed intimate partner violence on the internet against miss hurt correct correct i formed the opinion that miss listening's report on intimate partner violence is consistent with what we know in the literature about intimate partners, but you have a limited role here by comparing individual data with group data and then simply determining whether they are consistent. I wouldn't say it's a limited role, but overall it's okay.

You wouldn't use the word limited role, a limited role in terms of how we conduct a forensic evaluation, not a limited role in In this case, you remember if you used a limited role in your statement. Don't know. If you have it in front of me, you probably think I did it, but sure and you have no independent knowledge of the facts underlying the alleged abuse. Correct. I am aware of the large number of documents that I have reviewed in this case I am asking for your independent first hand knowledge, you have none of that, you mean was I there, yes, you were not there, of course, no, okay, um, and you're not testifying to the veracity of any of the correct accusations.

I am testifying about the consistency of the data points from all the different documents, including the psychological testing and clinical evaluation I conducted on mishearing and how that jibes with the therapy records. and all the other documents and the photos and texts that I reviewed and you have no personal knowledge of any abuse correct personally correct correct and all you know is what you heard wrong, he informed you and others that it is not correct because you did interviews collaterals and I reviewed the medical records and I reviewed the statements of other witnesses about what they witnessed and what they saw, and all of those statements that you reviewed are statements that began with the young lady, heard correctly, not necessarily well, the medical records do not. they did, if she's self-reporting what happened to her, sure, I mean, that's what we do when we go to a doctor we say my head hurts, we're self-reporting our difficulty, um, everything that was misheard, she was informed directly to you after Mr.

Depp sued you. In this case correct correct and you did not meet the lady heard until September 2019 that was the first evaluation appointment correct how did you get engaged? How did you get hired to do this job? The legal team contacted me. Were you interviewed by your legal team to find out if you were going to testify here? Not me, he was not interviewed. I was not his correct contact. Had you worked with that legal team before? Yes, then they already knew who you were. Correct. and any time you were working with Miss Hed or evaluating Miss Hed, she could have chosen to fire you, right.

I suppose his legal team could have chosen to fire. I was not her, she is not meclient, the legal team is the one who hires. I am responsible to the legal team, don't be surprised, and this legal team and the hired legal team already knew who they were because they worked together before and they clearly knew my experience in this area of ​​intimate partner violence and traumatic stress, which is why you contacted me to work on this affair. Okay, so yesterday you used language about evaluating Ms. Herd's relationship with Mr. Depp. He remembers talking about it.

You sure can't evaluate a relationship. Without talking to both parties, you can certainly get a lot of information from one party and, especially when supported by other documents, including four years of therapy records and couples therapy records, you can get a lot of information based on those documents. pump contemporary reports of the relationship respectively. I didn't ask if you get a lot of information. I asked if you can evaluate a relationship without talking to both parties. I think you can. There are certainly inherent limitations to that, but you certainly can. You spoke with. Miss Herd, for approximately 30 hours.

Alright. How much time have you spent with Mr. Deb? I didn't spend any time with Mr. Depp. It was my understanding that he did not show up for a psychological evaluation. In fact, he

never

met Mr. Depp. No, but you report in order to evaluate the relationship between Mr. Depp and Ms. Heard, but I also read Mr. Depp's transcripts of his testimony. I saw his testimony. I reviewed his medical records. I checked his text messages. So it's not necessarily totally blind. I did it. I have information, although I am not drawing a conclusion about Mr. Depp himself, it is the standard now, not necessarily totally blind, that is how you evaluate the relationship, if it is not necessarily totally blind, I can evaluate it, we downgrade relationships as clinical psychologists all the time, that's what we do.

We are trained to do that, certainly someone who has been trained in intimate partner violence to understand and look for the dynamics that happen in that relationship and then when we have external data that supports what the individual is telling us long before this legal case appeared . scene that turns into very solid data to support that conclusion, let's talk about some of that debt, okay, you chose to do some collateral interviews, right, um, and the interview with Dr. Bonnie Jake, okay, and you looked at her notes correctly and you know it. Miss Jacobs, Dr. Jacobs, doesn't know anything about the version of what happened in Australia until it was misheard, she had already been sued.

Correct, I believe she was not in treatment with Dr. Jacobs at the time the Australian incident occurred, but that would be correct. She talks to Dr. Connell Cohen about Australia, who she was dealing with at the time at the same time. Okay, I'll ask you about that, we'll get there, so you know, that bad ear stopped seeing Dr. Jacobs in August of 2014. That's right and she didn't. I'm not coming back until after she's sued, right, I think that's the date I'd have to look at to make sure, but I think you're right and you said you reviewed the doctor, you interviewed Dr.

Connell, that's correct, and you also reviewed his testimony. of declaration. that is correct and you know that when you testified that when you were treating a patient you assumed that the patient was telling the correct truth, I believe you said something to that effect in your statement if you have no reason to believe otherwise if there is no other data to prove it. believe everything