July 17, 2025 • 34 mins
This week Leslie dives into the case of Johnny Deep versus Amber Heard, one of the most publicized and controversial trials of the last 10 years. Leslie dissects how this case turned into a psychological battlefield and help you understand, as a non-expert, what went on in that trial.
From dueling diagnoses to high-stakes testimony, she’ll break down how two of her colleagues, Dr. Shannon Curry and Dr. Dawn Hughes, came to vastly different conclusions about Amber Heard’s mental state—and why that matters more than you might think.
What she hopes you’ll come to understand over the course of this episode is that one of the results of publicizing a psychological assessment is that it turned Amber Heard’s mental illness into clickbait and diminished the complexities of an incredibly complicated legal battle with a powerful, wealthy, and famous ex-husband.
Hosted by Leslie Dobson. Produced by Liam Billingham. Executive producers are Paul Anderson and Scott McCarthy for Workhouse Media. The views expressed in this podcast episode are solely those of the guest
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:13):
Welcome to Intentionally Disturbing. I'm doctor Leslie, forensic psychologist. Now
normally on the show, I interview other people. I love
hearing interesting and disturbing stories, as you know, but I've
had a lot of people ask me about my analysis
of some very high profile cases and cases that my
(00:33):
friends and colleagues have been involved in. So right now,
I want to take this opportunity as somebody who has
been heavily trained in the treatment of trauma, working in
prisons and working at the VA, and in criminal and
civil litigation, very focused on truth telling and how do
we determine the truth. How do we know if a
(00:55):
woman is actually telling the truth? How do we know
if a guy being accused of sexual assault is telling
the truth? Today, I want to use my expertise in
order to analyze one of the most controversial and polarizing
cases we have seen recently. Let's look at Amber Heard
and Johnny Depp. But I want to be clear, this
(01:16):
isn't TMZ. I'm not here for tabloid drama. I want
to dissect a case that turned into a psychological battlefield,
and I want to help you guys understand, especially those
of you who are not experts in this field in
legal stuff, in psychology in law. I want you to
understand what happened in that trial and how important the
(01:40):
psychologists were in that trial.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
So we had.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
Dueling diagnoses in an extremely high stakes trial and testimony,
and two of my colleagues evaluated Amber heard and they
testified to those evaluations. I want to review doctor Shannon
and Curry's assessment and doctor Don Hughes and how they
(02:04):
came to different diagnoses that really changed the outcome of
this trial. They came to vastly different conclusions of Amberherd's
mental state, and I think that directly impacted how the
jury looked at her and.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
How they decided on this case.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
What I hope you'll come to understand over the course
of this episode is that we are publicizing psychological assessments.
This trial played out in the media. That's not normal.
A psychological assessment, the darkness the inside of a human
being is not usually publicized.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
If you think of Charles Manson, we.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
Finally got his analysis once he was dead, because he
asked for that and it was agreed upon. He was
going to give information about these killings. If people didn't
put the psychological assessments out there until he was gone.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
But here we have.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
A young woman, Amber Heard, and her psychological assessment is
being blasted across the internet for everyone with or without
experience to pick a part. Her mental illness was turned
into clickbait and diminished the complexities of an incredibly complicated
legal battle with a powerful, wealthy I have to say, violent,
(03:32):
famous ex husband, Johnny Depp.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
So let's talk about this trial. What was it really about?
Speaker 1 (03:38):
This wasn't a domestic violence trial in a criminal sense.
This was a civil defamation trial. Johnny Depp sued Amber
Heard for fifty million dollars over a twenty eighteen Washington
Post op ed in which she described herself as a
survivor of domestic violence. Now she didn't name Johnny Depp,
(04:03):
but she was clearly talking about him, and that's what
this case started with. His team argued that the article
was obviously referring to him and that it damaged his
reputation and career.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
While what is Amber do?
Speaker 1 (04:18):
She countersues Depp for one hundred million dollars, claiming that
his attorney defamed her by labeling her abuse allegations as
a hoax. So here at the core we are asking
twelve random people in this jury to decide did Amber
(04:39):
her defame Dept? Was it indirect? Was her abuse narrative false?
Was it exaggerated? Did Johnny Depp's attorney defame her in return?
But to answer those questions, the jury had to evaluate
the credibility and that's where psychological testimony comes in. Was
(05:02):
Amber heard a survivor of intimate partner violence or was
she an aggressor? Was Johnny Depp a survivor? Was he
an aggressor? Were the behaviors that we saw consistent with
trauma or were they manipulation. It's hard to say entirely,
but I'll give you a little glimpse into what I think.
(05:24):
There are good parts of both these people, and there
are bad parts of both these people. But before I
give my opinion on Amber, I want to explain the
psychological assessment batteries that were used by my colleagues to
flesh out this case. Two licensed psychologists were called to testify,
(05:45):
both with very different conclusions and both with very different
psychological assessments. Doctor Shannon Curry was hired by Johnny Depp's team.
Now she's a clinical and forensic psychologist like me. She's
down here here in southern California like me. She conducted
an in person psychological evaluation of Amber heard over two days.
(06:08):
That's pretty average, and she administered multiple psychological tests.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
Now, I have to say her tests were.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
Better than Don's, who I'll get to the other psychologists.
Her tests were way more grounded in science. There was
way more research behind them, and she had tests that
offered an ability to understand that even if amberhead stressors
and traumas in her life, we have to rank them.
(06:37):
And we're not looking at your whole life. We're looking
at things that happened with Johnny Depp. We're looking at
things that were named in the complaint.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
Not her whole life.
Speaker 1 (06:48):
One part I have to add is that you know,
Shannon definitely had some questionable behaviors in this case. Amber's
attorneys really tried to harp on that Shannon made homemade
muffins and brought them to Amber the day of testing.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
So normally this would feel like a very.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
Adversarial day for a defendant or a plaintiff to go
up against a psychologist who's hired by the other team. Now,
were the muffins manipulative? How did that play into Amber's
time when she knew that doctor Curry was not hired
by her team. Doctor Curry was hired by the team
that was suing her for one hundred million dollars. Now,
(07:28):
psychologists are trained to be ethical. Psychologists are not biased when.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
They go into this.
Speaker 1 (07:33):
We take into account every bit of information before we
form an opinion. But what does that mean for the
person in front of us and how they are perceiving us?
How did Amber perceive Shannon? At the end of the
evaluation end record review, Shannon determined that Amber met criteria
(07:56):
for borderline personality disorder and histrionic personality disorder. Now, those
are extremely heavy hitting disorders because those are personality disorders.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
They're not moving mood disorders.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
She is saying that Amber is diagnosably somebody who will
always be like this and it's not going to change that.
Her personality, the borderline part, is comprised of emotional dysregulation,
intense mood swings. She can't find her baseline of mood
(08:31):
or emotions when she's in distress. She has chronic feelings
of emptiness. Shannon said that Amber has unstable relationships. She
has very intense, short lived relationships, she tends to idolize
people when they come into her life and then quickly
splits away from them and devalues them. Now, this testimony
(08:55):
was important because we saw a lot of people testify
that amber steam pulled up, but they didn't want to
be there.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
She I think it was rocky.
Speaker 1 (09:04):
We had a lot of people saying, you know, I
used to be friends with her, and I'm not anymore.
So it shows that that devaluation and that splitting, and
that lack of consistent long term relationships. Borderline personality disorder
is also characterized by identity disturbance, so an individual is
unable to really see who they are. They don't have
(09:26):
a stable self image. I compare it a lot to
shattered glass. It's hard to figure out how to put
it all back together because it's so shattered. It's not
as clear as a puzzle that we're putting back together
with different people in therapy, they often have sudden shifts
in their goals, in their values, but also in their perception.
(09:48):
They can't always trust their perception. One of the biggest
parts of borderline personality is a fear of abandonment, which
we saw a lot in this trial. There were frantic
efforts in the midst of physical violence with Johnny Depp
where Amber came back. Now, is that coercive control or
is that more of her personality disorder saying I can't
(10:13):
be alone, I can't be without someone, not him someone,
because I can't be alone with myself, because I don't
know who I am.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
We're going to take a quick break and we'll be
right back.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
A large component of this is also triggers impulsivity. Individuals
borderline personality disorder struggle to not react to things that
are triggering. They can be very self destructive. So even
if they are in a relationship that's healthy, they may
make the relationship unhealthy because chaos is at least something
(10:53):
that they can identify with. And I know that's really
hard to hear at times, but again, and we're talking
about the nuances of personality and the mind, and no
one is ever a very clear person. Borderlines are often
quite paranoid at times, and I think this stems largely
(11:14):
from a lack of trust in themselves. So if they're
stressed out, like in a volatile relationship, they are going
to not know who they are, almost to the point
where they depersonalize, and they can present as psychotic. They
can lift off from reality and their perception their movement
(11:34):
in the world isn't what you and I are seeing.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
That was a part of this case.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
They showed moments where Amber wasn't herself and no one
really understood why. Now, when she was testifying, we could
also see that at times she seemed like she was overacting,
under acting, that she was presenting herself purposely in certain
ways because of what was being talked about. So with
(12:00):
this psychological assessment and the word borderline being thrown out there,
I think the jury easily was seeing her behavior on
the stand and questioning if it was genuine or not.
I can tell you a little story about a borderline
that I used to work with. This was an individual
who really just wanted to be seen as a victim.
(12:21):
And at one point the house was broken into. The
police responded to the home and she said, you know,
my house was broken into. Can you please help me?
I feel like I'm in danger. And after an investigation,
the police said to her the strangest thing, the brick
(12:41):
that broke the window came from inside the house. Now,
Shannon also diagnosed Amber with histrionic personality disorder, which is
different than borderline, and to me, I would say it's
less dangerous, it's less manipulative. If you are in a
relationship with somebody who's border line, it's difficult, it's going
(13:03):
to be very, very difficult.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
Histrionic not so much.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
These are individuals who really like attention, shocking. We're talking
about actors right now, So they seek attention, they want praise,
they want approval. The thing with histrionic is that they
are often inappropriately sexual.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
They are seductive.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
They use flirtation and drama to bring you in. That
is more of how they identify with themselves rather than
that broken glass of the borderline. But with the histrionic
person their moves and their emotions are always shifting. You
don't really know where they're going to be. It's very theatrical.
(13:44):
It's very much like well, how amberhard was on the stand.
At times she was sobbing and at times she wasn't,
and it didn't make sense with the content of what
she was talking about.
Speaker 2 (13:56):
It seemed very performative.
Speaker 1 (13:58):
So you throw this diagnosis out there, and that's going
to skeew how the jury is going to look at her.
Speaker 2 (14:03):
Presentation.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
Now we also with histrionic we see a lot of
impressionistic speech. That is when and this happened with Amber
as well. At times she would be very meek and
very baby like and please take care of me, and
it wasn't my fault. But then at other times she
would get very aggressive and say he abused me. How
(14:25):
could you not believe it? So it's very important to
look at the rapid shifts and emotions, but also the
rapid shifts in speech. Histrionic people will use their presentation
to draw you in. And as you saw amberhead full glam.
Every time she entered that room, her hair changed, her
outfits were like on point. I mean, she looked gorgeous,
(14:48):
she looked amazing. But she also used that for the
jury to see and to side with her because she
wanted to look more attractive. I don't know what would
it have been like she looked like she had just
come out of like a mud hole. Maybe that would
have helped her, who knows. Now I should add that
while Amber is looking like this hot mama on the stand,
(15:12):
we have Johnny Depp with eighty five rings on all
of his fingers, and he's definitely styled too in his
Johnny Depp pirate way. He's sitting there in the chair
just looking so confident. At one point she is crying
and he gets out it's like mince or gum, and
he asks the other lawyers if they'd like it, and
the other lawyers smirk and take it while she's on
(15:34):
the stand crying. So that was very manipulative and coercive.
At the same time, we are looking at very very
muddied water. And although we have so much attention on Amber,
we have to remember that there's a lot happening in
that courtroom, and everybody is playing a part in how
(15:55):
she is being perceived and how she feels comfortable telling
her story, the motions she's showing, and who the jury
is looking at, because that jury was staring at Johnny
a lot while Ambert was talking. So just to summarize,
she had the diagnoses of borderline and histrionic personality, but
there is a difference between the two. The borderline has
(16:17):
this shattered glass identity. They don't really know who they are.
They look for it in others. That's why a lot
of borderlines date a lot of narcissistic men, because narcissistic
men will offer an identity, but again, narcissistic men will
bring you through that cycle of violence and you're going
to lose your identity at one point, and then that's
why those relationships are so volatile. This is actually well studied.
(16:42):
Now with the histrionic person, they are going to seek attention.
It's not going to feel as malicious or dangerous as
an individual with borderline personality disorder within a domestic violence relationship. So,
according to doctor Shannon Curry, Amber Heard had unstable relationships,
(17:04):
she had identity disturbance, she was emotionally labile, she was
attention seeking, she was dramatic, and she was manipulative. Yes,
all of those could be seen on the stand. Interestingly,
all of those could be seen in Johnny Depp as
well and in his past relationships and behaviors. But again
(17:26):
the focus was on Amber because of the testing. So
doctor Curry explained that these traits made Amber appear emotionally reactive,
self centered, and very prone to extreme behavior, especially in
romantic relationships. So we're turning now, we're saying that the
abuse that you saw the broken glass bottle, She claimed
(17:49):
that Johnny Depp raped her with now maybe we're taking
that credibility away. Maybe we're thinking it's a little more
of her personality disorder violent describing this violent scene in
which he lost the tip of his pinky yet still
continued to violently rape her with a shattered glass bottle.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
What's the truth? We still don't.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
Know, so we have to continue to look at the credibility.
Doctor Curry really emphasized that these diagnoses are not uncommon
in victims or survivors of domestic abuse. So again, just
because she has these personality disorders, it doesn't mean she
didn't go through.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
All of this. We have to keep digging.
Speaker 1 (18:32):
So here's my forensic psychologist's perspective reflecting on doctor Curry's
evaluation and all the testimony, and I watched every minute
of this case. Doctor Curry's approach was consistent with gold
standard forensic standards in America. The tests she used were
widely accepted in court because they reveal conscious traits, but
(18:56):
they also show unconscious behavioral patterns. We had a depth
from Curry that we needed. We needed to see deep
into Amber's mind, not just what she was showing people,
because she has the potential to manipulate, so eloquently as
those diagnoses state. She also included trauma based assessments, which
(19:22):
I used to and I love. They assess these trauma
related symptoms with precision. They act like a lie detection
while looking for validity and consistency in Amber's statements. But
she also did this with numerous tests. So Amber took
(19:44):
several tests unrelated to each other, and looked at what
Shannon looked at was the consistency and the validity in
each of those individual tests, and then compared all of
them solid forensic work. I give her a gold star.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
Oh commercial time. Now let's look at doctor Don Hughes. Now.
Speaker 1 (20:11):
Don was hired by Amber's team and she evaluated Amber.
Now I can't believe this number, but she evaluated Amber.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
For twenty nine hours.
Speaker 1 (20:21):
I've never evaluated anyone that long. I think that's pretty extreme.
That's to me, when you lose objectivity and you start
to be a little too therapeutic in the room, because
if we're objectively looking for the answers that were listed
out in that complaint, we don't need twenty nine hours
to do it. Especially when you look at Don's psychological assessment,
(20:45):
she didn't use a lot of lengthy tests. She used
a lot of very very brief screeners. So what the
hell was happening for twenty nine hours? Was Don sitting
there being manipulated by somebody with borderline personality disorder? Or
was Don really clearly investigating and seeing that amberhead post.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
Traumatic stress disorder.
Speaker 1 (21:07):
Now, one thing we need to know about Don is
that Don testified in the Ditty trial. Now, she was
one of the first witnesses, and she testified about domestic violence.
I think she did a really good job, but it
shows that she's very trauma and very treatment focused. Now,
I think that case kind of sucked for her because
the lawyers didn't know how to use her appropriately. She
(21:27):
could have had way more bang for her buck. But
she is an extremely good expert psychologist being brought into
such high profile cases, and we need to keep that
in mind as we review her psychological assessment of Amber.
Where I think she fell flat in the Depth case
is that she's kind of old school. She didn't really
(21:49):
bring in newer psychological assessments. She didn't explain the science
and how we measure truth in psychology. No matter what
the t showed, doctor Curry could easily explain away anything
that Don said, because doctor Curry had so much science
(22:09):
and objectivity from her testing battery, and I think that
was very key, and it was well explained to the
jury as well. It is always more trustworthy when you
bring things to a jury that come from a scientific community.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
And you know, maybe.
Speaker 1 (22:27):
Part of it is that doctor Curry is younger, closer
to school where all this testing is shoved down our throats,
or maybe she just really brushed up on it she
uses it more in her career, But there was a
notable difference in how these two approached this. Now, doctor
Don used a lot of screeners, And what I mean
by screener is that you could be given a questionnaire
(22:48):
of seven questions, nine questions, and it would say, you know,
how shitty do you feel today? Click one through five.
There's no research behind that. We're just taking what you're
saying at face value, so you can lie. Now, what
if we could compare that to other people? What if
we had normative samples to compare that to, and we
(23:10):
want to look at other people, your age, your ethnicity,
how much money you make with your similar job, your family,
where you live in the world, the traumas you've been through,
and what if we could analyze a comparison of every
other person like you. Then we say, Okay, that person
is enduring a trauma. How does that person and that
(23:31):
personality react.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
To that trauma.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
Okay, let's do that five hundred thousand times. Let's run
this analysis. It's called statistics, guys, we use it a
lot in psychology. Let's run this analysis and have these
massive normative samples. That's what Shannon Curry used that Don didn't.
So when Don's using this screener, we're taking what Amber
(23:56):
says for face value. When Shannon Curry is using these
psychological assessments, she's taking millions of people and their information
into her analysis. Doctor Don Hughes testified that she thought
Amber heard had post traumatic stress disorder, very different to
(24:18):
what Shannon Curry said. However, all of the elements that
doctor Don Hughes stated could also be seen by Shannon Curry.
They were just named something different because they were symptoms
of a bigger diagnosis. Now, doctor down thought it was
only PTSD, not personality disorders. So she testified to multiple
(24:42):
instances of physical, psychological, and sexual abuse at the hands
of Johnny Depp. There's a lot of evidence that this occurred.
A lot was also said by Amber. She emphasized coersive control, gaslighting,
sexual violence, and the power imbalance in the relationship. Johnny
(25:03):
Depp was was a lot older than Amber. Amber was
quite young when they got together. There is no question
that there was a significant amount of coercion. But again,
we did a deep dive in Shannon Curry's assessment into
the mind of Amber heard and what we saw the
leading factor wasn't trauma. The leading factor was personality disorder.
(25:26):
So in my forensic opinion, in my perspective, I think
doctor Hughes led with a trauma informed evaluation and doctor
Curry came in unbiased, with an overall openness to what
Amber was presenting.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
So what's the take home message?
Speaker 1 (25:47):
Because this is complicated and this is messy, but this
is a forensic trial, and I think the big message
here is that it is extremely nuanced and we have
to pay attention to the nuances. The human mind wants
to just box everything up and lump it together, and
I understand that, but that's why the professionals are involved
(26:09):
in these cases, to break apart the nuances and try
to explain this to the jury so that they can see.
Speaker 2 (26:16):
This overall picture.
Speaker 1 (26:19):
One person can be telling the truth, they can be exaggerating,
and they can be lying all at the same time.
But this is a trial, and things were laid out
in the complaints specifically, there were things that we were
looking for. So even though I'm sure Johnny Depp and
Amber Heard were telling the truth, at times they were exaggerating,
(26:42):
they were acting, they were also lying. We have to
look at those nuances. We can't all be TikTok detectives.
We have to lean on the professionals who actually have
boots on the ground, who have done these cases, and
they really thoroughly understand and this. So you might be asking,
how did these two highly trained professionals, like I'll just
(27:06):
come to completely different conclusions. One came at it from
a forensic lens and one came at it from a
trauma therapy lens. Now, what's a forensic lens. Well, it's
psychology and the law.
Speaker 2 (27:20):
We're not just looking at a person.
Speaker 1 (27:23):
We're taking into account the legal situation that the person
is in. We're taking into account the claims. We are
heavily looking at malingering, which is lying, or feigning, which
is exaggeration.
Speaker 2 (27:38):
Of symptoms.
Speaker 1 (27:39):
There is a different critical eye that comes into play
when you talk about crime, criminal civil litigation. It's very
different than when you open your office door and you
bring somebody in for therapy and you just listen.
Speaker 2 (27:55):
You know they're lying at.
Speaker 1 (27:56):
Times, or they're not telling you the whole truth, but
you listen because you offer them support. You want them
to get to a better place in your life. I'm sorry,
but as a forensic psychologist, that's not.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
What we do at all.
Speaker 1 (28:09):
We want to rip apart the facts and we want
to find the truth. And so Shannon Curry came in
guns fully loaded in this case, and I do not
think that Don did. And we see this further by
the objective psychological instruments that Shannon Curry used and also
(28:29):
that doctor Don used, which were those screeners not anchored
in objective science. It seems to me that Curry's goal
was to assess the credibility of amber heard and the
psychological functioning. Now, she was also probably looking very very
carefully because she was hired by Johnny Depp's team. You
(28:52):
can't undo the fact that when she was hired she
went to his house. Seems like they had some drinks
and the legal team kind of assessed her. That did
seem a bit bias. Now, I don't think she was
biased meaningfully going into this, but there were elements of
who's paying her That always plays into this. Right, Doctor
(29:14):
Hughes seemed to really come in as somebody who wanted
to explain Amber's trauma and abuse.
Speaker 2 (29:21):
But who is she explaining that to.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
She's explaining that to a bunch of lawyers and a
jury and a judge.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
It's not going to sit the same way.
Speaker 1 (29:30):
So what was the result of all of this? How
did it affect the trial? We had a courtroom showdown
of clinical credibility. I've never seen a trial where psychologists
have such an important role in the outcome in what
happens to these individuals' lives. I'm going to give you
an answer that you're not going to like. I don't
(29:51):
think either party was entirely right or wrong. I think
Amberherd may have PTSD and personality rates or disorders. I
think Johnny Depp probably has all of the above as well,
But again we didn't get an opportunity to dig into
his mind. These things aren't mutually exclusive, but in a
(30:13):
courtroom complexity doesn't play well with jurys.
Speaker 2 (30:18):
Simplicity wins.
Speaker 1 (30:20):
Doctor Curry was able to offer a diagnosis to the
jury that was very clear and it was based on
a narrative describing Amber Heard's behaviors. So even though the
jury could look over at Johnny Depp and see his
behaviors playing out in the courtroom, they had to focus
(30:41):
on what they were given by the experts, by the witnesses,
by the lawyers. At the end of the day, simplicity
wins with a jury. Doctor Curry gave a diagnosis to
the jury that was clear and based in behaviors. They
saw behaviors of Amber Heard that made sense to them
(31:05):
based on what doctor Curry was saying. Doctor Curry said
that Amber Heard exaggerated, distorted, and manipulated her abuse narrative
that won the case for Johnny Depp.
Speaker 2 (31:20):
Now there is a real danger of a.
Speaker 1 (31:23):
Diagnosis being in the public eye and on social media.
Amber Heard's diagnosis of borderline personality disorder.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
Became a meme. It was a punchline, a character flaw.
Speaker 1 (31:37):
PTSD became a badge of dishonesty when attached to someone
the public didn't trust. This damages our understanding of both
diagnoses and the people involved. People with borderline personality are
not inherently abusive. Survivors of trauma often act in ways
(31:58):
that seem contradictory. Survivors of trauma don't always have borderline
personality disorder abusers. Johnny Depp may be an abuser. Amber
Heard maybe an abuser. Both of these individuals can have
all of these symptoms in all of these flaws as well.
And when courts and media simplify mental illness into these
(32:23):
hero villain categories, I.
Speaker 2 (32:26):
Think we all lose.
Speaker 1 (32:28):
We lose the humanity of what is going on. It's
not justice, It just became theater. So in my closing arguments,
I will tell you that psychological testimony is meant to clarify,
not confuse, even though lawyers are going to try and
get their fingers in there and confuse the shit out
of it.
Speaker 2 (32:49):
If you're a good lawyer, you know how to use.
Speaker 1 (32:51):
Your witness and you also know how to cross and
make sure that narrative is clear and precise and concise.
But in this trial it turn into a battleground for blame, credibility,
public opinion. So as a forensic psychologist, I saw a
lot of missed opportunities on both sides to explain the
(33:12):
nuances of trauma, of personality, of memory, of domestic violence,
of coercive control of relationships. Amber Heard may not have
been a perfect victim, but real victims rarely are, and
that's a reality we have to face if we ever
(33:33):
want courts to do a better job. I actually think
at the end of the day, we had two victims
suing each other, and we had two abusers suing each other,
and we had a lot of lawyers writing their coattails.
Intentionally Disturbing as a podcast from Me, Doctor Leslie.
Speaker 2 (33:55):
It's distributed by iHeartMedia.
Speaker 1 (33:58):
Liam Billingham is the senior producer and he also edits
the show. Katie Cobbs does the social media and also
keeps me in My Lane. The executive producers are Paul
Anderson and Scott McCarthy for Workhouse Media.
Speaker 2 (34:15):
But I'm still the boss. Thanks again for listening.
Speaker 1 (34:19):
We'll see you next week with more intentionally disturbing
Welcome to Intentionally Disturbing. I'm doctor Leslie, forensic psychologist. Now
normally on the show, I interview other people. I love
hearing interesting and disturbing stories, as you know, but I've
had a lot of people ask me about my analysis
of some very high profile cases and cases that my
(00:33):
friends and colleagues have been involved in. So right now,
I want to take this opportunity as somebody who has
been heavily trained in the treatment of trauma, working in
prisons and working at the VA, and in criminal and
civil litigation, very focused on truth telling and how do
we determine the truth. How do we know if a
(00:55):
woman is actually telling the truth? How do we know
if a guy being accused of sexual assault is telling
the truth? Today, I want to use my expertise in
order to analyze one of the most controversial and polarizing
cases we have seen recently. Let's look at Amber Heard
and Johnny Depp. But I want to be clear, this
(01:16):
isn't TMZ. I'm not here for tabloid drama. I want
to dissect a case that turned into a psychological battlefield,
and I want to help you guys understand, especially those
of you who are not experts in this field in
legal stuff, in psychology in law. I want you to
understand what happened in that trial and how important the
(01:40):
psychologists were in that trial.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
So we had.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
Dueling diagnoses in an extremely high stakes trial and testimony,
and two of my colleagues evaluated Amber heard and they
testified to those evaluations. I want to review doctor Shannon
and Curry's assessment and doctor Don Hughes and how they
(02:04):
came to different diagnoses that really changed the outcome of
this trial. They came to vastly different conclusions of Amberherd's
mental state, and I think that directly impacted how the
jury looked at her and.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
How they decided on this case.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
What I hope you'll come to understand over the course
of this episode is that we are publicizing psychological assessments.
This trial played out in the media. That's not normal.
A psychological assessment, the darkness the inside of a human
being is not usually publicized.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
If you think of Charles Manson, we.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
Finally got his analysis once he was dead, because he
asked for that and it was agreed upon. He was
going to give information about these killings. If people didn't
put the psychological assessments out there until he was gone.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
But here we have.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
A young woman, Amber Heard, and her psychological assessment is
being blasted across the internet for everyone with or without
experience to pick a part. Her mental illness was turned
into clickbait and diminished the complexities of an incredibly complicated
legal battle with a powerful, wealthy I have to say, violent,
(03:32):
famous ex husband, Johnny Depp.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
So let's talk about this trial. What was it really about?
Speaker 1 (03:38):
This wasn't a domestic violence trial in a criminal sense.
This was a civil defamation trial. Johnny Depp sued Amber
Heard for fifty million dollars over a twenty eighteen Washington
Post op ed in which she described herself as a
survivor of domestic violence. Now she didn't name Johnny Depp,
(04:03):
but she was clearly talking about him, and that's what
this case started with. His team argued that the article
was obviously referring to him and that it damaged his
reputation and career.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
While what is Amber do?
Speaker 1 (04:18):
She countersues Depp for one hundred million dollars, claiming that
his attorney defamed her by labeling her abuse allegations as
a hoax. So here at the core we are asking
twelve random people in this jury to decide did Amber
(04:39):
her defame Dept? Was it indirect? Was her abuse narrative false?
Was it exaggerated? Did Johnny Depp's attorney defame her in return?
But to answer those questions, the jury had to evaluate
the credibility and that's where psychological testimony comes in. Was
(05:02):
Amber heard a survivor of intimate partner violence or was
she an aggressor? Was Johnny Depp a survivor? Was he
an aggressor? Were the behaviors that we saw consistent with
trauma or were they manipulation. It's hard to say entirely,
but I'll give you a little glimpse into what I think.
(05:24):
There are good parts of both these people, and there
are bad parts of both these people. But before I
give my opinion on Amber, I want to explain the
psychological assessment batteries that were used by my colleagues to
flesh out this case. Two licensed psychologists were called to testify,
(05:45):
both with very different conclusions and both with very different
psychological assessments. Doctor Shannon Curry was hired by Johnny Depp's team.
Now she's a clinical and forensic psychologist like me. She's
down here here in southern California like me. She conducted
an in person psychological evaluation of Amber heard over two days.
(06:08):
That's pretty average, and she administered multiple psychological tests.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
Now, I have to say her tests were.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
Better than Don's, who I'll get to the other psychologists.
Her tests were way more grounded in science. There was
way more research behind them, and she had tests that
offered an ability to understand that even if amberhead stressors
and traumas in her life, we have to rank them.
(06:37):
And we're not looking at your whole life. We're looking
at things that happened with Johnny Depp. We're looking at
things that were named in the complaint.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
Not her whole life.
Speaker 1 (06:48):
One part I have to add is that you know,
Shannon definitely had some questionable behaviors in this case. Amber's
attorneys really tried to harp on that Shannon made homemade
muffins and brought them to Amber the day of testing.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
So normally this would feel like a very.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
Adversarial day for a defendant or a plaintiff to go
up against a psychologist who's hired by the other team. Now,
were the muffins manipulative? How did that play into Amber's
time when she knew that doctor Curry was not hired
by her team. Doctor Curry was hired by the team
that was suing her for one hundred million dollars. Now,
(07:28):
psychologists are trained to be ethical. Psychologists are not biased when.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
They go into this.
Speaker 1 (07:33):
We take into account every bit of information before we
form an opinion. But what does that mean for the
person in front of us and how they are perceiving us?
How did Amber perceive Shannon? At the end of the
evaluation end record review, Shannon determined that Amber met criteria
(07:56):
for borderline personality disorder and histrionic personality disorder. Now, those
are extremely heavy hitting disorders because those are personality disorders.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
They're not moving mood disorders.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
She is saying that Amber is diagnosably somebody who will
always be like this and it's not going to change that.
Her personality, the borderline part, is comprised of emotional dysregulation,
intense mood swings. She can't find her baseline of mood
(08:31):
or emotions when she's in distress. She has chronic feelings
of emptiness. Shannon said that Amber has unstable relationships. She
has very intense, short lived relationships, she tends to idolize
people when they come into her life and then quickly
splits away from them and devalues them. Now, this testimony
(08:55):
was important because we saw a lot of people testify
that amber steam pulled up, but they didn't want to
be there.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
She I think it was rocky.
Speaker 1 (09:04):
We had a lot of people saying, you know, I
used to be friends with her, and I'm not anymore.
So it shows that that devaluation and that splitting, and
that lack of consistent long term relationships. Borderline personality disorder
is also characterized by identity disturbance, so an individual is
unable to really see who they are. They don't have
(09:26):
a stable self image. I compare it a lot to
shattered glass. It's hard to figure out how to put
it all back together because it's so shattered. It's not
as clear as a puzzle that we're putting back together
with different people in therapy, they often have sudden shifts
in their goals, in their values, but also in their perception.
(09:48):
They can't always trust their perception. One of the biggest
parts of borderline personality is a fear of abandonment, which
we saw a lot in this trial. There were frantic
efforts in the midst of physical violence with Johnny Depp
where Amber came back. Now, is that coercive control or
is that more of her personality disorder saying I can't
(10:13):
be alone, I can't be without someone, not him someone,
because I can't be alone with myself, because I don't
know who I am.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
We're going to take a quick break and we'll be
right back.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
A large component of this is also triggers impulsivity. Individuals
borderline personality disorder struggle to not react to things that
are triggering. They can be very self destructive. So even
if they are in a relationship that's healthy, they may
make the relationship unhealthy because chaos is at least something
(10:53):
that they can identify with. And I know that's really
hard to hear at times, but again, and we're talking
about the nuances of personality and the mind, and no
one is ever a very clear person. Borderlines are often
quite paranoid at times, and I think this stems largely
(11:14):
from a lack of trust in themselves. So if they're
stressed out, like in a volatile relationship, they are going
to not know who they are, almost to the point
where they depersonalize, and they can present as psychotic. They
can lift off from reality and their perception their movement
(11:34):
in the world isn't what you and I are seeing.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
That was a part of this case.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
They showed moments where Amber wasn't herself and no one
really understood why. Now, when she was testifying, we could
also see that at times she seemed like she was overacting,
under acting, that she was presenting herself purposely in certain
ways because of what was being talked about. So with
(12:00):
this psychological assessment and the word borderline being thrown out there,
I think the jury easily was seeing her behavior on
the stand and questioning if it was genuine or not.
I can tell you a little story about a borderline
that I used to work with. This was an individual
who really just wanted to be seen as a victim.
(12:21):
And at one point the house was broken into. The
police responded to the home and she said, you know,
my house was broken into. Can you please help me?
I feel like I'm in danger. And after an investigation,
the police said to her the strangest thing, the brick
(12:41):
that broke the window came from inside the house. Now,
Shannon also diagnosed Amber with histrionic personality disorder, which is
different than borderline, and to me, I would say it's
less dangerous, it's less manipulative. If you are in a
relationship with somebody who's border line, it's difficult, it's going
(13:03):
to be very, very difficult.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
Histrionic not so much.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
These are individuals who really like attention, shocking. We're talking
about actors right now, So they seek attention, they want praise,
they want approval. The thing with histrionic is that they
are often inappropriately sexual.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
They are seductive.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
They use flirtation and drama to bring you in. That
is more of how they identify with themselves rather than
that broken glass of the borderline. But with the histrionic
person their moves and their emotions are always shifting. You
don't really know where they're going to be. It's very theatrical.
(13:44):
It's very much like well, how amberhard was on the stand.
At times she was sobbing and at times she wasn't,
and it didn't make sense with the content of what
she was talking about.
Speaker 2 (13:56):
It seemed very performative.
Speaker 1 (13:58):
So you throw this diagnosis out there, and that's going
to skeew how the jury is going to look at her.
Speaker 2 (14:03):
Presentation.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
Now we also with histrionic we see a lot of
impressionistic speech. That is when and this happened with Amber
as well. At times she would be very meek and
very baby like and please take care of me, and
it wasn't my fault. But then at other times she
would get very aggressive and say he abused me. How
(14:25):
could you not believe it? So it's very important to
look at the rapid shifts and emotions, but also the
rapid shifts in speech. Histrionic people will use their presentation
to draw you in. And as you saw amberhead full glam.
Every time she entered that room, her hair changed, her
outfits were like on point. I mean, she looked gorgeous,
(14:48):
she looked amazing. But she also used that for the
jury to see and to side with her because she
wanted to look more attractive. I don't know what would
it have been like she looked like she had just
come out of like a mud hole. Maybe that would
have helped her, who knows. Now I should add that
while Amber is looking like this hot mama on the stand,
(15:12):
we have Johnny Depp with eighty five rings on all
of his fingers, and he's definitely styled too in his
Johnny Depp pirate way. He's sitting there in the chair
just looking so confident. At one point she is crying
and he gets out it's like mince or gum, and
he asks the other lawyers if they'd like it, and
the other lawyers smirk and take it while she's on
(15:34):
the stand crying. So that was very manipulative and coercive.
At the same time, we are looking at very very
muddied water. And although we have so much attention on Amber,
we have to remember that there's a lot happening in
that courtroom, and everybody is playing a part in how
(15:55):
she is being perceived and how she feels comfortable telling
her story, the motions she's showing, and who the jury
is looking at, because that jury was staring at Johnny
a lot while Ambert was talking. So just to summarize,
she had the diagnoses of borderline and histrionic personality, but
there is a difference between the two. The borderline has
(16:17):
this shattered glass identity. They don't really know who they are.
They look for it in others. That's why a lot
of borderlines date a lot of narcissistic men, because narcissistic
men will offer an identity, but again, narcissistic men will
bring you through that cycle of violence and you're going
to lose your identity at one point, and then that's
why those relationships are so volatile. This is actually well studied.
(16:42):
Now with the histrionic person, they are going to seek attention.
It's not going to feel as malicious or dangerous as
an individual with borderline personality disorder within a domestic violence relationship. So,
according to doctor Shannon Curry, Amber Heard had unstable relationships,
(17:04):
she had identity disturbance, she was emotionally labile, she was
attention seeking, she was dramatic, and she was manipulative. Yes,
all of those could be seen on the stand. Interestingly,
all of those could be seen in Johnny Depp as
well and in his past relationships and behaviors. But again
(17:26):
the focus was on Amber because of the testing. So
doctor Curry explained that these traits made Amber appear emotionally reactive,
self centered, and very prone to extreme behavior, especially in
romantic relationships. So we're turning now, we're saying that the
abuse that you saw the broken glass bottle, She claimed
(17:49):
that Johnny Depp raped her with now maybe we're taking
that credibility away. Maybe we're thinking it's a little more
of her personality disorder violent describing this violent scene in
which he lost the tip of his pinky yet still
continued to violently rape her with a shattered glass bottle.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
What's the truth? We still don't.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
Know, so we have to continue to look at the credibility.
Doctor Curry really emphasized that these diagnoses are not uncommon
in victims or survivors of domestic abuse. So again, just
because she has these personality disorders, it doesn't mean she
didn't go through.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
All of this. We have to keep digging.
Speaker 1 (18:32):
So here's my forensic psychologist's perspective reflecting on doctor Curry's
evaluation and all the testimony, and I watched every minute
of this case. Doctor Curry's approach was consistent with gold
standard forensic standards in America. The tests she used were
widely accepted in court because they reveal conscious traits, but
(18:56):
they also show unconscious behavioral patterns. We had a depth
from Curry that we needed. We needed to see deep
into Amber's mind, not just what she was showing people,
because she has the potential to manipulate, so eloquently as
those diagnoses state. She also included trauma based assessments, which
(19:22):
I used to and I love. They assess these trauma
related symptoms with precision. They act like a lie detection
while looking for validity and consistency in Amber's statements. But
she also did this with numerous tests. So Amber took
(19:44):
several tests unrelated to each other, and looked at what
Shannon looked at was the consistency and the validity in
each of those individual tests, and then compared all of
them solid forensic work. I give her a gold star.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
Oh commercial time. Now let's look at doctor Don Hughes. Now.
Speaker 1 (20:11):
Don was hired by Amber's team and she evaluated Amber.
Now I can't believe this number, but she evaluated Amber.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
For twenty nine hours.
Speaker 1 (20:21):
I've never evaluated anyone that long. I think that's pretty extreme.
That's to me, when you lose objectivity and you start
to be a little too therapeutic in the room, because
if we're objectively looking for the answers that were listed
out in that complaint, we don't need twenty nine hours
to do it. Especially when you look at Don's psychological assessment,
(20:45):
she didn't use a lot of lengthy tests. She used
a lot of very very brief screeners. So what the
hell was happening for twenty nine hours? Was Don sitting
there being manipulated by somebody with borderline personality disorder? Or
was Don really clearly investigating and seeing that amberhead post.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
Traumatic stress disorder.
Speaker 1 (21:07):
Now, one thing we need to know about Don is
that Don testified in the Ditty trial. Now, she was
one of the first witnesses, and she testified about domestic violence.
I think she did a really good job, but it
shows that she's very trauma and very treatment focused. Now,
I think that case kind of sucked for her because
the lawyers didn't know how to use her appropriately. She
(21:27):
could have had way more bang for her buck. But
she is an extremely good expert psychologist being brought into
such high profile cases, and we need to keep that
in mind as we review her psychological assessment of Amber.
Where I think she fell flat in the Depth case
is that she's kind of old school. She didn't really
(21:49):
bring in newer psychological assessments. She didn't explain the science
and how we measure truth in psychology. No matter what
the t showed, doctor Curry could easily explain away anything
that Don said, because doctor Curry had so much science
(22:09):
and objectivity from her testing battery, and I think that
was very key, and it was well explained to the
jury as well. It is always more trustworthy when you
bring things to a jury that come from a scientific community.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
And you know, maybe.
Speaker 1 (22:27):
Part of it is that doctor Curry is younger, closer
to school where all this testing is shoved down our throats,
or maybe she just really brushed up on it she
uses it more in her career, But there was a
notable difference in how these two approached this. Now, doctor
Don used a lot of screeners, And what I mean
by screener is that you could be given a questionnaire
(22:48):
of seven questions, nine questions, and it would say, you know,
how shitty do you feel today? Click one through five.
There's no research behind that. We're just taking what you're
saying at face value, so you can lie. Now, what
if we could compare that to other people? What if
we had normative samples to compare that to, and we
(23:10):
want to look at other people, your age, your ethnicity,
how much money you make with your similar job, your family,
where you live in the world, the traumas you've been through,
and what if we could analyze a comparison of every
other person like you. Then we say, Okay, that person
is enduring a trauma. How does that person and that
(23:31):
personality react.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
To that trauma.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
Okay, let's do that five hundred thousand times. Let's run
this analysis. It's called statistics, guys, we use it a
lot in psychology. Let's run this analysis and have these
massive normative samples. That's what Shannon Curry used that Don didn't.
So when Don's using this screener, we're taking what Amber
(23:56):
says for face value. When Shannon Curry is using these
psychological assessments, she's taking millions of people and their information
into her analysis. Doctor Don Hughes testified that she thought
Amber heard had post traumatic stress disorder, very different to
(24:18):
what Shannon Curry said. However, all of the elements that
doctor Don Hughes stated could also be seen by Shannon Curry.
They were just named something different because they were symptoms
of a bigger diagnosis. Now, doctor down thought it was
only PTSD, not personality disorders. So she testified to multiple
(24:42):
instances of physical, psychological, and sexual abuse at the hands
of Johnny Depp. There's a lot of evidence that this occurred.
A lot was also said by Amber. She emphasized coersive control, gaslighting,
sexual violence, and the power imbalance in the relationship. Johnny
(25:03):
Depp was was a lot older than Amber. Amber was
quite young when they got together. There is no question
that there was a significant amount of coercion. But again,
we did a deep dive in Shannon Curry's assessment into
the mind of Amber heard and what we saw the
leading factor wasn't trauma. The leading factor was personality disorder.
(25:26):
So in my forensic opinion, in my perspective, I think
doctor Hughes led with a trauma informed evaluation and doctor
Curry came in unbiased, with an overall openness to what
Amber was presenting.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
So what's the take home message?
Speaker 1 (25:47):
Because this is complicated and this is messy, but this
is a forensic trial, and I think the big message
here is that it is extremely nuanced and we have
to pay attention to the nuances. The human mind wants
to just box everything up and lump it together, and
I understand that, but that's why the professionals are involved
(26:09):
in these cases, to break apart the nuances and try
to explain this to the jury so that they can see.
Speaker 2 (26:16):
This overall picture.
Speaker 1 (26:19):
One person can be telling the truth, they can be exaggerating,
and they can be lying all at the same time.
But this is a trial, and things were laid out
in the complaints specifically, there were things that we were
looking for. So even though I'm sure Johnny Depp and
Amber Heard were telling the truth, at times they were exaggerating,
(26:42):
they were acting, they were also lying. We have to
look at those nuances. We can't all be TikTok detectives.
We have to lean on the professionals who actually have
boots on the ground, who have done these cases, and
they really thoroughly understand and this. So you might be asking,
how did these two highly trained professionals, like I'll just
(27:06):
come to completely different conclusions. One came at it from
a forensic lens and one came at it from a
trauma therapy lens. Now, what's a forensic lens. Well, it's
psychology and the law.
Speaker 2 (27:20):
We're not just looking at a person.
Speaker 1 (27:23):
We're taking into account the legal situation that the person
is in. We're taking into account the claims. We are
heavily looking at malingering, which is lying, or feigning, which
is exaggeration.
Speaker 2 (27:38):
Of symptoms.
Speaker 1 (27:39):
There is a different critical eye that comes into play
when you talk about crime, criminal civil litigation. It's very
different than when you open your office door and you
bring somebody in for therapy and you just listen.
Speaker 2 (27:55):
You know they're lying at.
Speaker 1 (27:56):
Times, or they're not telling you the whole truth, but
you listen because you offer them support. You want them
to get to a better place in your life. I'm sorry,
but as a forensic psychologist, that's not.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
What we do at all.
Speaker 1 (28:09):
We want to rip apart the facts and we want
to find the truth. And so Shannon Curry came in
guns fully loaded in this case, and I do not
think that Don did. And we see this further by
the objective psychological instruments that Shannon Curry used and also
(28:29):
that doctor Don used, which were those screeners not anchored
in objective science. It seems to me that Curry's goal
was to assess the credibility of amber heard and the
psychological functioning. Now, she was also probably looking very very
carefully because she was hired by Johnny Depp's team. You
(28:52):
can't undo the fact that when she was hired she
went to his house. Seems like they had some drinks
and the legal team kind of assessed her. That did
seem a bit bias. Now, I don't think she was
biased meaningfully going into this, but there were elements of
who's paying her That always plays into this. Right, Doctor
(29:14):
Hughes seemed to really come in as somebody who wanted
to explain Amber's trauma and abuse.
Speaker 2 (29:21):
But who is she explaining that to.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
She's explaining that to a bunch of lawyers and a
jury and a judge.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
It's not going to sit the same way.
Speaker 1 (29:30):
So what was the result of all of this? How
did it affect the trial? We had a courtroom showdown
of clinical credibility. I've never seen a trial where psychologists
have such an important role in the outcome in what
happens to these individuals' lives. I'm going to give you
an answer that you're not going to like. I don't
(29:51):
think either party was entirely right or wrong. I think
Amberherd may have PTSD and personality rates or disorders. I
think Johnny Depp probably has all of the above as well,
But again we didn't get an opportunity to dig into
his mind. These things aren't mutually exclusive, but in a
(30:13):
courtroom complexity doesn't play well with jurys.
Speaker 2 (30:18):
Simplicity wins.
Speaker 1 (30:20):
Doctor Curry was able to offer a diagnosis to the
jury that was very clear and it was based on
a narrative describing Amber Heard's behaviors. So even though the
jury could look over at Johnny Depp and see his
behaviors playing out in the courtroom, they had to focus
(30:41):
on what they were given by the experts, by the witnesses,
by the lawyers. At the end of the day, simplicity
wins with a jury. Doctor Curry gave a diagnosis to
the jury that was clear and based in behaviors. They
saw behaviors of Amber Heard that made sense to them
(31:05):
based on what doctor Curry was saying. Doctor Curry said
that Amber Heard exaggerated, distorted, and manipulated her abuse narrative
that won the case for Johnny Depp.
Speaker 2 (31:20):
Now there is a real danger of a.
Speaker 1 (31:23):
Diagnosis being in the public eye and on social media.
Amber Heard's diagnosis of borderline personality disorder.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
Became a meme. It was a punchline, a character flaw.
Speaker 1 (31:37):
PTSD became a badge of dishonesty when attached to someone
the public didn't trust. This damages our understanding of both
diagnoses and the people involved. People with borderline personality are
not inherently abusive. Survivors of trauma often act in ways
(31:58):
that seem contradictory. Survivors of trauma don't always have borderline
personality disorder abusers. Johnny Depp may be an abuser. Amber
Heard maybe an abuser. Both of these individuals can have
all of these symptoms in all of these flaws as well.
And when courts and media simplify mental illness into these
(32:23):
hero villain categories, I.
Speaker 2 (32:26):
Think we all lose.
Speaker 1 (32:28):
We lose the humanity of what is going on. It's
not justice, It just became theater. So in my closing arguments,
I will tell you that psychological testimony is meant to clarify,
not confuse, even though lawyers are going to try and
get their fingers in there and confuse the shit out
of it.
Speaker 2 (32:49):
If you're a good lawyer, you know how to use.
Speaker 1 (32:51):
Your witness and you also know how to cross and
make sure that narrative is clear and precise and concise.
But in this trial it turn into a battleground for blame, credibility,
public opinion. So as a forensic psychologist, I saw a
lot of missed opportunities on both sides to explain the
(33:12):
nuances of trauma, of personality, of memory, of domestic violence,
of coercive control of relationships. Amber Heard may not have
been a perfect victim, but real victims rarely are, and
that's a reality we have to face if we ever
(33:33):
want courts to do a better job. I actually think
at the end of the day, we had two victims
suing each other, and we had two abusers suing each other,
and we had a lot of lawyers writing their coattails.
Intentionally Disturbing as a podcast from Me, Doctor Leslie.
Speaker 2 (33:55):
It's distributed by iHeartMedia.
Speaker 1 (33:58):
Liam Billingham is the senior producer and he also edits
the show. Katie Cobbs does the social media and also
keeps me in My Lane. The executive producers are Paul
Anderson and Scott McCarthy for Workhouse Media.
Speaker 2 (34:15):
But I'm still the boss. Thanks again for listening.
Speaker 1 (34:19):
We'll see you next week with more intentionally disturbing
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.