Is law or science the better option to decide truth from false, and cause and effect? The case of a famous legal battle

A legal battle is brewing in the US between two actors, a woman and a man, with a history of being married. This is of course nothing new. Legal battles between former spouses are happening all the time across the Globe, but this case is broadcast live. That means the process is transparent - we get insight into what is said in real time. The short version: the case seems to center around claims of domestic abuse but mostly about money. Method is an issue. So is episodic memory which is not reproductive but constructive in a social manner. Other questions are about who the victim is. The woman and her expert witness claims that she suffer from PTSD because of domestic abuse. The man and his expert witness presented assessments that indicates that the woman has mental issues and that those were established before the couple met (Complex childhood Trauma). The overall picture also points to her as the abuser. Because fathers contribution in parenthood is normative for children's emotional and social adjustment, its likely that the woman grew up with a controlling, and likely domestic abusive mother. I t's also likely that the woman, based on her experience from her upbringing and expertis in acting, is creating her stories during the trial. 12 pages.

Please support the blog via Swish (Sweden) or MobilePay (Finland).

How can we establish an understanding about what's going on in this play between two famous actors?

There are many frameworks or viewpoints: anthropology, history, law, and psychological science to mention a few.

Let's start with anthropology - the history of humans. Our so-called lineage started some seven million years ago (Pickford, 2006; Pobiner, 2016). Our genes are selfish and will do anything to survive (Dawkins, 1976/2006).

Shared knowledge among anthropologists is that for reproduction, female mammals approach male mammals for the purpose of trading food for sex. This communication is mostly done by using body and facial language. That means displaying a happy welcoming face as well as moving the hips.

Link to source.

~3.5 Mya, they changed their diet, adding animal source food, especially marrow, to the 'plate'. Later,That started an process of reducing their guts and expanding their brains, giving room for more advanced mental faculties (Mann, 2018; McPherron et al. 2010; Thompson et al. 2019), and the emergence of our genus - Homo (~2.8 Mya; Kimbel och Villmoare, 2016; Villmoare, 2018; Villmoare et al. 2015)

New mental faculties included:

• Social cognition and a cultural or proto-language, expressing abstractions in a linear fashion, and for the sake of arguing  - talk to win (Coolidge och Wynn, 2018).; Everett, 2017; Mercier and Sperber (2011).
  
  
• Executive functions, including an number of subsets, serve to shift the control of behavior from the immediate context, social others, and the temporal now to self-regulation by internal representations regarding the hypothetical social future (Ardila, 2008; Barkley, 2001; Diamond, 2013).
  
  
• A grammatical language (~200 000 years before the present; Pagel, 2017).
  
  
• Constructive memory (Ambrose, 2010; Schacter and Addis, 2007).

The recorded history started rather recently: ~6000 years before the present, and law is said to have been introduced in Mesopotamia (modern day IRAQ) by war-lord and king Hammurabi who ruled between 1792 - 1750 BC, that is ~2400 years after the introduction of recorded history:

“The Hammurabi code of laws, a collection of 282 rules, established standards for commercial interactions and set fines and punishments to meet the requirements of justice” (History).

Discourses remained the foundation for big thinkers like Socrates (470–399 BC), Plato (428/427 - 348/347 BC), Aristotle (384 - 322 BC), and Cicero (106 - 43 BC). The latter famous for his rhetorical skills.

Modern law schools still rely on Cicero as a raw model for rhetoric - the ability to persuade. But in her book SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome, professor Mary Beard paints a different picture of Cicero - a person who basically made post hoc rationalization his trademark (Beard, 2016).

“Cicero had the men summarily executed, with not even a show trial. Triumphantly, he announced their deaths to a cheering crowd in a famous one-word euphemism: vixere, 'they have lived - that is, 'they are dead'” (p 27).

Cicero basically executed the people he “found” guilty. Then he used his rhetorical ability to rationalize his actions. In Mercier and Sperber language - improved his standpoint. Found is still the term used by people working courts, that is, judges.

In modern legal trials, argumentation, presented by advocates representing each parts viewpoint, is still in use. Like Hammurabi, a judge is assigned to listen to each party's verbal presentation, which they refer to as evidence. On occasion, there may also be some written references added. These are referred to as opinions.

Then the judge recedes to his or her chambers to contemplate and reflect about which discourse was the most trustworthy (has the best fit for the principles used of the court-personnel). In the US, a jury is doing that job.

Most people understand that this approach is obsolete.

Now, another obvious obstacle is how the media report about things like this. Journalists, who are assigned to report on different matters, tend to spice up their stories on the famous premise - if it bleeds it leads (Pinker, 2018). So, as a reader, it's important to be cautious about the information presented.

The big question is whether one of the parties suffered from trauma during their relationship or if trauma can be traced to circumstances earlier in life. And equally important. If trauma occurred: which one of them is the victim and who is the perpetrator?

There are at least three things a receiver of a message can do to improve the probability that the interpretation of the sum of information is as accurate as possible:

1. Epistemic vigilance. Be suspicious about the information and ask questions about the purpose - why is the sender saying the things they say, and are there any references to back up the claim? (Sperber et al. 2010).
   
   
2. Numeracy. The ability to understand, reason with, and apply simple numerical concepts (Brooks & Pui, 2010). Numeracy is the foundation for instrumentellt and epistemiskt rationality.
   
   
3. Disjunctive reasoning - use many sources before you make any judgment or decision (Stanovich, 2009).

Steven Pinker, professor of psychology at Harvard recently wrote this on Twitter, with reference to a recent article about the language of law:

(Link to source).

To improve the understanding about the battle between the actors, we can also look at what developmental psychology has to say. A commonality in developmental psychology is to look at the home environment. For most of our species' existence, children spent their early life with a small group of people surrounding their mother. Men did other stuff, like hunting for food or other resources. That's why we as a species still act like hunters and gatherers. Recently that has changed, seeing men partake more closely in the upbringing of children.

Long story short, major mental developmental, including emotional adjustment and cognitive development, including visuospatial perception, takes place within the human brain during a persons first four years of living (Baumrind, 1966; Calkins och Keane, 2009; Gopnik, 2016; Baker et al. 2020; Farran och Formby, 2011; Moffitt et al. 2001; Olsson, 2022).

And there's a father-effect. Children who grow up with both parents or their father, have better emotional and social adjustment, as well as cognitive development compared to children growing up with a single mother ((LaFlamme et al. 2012; Macrae, 2021; Rolle 2019; Sethna, 2017; Vieno et al. 2009, 2014; Österberg, 2004).

Besides the father-effect having a normative effect (its implicit and therefore its very hard to describe all the decision rules in detail), communication style inside the home plays a huge role; kids who at 0-3 years of age experience academic reasoning between their parents are said to gain an astonishing 30 000 000 word perceptions compared to children who experiencing conflicting argumentation (Hart and Risley, 1995; Tina Rosenberg, 2013, The Power of talking to your baby).

It's a known fact that people skilled in the art of persuasion can be very successful in convincing people that even false narratives are true (Konnikova, 2015).

Research on Domestic violence (DV)/Interpersonal Violence (IPV), using Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS; Straus, 1979; Straus et al. 1996) or similar, shows the following:

• Physical domestic violence; women account for more than 50% of occurrences and injuries.
  
  
• Lethal violence, will equally unlikely (0.000005) affect children, men, or women (Liem och Koenraadt, 2008).
  
  
• Psychological violence (relational aggressiveness) is typically a female behavior (Crick and Grotpeter, 1995; Hyde, 2005).

DV/IPV is a typically female phenomena which is most common between 20 - 30 years of age (Archer, 2000, 2004; Bates, 2018; Bates, Graham-Kevan och Archer , 2014; Bates och Graham-Kevan, 2016; Bates, Kaye, Pennington och Hamlin, 2019; Thornton et al. 2012). 

Listen to Dr. Elizabeth Bates: Dr Elizabeth Bates: Intimate Partner Violence.

Limor Gottlieb, who is currently writing her dissertation on the topic of intimate partner violence, writes:

“However, research consistently finds that women in heterosexual relationships tend to perpetrate violence against intimate partners at least as often as men (if not more). According to the CDC, one in seven men in the US has been the victim of physical abuse by an intimate partner in his lifetime, and one in 10 men has experienced rape, physical violence, and stalking by an intimate partner. Recent data from the Office for National Statistics points out that of every three reported IPV cases in the UK, two victims are female, and one is male. These numbers may even be gross underestimations considering male victims of domestic abuse are less likely to view abuse as a crime and usually don’t report it to friends or the police” (Gottlieb, 2022).

Why?

Women are also more neurotic compared to men (Weisberg et al. 2011). Neuroticism means worrying about the future, and often includes aggressiveness (Ode et al. 2008).

Because the male in this case, Johnny Depp, is very famous, there are numerous media reports about his life. Anyone can delve into that information to get a picture about him. Since 2009 that picture includes his former wife Amber Heard. The couple met in 2009 and married six years later in 2015 (Nicolaou, 2022). One year after the marriage, a judge granted Ms Heard a restraining order against Mr. Depp, based on an accusation of domestic abuse (Woolf, 2016). Note. There was no reporting of evidence - the judge seems to have based the decision on hearsay and gender bias. In 2017, eight years after their relationship started, they divorced. They made a financial settlement but then Ms Heard had a change of heart - she wanted more:

“Johnny filed legal docs saying a deal is a deal, and they already agreed on the $7 million settlement months ago. Amber recently filed legal docs asking for more, but Johnny says that ship has sailed” (TMZ).

Ms Heard's request was turned down by a judge:

“In a hearing in a court in Los Angeles on Friday, the judge declined Amber's request to delay the finality of the divorce to take Johnny's deposition” (TMZ (Tilly Pearce, The Sun).

Now, that was January 2017. In April 2018, journalist Dan Wootton, based on information that Ms Heard has filed for a restraining order, wrote in the tabloid The Sun:

“Overwhelming evidence was filed to show Johnny Depp engaged in domestic violence against his wife Amber Heard” (Wooton, 2018).

But the use of overwhelming is overwhelming itself, suggesting Mr. Wootton is likely following the principle If it bleeds it leads.

“In a new paper to be published in Proceedings of the Royal Society A, a team of researchers has found that overwhelming evidence without a dissenting opinion can in fact weaken the credibility of a case, or point to a failure of the system” (Gunn et al. 2016).

Mr. Wootton's reference is a dead end; He links to a previous article published by the Sun. But a claim that something has occurred is not to say that it has occurred. It's a proposition that needs to be validated in a reliable way. Consequently, Johnny Depp sued The Sun, but a judge - Andrew Nichol - claimed he had found (that's when a jurist sits alone in his office and compare two discourses to find which of them fit the principles for which court-personnel are bound to follow):

“... that the great majority of alleged assaults of Ms Heard by Mr Depp have been proved to the civil standard”.

But Mr. Nichol's findings are not based on evidence, it's an opinion.

Then in 2018, Ms Heard wrote an op-ed claiming, again, that she had been a victim of domestic abuse. Johnny Depp, again, rejected the accusation and sued Ms Heard for defamation. Part of the claim is based on this statement:

“Like many women, I had been harassed and sexually assaulted by the time I was of college age. But I kept quiet — I did not expect filing complaints to bring justice. And I didn’t see myself as a victim” (Heard, 2018).

During the incident Heard had called the police on the claim that Depp had thrown things at her. But during the trail the Police said:

“However, LAPD officers who responded to Ms Heard’s call testified at the defamation trial and said they saw signs of crying but saw no signs of visible injury, which were prominent in court days later”.  

No visible injury but signs of crying. Crying is the result of a strong emotional reaction and tears are known to contain certain pheromones; tears decreases sexual arousal in men but increases social bonding (Gelstein, 2011), a combination which is likely to trigger things like compassion or perceiving the crying person as a victim.

That's consistent with Heard own testimony - she have admitted physical abuse on Mr Depp:

“She said: 'I f**king was hitting you... I don't know what the motion of my hand was, but you're fine, I did not hurt you, I did not punch you, I was hitting you'” (Ashford, 2020).

In 2016 Heard also testified abusing the man she lived with prior to Mr Depp (Khaled, 2022).

During the trial a recorded phone was played showing that Ms Heard had thrown things at Johnny Depp, with the consequence of him almost losing a finger. He was also hit in the head (Shamsian, 2022).

Because that abuse is validated, it makes sense to listen to Johnny Depp's description about the event.

“Ms heard had taken a cigarette from the ash tray and stomped it at my face - here” (Mr. Depp points with his hand).

Here's pictures of him at the hospital after his finger been cut of after Ms Heard had throw a bottle at him, and the mark on his face of the alleged cigarette stomping.

Both Mr Depp and Ms Heard have assigned psychologists to perform tests on Ms Heard to decide if or when any trauma has occurred: Dr. Shannon Curry and Dr. Dawn Hughes, both specializing in what is called forensic psychology:

“Forensic psychology is a specialty in professional psychology characterized by activities primarily intended to provide professional psychological expertise within the judicial and legal systems” (APA).

Both psychologist's presentation and hearing can be seen via YouTube:

Forensic Psychologist Dr. Shannon Curry Testifies (Johnny Depp v Amber Heard Trial Day 9)

Direct Examination of Amber Heard's Witness Psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes (Johnny Depp v Amber Heard).

The short version of the assessments made by the forensic psychologists on Ms Heard point in two different direction:

Dr. Hughes concluded that Ms Heard suffers from trauma due to domestic abuse by Mr Depp.

Dr. Curry, on the other hand, concluded that Ms Heard suffers from Borderline personality disorder and Histrionic personality disorder that was present before the couple met. For an orientation about Borderline Personality Disorder, see: (Ruffalo (2024; Zalewski et al. 2014).

Which conclusion is most accurate?

If we listen to each of Dr. Curry and Dr. Hughes presentations, we note a difference. Whereas Dr. Curry presents the results from assessments.

The interview with Dr. Hughes indicates that she uses vague language and bases her conclusions on gender bias (what she is convinced about). Dr. Hughes also refers to things that she claims are 'are known' about domestic abuse.

Now, many people believe that Domestic violence (DV/IPV) is a typical male thing, and this approach has been used by the feminist movement as well by the media (when it bleeds it leads). But remember that scientific studies about DV/IPV show that women are the perpetrators of physical domestic violence in at least 50 % of the cases,  and dominate when it comes to relational aggressiveness. And DV/IPV is typically occurring in the lifespan between 20 - 30 years of age. When the couple met, Ms Heard was 23 years old, and Mr Depp was 46 with two kids.

Dr. Curry's presentation included the results of four different test instruments, suggesting that Ms. Heard had at least two personality disorders, that is, had mental health problems, when she began the relationship with Mr. Depp. This is consistent with research on emotional and social adjustment during childhood. Dr Curry's assessment also revealed Ms Heard was worried Mr Depp would leave her, i.e., neuroticism which often includes aggressiveness (Ode et al. 2008; Weisberg et al. 2011), Borderline personality disorder (Ruffalo (2024; Zalewski et al. 2014), and Histrionic personality disorder that was present before the couple met, that is, Complex childhood Trauma.

It is likely to assume that Mr Depp wanted to combine his life with his new girlfriend with his children. It's equally likely to assume that Ms Heard was probably eager to move to the next stage - to have children of her own with Mr Depp.

Because of the tape-recordings that has been presented during the trial, including Ms Heard throwing a bottle at Mr Depp that cut his finger off, forcing him to visit the emergency room, he is the one that suffered trauma during the relationship.

It implies that Ms Heard and her sister grew up with a controlling mother who may have been a domestic abuser.

Conclusion. Humans still live as hunters and gatherers, meaning, the men and women play different roles, and have different opportunities. As a consequence of a change in diet and evolution, our ancestors brains expanded, giving room for (1) executive functions - serve to shift the control of behavior from the immediate context, social others, and the temporal now to self-regulation by internal representations regarding the hypothetical social future, (2) constructive memory. Father relations are crucial for kids' executive functions to adjust and develop. Domestic violence is typically a female phenomenon. That means that so-called testimonies are opinions that do not provide evidence. Testifiers recall what fits the situation so to speak. Media reporting is of course not a valid source. Heard's legal assistants used information from tabloids. Dr Curry's testimony, which was based on an assessment using four test instruments, is more consistent with the science compared to Dr Hugh.

Please support the blog via Swish (Sweden) or MobilePay (Finland).

More about my expertise:

Executive coaching for CEOs/managers and workshops to facilitate Organizational Performance, Learning, and Creativity for Problem Solving |  Lectures: Nutrition for physical and mental health  |  Course/lecture: children's emotional and social adjustment and cognitive development |  Language training - Swedish  |  Academy Competency  |  CV  |  Teaching skills and experience |  Summary of research project |  Instagram  |  Linkedin  | YouTube-channel  |  TikTok  | Twitter

Appendix

Here are videos that showed up on YouTube. That means that they are published here in temporal order:

Its seems that Ms Heard: used quotes from movies during her testimony

lied when claiming being hit by Mr Depp

Lied about make up and not being a fan of  Mr Depp prior the their relationship

Ben Shapiro REACTS to CRAZY Moments From the Trial

Ben Shapiro REACTS to Ms Heard's Testimony

Mr Depp's security took photos because he feared Ms heard would make abuse allegations

More information that indicate that Ms heard had been a perpetrator Interpersonal Violence/Domenstic Abuse.

Johnny Depp & Amber Heard: The Truth and Timeline of The Case

New Proof Revealed: Amber Heard Is BLACKMAILING Johnny Depp

Camille Vasquez Makes Amber Heard Angry When She Gets Confronted About Her 30th Birthday Incident

Amber Heard EXPOSED For Destroying Evidence By Smashing Her Own Devices

BIG MISTAKE! Amber Heard Gets CRUSHED By Her Own Witness

Celebrities Reacting To Johnny Depp Winning Over Amber Heard in Court

Another BIG MISTAKE From Amber Heard Just Discovered!

Johnny Depp Reacts Amber Changing Her Stories And Dodging His Lawyers' Questions

Body Language Analyst REACTS to Amber Heard Cross Examination! What Happened with Johnny Depp?

Several statements on Twitter are in favor of Johnny Depp; one person claims she recognize Ms Heards behavior from another abusive woman. Another comment is that Ms heard lies about being a victim (Twitter).

Amber Heard REACTS To Her Insanity Revealed In Court!

New Witness Was Worried Amber Would K*ll Johnny Depp

This video indicates, again, that Ms Heard is the domestic abuser.

AMBER'S LOSING IT! Kate Moss Testimony PROVES Amber Heard Is A LIAR! - Johnny Depp Trial

Kate Moss testifies and contradicts Amber Heard's claims.

Johnny Depp expert rips Amber Heard psychologist for 'misrepresenting' testimony | LiveNOW from FOX

BREAKING: Amber's Former Women Organization SUPPORTS Johnny Depp!

Johnny Depp expert, Dr. Richard Shaw, accuses Amber Heard psychiatrist of breaking rules | Live NOW from FOX

Studio head shuts down Amber Heard's claims her role in 'Aquaman 2' was diminished

Christopher C. Melcher has written a thread about Amber Heard