Monday, June 20, 2022

How Three US Trials Associated In The Public Mind Are Right Now At Their Tipping Points

Posted by Peter Quennell

To reach comments click here.

The Three Cases

All three cases involve women who faced trials by jury. These are their imminent tipping points.

1. The Heard-Depp Damages Hearing

This Friday the 24th of June a meeting between the judge and the legal teams in the Depp-Heard case will arrive at agreements on the sizes of the damages awards.

The big unknowns are (1) how much the Depp team will ask for presumably in exchange for Amber Heard’s agreement that she will no longer poison public minds about the jury verdict; and (2) whether Amber Heard will be psychologically capable of biding by any such agreement.

Some professionals watching are seeing her psychology now as in a pretty bad way, rather than seeing a monster, and would prefer that Heard’s personal and media enablers stop getting in the way of treatment.

Many agree that Heard’s symptoms we see today mirror the diagnosis of two syndromes (Borderline and Histrionic) by court-ordered psychologist Dr Shannon Curry.

2. The Ghislaine Maxwell Sentencing

Last December the jury found Jeffrey Epstein’s procurer guilty of harm to several young women and in New York on Tuesday 28th next week she will be sentenced, probably to 20 years at a minimum.

She really is being seen as something of a monster. She might do herself a lot of good by sharing her little black book of all the men that violated the dozens of young girls at Epstein’s various properties. The only firmly known one was Prince Andrew and he settled a civil case with one girl for millions.

However, don’t hold your breath. Maxwell has shown no remorse, her team’s losing strategy was a pretty horrible one of trashing the young women, and her team is angling for a new trial. 

3. The Danielle Redlick Sentencing

Our first-time mention of this high-profile Florida case. Danielle Redlick (below pre-abuse) admittedly stabbed her husband to death, but has just been found not guilty in light of very convincing evidence of self-defense and domestic violence.

She will be sentenced August 5 for some crime scene rearrangement, and as she was held before trial for over three years she may not serve any more time.

Why is this associated with the other cases in the public mind? Well, one or two had seen in her a monster, like Ghislaine, while many others, genuine domestic violence victims and experts, have declared online that her DV predicament rang true to them.

Her perceived unflinching honesty is the very opposite of the many negative reactions online to the escalating DV descriptions Amber Heard has been trying to market, evidence-free.

Click here for a YouTube with numerous comments from DV survivors about Amber Heard faking it and Danielle Redlick not

Danielle Redlick in pre-marriage days

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/20/22 at 06:49 AM in


I do recommend a watch of some of the cross-examination of Danielle Redlick on the stand here.

At a guess the prosecutor is (1) elected, and (2) more used to forcing both guilty and innocent suspects into plea-bargains than court-work.  Maybe he had a plea offer of say 20 years brushed off, causing him to be so self-defeatingly ticked off?

[Update: the prosecutor was politically appointed, which is telling, and Danielle Redlick had snubbed a plea of guilty to manslaughter for ten years inside. The prosecutor then foolishly charged her with Murder II which proved absurd overkill.] 

And as 100-plus commenters remark, Danielle Redlick’s demeanor (which I think is mostly uncoached) is about the polar opposite of Amber’s and thus so effective.

Clips showing the reading of the verdict suggest she accidentally understood she was found guilty.

Her evident joy when her lawyer corrects her is quite something. Watch from 1’40” here.

From 4’20” watch her thank the jury. Soon after, she claps her hands. Here she is, happy, prior to her domestic violence days.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/20/22 at 03:20 PM | #

On the psychology and victimology theme of interest to us.

Amazing that within a few days we have seen testifying live on TV and the internet two extreme opposites as purported authentic victims, one winning big, and one losing big.

An Amber Heard juror we quoted in a post earlier said Amber Heard not only came off as not authentic, she was quite annoying.

No question but that the performance on the stand of Amanda Knox in July 2009 (also broadcast live) was almost identical. A fake and a quite annoying one.

In sharp contrast, Danielle Redlick has already received wide praise for authenticity in her testimony and cross-examination from other domestic violence victims, many overjoyed that finally here was a perfect illustration of what the real thing should look like.

No juror has spoken up yet on the jury’s take on Danielle Redlick, but here is one expert’s take on why she was so much more convincing.

Host: We’re talking about two cases involving domestic violence, the Johnny Depp Amber Heard case and this case, okay? We have two victims on the stand. One was Amber Heard. She said she was a victim, Johnny Depp said he was a victim, and the jury believed him. The other was Danelle Redlick. The two women testified, and one was very animated, Amber Heard, right? She’s telling the jury “You don’t know what goes on behind a bedroom’s doors”. The other woman Danielle Redlick is not so animated, she’s just kind of like owning bad facts. When she owns one, she admits to it and all. Again though she says we don’t always know what’s going on in a relationship. So how can we judge real domestic violence victims? Is there a lesson to be learned here?

Expert: Yeah such a such an incredible kind of comparison to make to their two testimonies. A couple of things stood out to me. First Amber Heard had this habit of never speaking with the attorney on cross examination, but always turning towards the jurors and speaking with them. A lot of people talked about this who know that they do train professional witnesses to do that, speak to the jury. But the way she did it came across as so kind of scripted that she began to lose authenticity, I think, and you don’t see that here with Redlick. She seems very authentic.

The other thing that is something that you pointed out is this idea that she’s willing to take responsibility and ownership for some of the things that she’s done wrong, which was incredibly lacking in Amber Heard’s testimony. It was like she never wanted to admit to having done anything wrong ever, and that again tears at somebody’s authenticity and believability.

So what you have here is one person that becomes very sympathetic in rhetoric, and one not sympathetic at all, obviously, at least to those jurors in Virginia when it comes to Amber Heard. I think that’s why we’re seeing such drastically different outcomes. I know comparing criminal and civil is apples and oranges, but it’s with drastically different results, at least in their believability according to the jurors.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/22/22 at 01:34 PM | #

Interim take on the media dimension. 

Although there were few if any reports filed from the courtroom, some of the main media ran their own courtroom feeds on their own websites.

This kept them safely out of harms way! This could be a significant improvement if it becomes regular.

In sharp contrast to the Depp-Heard trial, on this case the main media seems to have run no editorials, biased or otherwise.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/23/22 at 01:06 AM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Quack Psychologist Todd Grande Misrepresents Redlick Case, Ridicules Classic Signs Of PTSD

Or to previous entry ABC News Channels A Juror, Undercutting Heard’s Wildeyed Claims On Other US Networks