>> sandra: and who are you siding with, anyone? >> caitlyn: yeah, no, i actually have been following it. it's very interesting. >> sandra: we are all watching it. >> john: great to spend time with you at the correspondent's dinner, too. >> sandra: thanks for being with us. i'm sandra smith. >> john: john roberts. martha, take it away. >> martha: hello. i'm martha maccallum live in london for the platinum jubilee of queen elizabeth ii. the story that is clearly breaking right now is happening in fairfax county, virginia. in a courtroom that has been watched very widely over the course of the past several weeks. let's go straight to the courtroom as we wait for the verdict as we expect it to come in any moment. let's listen in.

>> can the attorneys approach, please?

all right. ladies and gentlemen of the jury, i need to give the forms back to you. when you find for a defamatory statement, one or more, you need to fill out the compensatory damages. it has to be at least a dollar for compensatory damages and up to whatever amount you should be. for punitive damages, you can put a zero there or fill that out as well. i needs the lines filled out. if i can have you retire back and do that for me. okay? all right. we'll be in recess until we hear back from them. don't go too far.

>> martha: always interesting, right? twists and turns. so right now we were expecting to get a verdict. i expect we will very shortly. you heard what the judge said there. when there's a defamation case before you and in this case, johnny depp is suing amber heard nor $50 million for an opinion piece claiming that she was a victim of sexual abuse. so he sued her for $50 million. she counter sued for $100 million. the judge said you have to fill out this form. you have to say what you expect the payment to be. she said it has to be at least a dollar if you find for defamation. we'll see how long it takes them to come up with a number. let's bring in attorney brian claypool. i'm not sure how the jury

instructions didn't include that this needed to be part of what they had to come back with. what do you think? >> hi, martha. great to be with you. thanks for having me. what this tells me is that somebody won. either johnny depp or amber heard won their claims because the trial judge would not be asking the jury to go back and fill in a number if the jury found that there was no defamation. so somebody has won. my inclination is whoever won is going to be awarded money or might be awarded nothing. the jury might have found, for example, that amber heard defamed johnny depp but they don't award any damages, right? they don't think what she did is cause depp to lose his part in pirates of the caribbean 6. >> martha: she said it had to at least be a dollar if you making

a decision in this. we know from defamation cases, regardless what the suit is for, they can come back in any amount that they want. what do you think they might do? we watched these two. we know there's a lot of craziness on both sides. i heard people say that they should give them a dollar or give her $5. what do you think should happen? >> you just made an excellent point. based on what you just said, i do believe unequivocally the jury has found in favor of depp on his claim or heard on her claim. i think what the jury said, both sides is not amount the money. they have to put a but dollars on there. maybe that's what they're doing. >> martha: we know they tried this case before here in england. johnny depp is here. he's been on stage playing

guitar with john beck. so there's a lot of drama involved and a lot of strong messages that they're sending each other throughout this course of this thing. in this trial, he did not prevail. what do you make of the fact that he's not there? what message does that send? >> yeah, martha. that's another great point. i think the fact that johnny depp is not in the courtroom means that he feels like he won this case in the court of public opinion. really two trials that went on. first trial is depp wanted to clare his name. he wanted to put amber heard on the stand and have her cross examined what he believes is the truth out. in the court of public opinion, johnny depp won this case. it's a landslide vote of him winning in public opinion. in the court of law, i don't think johnny depp cares as much if he wins in the court, gets a verdict in his favor right now.

i don't care. i don't think johnny depp cares if he gets an award. he probably wouldn't collect it anyway. it sends a message that he's not there to the jury that he is a little bit indifferent toward the jury. it's a horrible move. i've done over 50 jury trials. i have never not had my client in the courtroom. to me, it's an element of disrespect, especially when he's in england playing in a band. it's not like he has a health issue. he's choosing not to be there. not a good sign on his part. >> martha: no, it's a bold move. the videos are all over the place of him playing on stage the other night and sends a message that he's done with this process. i think that's safe to say. what do you think in terms of the defamation charge? i reread this editorial today that she wrote. it's very broad. if you're a juror analyzing,

this is what is before you. not all the other garbage in some cases that was part of this discussion. but did she defame him with this editorial where she talked broadly about being a victim of sexual assault? >> yeah, martha. i went back and looked at the verdict form. and

the fact that she was so sure that she wanted to also be a part of this op-ed. i think what everyone says we don't know if it was about johnny depp, i think in the statement in the op-ed is that you just looked at today, i again looked at it myself, it says two years ago, i became a public figure representing domestic abuse. i think everybody remembers it was two years before this op-ed that she tried to get a restraining order against johnny depp. so it's clear that she's complaining about johnny depp, that he was the target here. but in the end, it appears that the jury doesn't want to award that money. they didn't think about the money. especially since the money was so much in evidence in terms of

money lost by each party, her claim that she donated the $7 million from the divorce to the aclu, which turned out to not be true. and so you get the sense that they basically said, we're not going to give you any money but we're going to side with one party and i expect johnny depp. and with johnny depp not being in court today, i don't think it's as horrific as some see it. the testimony has ended. there's not much that can happen from this point other than to receive the verdict. his presence is not required. it's a civil case. who knows what's going on in europe. and again, he's spent years of his life under this claim of being an abuser. if anyone listens to the

testimony, i think it's very of course that that's not who johnny depp was. he was a lot of things, a lot of horrific things. but it appears that she was the abuser and not he. >> and you talked about that, about the difficulty of men who are hit by their spouses, to come forward. talk about that a little bit. in your opinion. >> as you know, i started the first domestic violence unit in the country in 1978, which was a long time ago. men were very reluctant to come forward and admit they were victims of abuse. even to the point that people thought women could be victims of abuse until we started seeing stabbings and shootings that were not in response to abuse. i've even had witnesses, one guy in particular, that was stabbed three teams with a butcher knife

while he was sleeping. he almost died. when i put him in the grand jury, he said something different. he said it was probably an accident. i don't think she meant it because his masculinity was at stake. it was embarrassing for him to have to admit as a man, you know, in the 80s at this point, that he was a victim of domestic abuse. so culturally, we always found that women were victims. you know, amber heard came out in the me, too movement with a lot of this. so there's a lot of cultural stuff that she claimed worked against her when in truth i think she believed that that was working in her favor. the malice of met by johnny depp in his case. so it was a very high burden, very hard to prove this case. but we'll see. if i'm wrong -- >> martha: i want to ask you one more question, if i may.

it's interesting to me that they didn't fill in the money. these are two movie stars. i'm wondering about the impact of him not being there with still having one more thing to decide. right? they've been watching him. he's built a relationship as a jury member with the people you are evaluating. how do you think that might impact this part of their decision? >> you know, martha, that's an excellent question. now they're going in. they're putting pen to paper. i believe they already made a decision that there would be no money. they wouldn't have left that blank, martha, given all the testimony about finances and loss of business, loss of earnings. i think from the get-go they didn't intend to award either one. we'll see. in a jury that might not have been so sure, it might impact them to give less than they have

wanted to. it's clear that they didn't want to award money. >> okay. thank you, janine. i want to point out in the bottom right-hand side, you can see this concert he played the other night. this is an interesting thing. he got up on stage and played with jeff beck, the famous guitarist. here's a shot of the courtroom. here he is on stage. not feeling too concerned about the outcome of what is happening in fairfax, virginia. amber heard say there he is, showing his priorities and snide remarks and now he's on stage playing get tear. she weighed in on what she thinks about that. let's bring in donna, who represented harvey weinstein. good to have you with us. your thoughts on what the jury is up to right now as they have to fill in the one line on the form about the money. we're talking $50 million that

depp sued for or in the counter side of $100 million on the other side. >> it was a great point to raise. the fact that he's not there is interesting in terms of whether or not that changes the amount of money that they may give. we talked about this the very first day of the trial. for him, it's about winning in the court of public opinion. i really think that was the whole purpose of this. you knew the burden was high. you knew what the situation was he was walking into. i felt sure they were both abused and both abusers. if you look at the article, it doesn't rise to the level that we talked about when this case first started. does she meet her burden, toes he meet his burden. what it's all about in some ways, an opportunity to give an immense amount of press, good or bad.

i don't think she realized she would get this level of bad press. >> martha: they're all standing up now. it appears there's some activity in the courtroom. i going to try to sneak in a quick question. did they prove about how their careers were affected? >> the answer is no. i think it's very clear that johnny depp was losing roles and already had an issue with the caribbean movie. i don't think they did. i don't think either one was able to establish that. >> martha: we're watching amber heard here. she was laser focused and he was looking down, taking a lot of notes. the judge is back in the courtroom. let's see where we are. stand by.

>> mr. depp's claim against mrs. heard. one, as to the statement of appearing in the online op-ed entitled amber heard, i spoke up against sexual violence and faced our cultures wrath, that has to change." in "the washington post" online edition. "i spoke up against sexual violence and faced our culture's wrath. that has to change." do you find that mr. depp has proven all the elements of defamation? answer, yes. has mr. depp proven by a greater weight of the evidence that question, the statement was made or published by mrs. heard? yes. the question. the statement was about mr. depp. answer: yes. question: the statement was false? answer: yes. question: the statement last a defamatory implication about

mr. depp. answer: yes. question. the defamatory implication was designed and intended by mrs. heard. answer: yes. question: due to circumstances surrounding the publication of the statement, it conveyed a defamatory implication to someone who saw it other than mr. depp. answer: yes. do you find that mr. depp has proven by clear and convincing evidence that mrs. heard acted with actual malice? answer: yes. two, as to the statement in the op-ed, "a transformative for women" in the online op-ed of "the washington post," amber heard said i spoke up against sexual violence in the online

edition. "then two years ago, i became a public figure representing domestic abuse and i felt the full force of our culture's wrath for women that speak out." do you find that mr. depp has proven all the elements of defamation? answer: yes. has mr. depp proven by a greater weight of the evidence that question, the statement was made or published by mrs. heard? answer: yes. question: the statement was about mr. depp. answer: yes. question: the statement was false? answer: yes. question: the statement has a defamatory implication about mr. depp? answer: yes. question: the defamatory implication was designed and intended by mrs. heard? answer: yes. question: due to circumstances

surrounding the publication of the statement, it conveyed a defamatory statement to someone that saw it other than mr. depp? answer: yes. do you find that mr. depp has proven by clear and convincing evidence that mrs. heard actioned with actual malice? answer: yes. three, as to the statement appearing in the op-ed entitled "a transformative moment for women in "the washington post" print edition and the online op-ed, amber heard, i spoke up against sexual viral lens and faced our culture's wrath, that has to change?" "the washington post" online edition. "i had the rare vantage point of seeing in real time how institutions protect men accused of abuse." do you find that mr. depp has proven all the elements of

defamation? answer: yes. has mr. depp proven by a greater weight of the evidence, that statement was made or published by mrs. heard? answer: yes. question: the statement was about mr. depp? answer: yes. question: the statement was false? answer: yes. question: the statement has a defamatory implication about mr. depp. answer: yes. question: the defamatory implication was designed and intended by mrs. heard? answer: yes. question: due to circumstances surroundin defamatory implication to someone that saw it other than mr. depp? answer: yes. do you find that mr. depp has proven by clear and convincing evidence that mrs. heard acted

with actual malice? answer: yes. as against amber heard, we the jury award compensatory damages in the amount of $10 million. as against amber heard, we the jury award punitive damages in the amount of $5 million. in civil case number cl 2019-2911, mrs. heard's claim against mr. depp. one, as to this statement, appearing in the april 8, 2020 online edition of the daily mail, "amber heard and her friends in the media used sexual violence allegations as a sword and shield depending on their needs. they have selected some of her sexual violence hoax facts as the source. inflicting them on the public

and mr. depp. do you find that mrs. heard has proven all the elements of defamation? answer: no. two, as to this statement, appearing in the april 27th, 2020 online edition of "the daily mail", "quite simply this was an ambush, a hoax. they set mr. depp up by calling the cops, but the first attempt did not do the trick. the officers came to the penthouses thoroughly searched and interviewed and left after seeing no damage to property. so amber and her friends spilled a little wine and roughed the place up. got their story straight under the direction of a lawyer and publicist and placed a second call to 911." do you find that mrs. heard has proven all of the elements of defamation? answer: yes. has mrs. heard proven by a

greater weight of the evidence that question, mr. waldman while acting as an agent for mr. depp made or published the statement? answer: yes. question: the statement was about mrs. heard? answer: yes. question: the statement was seen other than someone by mrs. heard? answer: yes. >> question: the statement was false? answer: yes. do you find that mrs. heard has found by clear and convincing evidence that the statement was made with actual malice? answer: yes. three, as to this statement, appearing in the april 27th, 2020 online edition of "the daily mail", we have reached the beginning of the end of miss heard's abuse hoax about johnny depp. do you find that she's proven all of the elements of

defamation? answer: no. as against john c. depp, ii, we award $2 million. as against john c. depp, ii, we award the damages of zero dollars. >> does either side wish to have the jury polled? >> yes, your honor. >> members of the jury, if this is your verdict, please answer yes. if this is not your verdict, please answer no. juror number 6. >> yes. >> juror number 10. >> yes. >> yourer number 15. >> yes. >> juror number 16? >> yes. >> juror number 22? >> yes. >> juror number 27? >> yes. >> juror number 29? >> yes. >> do you find that the jury's verdict is unanimous. this concludes your service in

this case, ladies and gentlemen. i want to thank you for your dedication and your hard work during this trial. i speak for everybody here when i appreciate -- tell you we appreciate your sacrifices and your time and your public service in this matter. so i'm going to have you go back to the jury deliberation room for one more time and we'll release you from there. thank you. okay. in accordance of law, will amend the punitive damages for $350,000 for mr. depp's award. i will set this down for an entry of an order. can we do it june 24 at

10:00 a.m.? if you can prepare that order and circulate it and we can have all the objections noted on it. >> we'll do that, your honor. thanks very much. >> if i get it before that date, i'll take it off of the docket. thanks for your professionalism and you're welcome to come to my courtroom any time. give me a few weeks, but then you can come any time. >> thank you, your honor. >> court is adjourned. >> all rise. >> martha: there you have it. a very long verdict that went through a number of defamation charges and awarded to johnny depp $10 million and one charge on $5 million and another. there's $2 million that sounds like it's going the other way. it's bring in brian claypool. in the beginning, they went through the charges that johnny depp brought and said that amber heard acted with actual malice

and that she said false things about johnny depp. they felt it clear that she was writing specifically about him and that this was defamatory towards him and actual malice was demonstrated in this. so tell me a little bit about what you heard there. then we have the other situation with the agent that acted and speak out in the daily mail. first let's do johnny depp's -- the reason that we're here, johnny depp suing her for $50 million for defamation. >> right. this is a home run for johnny depp. for the jury to find that he prevailed on all three of those statements? i thought maybe one, maybe two. i knew going in that he was going to win because of that question. the jury asked the question. do we have to find the whole op-ed false? all three statements? on top of that, martha --

remember, the jury could have found defamation on one, two or three and no malice. they could have found no malice on one of the three. the jury found malice on all three of his claims. that is astounding. the icing on the cake for depp, but any time you get an award -- was it $5 million for punitive damages? >> martha: $10 million and 5 million. >> 5 on punitive, martha? that is a message from the jury to amber heard. trust me. first of all, you rarely win on punitive damages in a civil case. it's rare. it's a high standard. you have to prove the evil that you have -- callous disrecord for the person. that in and of itself define

punitives. usually they award a small amount of money. $5 million is a message to amber heard. on the flip side, i'm surprised that amber heard won on one of her claims. i thought because the jury found in favor of depp on all three that they wound find against heard on all three of her claims. >> >> in that case it was against an agent of johnny depp. nothing against him. for the statements that were made in the daily mail. so that is a separate issue. a small victory for her side. as you say, he is -- he clearly won over the hearts and minds of this jury. also as you pointed out, punitive damages. the first set of damages, the $10 million, you've been defamed. it has an impact on you as an actor, a public person. $10 million. the punitive is a punishment to her saying you have to pull $5 million out of your pocket and

pay it to him because you acted with malice and you acted to defame him intentionally. my mind goes to all the crazy things that came out. the throwing of the bottle. he claimed she burned him with a cigarette. what happened in the bed that he said -- she said was a product of the dog. he said no, i think not. all of these things added up clearly in the minds of this jury. we hope we hear from some of them on the way out. we may get a statement from johnny depp. stay with us. go ahead, brian. >> let's talk about the $10 million too, martha. that's not chump change. when they hadn't filled it in, we thought they'll give him a few bucks because he said in closing, i don't care about the money. but $10 million. they met him on the middle of what he made on pirates of caribbean. he would have made $22.5

million. that's another message to am before heard that you can't be doing this. you're right. especially your viewers know, punitives hardly award and it's rarely a punishment. you can't see government entities for punitive damages because that's taxpayer money. it's so rare to get awarded $5 million is the message. but at the end of the day, two things won this case. one was the audio tape. there was an audio tape of amber heard with the bathroom door. amber heard admitted on that audio tape that she punched, hit johnny depp. she said i didn't hit you that hard. you're a baby. she's admitting that she hit him. she's the only person that admitted it. camille vazquez, female attorney, cross examining the female amber heard was brilliant. martha, i would have never been able to get away with what she got away with woman to woman. like isn't it true, mrs. heard,

you were the abuser. you were the manipulator, you were the monster. if a man had does that, they would have been chastised and characterized as a bully. she did a great job. >> martha: the two of them were very friend live, affect nate. she hugged him. this man is not a monster. he's my friend. we're working together. we expect to hear from some folks. keep an eye on that. it's interesting to watch this dynamic in the frame of these me too stories and cases that we have watched so many of, brian. there's some pieces written that this puts a bit in the steak of the heart of the notion that you believe all women. that regardless of you sex, you can be telling the truth or not tell the truth depending on any given individual circumstance in these circumstances.

for a while, that idea was gone. it appears that with this, some semblance of justice as it was figured out by this jury appears to have existed. >> great point. the message is being sent by the jury to anybody that wants to proclaim that they have been physically or sexually abused is, you better be telling the truth, number 1. here's another down fall for amber heard. she utilized these allegations of sexual abuse and physical abuse to promote a movie. do you remember that? juror always love to have motive. there's usually a motive in a criminal case. you hardly ever get it in a civil case. like judge jeanine said, when amber heard lied on the stand about donating that money, remember is that?

i'm donating my money to the aclu and another charity and proved that she donated $350,000. she's putting the op-ed out, two months before the aqua man movie was coming out. that's her biggest movie. so you're using the me too movement in an abusive way to make money. that's what i think this jury found. that's what they believed. >> fascinating. you can see the bottom of the screen. jury awards $15 million to depp, $2 million to heard. that two million comes out of the pocket of an agent of johnny depp. he was not found guilty on defamation himself on that part of the equation. brian, thanks very much. i want to bring in our correspondents on the scene, mark meredith. he has a new statement that has just been released from amber heard.

mark, tell us what you got. >> good afternoon. almost within minutes of this announcement being made, we heard from amber heard. she says she's disappointed, she's heard broken by the mountain of evidence was not enough to stand up to the power influence and sway of her ex-husband. so amber heard still coming out swinging after this ruling, already saying she's sad that she lost this case and sadder still that has to lost her right as an american to speak freely and openly. the big question is whether or not we'll hear amber heard or her legal team address those people there outside the courthouse. you're looking at live pictures of what looks like an impromptu news conference that could happen. a lot of the fans have been out there all often will be disappointed. johnny depp is not in the courtroom. he was in the u.k. over the weekend. he was not there as the verdict was read.

when people heard of the news, cheers broke out and people were excited. you can see on the left side of the screen, the people cheering as the news broke out. probably listening as it was happening. depp was not there in the courtroom after your heard them chanting, "johnny, johnny." we'll see if depp says anything while he's overseas. you brought up so many good points about what has happened in the last six weeks and what has played out in the courthouse and what people have been listening to all over the world. no matter what after the jury decided today, a lot of people will remember what they heard the different stories from amber heard and johnny depp. there's been a lot of talk about what this could mean for both of these people's careers. while there's a lot of talk about this could open more doors for johnny depp going forward, there's the possibility that setbackses will be too hard to come back from. he's not lost all of his supporters and a lot of people

were standing by him. amber heard says she believes that johnny's attorneys succeeded to get jurors to overlook the key issue of freedom of speech and inconclusive evidence. she's still coming out swinging in this statement. she entered the courthouse from the back door with three or four people in a pickup truck. we don't know if she will go back out. we have crews all around. the microphones are set up in the possibility that we could hear from his legal team. it was the jury that gave us an added suspense in the final minutes before the verdict was set to be announced because they dill find out the proper paperwork. a lot of people curious reading the tea leaves of what it would mean. johnny depp was awarded $15 million as a result of the defamation claims. martha? >> martha: curious to know and i hope that we get a chance to ask a juror what happened there.

because they came back fairly quickly with a number, which leaves me to think that possibly they did have the number but they hadn't put it on the proper line and they hadn't dotted the is and crossed the ts before they went back in. they didn't deliberate for that long as judge jeanine said earlier. it's a huge amount of money. it's not $50 million, but it's $15 million from amber heard. interesting to see if she's able to pay that. she's lost a number of movie deals, which she pointed out. she said she felt it was because of the fact that she's spoken out against johnny depp in that editorial. she talks about men as a titanic that moves through the water that no one wants to try to sink them and that so many careers ride along with them. even if they particularly like the person or does respect that person, they don't want to turn on them either. all of this is going back and forth between the two of them.

both seem to enjoy the cameras, mark. they obviously enjoy in their career being in front of the cameras. i'm curious if we see either one on camera here. we're in london where johnny depp is. if you'd like to stop by and tell us your reaction, he's welcome. your thoughts on what may come next. >> you bring up a good point. even before the verdict was announced at 3:00, the statement from amber heard's spoke person made it clear he's not happy that he's not there. they wanted to make sure that they got the last image of the two of them staring down each other. johnny depp is in the u.k. he's been playing at a few converts. it's been interesting to see whether or not he will do some other public appearance or whether or not he will let the verdict speak for itself. what does this mean for amber heard going forward? where does her career go from here? she does have a lot of notable movies on her resume. whether or not a studio will

continue to work with her or whether or not she's going to be able to command the top dollar that she had had for so long will be a big part of this going forward. the same goes with johnny depp. i know the jury ruled in favor of johnny depp here. there's questions about whether or not he be as bankable as he was a few years ago. you can see a lot of people have cell phones ready. these people think that they see johnny depp come out waving with his fists. that's not going to happen. he's not there. martha. >> martha: she may come out if she wants to command a little bit of attention in this moment. my guess career-wise is that johnny depp comes out with new opportunities. you can see part of his statement. we want to bring in judge jeanine. we're standing by at the courthouse with help from you. here's the statement just released from johnny depp who says "six years ago my life, the

life of my children, the lives of those closest to me and the lives of the people that for many, many years have supported and believed in me were forever changed. all in the blink of an eye. false, very serious and criminal allegations were levied at me by the media, which trigger add barrage of hateful contend, although know charges were ever brought against me. it had already traveled around the world twice within a nano second and had a seismic impact on my life and my career. six years later, the jury gave me back my life. truly humbled. truth never perishes." with that, we bring in judge jeanine pirro. co host of "the five." thanks for standing by. your reaction here. >> well, you know, martha, the civil justice system obviously

very different from the criminal justice system. but it does have the ability to give people their lives back. and i was very touched by that statement. because he's correct. i mean, everything changed for him. a woman made a decision that she was going to ride on the coat tails of real battered women. you have to understand that whenever there's someone like an amber heard and i felt this right from the beginning, although i held back on it, she was not saying the truth. what she said didn't ring true. it didn't make sense. yesterday she fashioned herself this woman who was crusading on behalf of other women who were battered. i know women that were battered. i've seen them. amber heard was not that person. she was the batterer. she tried to use this to her benefit. unfortunately this will hurt battered women coming forward behind her. what it does do is it reminds us

that the wrath that she said she felt from society, today she felt the wrath of the truth finders, the wrath of the system of justice, the civil system that said you cannot charge someone or claim that someone is an abuser. in the end, this is about someone like johnny depp who you have to admit, martha, he rolled the dice. he could have said, you know what? maybe i'll come out worse. but he had the stamina to go forward, this legal team that she had was incredible. camilla vazquez, she was phenomenal. she was confident, she was prepared. the main lawyer was prepared. these are people that believed in the mission. the jury believed in them, too. makes you proud that the justice system at a time when people had so many questions about it. let this be a lesson to agents.

johnny depp's agent was hit be a $2 million judgment for apparently spending something that wasn't true. not johnny depp. i want to be clear on that. you can't lie anymore. the supreme court has said even with a high standard like this, you still can find justice and johnny depp did. >> martha: it's a great point, janine. when you talk about him rolling the dice with this, because he also knew that there were going to be videos of him passed out drunk in very sad, ugly situations. talking about his own drug use. admitting to his own faults and difficulties. you know, he could have very easily come out in a different situation here. but i do think there is a sense and i'm sure there will be plenty of people that disagree with this, but you watch these

things. you listen to both sides. then i look at these statements afterwards. and there is a sense that, you know, truth did prevail. at least not for us to judge but for this jury to judge. they were very clear, you know, yes, there was malice. yes, she acted with intent up and down the line. >> there was a very clear verdict. nothing was inconsistent. sometimes when verdicts are complicated, you get a jury that doesn't really understand. there's inconsistent verdicts within the verdict. that was not the case here. they were very clear on the message that they were sending. the point that you make, martha, is a good point. that is when you say that, you know, that he did put everything on the line, but it made it so true when they asked him on direct examination, what have you lost as a result of what

miss heard did. his answer and took him a moment to think of it, he said nothing short of everything. it just rung true. it was clear that the man was at the bottom. he couldn't go any longer. he felt that there was nothing to lose by going forward. hopefully this is a man that will have faith in the justice system, that will took about how important justice is. i'm just a court person. i'm someone that loves the legal system. it's been part of my dna my whole adult life. i'm hope people believe it in and promote people to be a part of the system. amber heard tried to use the system and the jury saw through the lies. it wasn't one law be two laws. the freudian slip and the bruise kit. she said she had a cut lip. within 24 hours she's opening

her mouth and laughing on a show. she says it's all makeup. the poop in the bed. my little dog did it. with us human feces. it was a disgusting thing that johnny depp had to make a decision about, to lay out his life in front of america. these jurors could have said, you know what? you're both disgusting. they said we believe him. she is not only unbelievable, she's malicious. she's cruel. she's callous. she's incapable of being believed and therefore we will give him punitive damages in the amount of $5 million. that's a huge verdict. huge message here. >> martha: brian claypool mentioned this before. the audio where she is admitting that she punched him and hit him and she's yelling at him and belittling him and telling him he's a baby.

you listen to it, you think is a terrible situation. he's drunk often and doing drugs, trying to get off them. she could have left. she had perhaps other choices to make. she stayed and was in the end found to be malicious. i find it so interesting. i thought in the beginning his credibility, that they would have problem with his credibility. they were able to separate all of that behavior from what he was being accused of, which i find very interesting. >> yeah, they did it strategically. it was almost like a surgeon's scalpel. they were able to separate the two. that this guy could be blacked out drunk, but he knew he never hit her. she proved that -- she was unable to prove that he hit her as much as she tried to create a scenario where she wanted to believe that he did. you know, even parts of the

op-ed, martha, that you read. i knew that men had power over women. this is a woman that was in college what? in 2000? we're not talking about a woman from the 60s and 70s, the 80s. you know, this is a different breed of cat. she tried to take advantage. as one of her shrinks said, she had a borderline personality and it fit. >> martha: thanks so much, jeanine pirro. thanks very much. we'll see you soon. >> thanks. >> martha: switching gears here. at the end of the hour. we're in london. there's a very large event that you cannot miss when you walk around the streets here. 96 years old is queen elizabeth and 70 years on the throne. that's what is being celebrated by this entire country. it's the first ever platinum

jubilee for a reigning monarch to serve for 70 years in the united kingdom. greg palkot is here with a preview of the next few days. he's back from kyiv where he's had fantastic coverage. thank you. >> a little shift here. >> martha: thank you to cover this story this week. >> it's going to be a crazy four days. it's a gang buster, really. tomorrow will be the centerpiece. it will be the trouping of the colors, which is called the birthday parade for the queen. we'll see the royal air force flyover, the royal guns. we could very we'll see the queen coming out on the balcony, the famous one at buckingham palace at the end of that parade. she doesn't get around as much as she used to anymore. so they're being very careful about it in buckingham palace. they believe she will be out as

seven decades of serving the country. people will be happy about that. >> martha: absolutely. you're looking at this stage being set up. saturday night there's a big party. tomorrow there's trouping of the color. sort of the formal regent moment. on the balcony you'll see the working members of the roy family. obviously a lot of buzz about meghan and harry have returned from california. they're not expected to be part of the firm family portrait. we hope to see some version of that. >> we'll see prince charles, prince william and even little george who is waiting around in the wings. critically we will not from our report be seeing prince harry or meghan or prince andrew who are for various reasons are not

looked forward to. >> martha: we'll see. thanks very much, greg. great to be here. so you can feel the excitement here in london where many have already gathered of the queen's birthday parade tomorrow. >> i want to explain the history a little bit. >> nobody else has done anything. nobody else will do it. >> i get goose bumps at the speech that said the whole of our lives have been a lull. didn't you think you'd really live? >> martha: reporter neil sean joins me now. he's recovered the royal family for 20 years.

he's going to st. paul's cathedral. great to have you with us. i've been covering this along with you during the 20 years, pretty close. thank you nor being here. >> welcome to london. beautiful sunset. you're gorgeous as ever. a big period coming up. we're in a historical moment. we're living history. when you think about it, it's never happened before. the bottom line is, you can feel the buzz on the street. whatever negative you hear about themonarch, it's not true. people are excited. great time to be here. great time to be living through this history. >> martha: i think there's a sense that people want to celebrate her. she's 96. they want to see this -- they want her to see how they feel. you can hear it in the sound bites that we gathered outside buckingham palace earlier today. there's all of this draw many as there always is with the windsor crew. you've got meghan and harry coming in.

is there a sense that people want there to be some reconciliation there? >> no. i tell you, my true story on that, i don't think meghan wants that. she doesn't want to be here. she made that clear in her nano second stint within the monarchy. if you go on the streets, people are just very disappointed in prince harry. you know, truly, they want to forgive him but not her. it's the bad and the good cop. the true story is i don't think meghan wants to come back here. she's got a life out there. she's got the children. she didn't like it. so why did she -- why would you want to come back? >> martha: he's got a 32% approval rating. he was 77. we watch this closely in the united states for our poll situation. i think she's around 26. but i wonder if there's a sense that maybe they make upin a larger group saturday night where the queen is not expected

to be. you think that will happen? >> no. really i think brings harry is very nervous around whether he is received over here right now. why would they make such an issue of security? what you don't know is they are really very nervous to go out without the security here in london, their own security. so i think they will keep quite a low profile in some respects. in others, megan craved for attention. she will want to do something. if she upstages the queen -- >> martha: they want to make sure it's not about them. >> exactly. >> martha: i'm going to circle back to the queen. it's possible that she might be the last queen of england. you have three men following. there's been six queens of england. they have dole when for themselves. there's not a woman in the

pipeline. >> people talk about powerful women and the glass ceiling, this woman has been breaking the glass ceiling for 70 years. she's done everything and met everybody. she's been a driving force for everybody here and in world. >> martha: and we'll be back tomorrow morning. we'll see you then bright and early alongside ainsley and piers. look forward to it. >> neil: no jubilee nor inflation. gas prices at another record. indications from the president of the united states that it could take some time before we can announce steps at reducing this in a longer term for americans. welcome. i'm neil cavuto. this is "your world." confusion, indeed anxiety over how long this drags on. not only under the energy front but how it's affecting inflation in general and the price of goods across a variety