Hello everybody, and welcome back to my channel!
I'd like to thank you for all the analysis suggestions you write in the comments.
It's a bit hard for me to keep up, but rest assured I review all the cases you pitch.
In this video I'm going to dissect Amber Heards' deposition.
But! this time we are going to do something different.
You are going to help me decipher her body language.
And to do it, we are going to travel back in time to that moment and imagine we are
sitting there.
Oh!
I almost forgot.
An important rule of this game is that we don't know who she is.
She's a Jane Doe and we don't know anything about her or the case.
This rule is very important because we already know she wasn't telling the truth at that
moment.
So, if we want to use this video to level up our body language skills, we have to look
at the situation making sure we leave our judgments at the door.
In this video you will learn:
- How to detect when hand gestures are off, - How to properly ask a question about a contradiction,
and - A secret interrogation technique
(That's a surprise tool that can help us later)
My name is Jesús Enrique Rosas,
I'm the body language guy,
And I want you do uncover the secrets that people try to hide from you.
A very brief recap before we enter the interrogation room: Johnny Depp and Amber Heard married
in 2015, but she filed for divorce a year later accusing him of domestic abuse.
A few months ago, some audio recordings revealed that in fact, she hit Depp more than once
and the tables turned.
But now, the best recommendation I can give you when you are trying to read body language
and discover inconsistencies is try to look at the person, the situation, the atmosphere,
everything, like you're totally new to it.
This is not only to avoid preconceptions, but also to listen better because your mind
is completely empty.
So, when you're facing her for the first time, you should have a dual and simultaneous perception:
Like there's a innocent Heard and a guilty Heard.
I know, it's never that simple, but for the sake of this excercise, let's think of it
this way.
Let's start!
First impression: dressed in white, she wants to convey innocence.
Long sleeves, closed neck, she wants to look reserved.
But at the same time she displays an aggresive stance of chin up and looking down on people.
She's asked, "Did you commit domestic violence against Johnny Depp", and boom:
-I'm gonna object.
Calls for legal conclusion, argumental harassing
...she has a lawyer that is gonna deflect almost all questions giving her time to answer.
It really does'n matter because at first you just want to spot her reactions to the questions
themselves.
And right as she hears that question, her jaw moves to one side.
And even if she was eating chocolates at the time, the movement can be seen as an emotional
reaction.
Remember that any analysis is a sum of codes.
When she is asked the question again, her eyes turn to her right side.
Now, the question includes a date, and when our brain recalls something, or mentally backtracks
to a date in the past, our eyes will go to our left side.
Your right side is more for imagination and creativity.
So that's a first vote AGAINST innocent Amber.
"Do you understand what I'm asking you?"
- Do you understand what I'm asking you?
- No
- No?
- Yes, I understand what you're asking me.
You see the contradiction between her answer and her body language.
Most probably her lawyer told her: always claim that you don't understand the question,
to make some time.
But her body betrayed her and revealed that she did actually understand the question.
These kinds of contradictions don't point to guilt themselves, because an innocent person
can also be confused and nervous.
But you don't see her confused or nervous at all.
About that tongue in cheek: One of the most common meanings of that gesture is that the
person is not really sure about what they are saying.
Maybe they are lying, or maybe they are concealing something.
A good example of this gesture is Brad Pitt being interviewed on World War Z's premiere.
- I love these big summer films, and... hadn't really ventured on that territory
"Hadn't really ventured on big summer films..."
Well, I think he had just forgotten the movie he did with Angelina Jolie eight years earlier.
So yes, that's the meaning behind the tongue in cheek.
- No...
I did my best to defend myself and not... not get seriously hurt.
That's a pretty straightforward statement.
Why does she act so insecure about it.
A second ago she was looking eye to eye, and now there's rapid blinking and pacifying gestures.
It's like two different persons.
When someone is innocent they usualy have a regular emotional stream.
They are angry most of the time, they are sad most of the time, they are nervous most
of the time.
Because, if you're innocent, that sparks a strong emotion inside you that you're not
gonna hide.
On the other hand, guilty people try to adapt their emotional display to look innocent.
So that's another point for guilty Heard.
You hear she retracts from the statement that "we fought":
- Many times when we fought... well, not many times...
...because that will imply that she was actually fighting with him and not just defending herself.
That's a slip of the tongue.
That slight rocking of her body and eating chocolates do not tell us much for now.
Now, let's listen to her description of the situation about she slamming a door in Depp's
face:
- I was trying to escape from a room where Johnny was attacking me and in order to escape
I was trying to get onto the other side of the door, attempting to close the door, he
was attempting to get in, despite my attempts to try and escape, that's all.
Now, usually when you are interrogating someone, they are going to be as descriptive as possible
to prove they're innocent.
And as you listen, you should be able to rebuild the scene in your mind.
What is odd in this statement is that she uses the word "escape" three times, when in
fact she is describing that she was hiding in a room.
Now, let's hold that information for a minute and watch how her attitude changes again when
she listens to the words "I remember hitting you as a response to the door thing"
[[ I remember hitting you as a response to the door thing ]]
She raises her chin again and looks defiant again.
Then another slip of the tongue:
- Yes, as he was trying to get into the door... into the room...
I was trying to escape in.
Well, she keeps messing escaping with hiding.
It's not much of a big deal but it's rather odd because we have some trouble picturing
it in our minds.
She also looks upset that she has to describe it again, right after saying "Escape in",
she has a very aggressive attitude.
Heads up:
Notice that when she wants to describe physical actions, as in "He pushed the door":
- He pushed the door into me
...her hands do not convey a pushing gesture.
In fact, they look rather stiff.
Remember: an innocent person is going to use words, voice tone, and all their body to describe
what happened to them.
But wait a minute!
Innocent people could be in shock or could have forgotten details due to trauma.
But in that case they will show confusion.
Here, her body language shows a rather strong contradiction:
Her face is looking straight on (like she's clear about her statement), but her hands
are totally stiff.
That doesn't fit.
In my opinion, that would be another point for guilty Amber.
If you don't agree, just say it in the comments.
Reading body language is a systemic process.
You go from the general to the specific.
The problem is that it's usually easier to spot the specific and jump to conclusions.
If you want to decipher people's body language you need a process that guides you from general
to specific, and that's exactly what I've created in my Body Language Analysis online
course that has a huge discount right now.
You can access the discount code and the link in the description.
Pay attention to this very quick reaction on her face, when she realizes that she just
said, she tried to hit him:
- And I was trying to hit him... by getting out... getting him out of the door... to stay
in the room.
That's when you can make a decent guess that her lawyer told her many times, "never say
the word hit", and that's why she corrects herself saying "by getting out".
Tip: look at that gesture she does at the end.
She turns to her lawyer like saying, "Hey, that's what happened, right".
It's a bit odd that a presumed innocent person looks for approval on the description of their
own experience.
And speaking of approval, take a look at another moment when she says the word "escape" again.
- ...into the room I was escaping... attempting to escape into.
I'm sure you noticed.
Just as she said the word "escape" she turned to her lawyer and nodded looking for approval.
Now we are sure that the escape statement was planned previously.
And that's another point for guilty Amber.
Now...
I'm confused.
This is the point where we are not really sure if she was escaping or hiding.
And the worst.
possible.
question.
we could ask is "But... where you escaping, or hiding?"
— Were you rushing, or were you dragging?
And it's a very bad question because you're helping the person just pick and option; and
if they are guilty, you're actually helping them get away with it.
To properly ask a question about a contradiction, you must make an indirect question.
What are your options? you can:
1) Ask her what happened after, but it won't reveal much about the situation itself,
2) Ask her other simultaneous details, like what was Depp saying at that moment or
3) Why did they start to fight, or what happened right before the incident
This last one is the best because you are forcing the person to backtrack and if they're
making things up, it's gonna spark more inconsistencies.
That is today's secret tool: cognitive overload.
When someone is speaking from experience, they usually have no problem picking specific
parts of the story.
But when someone is making things up as they go along, and you ask them for details not
directly related to what they are saying at the time, they will have trouble answering
because they are adding something to their fake story and they have to think the implications
of what they are about to say.
That's when they begin to contradict themselves and you have more clues for more questions.
By the way, remember when she said that she didn't understand the question?
Well, watch what happens here:
- And you told him in that tape recording that you hit him, correct?
- I..
I...
I... don't know the words I used.
I don't understand, I don't know, it's the same.
She's trying to make some time.
Now, THIS is my favorite part:
- So, on the tape you tell Johnny Depp that you did mean to hit him
- Objection, that's argument...
OH, BOY! you've got three emotions in less than two seconds.
First, arrogance, then duping delight when she recalls actually hitting Depp and then
she does an emotional adjustment to look like a victim again.
Now, that smile was absolutely off and reminds me of my analysis of Bill Gates' talking about
vaccines safety.
And you know what? she does it again:
- Yes or no, did you ever punch Johnny Depp with a closed fist in the history of your
relationship with Johnny?
- Answer however you feel, you wish to
You can't miss it.
If it was in self defense, the person would look ashamed.
So that's another point for guilty amber.
But to give her some credit, some parts of her declaration actually look like she's telling
the truth, like this one:
- One time Johnny was hitting me.
Hard and repeatedly.
And I was screaming.
Security walks in and they don't do anything about it.
And there, he... he... makes this motion.
She has three signals of a true statement there: She has a regular rhythm, she is looking
around her recalling the scene and she actually pushes with her hands when she mentions Depp's
supposed aggression.
But we have a small problem with all this:
She was asked a yes or no question and she did not respond directly.
And that's a big no-no.
Who really deserves an award is the woman making the questions.
She makes the question again a third time and the lawyer lies to her face:
- Hhave you ever hit Johnny Depp?
- You've already asked, she already answered but you interrupted her.
No, Mr. Lawyer.
She never answered.
This is a tactic to push the question aside so there will be no records of she actually
saying that she hit him.
I know you can guess what was her actual answer:
- I don't know what I did.
She claims that she was defending her sister from Depp's attacks.
But if that was the case, if it was in self defense, why doesn't she acknowledge it?
She also describes one of the aggressions, but is very vague about it:
- And I would have done with anybody, was a child or a sister, would've done.
I acted defesively in her life.
I saw her standing atop a flight of stairs.
Trying to interrupt a fight between him and I. I don't know what part of my body I put
between me and him... and her.
But I would've done anything.
I would've done anything, to prevent her to be pushed down a flight of stairs.
- Eh... at the party being present in the house (unintelligible)
We have two options.
Either you are innocent and you don't remember all the circumstances, or you are guilty and
try to be vague.
If she was innocent, those aggressions would have not only leave an emotional impact on
her, she would have reviewed them again and again on her mind.
In fact, she would have reviewed them with her lawyer quite a few times.
Instead, she's totally vague and the lawyer argues that she can't answer because she's
upset.
- I'm upset!
My question is, if she suffered that aggression, and really wants justice, she at least would
try to answer directly and be clear about those circumstances.
In this case we already know the outcome, but most of the time we don't have that luxury.
When you analyze body language it's important that you remain calm and empathetic, and never
jump to conclusions for a single clue.
One final thought:
- Isn't it true Miss Heard, that in September of 2015 you punched Johnny Depp in the face
with a closed fist?
Oh, nevermind. I think it was nothing.
Remember to subscribe and hit that bell so you don't miss any of my body language analysis
and tips.
Did we finish?
- Finished with that!
Great. Who wants some coffee?