Jurors explain why they sided with Johnny Depp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you who can’t understand that there can be grey areas and nuance (like how AH can be nuts and manipulative but also a victim of domestic violence) are a serious problem in our country.

This. The jury (and the public) viewed this as a “pick a side” situation. It’s not.

Heard write an op-ed alleging that Depp has abused her. While she obviously has her own issues, it’s fairly apparent from the evidence that he was, at a minimum, verbally and emotionally abusive. I also personally find the evidence that he was physically abusive at times believable (for instance I believe he threw his phone at her, especially since this was corroborated by another person). But even if you think she exaggerated or faked injuries, there is a lot of evidence that he definitely yelled, went on drunk rampages, belittled her in public (the incident on the plane was corroborated by multiple witnesses AND Depp’s own texts!). That’s DV. That’s partner abuse. She did not lie in her op-ed. She did not defame him. Whatever you think of her personally, she’s entitled to speak publicly about abuse, which she obviously experienced. Depp is also entitled to speak about the things she did and tell people this situation was complicated, which it was.

What makes me angry is that by making this a referendum on Heard’s personality and worthiness as a victim, this trial and verdict have reinforced the idea for DV survivors that speaking up and speaking out opens them to character assassination. It will silence victims, and it will help perpetuate abuse. No person is perfect and victims of abuse OFTEN have mental health issues and other problems that may make them less likeable. I have worked directly with rape and DV survivors for years and a significant part of my training focuses on how challenging people who have been this can be. I have worked with a lot of survivors who I found draining, who had abrupt and seemingly manipulative emotional displays. People who have lived for years with abusers, especially those with substance issues, HAVE to be manipulative— they must learn to manage their partner’s behavior to protect themselves. It is a survival technique.

Depp was abusive. Full stop. Therefore Heard’s op-Ed was truthful. That should have been the end of the case. Everything else was pure character assassination. Heard doesn’t need to be innocent or likable in order to be right here.

His side was able to prove republishing of the sexual violence title of that op-ed which was the worst allegation and one no one believed. She was always going to lose on count one. I get you think Depp should be sacrificed for the greater good of “Believe all women no matter what”. The fact that you can’t see an issue with this is disturbing. This case is about two Hollywood actors. That’s ALL it should be about.

Did she even write the title? I thought WaPo did. I don’t see how she can be held accountable for that.

She re-tweeted it. That’s what mattered. People really shouldn’t be opining on this case if they didn’t follow the trial. I watched all of it. AH was not credible. Credibility is key in jury trials.

Actually, re-tweeting alone would not have been enough to sustain legal liability here. But do go on prattling about how other people don’t understand the case.

NP. They definitely could have argued that retweeting alone wasn’t enough to justify the lawsuit/that she didn’t write it, but didn’t AH get up on the witness stand and effectively say “I said what I said” with respect to sexual violence. I think she would have much more credible to the jury if she’d just argued he was guilty of verbal/emotional abuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the jurors admitted that they thought they both abused each other.

Ok fine, no one said she was perfect. However, if he abused her, then she did not defame him by saying she was a victim of domestic abuse. How do people not get this?

Listen to what the juror said on GMA and then you will get why the jury voted the way they did. Only 1 juror has spoken up so far.

[Anonymous]

I see the PR firm Amber hired near the end of the trial is working overtime. Look at all the people on here they’ve convinced!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the jurors admitted that they thought they both abused each other.

Ok fine, no one said she was perfect. However, if he abused her, then she did not defame him by saying she was a victim of domestic abuse. How do people not get this?

Listen to what the juror said on GMA and then you will get why the jury voted the way they did. Only 1 juror has spoken up so far.

DP. Yes, we did listen to it. Unfortunately it only confirmed that the decision was based in the very misogyny we feared it would be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That juror sounds like an attention whore. Makes you wonder if he voted the way he did because he truly thought it was the correct result, or if he knew it would be the most sensational.

It’s not a great look to malign the jury, most of whom spent six weeks stuck in a court room and who were most likely doing their best to perform their public service admirably.

It’s also not a great look to take a payout from GMA to talk about jury deliberations so you can make a profit from it.

Where’d you hear he got paid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those of you who can’t understand that there can be grey areas and nuance (like how AH can be nuts and manipulative but also a victim of domestic violence) are a serious problem in our country.

My issue is she's not a victim any more than Depp is. The question of whether she's a victim of DV is important. The fact she tried to portray herself as a victim, powerless and defenseless to Drop, was problematic. There wasn't an imbalance of power in their relationship. Their relationship was mutually toxic and she was a full participant in that, just as Depp was. Trying to hold herself out as a victim is insulting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the jurors admitted that they thought they both abused each other.

Ok fine, no one said she was perfect. However, if he abused her, then she did not defame him by saying she was a victim of domestic abuse. How do people not get this?

Perhaps, but did she not also accuse Depp of raping her with a bottle in the op-Ed? I don’t think anyone has said they believe that allegation, which was also apart of the civil suit.

his name is not even in the Op Ed and there are no details... the headline, which was written by WAPO, says "sexual violence" but there are no
details

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you who can’t understand that there can be grey areas and nuance (like how AH can be nuts and manipulative but also a victim of domestic violence) are a serious problem in our country.

My issue is she's not a victim any more than Depp is. The question of whether she's a victim of DV is important. The fact she tried to portray herself as a victim, powerless and defenseless to Drop, was problematic. There wasn't an imbalance of power in their relationship. Their relationship was mutually toxic and she was a full participant in that, just as Depp was. Trying to hold herself out as a victim is insulting.

This. Their relationship was a toxic waste dump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the jurors admitted that they thought they both abused each other.

Ok fine, no one said she was perfect. However, if he abused her, then she did not defame him by saying she was a victim of domestic abuse. How do people not get this?

Perhaps, but did she not also accuse Depp of raping her with a bottle in the op-Ed? I don’t think anyone has said they believe that allegation, which was also apart of the civil suit.

his name is not even in the Op Ed and there are no details... the headline, which was written by WAPO, says "sexual violence" but there are no
details

Sure and if that’s what she/her lawyers had argued, that would be relevant. But she got up in the witness stand and told the jury about the sexual violence she allegedly experienced at the hands of Depp, right? I think on the face of it, she should have won but what she got up and said in court lost her the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depp turned out to be the better actor.

Yes, and he has better lawyer. AH is bat shit crazy, but this is a first amendment case. Why didn't JD sue Washington Post?

because it's an "op ed" and they are not 100% responsible for content?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you who can’t understand that there can be grey areas and nuance (like how AH can be nuts and manipulative but also a victim of domestic violence) are a serious problem in our country.

My issue is she's not a victim any more than Depp is. The question of whether she's a victim of DV is important. The fact she tried to portray herself as a victim, powerless and defenseless to Drop, was problematic. There wasn't an imbalance of power in their relationship. Their relationship was mutually toxic and she was a full participant in that, just as Depp was. Trying to hold herself out as a victim is insulting.

If you sincerely believe that neither is a victim, then he should not have won on any of his claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day jurors tend to value documentary evidence over just about anything else. Heard created quite a bit of live-time documentary evidence, some of which were troubling, but her claims were far more severe than what she could prove up with documentary evidence, despite what looked like a concerted effort to create a record at the time. That's why she lost. Not because of the testimony, because of the documentary record.

You get that this is really problematic, right? Not just specifically for this case, but as to jury verdicts generally?

No actually I think juries should rely primarily on the best evidence.

And you know that’s not always documentary evidence, right? You are falling for the same fallacy that juries tend to.

It is always the best evidence for a jury even if it isn’t always the God’s honest truth. It’s entirely possible AH didn’t take photos of the worse damage, only more minor damage. It’s possible she sought medical treatment only for an invisible scalp contusion, but not hundreds of cuts from broken glass. But it’s right and good for a jury to rely first on what they can see/watch/read and only second on what was said on the stand by witnesses with an incentive to lie. It may not always lead to the closest truth but obviously the alternative wouldn’t either and in fact would lead to finding the truth far less often.

That a jury believes it is the best evidence does not mean it actually is the best evidence. There is lots of research to back up that juries give undue weight and credibility to documentary evidence and that it sometimes leads to incorrect results. Especially when you have a judge making poor rulings on which documents are admissible.

They don’t have the ability to figure out who is telling the truth and who is lying. That makes documents better given the imperfect system. Obviously no system will perfectly guard against incorrect results, but a pure testimonial system would surely be worse than a pure documentary system.

They also don’t have the ability to determine conclusively if a document is accurate or if it communicates the entire story.

But sure, go ahead and assume that you know everything about civil litigation.

Well I am a civil litigation trial lawyer. So I appreciate not every document is always what it purports to be. But in this case the authenticity of the documentary evidence supporting AH’s claims was largely not in dispute (the only exception was she claimed her medical records were not accurate, but she also didn’t claim they were inauthentic). The problem in this case, for AH, was certainly not that inauthentic documents became part of the record. The problem was that she created quite a bit of authentic documentary evidence during the course of the claimed abuse, but strangely failed to record the worst of what she claimed happen.

All of that garbage you just spewed is exactly why undue reliance on documentary evidence is so problematic. Gee, I wonder why she might not have recorded the worst of the abuse? It couldn’t possibly because it’s harder to hold your phone steady when the person is beating you than it is when they are destroying a room.

You either are not familiar with the record in this case or else you’re being intentionally obtuse. Where are the photographs of her beaten or covered in glass cuts? She has one of what she claims is him having thrown a phone (which the police woman who saw her immediately after testified did not reflect an injury) but that’s it. Yes it’s unusual for DV victims to carefully document their abuse, but that’s what she certainly appears to have been doing, and yet she has no evidence for her claims of being beaten and cut.

I am suspicious that her medical care was from a concierge dr and nurses provided for and paid for by JD. But maybe they were totally professional and objective. ....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day jurors tend to value documentary evidence over just about anything else. Heard created quite a bit of live-time documentary evidence, some of which were troubling, but her claims were far more severe than what she could prove up with documentary evidence, despite what looked like a concerted effort to create a record at the time. That's why she lost. Not because of the testimony, because of the documentary record.

You get that this is really problematic, right? Not just specifically for this case, but as to jury verdicts generally?

No actually I think juries should rely primarily on the best evidence.

And you know that’s not always documentary evidence, right? You are falling for the same fallacy that juries tend to.

It is always the best evidence for a jury even if it isn’t always the God’s honest truth. It’s entirely possible AH didn’t take photos of the worse damage, only more minor damage. It’s possible she sought medical treatment only for an invisible scalp contusion, but not hundreds of cuts from broken glass. But it’s right and good for a jury to rely first on what they can see/watch/read and only second on what was said on the stand by witnesses with an incentive to lie. It may not always lead to the closest truth but obviously the alternative wouldn’t either and in fact would lead to finding the truth far less often.

That a jury believes it is the best evidence does not mean it actually is the best evidence. There is lots of research to back up that juries give undue weight and credibility to documentary evidence and that it sometimes leads to incorrect results. Especially when you have a judge making poor rulings on which documents are admissible.

They don’t have the ability to figure out who is telling the truth and who is lying. That makes documents better given the imperfect system. Obviously no system will perfectly guard against incorrect results, but a pure testimonial system would surely be worse than a pure documentary system.

They also don’t have the ability to determine conclusively if a document is accurate or if it communicates the entire story.

But sure, go ahead and assume that you know everything about civil litigation.

Well I am a civil litigation trial lawyer. So I appreciate not every document is always what it purports to be. But in this case the authenticity of the documentary evidence supporting AH’s claims was largely not in dispute (the only exception was she claimed her medical records were not accurate, but she also didn’t claim they were inauthentic). The problem in this case, for AH, was certainly not that inauthentic documents became part of the record. The problem was that she created quite a bit of authentic documentary evidence during the course of the claimed abuse, but strangely failed to record the worst of what she claimed happen.

All of that garbage you just spewed is exactly why undue reliance on documentary evidence is so problematic. Gee, I wonder why she might not have recorded the worst of the abuse? It couldn’t possibly because it’s harder to hold your phone steady when the person is beating you than it is when they are destroying a room.

You either are not familiar with the record in this case or else you’re being intentionally obtuse. Where are the photographs of her beaten or covered in glass cuts? She has one of what she claims is him having thrown a phone (which the police woman who saw her immediately after testified did not reflect an injury) but that’s it. Yes it’s unusual for DV victims to carefully document their abuse, but that’s what she certainly appears to have been doing, and yet she has no evidence for her claims of being beaten and cut.

I am suspicious that her medical care was from a concierge dr and nurses provided for and paid for by JD. But maybe they were totally professional and objective. ....

I understand your suspicion but trial lawyers are supposed to probe for evidence of that kind of bias or impropriety. They had every incentive to do so. They presented no evidence of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day jurors tend to value documentary evidence over just about anything else. Heard created quite a bit of live-time documentary evidence, some of which were troubling, but her claims were far more severe than what she could prove up with documentary evidence, despite what looked like a concerted effort to create a record at the time. That's why she lost. Not because of the testimony, because of the documentary record.

You get that this is really problematic, right? Not just specifically for this case, but as to jury verdicts generally?

No actually I think juries should rely primarily on the best evidence.

And you know that’s not always documentary evidence, right? You are falling for the same fallacy that juries tend to.

It is always the best evidence for a jury even if it isn’t always the God’s honest truth. It’s entirely possible AH didn’t take photos of the worse damage, only more minor damage. It’s possible she sought medical treatment only for an invisible scalp contusion, but not hundreds of cuts from broken glass. But it’s right and good for a jury to rely first on what they can see/watch/read and only second on what was said on the stand by witnesses with an incentive to lie. It may not always lead to the closest truth but obviously the alternative wouldn’t either and in fact would lead to finding the truth far less often.

That a jury believes it is the best evidence does not mean it actually is the best evidence. There is lots of research to back up that juries give undue weight and credibility to documentary evidence and that it sometimes leads to incorrect results. Especially when you have a judge making poor rulings on which documents are admissible.

They don’t have the ability to figure out who is telling the truth and who is lying. That makes documents better given the imperfect system. Obviously no system will perfectly guard against incorrect results, but a pure testimonial system would surely be worse than a pure documentary system.

They also don’t have the ability to determine conclusively if a document is accurate or if it communicates the entire story.

But sure, go ahead and assume that you know everything about civil litigation.

Well I am a civil litigation trial lawyer. So I appreciate not every document is always what it purports to be. But in this case the authenticity of the documentary evidence supporting AH’s claims was largely not in dispute (the only exception was she claimed her medical records were not accurate, but she also didn’t claim they were inauthentic). The problem in this case, for AH, was certainly not that inauthentic documents became part of the record. The problem was that she created quite a bit of authentic documentary evidence during the course of the claimed abuse, but strangely failed to record the worst of what she claimed happen.

All of that garbage you just spewed is exactly why undue reliance on documentary evidence is so problematic. Gee, I wonder why she might not have recorded the worst of the abuse? It couldn’t possibly because it’s harder to hold your phone steady when the person is beating you than it is when they are destroying a room.

You either are not familiar with the record in this case or else you’re being intentionally obtuse. Where are the photographs of her beaten or covered in glass cuts? She has one of what she claims is him having thrown a phone (which the police woman who saw her immediately after testified did not reflect an injury) but that’s it. Yes it’s unusual for DV victims to carefully document their abuse, but that’s what she certainly appears to have been doing, and yet she has no evidence for her claims of being beaten and cut.

I am suspicious that her medical care was from a concierge dr and nurses provided for and paid for by JD. But maybe they were totally professional and objective. ....

I understand your suspicion but trial lawyers are supposed to probe for evidence of that kind of bias or impropriety. They had every incentive to do so. They presented no evidence of it.

It is good to be understood... because there is veiled information about her being on different Rx meds.... so then I wonder if anyone was really sentient, esp in AUS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the jurors admitted that they thought they both abused each other.

Ok fine, no one said she was perfect. However, if he abused her, then she did not defame him by saying she was a victim of domestic abuse. How do people not get this?

Perhaps, but did she not also accuse Depp of raping her with a bottle in the op-Ed? I don’t think anyone has said they believe that allegation, which was also apart of the civil suit.

his name is not even in the Op Ed and there are no details... the headline, which was written by WAPO, says "sexual violence" but there are no
details

Sure and if that’s what she/her lawyers had argued, that would be relevant. But she got up in the witness stand and told the jury about the sexual violence she allegedly experienced at the hands of Depp, right? I think on the face of it, she should have won but what she got up and said in court lost her the case.

Exactly! She actually said "that's why I wrote the oped about him".