Jurors explain why they sided with Johnny Depp

[Anonymous]

I couldn't keep up with the trial, it just dragged out far too long. But it's interesting to hear from the jurors.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/juror-johnny-depp-trial-explains-005553936.html

[Anonymous]

I read that article too and their impression lines up with mine.

So it makes sense to me.

[Anonymous]

She is such a narcissist. She believed that group of her “peers” of hers were ignorant, stupid, and beneath her. I’m glad they saw through her BS.

[Anonymous]

I don’t believe Johnny either. Two druggie abusers. Yuck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe Johnny either. Two druggie abusers. Yuck.

That's what one juror said, basically spot on.

[Anonymous]

How long till this thread is deleted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe Johnny either. Two druggie abusers. Yuck.

I think when he's sober, he's lovely. I think she encouraged his drug abuse and drinking with her difficult behavior, and I can see him being abusive then. Not to the degree she stated, but throwing a wine bottle or punching a wall near her head or something.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe Johnny either. Two druggie abusers. Yuck.

I think when he's sober, he's lovely. I think she encouraged his drug abuse and drinking with her difficult behavior, and I can see him being abusive then. Not to the degree she stated, but throwing a wine bottle or punching a wall near her head or something.

Yeah, I was disappointed in the damages more than the verdict, myself. I think Heard lied up down and sideways but I also think Depp behaved disposably.

[Anonymous]

The misogyny of the coverage (and observers) disgusted me. Is she an angel? Obviously not. Did she deserve the nasty portrayal she received? I also don’t think so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The misogyny of the coverage (and observers) disgusted me. Is she an angel? Obviously not. Did she deserve the nasty portrayal she received? I also don’t think so.

I literally watched the trial, rather than reading articles summarizing it or watching social media clips making fun or whatever they did. I watched her fake cry. I watched her get caught lying and check to see if the jury was buying it or caught the lies.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe Johnny either. Two druggie abusers. Yuck.

I think when he's sober, he's lovely. I think she encouraged his drug abuse and drinking with her difficult behavior, and I can see him being abusive then. Not to the degree she stated, but throwing a wine bottle or punching a wall near her head or something.

That is sick. This is sick enabler talk. No one makes anyone else resort to drugs. That's all on Depp. Then you go all out and excuse his abuse.

Your post is gross. They are gross. The people enthralled by this are gross. Everything about this is trash.

[Anonymous]

They sided with him because, unlike 99% of the people, they listened to the evidence.

[Anonymous]

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?