Jurors explain why they sided with Johnny Depp

[Anonymous]

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?

PPs don't care. They like JD and they don't like her, so absent a perfect victim, they'll buy that she ruined his career. Not that his cr
career is actually ruined, and to the extent that he's getting less work, maybe it has something to do with his showing up drunk, but let's blame the unlikable woman

One of my acquaintances whose first husband abused her blames AH for being abused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whoa there. I don't excuse his abuse. Everyone is responsible for their actions. But Amber is hella manipulative, and a difficult person to be around. I'd be using all my vices if I had to be around her. Should he have gotten away from her? Yes. Should he have walked away when he was feeling driven to drink? Yes. But she's also a miserable difficult person. I bet she brings out the worst in everyone....................................

[Anonymous]

I think she lacked both documentation and believability. Also don’t under estimate Depps acting ability. He played “the reasonable man to a T”. Jurors are just people. We ne was more believable and the other lacked evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whoa there. I don't excuse his abuse. Everyone is responsible for their actions. But Amber is hella manipulative, and a difficult person to be around. I'd be using all my vices if I had to be around her. Should he have gotten away from her? Yes. Should he have walked away when he was feeling driven to drink? Yes. But she's also a miserable difficult person. I bet she brings out the worst in everyone....................................

DP. Do you hear yourself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whoa there. I don't excuse his abuse. Everyone is responsible for their actions. But Amber is hella manipulative, and a difficult person to be around. I'd be using all my vices if I had to be around her. Should he have gotten away from her? Yes. Should he have walked away when he was feeling driven to drink? Yes. But she's also a miserable difficult person. I bet she brings out the worst in everyone....................................

Agree. Can you imagine having to live with someone who poops in your bed and cuts off your finger? And then has the nerve to say she’s the victim? Please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whoa there. I don't excuse his abuse. Everyone is responsible for their actions. But Amber is hella manipulative, and a difficult person to be around. I'd be using all my vices if I had to be around her. Should he have gotten away from her? Yes. Should he have walked away when he was feeling driven to drink? Yes. But she's also a miserable difficult person. I bet she brings out the worst in everyone....................................

Agree. Can you imagine having to live with someone who poops in your bed and cuts off your finger? And then has the nerve to say she’s the victim? Please.

You are so easily manipulated. It’s sad.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Johnny Depp pulled off the PR campaign of the century. It’s actually unsettling. I wonder how much he paid for it.

[Anonymous]

You Depp defenders should listen to the episode of On The Media called “How The Media Failed Amber Heard.” You might change your mind about things like the poop in the bed (which was most likely from their dog) and other manipulations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You Depp defenders should listen to the episode of On The Media called “How The Media Failed Amber Heard.” You might change your mind about things like the poop in the bed (which was most likely from their dog) and other manipulations.

They won’t listen. They are too invested in their narrative of the man being a saint and the woman being crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Then he is guilty of abuse and he should not have won.

[Anonymous]

Seasoned abusers know to pick crazy women to rape and abuse because a jury will never believe the woman.

My H has nicer won a rape case where the victim was special needs or crazy or a sex worker.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Then he is guilty of abuse and he should not have won.

If she couldn’t provide substantiation for her claims in the op ed, he should have won. She didn’t accuse him of being abusive generally (for example her video of him slamming cabinets and the testimony about him trashing her closet). She accused him of domestic violence.