Jurors explain why they sided with Johnny Depp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This argument about the prior DV charge against Heard is really ridiculous. That charge was dropped and appeared to be a misunderstanding, potentially based on the fact that both parties involved were women and cops do not have a great track record in handling DV cases with regards to same-sex relationships.

The "victim" in that prior charge has said many times that was a misunderstanding and that Heard did not hurt her.

It's interesting how the people screaming about "watch the trial!" and "look at the facts!" regularly get facts wrong, exaggerating character evidence against Heard, but ignore all the evidence against Depp. And by the way, I think it's true Heard engaged in abusive behavior, that this relationship was toxic, and that there are no real winners here. But it's also very obvious that Depp had drug and alcohol problems, was violent and rage-prone, and was abusive towards Heard. He says so in his own text messages -- he talks about his behavior with shame and knows what he did was wrong. He abused her!

People get this idea in their head of what an abuse victim is supposed to look like and if they have sympathies towards the abuser (which many do for Depp, he's a celebrity, a talented actor we've watched in movies for decades -- most people probably have some sympathy for him), they will go to great lengths to look for ways that the accuser must be lying or exaggerating, must of brought this on herself, etc. But abuse is abuse. I've had people act provocatively towards me, try to engage me in fights, etc. I've never abused any of them. See? It's not that hard.

Depp abused Heard. Her op-ed was not a lie. WaPo put an inaccurate headline on it and she retweeted the headline, which is the thinnest possible premise for a case like this.

The verdict is unjust. And I don't say that as a fan or defender of Heard (who is deeply flawed) but as someone who cares about abuse survivors in general. This case is a travesty.

According to Amber, that WaPo title was not inaccurate. She agreed with that title. During the trial, she corroborated the accusation of sexual violence and gave a harrowing tale of sexual abuse and violence (being raped by a bottle, being punched in the face,...) which people, including the jury, had a hard time to believe as there was absolutely no evidence (medical records, pictures). Had she only gone for emotional/verbal abuse, she probably would have won, but she insisted on sexual violence for which she didn't have any evidence. To make matter worse, she was caught lying on the stand (TMZ), so came off as a very unreliable witness. If she can lie in one instance, what would stop her from lying in others?

This entire post makes clear that you have zero understanding of the legal issues on the oped title.

Oh I'm perfectly clear. I'm just pointing out that Amber didn't think that the WaPo headline was inaccurate as she did spin a tale of horrific abuse to corroborate the oped's claim of sexual violence

Yeah, you don’t understand the legal issues. She had a couple of potential defenses to that defamation count, and her best strategy was to present all of them. If the first defense that her retweet was not actionable as defamation failed, a second line of defense would be to prove that the headline was accurate. Just proving emotional or verbal abuse wouldn’t have done it. But the defamation claim based on the headline meant she essentially was forced to put up every bit of evidence of sexual abuse that she could once the court refused to dismiss the count as a matter of law.

But none of this means she would have approved that headline if it had been shown to her before publication.

I'm perfectly clear on why she had to come up with stories of sexual violence to fight the defamatory accusations since her retweeting the headline might be considered defamatory. My point still stands that as soon as she mentioned instances of sexual violence, she is essentially agreeing that the WaPo headline was accurate.

Is truth defamatory?

[Anonymous]

seriously who cares at this point

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This argument about the prior DV charge against Heard is really ridiculous. That charge was dropped and appeared to be a misunderstanding, potentially based on the fact that both parties involved were women and cops do not have a great track record in handling DV cases with regards to same-sex relationships.

The "victim" in that prior charge has said many times that was a misunderstanding and that Heard did not hurt her.

It's interesting how the people screaming about "watch the trial!" and "look at the facts!" regularly get facts wrong, exaggerating character evidence against Heard, but ignore all the evidence against Depp. And by the way, I think it's true Heard engaged in abusive behavior, that this relationship was toxic, and that there are no real winners here. But it's also very obvious that Depp had drug and alcohol problems, was violent and rage-prone, and was abusive towards Heard. He says so in his own text messages -- he talks about his behavior with shame and knows what he did was wrong. He abused her!

People get this idea in their head of what an abuse victim is supposed to look like and if they have sympathies towards the abuser (which many do for Depp, he's a celebrity, a talented actor we've watched in movies for decades -- most people probably have some sympathy for him), they will go to great lengths to look for ways that the accuser must be lying or exaggerating, must of brought this on herself, etc. But abuse is abuse. I've had people act provocatively towards me, try to engage me in fights, etc. I've never abused any of them. See? It's not that hard.

Depp abused Heard. Her op-ed was not a lie. WaPo put an inaccurate headline on it and she retweeted the headline, which is the thinnest possible premise for a case like this.

The verdict is unjust. And I don't say that as a fan or defender of Heard (who is deeply flawed) but as someone who cares about abuse survivors in general. This case is a travesty.

According to Amber, that WaPo title was not inaccurate. She agreed with that title. During the trial, she corroborated the accusation of sexual violence and gave a harrowing tale of sexual abuse and violence (being raped by a bottle, being punched in the face,...) which people, including the jury, had a hard time to believe as there was absolutely no evidence (medical records, pictures). Had she only gone for emotional/verbal abuse, she probably would have won, but she insisted on sexual violence for which she didn't have any evidence. To make matter worse, she was caught lying on the stand (TMZ), so came off as a very unreliable witness. If she can lie in one instance, what would stop her from lying in others?

This entire post makes clear that you have zero understanding of the legal issues on the oped title.

Oh I'm perfectly clear. I'm just pointing out that Amber didn't think that the WaPo headline was inaccurate as she did spin a tale of horrific abuse to corroborate the oped's claim of sexual violence

Yeah, you don’t understand the legal issues. She had a couple of potential defenses to that defamation count, and her best strategy was to present all of them. If the first defense that her retweet was not actionable as defamation failed, a second line of defense would be to prove that the headline was accurate. Just proving emotional or verbal abuse wouldn’t have done it. But the defamation claim based on the headline meant she essentially was forced to put up every bit of evidence of sexual abuse that she could once the court refused to dismiss the count as a matter of law.

But none of this means she would have approved that headline if it had been shown to her before publication.

I'm perfectly clear on why she had to come up with stories of sexual violence to fight the defamatory accusations since her retweeting the headline might be considered defamatory. My point still stands that as soon as she mentioned instances of sexual violence, she is essentially agreeing that the WaPo headline was accurate.

Is truth defamatory?

What truth? lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This argument about the prior DV charge against Heard is really ridiculous. That charge was dropped and appeared to be a misunderstanding, potentially based on the fact that both parties involved were women and cops do not have a great track record in handling DV cases with regards to same-sex relationships.

The "victim" in that prior charge has said many times that was a misunderstanding and that Heard did not hurt her.

It's interesting how the people screaming about "watch the trial!" and "look at the facts!" regularly get facts wrong, exaggerating character evidence against Heard, but ignore all the evidence against Depp. And by the way, I think it's true Heard engaged in abusive behavior, that this relationship was toxic, and that there are no real winners here. But it's also very obvious that Depp had drug and alcohol problems, was violent and rage-prone, and was abusive towards Heard. He says so in his own text messages -- he talks about his behavior with shame and knows what he did was wrong. He abused her!

People get this idea in their head of what an abuse victim is supposed to look like and if they have sympathies towards the abuser (which many do for Depp, he's a celebrity, a talented actor we've watched in movies for decades -- most people probably have some sympathy for him), they will go to great lengths to look for ways that the accuser must be lying or exaggerating, must of brought this on herself, etc. But abuse is abuse. I've had people act provocatively towards me, try to engage me in fights, etc. I've never abused any of them. See? It's not that hard.

Depp abused Heard. Her op-ed was not a lie. WaPo put an inaccurate headline on it and she retweeted the headline, which is the thinnest possible premise for a case like this.


The verdict is unjust. And I don't say that as a fan or defender of Heard (who is deeply flawed) but as someone who cares about abuse survivors in general. This case is a travesty.

According to Amber, that WaPo title was not inaccurate. She agreed with that title. During the trial, she corroborated the accusation of sexual violence and gave a harrowing tale of sexual abuse and violence (being raped by a bottle, being punched in the face,...) which people, including the jury, had a hard time to believe as there was absolutely no evidence (medical records, pictures). Had she only gone for emotional/verbal abuse, she probably would have won, but she insisted on sexual violence for which she didn't have any evidence. To make matter worse, she was caught lying on the stand (TMZ), so came off as a very unreliable witness. If she can lie in one instance, what would stop her from lying in others?

This entire post makes clear that you have zero understanding of the legal issues on the oped title.

Oh I'm perfectly clear. I'm just pointing out that Amber didn't think that the WaPo headline was inaccurate as she did spin a tale of horrific abuse to corroborate the oped's claim of sexual violence

Yeah, you don’t understand the legal issues. She had a couple of potential defenses to that defamation count, and her best strategy was to present all of them. If the first defense that her retweet was not actionable as defamation failed, a second line of defense would be to prove that the headline was accurate. Just proving emotional or verbal abuse wouldn’t have done it. But the defamation claim based on the headline meant she essentially was forced to put up every bit of evidence of sexual abuse that she could once the court refused to dismiss the count as a matter of law.

But none of this means she would have approved that headline if it had been shown to her before publication.

I'm perfectly clear on why she had to come up with stories of sexual violence to fight the defamatory accusations since her retweeting the headline might be considered defamatory. My point still stands that as soon as she mentioned instances of sexual violence, she is essentially agreeing that the WaPo headline was accurate.

You still don’t understand. There’s no point in continuing to try to explain it to you because you don’t even want to understand.

And you still refuse to see that she was sending the message that the WaPo headline was accurate when she testified about the violence she allegedly endured. But you're right. There is no point in continuing. You're stuck in your ways and I'm stuck in mine.

She did endure violence. Her "expose" was factual.

Okay, if you say so

[Anonymous]

I believe the evidence. Heard was absolutely abused. My reason is the same as the male juror’s statement 𝔧υˢⓉ ᵃ gυ𝕋 𝔽𝔢𝑒𝕝𝕚Ň𝔾
Depp is a lying abuser. If he’d been subjected to a psych evaluation, the outcome would be different. She was only guilty of emasculating him. But that doesn’t go over too well in Virginia does it folks? Home of the Oathkeepers and their weapons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe the evidence. Heard was absolutely abused. My reason is the same as the male juror’s statement 𝔧υˢⓉ ᵃ gυ𝕋 𝔽𝔢𝑒𝕝𝕚Ň𝔾
Depp is a lying abuser. If he’d been subjected to a psych evaluation, the outcome would be different. She was only guilty of emasculating him. But that doesn’t go over too well in Virginia does it folks? Home of the Oathkeepers and their weapons.

They're both guilty of abuse -- but that doesn't mean he should have won. Johnny Depp is a freak and a half. Just the things he agreed he did show he is an abuser. Normal people don't trash someone's room. He did that to terrify her and subdue her. Plus the wine scene: "You want to see crazy? I'll show you crazy." That is abuse. And who says, "No, gentle members of the jury -- I never abused her. I only wrote on the wall in my own blood, using my bloody stump of a finger" as if that's perfectly logical??? What a kook.

I never thought twice about Amber Heard before but -- yuck. Her hair and clothing were horrible during the trial, and she left a turd in her DH's bed. But Johnny Depp? Now that I know how he lives, I will never see him the same way again.He's not someone you want your kids to admire. What a grotesque couple.

[Anonymous]

It’s pretty hideous and would be dangerous for me to wear, as I work with my hands and that’s a recipe for a broken wrist…b it it sounds like your wife would like it, so you should buy it for her. As long as she doesn’t deal with machinery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe the evidence. Heard was absolutely abused. My reason is the same as the male juror’s statement 𝔧υˢⓉ ᵃ gυ𝕋 𝔽𝔢𝑒𝕝𝕚Ň𝔾
Depp is a lying abuser. If he’d been subjected to a psych evaluation, the outcome would be different. She was only guilty of emasculating him. But that doesn’t go over too well in Virginia does it folks? Home of the Oathkeepers and their weapons.

They're both guilty of abuse -- but that doesn't mean he should have won. Johnny Depp is a freak and a half. Just the things he agreed he did show he is an abuser. Normal people don't trash someone's room. He did that to terrify her and subdue her. Plus the wine scene: "You want to see crazy? I'll show you crazy." That is abuse. And who says, "No, gentle members of the jury -- I never abused her. I only wrote on the wall in my own blood, using my bloody stump of a finger" as if that's perfectly logical??? What a kook.

I never thought twice about Amber Heard before but -- yuck. Her hair and clothing were horrible during the trial, and she left a turd in her DH's bed. But Johnny Depp? Now that I know how he lives, I will never see him the same way again.He's not someone you want your kids to admire. What a grotesque couple.

+1!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe the evidence. Heard was absolutely abused. My reason is the same as the male juror’s statement 𝔧υˢⓉ ᵃ gυ𝕋 𝔽𝔢𝑒𝕝𝕚Ň𝔾
Depp is a lying abuser. If he’d been subjected to a psych evaluation, the outcome would be different. She was only guilty of emasculating him. But that doesn’t go over too well in Virginia does it folks? Home of the Oathkeepers and their weapons.

They're both guilty of abuse -- but that doesn't mean he should have won. Johnny Depp is a freak and a half. Just the things he agreed he did show he is an abuser. Normal people don't trash someone's room. He did that to terrify her and subdue her. Plus the wine scene: "You want to see crazy? I'll show you crazy." That is abuse. And who says, "No, gentle members of the jury -- I never abused her. I only wrote on the wall in my own blood, using my bloody stump of a finger" as if that's perfectly logical??? What a kook.

I never thought twice about Amber Heard before but -- yuck. Her hair and clothing were horrible during the trial, and she left a turd in her DH's bed. But Johnny Depp? Now that I know how he lives, I will never see him the same way again.He's not someone you want your kids to admire. What a grotesque couple.

Regardless of your thoughts on either of these people, this is almost definitely a fabrication of Depp’s. It wasn’t his bed, it was theirs, and he wasn’t staying there at the time. Why would Heard defecate in her own bed? Even if she was an abuser, this makes no sense. Additionally, Heard has a dog with incontinence issues at the time. What is more plausible, that Heard pooped in her own bed as a way to abuse her husband who was not even in the apartment at the time? Or that a dog that regularly pooped random places did so and a drunk, high, and enraged Depp blamed it on Heard because he was eager for anything to justify his behavior towards her?

[Anonymous]

- Attorneys for both Depp and Heard were unable to reach a last-minute settlement which now means there may be a costly and lengthy appeals process.
In three weeks, the case will move to the Court of Appeals of Virginia during which time both parties will have 30 days to file a notice of appeal -.

I thought she wanted to move on with her life?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:- Attorneys for both Depp and Heard were unable to reach a last-minute settlement which now means there may be a costly and lengthy appeals process.
In three weeks, the case will move to the Court of Appeals of Virginia during which time both parties will have 30 days to file a notice of appeal -.

I thought she wanted to move on with her life?!

Who wouldn't appeal this??? Of course she is appealing. What a nightmare. I'm sure she wishes she had never met this freak Johnny Depp. Unfortunately she married him and the consequences will be life-long. She will never move on from this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:- Attorneys for both Depp and Heard were unable to reach a last-minute settlement which now means there may be a costly and lengthy appeals process.
In three weeks, the case will move to the Court of Appeals of Virginia during which time both parties will have 30 days to file a notice of appeal -.

I thought she wanted to move on with her life?!

Who wouldn't appeal this??? Of course she is appealing. What a nightmare. I'm sure she wishes she had never met this freak Johnny Depp. Unfortunately she married him and the consequences will be life-long. She will never move on from this.

Or, you know, not shouting to the world that’s she donated her entire divorce settlement without ever actually doing that and then holding herself out as a victim of DV while being an active perpetrator of abuse could also have helped her avoid this…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:- Attorneys for both Depp and Heard were unable to reach a last-minute settlement which now means there may be a costly and lengthy appeals process.
In three weeks, the case will move to the Court of Appeals of Virginia during which time both parties will have 30 days to file a notice of appeal -.

I thought she wanted to move on with her life?!

Who wouldn't appeal this??? Of course she is appealing. What a nightmare. I'm sure she wishes she had never met this freak Johnny Depp. Unfortunately she married him and the consequences will be life-long. She will never move on from this.

Or, you know, not shouting to the world that’s she donated her entire divorce settlement without ever actually doing that and then holding herself out as a victim of DV while being an active perpetrator of abuse could also have helped her avoid this…

She said she never made that donation because Johnny Depp sued her, so she needed the money to pay her lawyers. Seems reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:- Attorneys for both Depp and Heard were unable to reach a last-minute settlement which now means there may be a costly and lengthy appeals process.
In three weeks, the case will move to the Court of Appeals of Virginia during which time both parties will have 30 days to file a notice of appeal -.

I thought she wanted to move on with her life?!

Who wouldn't appeal this??? Of course she is appealing. What a nightmare. I'm sure she wishes she had never met this freak Johnny Depp. Unfortunately she married him and the consequences will be life-long. She will never move on from this.

Or, you know, not shouting to the world that’s she donated her entire divorce settlement without ever actually doing that and then holding herself out as a victim of DV while being an active perpetrator of abuse could also have helped her avoid this…

She said she never made that donation because Johnny Depp sued her, so she needed the money to pay her lawyers. Seems reasonable.

So more lies from her? The divorced was final in January 2017. In February 2019, he sued her. Why again didn’t she donate at least half of the settlement (I believe the payments were split)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:- Attorneys for both Depp and Heard were unable to reach a last-minute settlement which now means there may be a costly and lengthy appeals process.
In three weeks, the case will move to the Court of Appeals of Virginia during which time both parties will have 30 days to file a notice of appeal -.

I thought she wanted to move on with her life?!

It’s a little hard to move on with your life when you have a net $8.25 million dollar judgment hanging over you with the threat that any penny you make could be garnished to satisfy it.