Jurors explain why they sided with Johnny Depp

[Anonymous]

So, the poop in the bed was Amber’s legal team’s fault. There was a pre trial motion, filed by Amber, to keep that out as irrelevant and prejudiced And they won that motion and it was barred. But, then at the trial, Elaine brought it up IN THEIR. CASE! Which means the door was then blown wide open for Deb’s team to be all over it. I actually feel that this case was won and lost on the lawyering and the amount of preparation, or lack of preparation, that went into getting Amber ready to testify.

[Anonymous]

Depp turned out to be the better actor.

[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.

You sound like an abuser. Blaming her for his behavior? Minimizing domestic violence?

Seek help.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Ready for AH supporters to claim she actually won and need a recount.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ready for AH supporters to claim she actually won and need a recount.

Literally no one is saying that.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

You sound like an abuser. Blaming her for his behavior? Minimizing domestic violence?

Seek help.

She literally brought him wine and zanax, while she downed 2 bottles of wine a night and was on many drugs herself. Listen to the full audio tapes, start with Australia. She's a lying violent abuser.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I have watched, listened and read both sides and all of the trial. I 100% don't believe a thing from Amber. JD is no saint, but Amber is a manipulative crazy liar.

[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?

My friends who are prosecutors say that juries in criminal trials will request DNA evidence and all sorts of sophisticated laboratory testing they have heard about from CSI even when the prosecution has a sworn confession in hand!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

I saw the GMA interview. Only one juror spoke out and this isn't what he said. Where have other jurors explained their decision??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I have watched, listened and read both sides and all of the trial. I 100% don't believe a thing from Amber. JD is no saint, but Amber is a manipulative crazy liar.

How do you even have the time for that? Do you not have a job? Family? A life?

Assuming you do, it’s kind of sad that you prioritized the a trial among random celebrities over all of that. Your level of investment in strangers tends to suggest you are not exactly unbiased here.

[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?

My friends who are prosecutors say that juries in criminal trials will request DNA evidence and all sorts of sophisticated laboratory testing they have heard about from CSI even when the prosecution has a sworn confession in hand!

You know false confessions are a thing, right? The more people here about coerced confessions, the more skeptical they will be without corroborating evidence.