Jurors explain why they sided with Johnny Depp

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

You must be a pretty lousy litigator.

[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.

Totally agree!

[Anonymous]

I like how Depp won the trial. He won. She lost. The jury chose to believe him over her. He won. And yet,

And yet, because the verdict doesn’t advance the #metoomovment, or “believe women”, or somehow perpetrates the patriarchy oppressing women or whatever, all this is based on your own anecdotal bs that you know better than the actual jury.

How does this set women back? I don’t get it. Why the outrage when she obviously lost? Why can you just respect the verdict? I’m so tired of hearing of women who are upset by this verdict. It makes no sense and doesn’t advance the feminist cause. Accept that he won. It’s not the patriarchy this time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like how Depp won the trial. He won. She lost. The jury chose to believe him over her. He won. And yet,

And yet, because the verdict doesn’t advance the #metoomovment, or “believe women”, or somehow perpetrates the patriarchy oppressing women or whatever, all this is based on your own anecdotal bs that you know better than the actual jury.

How does this set women back? I don’t get it. Why the outrage when she obviously lost? Why can you just respect the verdict? I’m so tired of hearing of women who are upset by this verdict. It makes no sense and doesn’t advance the feminist cause. Accept that he won. It’s not the patriarchy this time.

You seem very invested in upholding misogyny.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

Oh FFS those of you saying she's a bad actress, are also neglecting to talk about how Depp is a really good actor. It takes two to tango, fangirls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like how Depp won the trial. He won. She lost. The jury chose to believe him over her. He won. And yet,

And yet, because the verdict doesn’t advance the #metoomovment, or “believe women”, or somehow perpetrates the patriarchy oppressing women or whatever, all this is based on your own anecdotal bs that you know better than the actual jury.

How does this set women back? I don’t get it. Why the outrage when she obviously lost? Why can you just respect the verdict? I’m so tired of hearing of women who are upset by this verdict. It makes no sense and doesn’t advance the feminist cause. Accept that he won. It’s not the patriarchy this time.

You seem very invested in upholding misogyny.

I’m interested in upholding both due process and the judicial system. You don’t know better than then juror or judge. Your jabs of sexism are so tired and played out. Stop diluting actual examples misogyny with your endless whining.

[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.

NO. He is not a Saint. Likely far from it. Neither is she.

[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.

No. That’s not how it works. He wasn’t the defendant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like how Depp won the trial. He won. She lost. The jury chose to believe him over her. He won. And yet,

And yet, because the verdict doesn’t advance the #metoomovment, or “believe women”, or somehow perpetrates the patriarchy oppressing women or whatever, all this is based on your own anecdotal bs that you know better than the actual jury.

How does this set women back? I don’t get it. Why the outrage when she obviously lost? Why can you just respect the verdict? I’m so tired of hearing of women who are upset by this verdict. It makes no sense and doesn’t advance the feminist cause. Accept that he won. It’s not the patriarchy this time.

You seem very invested in upholding misogyny.

Congratulations on being Exhibit A for PP’s point.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

You must be a pretty lousy litigator.

I understand juries and what they believe and rely on which makes me a fantastic litigator.

[Anonymous]

I’m just shocked that amber heard had convinced anyone that she was this poor abused victim- was she treated poorly sometimes? I guess so if you see the relationship as the toxic dumpster fire that it was. She was a master manipulator on the stand, a liar and absolutely an abuser. Please tell me what about her story was compelling in any way? I don’t even like Johnny Depp. So please don’t come back with some insult about me being a fangirl.

[Anonymous]

I’m so glad the jury saw through Amber Heard’s crazy allegations. I also don’t care about Johnny Depp but I do care about women who lie to get attention for themselves with no regards to the lives they’re destroying. She is evil and I’m glad the jury saw through that. Not to say that JD is an angel but she started all of this when she wrote that Oped. You don’t shout abuse when you’re an abuser yourself.