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:

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.

Are you being deliberately obtuse here?

[Anonymous]

This juror proved that the real point of the oped was sadly correct.

[Anonymous]

Those of you who can’t understand that there can be grey areas and nuance (like how AH can be nuts and manipulative but also a victim of domestic violence) are a serious problem in our country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those of you who can’t understand that there can be grey areas and nuance (like how AH can be nuts and manipulative but also a victim of domestic violence) are a serious problem in our country.

We only believe women when we find them likable and relatable. See: world history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those of you who can’t understand that there can be grey areas and nuance (like how AH can be nuts and manipulative but also a victim of domestic violence) are a serious problem in our country.

This. The jury (and the public) viewed this as a “pick a side” situation. It’s not.

Heard write an op-ed alleging that Depp has abused her. While she obviously has her own issues, it’s fairly apparent from the evidence that he was, at a minimum, verbally and emotionally abusive. I also personally find the evidence that he was physically abusive at times believable (for instance I believe he threw his phone at her, especially since this was corroborated by another person). But even if you think she exaggerated or faked injuries, there is a lot of evidence that he definitely yelled, went on drunk rampages, belittled her in public (the incident on the plane was corroborated by multiple witnesses AND Depp’s own texts!). That’s DV. That’s partner abuse. She did not lie in her op-ed. She did not defame him. Whatever you think of her personally, she’s entitled to speak publicly about abuse, which she obviously experienced. Depp is also entitled to speak about the things she did and tell people this situation was complicated, which it was.

What makes me angry is that by making this a referendum on Heard’s personality and worthiness as a victim, this trial and verdict have reinforced the idea for DV survivors that speaking up and speaking out opens them to character assassination. It will silence victims, and it will help perpetuate abuse. No person is perfect and victims of abuse OFTEN have mental health issues and other problems that may make them less likeable. I have worked directly with rape and DV survivors for years and a significant part of my training focuses on how challenging people who have been this can be. I have worked with a lot of survivors who I found draining, who had abrupt and seemingly manipulative emotional displays. People who have lived for years with abusers, especially those with substance issues, HAVE to be manipulative— they must learn to manage their partner’s behavior to protect themselves. It is a survival technique.

Depp was abusive. Full stop. Therefore Heard’s op-Ed was truthful. That should have been the end of the case. Everything else was pure character assassination. Heard doesn’t need to be innocent or likable in order to be right here.

[Anonymous]

Use of full stop is such a great midwit identifier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you who can’t understand that there can be grey areas and nuance (like how AH can be nuts and manipulative but also a victim of domestic violence) are a serious problem in our country.

This. The jury (and the public) viewed this as a “pick a side” situation. It’s not.

Heard write an op-ed alleging that Depp has abused her. While she obviously has her own issues, it’s fairly apparent from the evidence that he was, at a minimum, verbally and emotionally abusive. I also personally find the evidence that he was physically abusive at times believable (for instance I believe he threw his phone at her, especially since this was corroborated by another person). But even if you think she exaggerated or faked injuries, there is a lot of evidence that he definitely yelled, went on drunk rampages, belittled her in public (the incident on the plane was corroborated by multiple witnesses AND Depp’s own texts!). That’s DV. That’s partner abuse. She did not lie in her op-ed. She did not defame him. Whatever you think of her personally, she’s entitled to speak publicly about abuse, which she obviously experienced. Depp is also entitled to speak about the things she did and tell people this situation was complicated, which it was.

What makes me angry is that by making this a referendum on Heard’s personality and worthiness as a victim, this trial and verdict have reinforced the idea for DV survivors that speaking up and speaking out opens them to character assassination. It will silence victims, and it will help perpetuate abuse. No person is perfect and victims of abuse OFTEN have mental health issues and other problems that may make them less likeable. I have worked directly with rape and DV survivors for years and a significant part of my training focuses on how challenging people who have been this can be. I have worked with a lot of survivors who I found draining, who had abrupt and seemingly manipulative emotional displays. People who have lived for years with abusers, especially those with substance issues, HAVE to be manipulative— they must learn to manage their partner’s behavior to protect themselves. It is a survival technique.

Depp was abusive. Full stop. Therefore Heard’s op-Ed was truthful. That should have been the end of the case. Everything else was pure character assassination. Heard doesn’t need to be innocent or likable in order to be right here.

All of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Use of full stop is such a great midwit identifier.

Good job not engaging with any facts or logic and just resorting to name calling and portraying me as dumb. Hey, it worked for Depp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Use of full stop is such a great midwit identifier.

Good job not engaging with any facts or logic and just resorting to name calling and portraying me as dumb. Hey, it worked for Depp.

Name calling isn’t DV.

The long post above fails to mention what was obvious to most: Amber had an agenda, and she worked hard to fuel situations she could use as future evidence for her exit strategy.

Her new plan is to double down on the victim narrative in the hope of redeeming her reputation by becoming a champion of survivors. She knows that’s the only way to salvage a career. This is a classic PR move. The fact is, she isn’t a DV survivor. She just had a toxic relationship. Not the same thing.

[Anonymous]

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

agree

[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.

NP: First, this isn’t always the case. Second, jurors are constantly evaluating a witnesses credibility. Finally, do you know of a better system of justice we should use?

It is rare that a case goes to a jury at all. If the situation and liabilities are clear, or if it is a nuisance case, it will settle out of court. Only the messy unclear civil cases (usually) go to a jury. Both sides are confident they can get the jury to see it their way. Many lawyers feel that if you have to put the case to a jury, you’ve already lost, and in our system it is then up to judge and jury to figure it out as a very last resort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh but you should be allowed to spout off an opinion without having done that? Why should anyone care what you or anyone else who didn’t watch the trial has to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because the Washington Post is going to say it was reasonable to rely on Heard’s word because they have to rely on sources. That’s how newspapers work. They couldn’t know any different. Its a much different bar. What were they supposed to do, investigate her themselves?

[Anonymous]

One of the jurors admitted that they thought they both abused each other.

Ok fine, no one said she was perfect. However, if he abused her, then she did not defame him by saying she was a victim of domestic abuse. How do people not get this?

[Anonymous]

I think if Amber had told the truth about verifiable things (TMZ tips and videos, divorce money donations, two identical photos submitted for different events) then I think the jury might have assigned her more credibility. She lost because she didn’t acknowledge anything, ever, at any point. Being caught in stating things that seem less than truthful is a good way to get a jury to find against you. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus