Jurors explain why they sided with Johnny Depp

[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.

His side was able to prove republishing of the sexual violence title of that op-ed which was the worst allegation and one no one believed. She was always going to lose on count one. I get you think Depp should be sacrificed for the greater good of “Believe all women no matter what”. The fact that you can’t see an issue with this is disturbing. This case is about two Hollywood actors. That’s ALL it should be about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

Because the juror also said they also thought she was the aggressor and he did not hit her. That op-ed was titled sexual violence. It was clearly about being physically abused. It was not talking about slamming cabinets. How do YOU not get this. You think a six week trial went on with no one bringing this up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

+1

[Anonymous]

I believe Amber is not credible. I also believe JD should not have won all three counts of defamation. I think he should have one the first one alleging sexual violence. I think AH didn’t do herself any favors by refusing to acknowledge that she started physical altercations and insisted she was protecting herself. There is an audiotape of her admitting that she began the fight. She had a credibility issue with the jury of her own making. This is not a trial with her representing DV survivors. This was a trial of AH and JD and an op-Ed.

[Anonymous]

That juror sounds like an attention whore. Makes you wonder if he voted the way he did because he truly thought it was the correct result, or if he knew it would be the most sensational.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That juror sounds like an attention whore. Makes you wonder if he voted the way he did because he truly thought it was the correct result, or if he knew it would be the most sensational.

It’s not a great look to malign the jury, most of whom spent six weeks stuck in a court room and who were most likely doing their best to perform their public service admirably.

[Anonymous]

I originally didn’t follow much of this trial, but as soon as I saw memes and post on various internet sites in support of him, I felt like he and/or his PR team was funding an astroturfing campaign. The way the post/memes were phrased and came up originally didn’t seem genuine at all. This immediately turned me off to the idea of him suing her. It makes him seem like a bully (the richer more successful person suing the younger up and coming actress for giving her side of the story with out even mentioning him). It also makes it seem like this was a coordinated effort to rehabilitate his career more than anything.

I also think it’s interesting that he lost the UK case…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I originally didn’t follow much of this trial, but as soon as I saw memes and post on various internet sites in support of him, I felt like he and/or his PR team was funding an astroturfing campaign. The way the post/memes were phrased and came up originally didn’t seem genuine at all. This immediately turned me off to the idea of him suing her. It makes him seem like a bully (the richer more successful person suing the younger up and coming actress for giving her side of the story with out even mentioning him). It also makes it seem like this was a coordinated effort to rehabilitate his career more than anything.

I also think it’s interesting that he lost the UK case…

And if you look more carefully into the UK case, which I doubt you’ll do. You’d see why. TOTALLY different case, totally different legal system, different evidence allowed, different defendant, Different tryer of fact. It’s less “interesting” than you think.

But keep reading memes! Its a great way to stay informed.

[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.

Just listened - thank you for the recommendation. Really good discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I originally didn’t follow much of this trial, but as soon as I saw memes and post on various internet sites in support of him, I felt like he and/or his PR team was funding an astroturfing campaign. The way the post/memes were phrased and came up originally didn’t seem genuine at all. This immediately turned me off to the idea of him suing her. It makes him seem like a bully (the richer more successful person suing the younger up and coming actress for giving her side of the story with out even mentioning him). It also makes it seem like this was a coordinated effort to rehabilitate his career more than anything.

I also think it’s interesting that he lost the UK case…

And if you look more carefully into the UK case, which I doubt you’ll do. You’d see why. TOTALLY different case, totally different legal system, different evidence allowed, different defendant, Different tryer of fact. It’s less “interesting” than you think.

But keep reading memes! Its a great way to stay informed.

More interesting in the regards that a different system came out with a different outcome despite one set of events/facts taking place. But remember, he tried suing there first because the UK he more favorable libel laws.

[Anonymous]

I wish the jury came back and awarded each side a dollar. AH and Johnny are awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe Amber is not credible. I also believe JD should not have won all three counts of defamation. I think he should have one the first one alleging sexual violence. I think AH didn’t do herself any favors by refusing to acknowledge that she started physical altercations and insisted she was protecting herself. There is an audiotape of her admitting that she began the fight. She had a credibility issue with the jury of her own making. This is not a trial with her representing DV survivors. This was a trial of AH and JD and an op-Ed.

I agree with everything you say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish the jury came back and awarded each side a dollar. AH and Johnny are awful.

Mood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

His side was able to prove republishing of the sexual violence title of that op-ed which was the worst allegation and one no one believed. She was always going to lose on count one. I get you think Depp should be sacrificed for the greater good of “Believe all women no matter what”. The fact that you can’t see an issue with this is disturbing. This case is about two Hollywood actors. That’s ALL it should be about.

Did she even write the title? I thought WaPo did. I don’t see how she can be held accountable for that.

[Anonymous]

does anybody who sat through the entire six weeks of trial think AH should have won?

I haven’t seen anybody support her who did in fact pay attention to the entire trial. Not people like you and me, who only listened to snippets and read an op-ed here and there.