Jurors explain why they sided with Johnny Depp

[Anonymous]

I think what I'm finding distressing is the exact thing I suspected would happen has happened. A friend's abusive ex just served her suing her for 15 million dollars for defamation. Of course the case isn't likely to go anywhere but it just shows how the exact wrong people were emboldened by this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

A lot of the AH defenders in here don't seem to have a very strong grasp of the evidence that was presented. For example the testimony and contemporaneous records of the nurse, and the testimony of the police woman, were pretty brutal to AH's case.

[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?

Perhaps, but did she not also accuse Depp of raping her with a bottle in the op-Ed? I don’t think anyone has said they believe that allegation, which was also apart of the civil suit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

agree

100% agree. They were both wrong, this trial was stupid and unnecessary and Virginia really needs to close the loophole that allows this sort of case to even be brought to trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Perhaps, but did she not also accuse Depp of raping her with a bottle in the op-Ed? I don’t think anyone has said they believe that allegation, which was also apart of the civil suit.

No, that wasn't in the op ed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

agree

100% agree. They were both wrong, this trial was stupid and unnecessary and Virginia really needs to close the loophole that allows this sort of case to even be brought to trial.

? what "loophole"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Perhaps, but did she not also accuse Depp of raping her with a bottle in the op-Ed? I don’t think anyone has said they believe that allegation, which was also apart of the civil suit.

DP. No, she didn’t say anything like that in the oped. How are you offering opinions into the proper outcome in this case without the vaguest clue of what it’s about?

[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.

People like you is why potential jurors shirk their civic duty and refuse to serve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

agree

100% agree. They were both wrong, this trial was stupid and unnecessary and Virginia really needs to close the loophole that allows this sort of case to even be brought to trial.

? what "loophole"?

DP. I’m not sure if this is what pp was referring to, but Virginia has a very weak anti-SLAPP statute, and it can only be asserted as a defense in the merits, not as grounds for dismissal at the outset. California’s is much stronger and does allow a defendant to assert it as grounds for dismissal at the outset. That is why JD filed the suit in Virginia rather than California, because in California AG probably could have gotten it dismissed as a SLAPP suit right out of the gate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

agree

100% agree. They were both wrong, this trial was stupid and unnecessary and Virginia really needs to close the loophole that allows this sort of case to even be brought to trial.

? what "loophole"?

DP. I’m not sure if this is what pp was referring to, but Virginia has a very weak anti-SLAPP statute, and it can only be asserted as a defense in the merits, not as grounds for dismissal at the outset. California’s is much stronger and does allow a defendant to assert it as grounds for dismissal at the outset. That is why JD filed the suit in Virginia rather than California, because in California AG probably could have gotten it dismissed as a SLAPP suit right out of the gate.

Sure but how the eff is that a "loophole." There's plenty of reason to criticize the CA anti-SLAPP statute too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She re-tweeted it. That’s what mattered. People really shouldn’t be opining on this case if they didn’t follow the trial. I watched all of it. AH was not credible. Credibility is key in jury trials.

[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…

Wasn’t the UK case against the publishing company and not AH? How are you trying to make a comparison where the allegations, participants, court system trier of fact, and standard of proof are all different?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s also not a great look to take a payout from GMA to talk about jury deliberations so you can make a profit from it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She re-tweeted it. That’s what mattered. People really shouldn’t be opining on this case if they didn’t follow the trial. I watched all of it. AH was not credible. Credibility is key in jury trials.

Actually, re-tweeting alone would not have been enough to sustain legal liability here. But do go on prattling about how other people don’t understand the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

agree

100% agree. They were both wrong, this trial was stupid and unnecessary and Virginia really needs to close the loophole that allows this sort of case to even be brought to trial.

? what "loophole"?

DP. I’m not sure if this is what pp was referring to, but Virginia has a very weak anti-SLAPP statute, and it can only be asserted as a defense in the merits, not as grounds for dismissal at the outset. California’s is much stronger and does allow a defendant to assert it as grounds for dismissal at the outset. That is why JD filed the suit in Virginia rather than California, because in California AG probably could have gotten it dismissed as a SLAPP suit right out of the gate.

Sure but how the eff is that a "loophole." There's plenty of reason to criticize the CA anti-SLAPP statute too.

It’s not a loophole, but it makes the Virginia statute pretty toothless, which JD decided to exploit.

The decision that Virginia had jurisdiction over this case was garbage.