This is coming from one of the jury after the verdicts, quite interesting to listen, from someone who isn't a fan of both and didn't come across anything from social media until the verdict, but only make the judgement after 100 hours of unedited debating.
Amber Heard vs Johnny Depp | Depp wins on all 3 counts
- Thread starter Reapersoul20
- Start date
Erm… how am I homophobic? That’s quite the fecking leap
I'm joking mate
Exact same as me who found the donation/pledge thing as the point of no return. Till that point it was a he said she said thing, but that was just the most blatant garbage lie anyone can ever try to pull off. As I've said before, any other person in real life tried to convince me of something like that and I'd never pay attention to anything they said ever again. It's that simple.
No surprise at all the jury didn't appreciate the staring contest with someone who they weren't allowed to reply to.
A bunch of attorneys have commented on how a client is usually told not to do that. Also usually told not to take notes or scribble (real ones not the air scribbling she was doing) as you want to be seen as paying full attention to what's being said.
A lot of those things applied to Depp as well. You wouldn't be advised to laugh, joke, sneer, etc at testimonies. Jurors can take note of that and that can go against you.
There were also some minor things but made sense to me, like drinking/eating your own stuff like the juices/candies or whatever else these guys were doing, as the jury doesn't get those things and have to be sat there for ages. Can seem to be a bit impolite.
Can see why. Bad enough being caught in a lie when on the stand, like the donation/pledge business. But even worse to repeatedly lie while looking right at individual faces on the jury. Putting yourself in their shoes, that sort of exchange could easily have set them against Amber for the rest of the trial regardless of anything else.
Also must have been horrible having someone fake exaggerated crying while their cold tearless eyes bore into you.
I don't know, of course, but it seems very strange to assume all of the jurors were biased by breaking the rules.
I think you’re seeing what you want to see. The entire forum for example was united against a Manchester United player for his alleged actions.
The difference here is that the evidence in this case has shown Heard to be an abuser, a pathological liar and likely sociopathic.
Somehow attempting to turn this into a debate about misogyny is so far off the mark.
Got a link to a source on that theory that our jury system is deeply flawed? I'll be happy to learn more.
Obviously Brexit isn't a relevant example as people aren't instructed to avoid social media.
It's pretty weird for him to say that given the British lawsuit was decided by a judge with a clear conflict of interests with the defendant... Maybe it's just me, but I'd still rather go with a jury of peers, media or not, instead of a suspiciously corrupt individual deciding my fate.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Suspiciously corrupt? Dude.
Johnny is the new Internet hero. Almost everyone is on his side. It's a shame it had to come to this for everyone to start rooting for him because he has always been alright in my books.
It's pretty fecking weird that a judge who has ties to the Sun and Rupert Murdoch would be appointed in the case, but what do I know?
The fake notes thing was utterly bizarre I agree. Don’t know whether there is a chance of her being charged with perjury (or whether she’d be found guilty) but this feels a long way from being over.The one thing that should give you some comfort is that if Amber was telling the truth, she would not of needed to provide altered images with redacted meta data. There also would definetly not be a potential case for perjury in 3 fecking countries.
She lied so easily about the little pointless things that gained her nothing, if I was ever in court.. I'd certainly not risk lying about anything let alone faking taking notes
And yet one of the oldest and most trusted (rightly or wrongly) legal systems in the world, with a huge financial interest in being seen to be fair, made the decision which you claim is corrupt. If I were you I’d take that as a cue to step back and reassess whether my suspicions were factually valid, or whether I was dismissing the judge’s verdict for entirely different reasons.
Never been a huge fan of Depp, apart from his massive talent.
A trial where a "believe me" person lost, based on the evidence, must be a good thing for actual victims of abuse. The only people that are hurt by this, are the bs merchants that want to have things their way without needing to prove anything.
A trial where a "believe me" person lost, based on the evidence, must be a good thing for actual victims of abuse. The only people that are hurt by this, are the bs merchants that want to have things their way without needing to prove anything.
And some of their defenders apparently.
It wasn't Heards Actions, her Testimony or Her Evidence.
It wasn't Depp's Actions, his Testimony of His Evidence.
It was the fact that someone Tweeted it that ruined Heards case.
I think that the less attention one pays to those nut jobs that are IMO both racist and sexist, the better. Abusers and racists and horrible people must pay. If one interprets everything though race or gender, then they are part of the people that imo should be ignored.
Let's just relax a little. You know shit about the "financial interests" of the British judicial system, least of all if that would include fairness. That's just bringing naivete that I wouldn't expect from a grown up. And for all we know the judge in the UK trial might be the pinnacle of virtue and fairness, and what not, that still doesn't eliminate the fact that there was a clear conflict of interests going on. The American system is better and there is no dispute about that. One guy in the system, born and bred, decides your fate vs 7 members of an unaffiliated jury of peers, all picked on random. Regardless of your opinions on this case, I think any sane person who wants an impartial sentence would side with the latter option.
Well that depends... Is the Judge on TikTok?
I don't know. Is he? And why would that matter? The trial is over.
I'm joking around due to the accusations that the Jury were compromised and made their decision because of social media content rather than the evidence presented.
And how exactly would you know that? Let's pretend that the jury was browsing social media and what not. What difference does that make? Have the crazies from /r/deuxmoi become less crazier because they browse social media? Did social media change the opinion of the ultra feminists that believe Amber's every word? No. It's more likely that the jury simply did not believe Amber. And as I said, let's pretend the judge was completely impartial - the very fact that he was appointed in the trial when he had clear conflict of interests is a huge problem.
People have their opinion. Social media didn't influence me in any way to see that Amber was a piece of trash, what convinced me of that is her lack of evidence, her lies and the evidence for Depp. That's it. And if I was on the jury, it would have been the same thing. But if I was a judge and had a son who was working for Rupert Murdoch, well, maybe I wouldn't have been so impartial? Who knows, it's hard to say whether i'll put my child's future on the risk for some drug addict, regardless if said drug addict is right or not.
Just to be clear I don't think that the jury was influenced by social media rather than the evidence presented. I just made a shit joke
no point in calling out particular posters, but it's obvious some of you don't really understand the meaning of misogyny. making fun of certain individual, be it man or woman, isn't misogyny or misandry. if the roles were reversed, there would be plenty of turd jokes on Depp's expense as well. that isn't misandry.
If The Sun said tomorrow was Saturday I wouldn’t believe them so with all due respect I take the UK trial with a grain of salt. I prefer to trust my own eyes and mind. With the “mountain of evidence” she brought I found no evidence of abuse.
- photos that she said were 2 photos in different lights were found to have the exact same metadata.
- photos from 2 alleged incidents on 2 separate days turned out to be the same photo.
- her friends are no longer her friends and apparently she only got into contact with them a few weeks before their deposition. None of which ever saw any abuse.
- the only person that cooperated her abuse was her sister who didn’t even cooperate the staircase incident. The only thing Amber, Whitney and Johnny actually agreed on is Amber hitting Johnny.
- she lied about donating the full settlement to the childrens hospital.
- she let it slip that TMZ was altered in her deposition and tried to cover it yourself with her hands
- no evidence of a violent rape even though she recorded and documented every bad incident on his part
These along with her other lies, her constant staring at the jury, lack of any real emotion on the stand, her constant laughing and sniggering (another thing she denied) is the reason I don’t buy her story. Believe all women is a very dangerous precedent, women lie too.
The amount of people who think the verdict is somehow contradictory since she won part of her claim not related to the abuse claims is scary. Just shows you some people followed the trial reading headlines and watching clips
- photos that she said were 2 photos in different lights were found to have the exact same metadata.
- photos from 2 alleged incidents on 2 separate days turned out to be the same photo.
- her friends are no longer her friends and apparently she only got into contact with them a few weeks before their deposition. None of which ever saw any abuse.
- the only person that cooperated her abuse was her sister who didn’t even cooperate the staircase incident. The only thing Amber, Whitney and Johnny actually agreed on is Amber hitting Johnny.
- she lied about donating the full settlement to the childrens hospital.
- she let it slip that TMZ was altered in her deposition and tried to cover it yourself with her hands
- no evidence of a violent rape even though she recorded and documented every bad incident on his part
These along with her other lies, her constant staring at the jury, lack of any real emotion on the stand, her constant laughing and sniggering (another thing she denied) is the reason I don’t buy her story. Believe all women is a very dangerous precedent, women lie too.
The amount of people who think the verdict is somehow contradictory since she won part of her claim not related to the abuse claims is scary. Just shows you some people followed the trial reading headlines and watching clips
Why did Depp win in the US but Heard win in England?
Detailed analysis from an English barrister. Well worth a read for those interested.
https://barristerblogger.com/2022/06/02/3449/
Detailed analysis from an English barrister. Well worth a read for those interested.
https://barristerblogger.com/2022/06/02/3449/
This blog basically echoes your statement and points out the fact that a large reason Heard won in the UK was due to the fact that the Judge believed Heard when she said she had donated the $7m settlement.
Good (actually balanced, the author seems to prefer trials by Judge but presents his reasoning) article.
I’m not sure if you’re British or American, but if you are American and really interested, “Unfair” is a good starting book for non-lawyers on the criminal justice system. Be warned the author is a Liverpool fan
Let's just relax a little...proceeds to be a condescending prick.
I know it annoyed me why her team never talked her out of doing it beats me.
It just made her look even more crazy than I suspect she is
Honestly I hope this isn't a juror, because there's nothing in there that I couldn't have written myself pretending to be a juror so I'm not convinced - but also the answers written show juries are a joke and a waste of time. Also he's 'anonymous' but any juror is going to recognise his voice which seems pretty pointless. 'Seemed off' 'I trusted my gut' 'when she said that I thought if she lied about this she lied about everything' not exactly the high judicial standard we're asked to put our faith in.
Interesting read.
Amber Heard wasn't the main party in UK trial, her testimony was unchallenged, to the point that judge had to take her words as face value. And we all know this was not the case in US trial where AH was the weakest link in her team.
Worth noting that UK trial only decided it was alright for The Sun to call Depp a wifebeater because their story was somewhat believable. For AH & her legal team to call it their absolute win is fecking bizzare.
2 days ago, my life, the life of my children, the lives of those closest to me, and also, the lives of the people who for many, many hours have supported and believed in me were forever changed.
All in the blink of an eye.
False, very serious and criminal allegations were levied at me via the forum, which triggered an endless barrage of hateful content, although charges were never brought against me. It had already traveled around the Caf twice within a nanosecond and it had a seismic impact on my life and my Caf career.
And 2 days later, @Raoul gave me my life back. I am truly humbled.
Veritas numquam perid.
Truth never perishes.
#JusticeForMichaelRed
#FinallyUnbanned
All in the blink of an eye.
False, very serious and criminal allegations were levied at me via the forum, which triggered an endless barrage of hateful content, although charges were never brought against me. It had already traveled around the Caf twice within a nanosecond and it had a seismic impact on my life and my Caf career.
And 2 days later, @Raoul gave me my life back. I am truly humbled.
Veritas numquam perid.
Truth never perishes.
#JusticeForMichaelRed
#FinallyUnbanned
Shut up you misogynist
I know this blog notes how the judge was conned into thinking Amber had donated her divorce settlement & that might have swayed the judge's opinion but I doubt it. That judge was horrific & clearly trying to fit the evidence to match his pre-determined conclusion rather than the other way around. Evidence was presented in the UK trial that Amber tried to bribe a vet into forging documents for her dogs so she could get them into Australia, once she failed to do so she decided to smuggle them in on a private plane & was subsequently caught. She then perjured herself by testifying that it was Kate James' fault & that it was her job to arrange the dog's travel documents. She also blackmailed her estate manager into perjuring himself & agreeing with her version of events by blaming Kate James. The estate manager came clean in the UK case & provided the evidence for these events & the judge decided that it was of no significance & didn't take away from Amber's credibility. If a judge thinks bribery, falsifying documents, smuggling, perjury & blackmail don't harm the credibility of a witness then you really have to question whether that judge had any interest in a fair trial whatsoever.
It will have been a deliberate technique from her. People with borderline & narcissistic personality disorder try to make eye-contact as a means of manipulating people. She will have wanted to try & manipulate the jury but it won't have been very effective as it's hard to make eye-contact with 9 different people & people from inside the courthouse said that the jury avoided looking at her.
To expand a bit more on it being a technique used by people with her disorders to manipulate people, it really is quite a fascinating thing. There have been many studies in criminal cases where a suspect with said disorders is interviewed by a detective, whilst other detectives wait outside & watch the interview through glass or on a screen. When the interview is done, the detective that was in the room with the suspect will often have bought into the suspect's story & failed to spot the holes & inconsistencies. Meanwhile, the detectives that watched through glass/on a screen will have seen straight through the story & picked up on those holes & inconsistencies. It's quite frightening how easily these people can get into your head & manipulate you without you ever realising.
I suspect we all, and a lot of the world, saw & experienced some of this. We were all watching through a camera lens & most people found her testimony to be 'off' and 'cold', this is what I was describing above. When you're not in the room with them, it's a lot harder for them to get you to buy into what they're saying because it's usually not based in fact but rather emotional manipulation. Facts come through much better when you're looking through a lens because they don't need emotion to back them up, facts are just facts.