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.
Amber Heard vs Johnny Depp | Depp wins on all 3 counts
- Thread starter Reapersoul20
- Start date
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.
I think you got mixed up abit on the Q&A with what he said there. "a moment she lied about this she lied about everything" is actually a question being asked but not what he has said, to which he replied "pledge/donation to charity".
I know you're respected around here, but a staff member ignoring the rules and attacking a poster and not the post isn't a great look.
The "prick" part was tad unnecessary really, and I don't often call this out or even report it, emotions are running high in here (I've been called a pillock
) but a staff member should be held to a higher standard.Good luck with that. This staff member accused me of masturbating whilst fantasizing about beating up Amber Heard.I know you're respected around here, but a staff member ignoring the rules and attacking a poster and not the post isn't a great look.
The "prick" part was tad unnecessary really, and I don't often call this out or even report it, emotions are running high in here (I've been called a pillock
fecking stupid. If this is real, they can call it jury misconduct and appeal.
Hope he's a fraud
Don't promote this video or similar contents. It's exactly what AH legal team want.
Last edited:
I got banned for about a year once for creating a thread the day I got promoted joking about the struggle of my fellow newbie (hence my tagline) - and an admin basically said something that it was either me or him, and I said me, so he got promoted and I got banned! Think they just forgot to unban me but still a bit ridiculous.Haven't really been that bothered about getting into too much conversation or get to know posters on here since because you can get banned for some stupid stuff - so I'm not going to say anything else just in case...
I think if you're saying 'I wouldn't expect such naivety from a grown up' when trying to make a debatable point then 99.9% of people would think you're being a prick.I know you're respected around here, but a staff member ignoring the rules and attacking a poster and not the post isn't a great look.
The "prick" part was tad unnecessary really, and I don't often call this out or even report it, emotions are running high in here (I've been called a pillock
That's besides the point really, you still shouldn't be calling a poster a prick, even if the poster was actually being a prick or not because the rules of the website state that you should attack the post and not the poster.
Not trying to argue with you really, just pointing out the obvious?
What
There's certainly plenty in the post to attack when he's labelling Amber Heard 'a piece of trash' in between patronising others.
Jeff Beck is good
The answer should have been 'never, because that'd be a dumb way to evaluate guilt.' I wouldn't want to think that jurors hear one lie and decide that it's therefore likely they lied about everything.
Last edited:
So we agree then, attacking the post is perfectly fine, calling him a prick is not?
If you were on the fence about a few things which could’ve been lies, then it’s easy to see how a big one like that can sway your opinion to believing most of it was lies.
For an average layperson with no stake in it, sure. For somebody being trusted to make an impartial decision? Not so much.
Are they professional jury members in this trial or something? The whole point of a jury is to be judged by a cross section of society, isn’t it?
The whole point of a jury is to be impartial and decide on the facts, not to announce they make decision based on their gut.
Well, dunno, but it sounds like commonly applied human thinking there. Not saying, it should be that way, but rather that many people are prone to that kind of logic - especially in the US, me thinks.
I suppose you didn't follow the trial at all? There is no such thing as "fact" that they could base on from Amber side, except her testimony. Hence it is important for her to demonstrate how convincing her side of story was, in order to win over the jury, which she completely fails.
99% of my posts are stupid stuff, so it's not THAT hard to stay afloat.
Haven't really been that bothered about getting into too much conversation or get to know posters on here since because you can get banned for some stupid stuff - so I'm not going to say anything else just in case...
I think you’re taking that answer too literally, he was answering quick questions on the internet, I doubt he wanted to lay out his whole thought process on the verdict.
I'd rather act in accordance to my experience rather someone else's, but I appreciate not everyone's experience will be the same as my own.
I watched almost all of it. A jurors job in that instance is to believe she was lying about that, and assess anything else she said on its own merits. It's not a strange notion.
You have 6000 posts here, and you've been around for 13 years. You know, according to your experience, that the 'attack the post not the poster' is a general rule meant to not let the forum overflow with insults, rather than a strict rule forbidding all insults. If you've ever set foot in the General part of the forum, which you clearly have, then you have experienced tons of people getting called cnuts. It doesn't necessarily break the rules. Calling someone a prick when they're acting like a prick is so absurdly mild that this line you're taking is super weird. I've heard way worse in church.
Oh now its a general rule? Sorry I must have not got the memo, not sure why you're leaping to the defence of someone when I politely said that someone who is a staff of this forum shouldn't be breaking rules - wasn't arsey, just simply pointed that out.
And I don't really care if you've heard worse in church, we're not in church are we? We're on a forum that has a rule of not attacking the poster, and I've never seen a poster call another a cnut in anger, whereas calling someone a prick when you're having a debate shouldn't be allowed fullstop, staff or not.
My line of suggesting someone who is a staff member of this forum follow the rules of this forum isn't being weird.
I don't think it's weird but I'm relatively new here.
I mean, they did assess everything she's said in those 100 hours of debate, didn't they? Ultimately they all have to rely on her testimony, and trust what she said is honest/true, as there is no other evidence/witness that could back her up. But then she blatantly lie and got caught several times, under oath, during her testimony, and throughout the trial. What are the jury suppose to do? Trust her in everything else she said regardless? Its just, impossible, for any human being to trust the words of serial liar who would blatantly lie on everything and never took any responsibility on anything she has ever said/done.
Last edited:
Well as was pointed put to me I've been here for years woth a little over 6000 posts (just over 1 post a day) seems I should have compiled a list of unwritten rules.
Yes, it is a general rule. You know this if you've ever read anything here. I don't know why you expect people do send you memos, usually when entering communities you have to figure out the culture and norms on your own.
Where I am right now it's illegal to drink in public. Yet, in several parks people drink alcohol. The police won't do anything, and if they're not on the clock they might drink a few beers there as well. If you went around to people in the park saying that they shouldn't drink because it's illegal then you'd be acting weird. Likewise, on forums and every other place, including church, not every rule is followed to the letter and they aren't supposed to be. No public drinking is a general rule because we don't want people walking around the city center with drinks, or people being drunk everywhere, it was never the goal to even attempt to stamp out all public consumption. 'Attack the post not the poster' is a general rule to clean up a bit, not to clamp down on every instance of a prick being called a prick.
I remember the post that called you a "Pillock" but that's mainly due to the fact that he felt there was a lack of moderation on the thread and I felt it was a little absurd to complain about a lack of moderation and then insult the poster rather than the post.
$10 million minus the $2 million is basically his divorce settlement back $1 million. I think Depp would have been happy with $0 and still winning all 3 counts.
I think it's a bit like defamation. If it's true, on balance, then you're probably ok. Also mild insults tend not to cause warnings from what I've seen. Nobody's really getting a warning for a term like 'pillock' but you can also say 'your post is a cnut/twat' so there are grey areas as always. Personally, I'm not going round calling people names where I can help it, unless I'm joking.
Fair enough yeah
Especially if the psychologists are as ace as her lawyers. Discount shopping.
There was too much of this. Alluding to evidence not allowed in court to retconning previous testimony to flat out pretending not to know who people are who were testifying against her. It’s insane how thin her case was.