The movie’s basically done. They’re going to release it to recoup their investment, and it would be cost more to recast the lead (which would require re-shoots of a huge portion of the movie), than they would make by the recast.

Yes. Also, lots of parents are shitty people who cause their children more harm than good.

and particularly for the benefit of daughter True, who deserves to have a relationship with her father, regardless of his character.

“She’s a likeable person, funny and charismatic.”

The problem is you’re asking 7 lay people to “know how an abuse victim is supposed to be reacting”... which, there isn’t a prescribed emotional reaction to getting knocked around and being treated like shit and then recounting it, especially when you’re getting peppered by lawyers on the other side just throwing DARVO…

again, not the standard. NOT what was at issue here. This juror apparently believed that she was abused. Ok. So that means her op-ed piece was true in that regard. Just because she may also have been an abuser doesn’t negate the fact that she was abused. So when she identified herself as a past victim of domestic…

So, according to you, and according to how you think this juror thinks, in cases of “mutual abuse” neither party is abused. No one has been abused. Got it.

oh my god THIS ALL DAY. Came down here to say this very thing. This is exactly the problem with a case like this being tried to a jury. This juror (and, I’m sure, the others) viewed their role as determining whether Heard “proved” that she was abused. But that’s not what was at issue! DEPP had to prove that the WaPo…

All you did was highlight that the Juror didn’t understand what the case was. Framing it was Heard and her team having the burden of proof is just not correct.

If I ever did, I certainly wouldn’t conflate my reaction to someone else’s expressions with “following the evidence,” as this guy did. You aren’t following the evidence if you’re trusting your gut reaction on how trustworthy someone appears.

I’ll preface this by saying I think that the “mutually abusive” line is bullshit, and that eventually lashing out at your abuser does not constitute a “mutually abusive” relationship. But:

Also, she didn’t have to prove anything.  HE had to prove that she was lying.  The fact a juror in the case didn’t understand this is maddening.

at least it’s a somewhat new angle compared to the absolutely psychotic Depp stans this case unearthed that would respond to my points about the UK court finding it “probably true” that he beat her—”well the UK courts have a different legal standard for defamation and also YOU JUST WANT TO FUCK HEARD YOU PATHETIC…

Nice of the jury to get in on the victim blaming.

“What I think is truthful is that they were both abusive to each other,” he says. “I don’t think that makes either of them right or wrong… but to rise to the level of what she was claiming, there wasn’t enough or any evidence that really supported what she was saying.”

Next you’re going to tell us Santa Claus isn’t real.

Most of the rides and attractions at Disney have that. A character will come on the PA and announce that a thematically appropriate Disney villain has messed up the ride and that things will resume as soon as they’re defeated again.

re-read the article, paying attention to tone. 

I checked a video of the thing functioning normally, and it doesn’t have the “airbag” line. So, in other words, they must have actually recorded backup lines which automatically kick in if the thing malfunctions. Which, honestly, is kind of hilarious.

Lizzo was forced to change the lyrics to new single, “GRRRLS,” after the original featured an ableist slur.