It doesn’t really matter if she was the victim or not. She didn’t defame Depp in her op-ed, because she didn’t accuse him of abuse in her op-ed.

I don’t need to watch a trial to read Heard’s op-ed and understand what it says and doesn’t says. That’s basic reading comprehension. She refers to abuse that happens before she met Depp, she’s super vague on all details, and she only points to Depp in saying she became a public figure representing abuse. Which is…

If you don’t believe she was abused, then no, she is not a public figure representing abuse.

Have you actually read the op-ed in question? It’s about the repercussions women face for publicly accusing powerful men of abuse. In publicly accusing Depp of abuse, and in being the subject of numerous news stories and high profile court cases regarding domestic abuse, Heard came to represent the issue to many…

I mean, none of it seems to me to come down to any kind of fucking facts, but rather a 7 person review of a stage play. (Sorry to curse, it’s not aimed at you at all, just the situation and the goddam “I’m a very smart lawyer, my law degree says I know everything” dorks who might be right but who are also missing the…

Specifically, these were the three statements that the jury decided defamed Depp:

No. It wasn’t about physical abuse. He was suing SPECIFICALLY because of a SPECIFIC article she wrote in which she claimed to be a “public figure representing domestic abuse”. The juror not believing that she was physically abused (which is crazy given the UK verdict) is irrelevant to the specific defamation suit.…

I didn’t believe Heard’s testimony and didn’t say or assert any of the other stuff you argued against in your second paragraph, so I’ll ignore that.

1) Judging by the extended quote the juror concluded she wasn’t physically abused.

My personal view is that it gets overturned on appeal.

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.

absolutely psychotic Depp stans

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.”