The Lawsuits Thread

[Yaya]

I heard juror number 8 was dismissed. Another Facebook Depp fan club posted that, and seemed to think that person leaned toward Johnny in some way. Can anyone verify?

According to Ian Runkle and Chanley from court TV, Jurors 2/8 (or B and H) have been dismissed. B had been fairly attentive to Depp and tuned out for AH. He had also been the boredom canary.

[Yaya]

Also JAMES @jamesfromcourt who has sat every day in the gallery watching the jurors, wrote this on twitter: "Apparently jurors 2 and 8 are let go. That’s definitely a blow considering how expressive they were towards team JD, but there’s a solid chance for a full JD team win with jurors 1 and 9."

[hollyberry]

Apparently a judge has granted Heard's wish to keep the jurors identities anonymous. Why should she want that? I don't like it.

[Yaya]

Apparently a judge has granted Heard's wish to keep the jurors identities anonymous. Why should she want that? I don't like it.

Yes for a year. She probably doesn't want them to talk and say bad things about her. Looks to me she doesn't think she is going to win or am I being too optimistic?

[myfave]

Jurors were being very expressive? For that they kicked them off?

[Yaya]

Jurors were being very expressive? For that they kicked them off?

No, 2 jurors were chosen at random at the beginning of the trial and their numbers were put in an envelope. The envelope was opened after the closing arguments and the 2 numbers were read out. We now know they were jurors 2 and 8.
It was a random choice, it had nothing to do with the jurors' expressions. James from court has been sitting in the court room since day one, observing the jurors and taking notes. Throughout the weeks, he has learned how some jurors react but it is only his opinion. We won't know for sure if he is right until the verdict is read. Sorry if I didn't explain myself properly. English is not my first language.

[Yaya]

Also jurors 2 and 8 are alternates. They can still be called back in if one of the other jurors fall ill or something during their deliberation.

[ForeverYoung]

Apparently a judge has granted Heard's wish to keep the jurors identities anonymous. Why should she want that? I don't like it.

Yes for a year. She probably doesn't want them to talk and say bad things about her. Looks to me she doesn't think she is going to win or am I being too optimistic?

The judge said their identities will be withheld for one year.

[SnoopyDances]

Thanks for clarifying, Yaya.

[Theresa]

Apparently a judge has granted Heard's wish to keep the jurors identities anonymous. Why should she want that? I don't like it.

Yes for a year. She probably doesn't want them to talk and say bad things about her. Looks to me she doesn't think she is going to win or am I being too optimistic?

The judge said their identities will be withheld for one year.

As mentioned earlier by lawyer Andrea Burkhart:

• Note that this order does not mean jurors can't voluntarily identify themselves or speak publicly if they choose; it just means the court won't reveal their names.

[justintime]

I've been away for a few days so have much to catch up on. Thank you to everyone for continuing to post updates and analysis.

I am so hoping that he will win, he has walked a long road to get to this day.

I have the feeling that public opinion is with him, and even if she wins, he has won hearts and minds all over the world. The media can write whatever they want, but people aren't stupid.

So well said, Jackslady! Although I haven’t missed but a moment here and there, I’ve relied on the updates, interpretations, clarifications, and wisdom of so many here to continually inject well-founded logic into my occasional panic/anger/frustration …. Many thanks, one and all.

One thing, I must say, though - and I am going for broke here - no matter how hard I try I cannot swallow the “he has won no matter the verdict…” rationale. Yes, he has at last spoken the depth and breadth of The Truth to the world. His courage has known no bounds. I am, personally, in absolute awe of this man.

BUT…

If the Jury finds in favor of the Abuser, I fear Johnny will never be truly free of her perjurious claims and equally perjurious embellishments. His lost life will forever be tattered, and going forward the years-long career and reputation assault he has endured to date will be revived in every way imaginable by that relentless Abuser, the vile (not yet crippled) MSM, and the lowlife, cowardly, deep-pocketed Vermin who have supported her openly and from beneath their dung heaps. Just like with the UK decision, they will never acknowledge a win in the Court of Public Opinion. Indeed, the two will be forever linked as validations of each other.

Johnny must win. Without reservation, he deserves it. IMHO, he also deserves every cent of the requested monetary award, and much more. Whether or not he ever gets it, he deserves to see that number emblazoned on every tabloid and news rag, online and in ink, around the world. Numbers, especially big numbers speak loud and clear in every language and may be the only message the Abuser and her cohorts dare not trifle with editing. Whatever he chooses to do with it, he is entitled to do so without being second guessed.

….Johnny was able to tell the truth to the world. Dear Johnny, we are all so proud of you here, because you have shown many victims that speaking the truth is right and good. We love you and will always stand by you. God protect you .

Amen.

[Judymac]

Apparently a judge has granted Heard's wish to keep the jurors identities anonymous. Why should she want that? I don't like it.

The self serving news media would have everyone believing that the jurors are not permitted to talk to anyone, that is *NOT* the case. The jurors can come forward and talk to the news media if they choose to talk to the media. This ruling prevents the news media and others from harassing the jurors. The media is relentless and will pester the jurors until they talk, also other curious people might harass them to find out why they voted a certain way. The ruling is to protect the jurors because nobody would want to be a juror if they had to be harassed by the news media and other curious people. This would be made worse because of social media.

Back in 1997, I was a juror on a murder case. There was overwhelming evidence of guilt and every jury was 100% sure of the mans guilt. After the trial our identities were sealed. We were told that we could talk to the media if *we* chose to talk to them. We were told that if anyone followed us, called us or tried to talk to us, that we were to contact the Sherriff's department. The ruling was for our protection. We did not have to explain our decision to the press, the family or anybody else. This was long before the days of social media.

The side that loses is not happy. In the jurisdiction where I live jurors identities are automatically sealed. I absolutely think that it she way that it should be. Jurors should not have to make their decision based on repercussions from the press and others and they should not have to justify their decision to anyone. It makes me that this not being reported accurately. it is for the protection of the jurors.

[Judymac]

Jurors were being very expressive? For that they kicked them off?

People were making observations of the jurors based on their body language. Nobody knows what the jurors are thinking. The two who were dismissed were randomly selected as alternate jurors. All of the jurors listen to the entire trial. None of the jurors know if they are going to be an alternate or if they are going to make the decision. All of them have to pay attention.

[myfave]

Thank you all for all your explanations. I really appreciate it.

[ForeverYoung]