Amber Heard Claims the Jury Was Tainted by the 'Unfair' Treatment She Got on Social Media

Everyone of us has taken a tough loss at some point in our lives. It's an integral part of the human experience. Something that's been essential to our evolutionary process since the days when our survival would depend on taking down a Wooly Mammoth. And all it would take was one monkey brain from the next cave over dropping his spear and the whole tribe would starve or freeze to death. 

And humans have been losing every day in some form or fashion every since. It's our lot in life. And it's how we deal with losses that define who we are. You either take the L, learn lessons from it, use it to get better so it doesn't happen again. Or you sit there, decry the unfairness of it, wallow in your misery, and wait to become food for hyenas. 

Amber Heard has taken the most public L any celebrity has in many a year. And she has very clearly chosen the second option.

Daily Mail - The 36-year-old spoke out about the damning verdict against her in a three-part interview with the Today show, which was pre-recorded on Thursday and began airing on Monday morning. ...

Heard, who flew to New York City on a private jet on Friday to conduct the interview, doubled down on accusations made by her lawyer last week that the jury was swayed by social media. ...

'Even somebody who is sure I'm deserving of all this hate and vitriol, even if you think that I'm lying, you still couldn't look me in the eye that you think on social media there's been a fair representation,' she said. 'You cannot tell me that you think that this has been fair.' ...

Heard - whose legal team has said that she plans to appeal the verdict - also accused the jury of being won over by her ex-husband's 'excellent acting' and 'beloved' public reputation, while suggesting that Depp swayed jurors by putting 'paid employees and randos' on the stand to testify on his behalf during the six-week trial.

'I'll put it this way, how could they make a judgment, how could they not come to that conclusion [that I couldn't be believed]?' she said. 'They had said in those seats and heard over three weeks of nonstop, relentless testimony from paid employees and towards the end of the trial, randos, as I say. 

'I don't blame them, I don't blame them, I actually understand, he's a beloved character and people feel that they know him. He's a fantastic actor.

'Again, how could they after listening to three and a half weeks of testimony about how I was an uncredible person and not to believe a word that came out of my mouth.'

You could literally begin anywhere. Close your eyes and point to the screen and find something Heard said here that is pure, uncut, top quality horseshit. But let's begin with her major assertion, that the jury was swayed by the way she was unfairly portrayed on social media throughout the trial. 

That would be the jury of people that was involuntarily dragged, against their wishes, away from their lives, their jobs, their homes their loved ones, to spend a month listening to the insane ramblings of a couple of incorrigible, substance-abusing, self-possessed Hollywood narcissists air their toxic relationship troubles in front of these people who were chosen for the sole reason that BOTH sides thought they had the best chance of being fair and impartial. They didn't choose to be there. They were chosen. So to sit here now and claim that they were somehow too smitten by being in the presence of the guy who played Tonto in that Lone Ranger bomb to weigh the testimony is not just an insult. It's Heard owning herself, since her lawyers help select these people, all of whom probably would've preferred to never get that summons in the mail. 

As far as the social media part, I'm sure Amber didn't appreciate having dozens of YouTubers and Tik Tok influencers get weeks of content out of her awfulness on the stand. But it's hard to have a ton of sympathy when the thing that set this entire mess in motion was an Op-Ed in the Washington Post that had her listed as the author. While the piece didn't mention Johnny Depp by name, it certainly left no doubt as to who Heard her ghostwriter was talking about when accusing someone of domestic abuse.

Look yourself in the eye and tell you that was "a fair representation." You can't. 

And maybe the jury found her to be "an uncredible" [sic] person because basically every claim she made was refuted by actual evidence that her lawyers couldn't refute. The makeup she said she used to hide facial bruises that didn't exist when this was supposed to be happening. The audio recordings of her telling Depp no one will ever believe him. And on and on. 

Finally, with all due respect, Depp isn't that great an actor. I mean, this isn't Daniel Day-Lewis or Tom Hanks we're talking about here, guys with the range to play any character. He's a movie star. Someone who's made a very lucrative career playing variations of the same lovable, fish-out-of-water weirdo in every project from the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise to all the Tim Burton films. He doesn't have the chops to lie on the stand convincingly. The problem for Amber Heard is, neither does she. So the jury went with the actor they believed was telling the truth. 

In the '60s, there was a Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under LBJ named John Gardner who said, "Self pity is the easly the most destructive of the non-pharmaceutical narcotics; it is addictive, gives momentary pleasure and separates the victim from reality." And you see a perfect example in that clip. Take this L and move on with your life. And for the love all that is holy, spare us another of these trials.