Isn't this just extreme victim blaming? An abuser is going to abuse. That's just what they do. Even if you refuse to enable her or encourage her, she will continue to behave in abusive ways. The only way to avoid an abuser abusing is to not allow them to be in a relationship at all.
This is a thing I've seen going around today, apparently it might be legit but not 100% sure. (Ignore the gay O-face thumbnail it's only 5 minutes long and gets right to the point)
The voice sounds similar to one who said 'yes' when the jury was polled. If you want to confirm just look and see if Rob's jury diagram includes a caucasian male in his 20-30s. That's what that voice sounds like. And the fact that he's using Tiktok.
If he's truthful, it's quite telling in how he phrased certain things.
- "Most" didn't empathize with Amber. That means somebody on the jury pool
did "empathize" with her, meaning they believed her claims.
- 50m was "unrealistic" and they had to find a happy medium. If 10m is a happy medium that means someone on the jury wanted to give Johnny nothing or basically nothing. Someone on that jury wanted to award Amber the money. There's an implication that a reasonable amount of the time in the debate came from fighting over the money.
- The verdict was a compromise because if they didn't find at least one claim for Amber they couldn't be unanimous. Pairing this with 'they thought they were defaming each other' and the fact that it is literally impossible for Johnny and Amber to be lying simultaneously backs up that someone in that jury believed Amber but tried to defend their position with ridiculous 'they defamed each other' arguments. Probably juror #5
- He points out an interesting thing no one else did that someone constantly staring at you like they expect you to interact with them is
awkward when you cannot, and this goes back to what I said in the past: the first rule of acting is
not to look into the camera.
- It's interesting that there's someone who had an abusive ex that Amber reminded them of, considering the 50 year old seemed to have some kind of sympathy toward substance abuse issues too.
ETA: He's either juror #3 or #7. If you go back and watch the jury reaction descriptions you can probably figure out exactly which one, given that he said at a certain point he refused to look at her anymore. My guess is #7 because he became convinced as early as the pledge/donation, maybe 'dog stepped on a bee' and was personally put-off by her. #3 was said to be unreadable and still seemed interested in the James Corden pictures during closing, as if he hadn't yet decided.
Pretty much. I witnessed an injury done where pliers hit someone's eye and that same day they had bruising a black eye and puffiness. For days. Days. Nothing could cover it up. Except for sunglasses. If Amber's was as bad as she claimed, those injuries would have been impossible to cover up.
And most people I know who cover up eye bruising wear sunglasses outside, not walk around with bruises showing.
In any movie or tv show that includes some DV or a woman hiding DV does so using sunglasses. A scarf, sunglasses and a hat is the 'hiding my bruises' default costume for a reason. Amber didn't even consider this because she didn't plan for it at all. Ultimately her decision very late in the relationship to try to blackmail or punish him with a false abuse claim is what was the problem. She didn't plan ahead and it showed.
Goddammned long posts
@Allanon
I can see a clown world timeline where a juror admits to watching Nick Rekieta, and we wind up getting several pages of Matthew Harris' Unbreaded manifesto into the official court record.
I would think that the manifesto would be cut out due to being irrelevant beyond the mention of 'shyster lawyer reads a mass shooter manifesto each night as a ritual'.
nypost.com
archive.ph
