So you are saying you completely failed to understand the point of my post or you just didn't bother to read it?

I thought I made it clear.

My post is about the outdated and archaic jury system that pulls people off the street and presumes, regardless of their age, intelligence, education or experience that they will understand and properly assess complex testimony and evidence, that they will have the critical thinking skills that they can be expected to decide who is lying and that they will have the integrity to make a decision on the evidence and not treat the trial like a popularity contest.

My only reasons for referencing the Amber Heard case is because I thought it is obvious when there is so much evidence of an abusive relationship, the verdict that found she defamed him for saying so was obviously wrong. But I could just as easily have used the OJ Simpson case or even that Armund Arbery case that put the guy who filmed it away for murder when all he did is follow behind them and film what happened without even getting out of his car.