International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   The Johnny Depp/Amber Heard thing (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=307772)

Puppycow 3rd June 2016 05:43 PM

The Johnny Depp/Amber Heard thing
 
I did do a search of the forum for those names and couldn't find a thread on this.
(For anyone not up to date on the story here is the latest)

A brief summary: About a week ago Depp's wife of about 1 year, Amber Heard filed for divorce. The next day she posted pictures of her bruised face on Instagram and claimed that Depp had been physically abusive toward her. Depp has defenders though, including his ex-wife, daughter and friend comedian Doug Stanhope, who basically said that she was making it all up. Now she is suing Stanhope for defamation.

Is there a skeptical take on this? Just a he-said/she-said? Who do you tend to believe?

Me: it's hard for me to believe that she is completely making it all up. Maybe there's some exaggeration, but it's not like Gone Girl or something where the woman is totally framing an innocent guy for something he didn't do.

I don't put too much stock in what his ex-wife says, because people can change, especially if they have a substance abuse problem. He may well have not been an abuser in the past, but has become one recently.

Any thoughts Rebuttals? Relevant information I'm missing here?

Noztradamus 3rd June 2016 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puppycow (Post 11314497)
I did do a search of the forum for those names and couldn't find a thread on this.
(For anyone not up to date on the story here is the latest)

A brief summary: About a week ago Depp's wife of about 1 year, Amber Heard filed for divorce. The next day she posted pictures of her bruised face on Instagram and claimed that Depp had been physically abusive toward her. Depp has defenders though, including his ex-wife, daughter and friend comedian Doug Stanhope, who basically said that she was making it all up. Now she is suing Stanhope for defamation.

Is there a skeptical take on this? Just a he-said/she-said? Who do you tend to believe?

Me: it's hard for me to believe that she is completely making it all up. Maybe there's some exaggeration, but it's not like Gone Girl or something where the woman is totally framing an innocent guy for something he didn't do.

I don't put too much stock in what his ex-wife says, because people can change, especially if they have a substance abuse problem. He may well have not been an abuser in the past, but has become one recently.

Any thoughts Rebuttals? Relevant information I'm missing here?

I'll take the Hillary route. Believe the victim, but don't support her, because she's a mentally ill slut.

Corsair 115 3rd June 2016 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puppycow (Post 11314497)
Me: it's hard for me to believe that she is completely making it all up.


Why? Why is it so hard to believe she might be completely making it up? Have we forgotten Jackie of UVA/Rolling Stone infamy already? Sometimes people lie. Especially in divorce cases. She would have much to gain from making things up.

When good, solid evidence is presented to indicate that she is telling the truth, then I'll reconsider.

eerok 3rd June 2016 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puppycow (Post 11314497)
Is there a skeptical take on this?

Yeah -- wait for more and better information.

One thing, though: IIRC there was no prenup, so she has nothing to gain by pretending to be injured, at least monetarily.

Corsair 115 3rd June 2016 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eerok (Post 11314520)
One thing, though: IIRC there was no prenup, so she has nothing to gain by pretending to be injured, at least monetarily.


Prenups really don't necessarily mean all that much, as they are sometimes thrown out by a court when a divorce takes place.

eerok 3rd June 2016 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corsair 115 (Post 11314528)
Prenups really don't necessarily mean all that much, as they are sometimes thrown out by a court when a divorce takes place.

Perhaps, but I think it's too early to say much. More facts would be good.

Darth Rotor 3rd June 2016 06:40 PM

No, there isn't a sketpical take. This is two Hollywood personalities who are used to playing, and playing for, the public. And shocker of shockers, they aren't staying married. Who saw that coming? (sarcasm there).

This is a tabloid thing. Skepticism doesn't enter into it.
(And if he slapped her around, it's not gonna end well).

Trebuchet 3rd June 2016 06:51 PM

I've no idea. But I have to admit this only the second time I've ever heard of her, the first being on Top Gear when she was the "Star in a Car" and had Jeremy Clarkson pretty much slobbering over her.

deadrose 3rd June 2016 09:37 PM

Some of his defenders have been pretty straightforward in their statements about her personality, as well as his. It may turn out to be more like Heather Mills/Paul McCartney.

I'm not taking sides without more evidence.

The Central Scrutinizer 3rd June 2016 09:57 PM

He'll end up being not guilty.

Puppycow 4th June 2016 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corsair 115 (Post 11314516)
Why? Why is it so hard to believe she might be completely making it up? Have we forgotten Jackie of UVA/Rolling Stone infamy already? Sometimes people lie. Especially in divorce cases. She would have much to gain from making things up.

When good, solid evidence is presented to indicate that she is telling the truth, then I'll reconsider.

That's different. Those people didn't even exist. Of course it's possible, it just doesn't have the same aura of "you have got to be kidding me" that Jackie's story had. These allegations are more mundane. As far as what she has to gain, it seems to me like no amount of money would be worth putting yourself through that. It's not like she would be destitute if they had just split up.

Information Analyst 4th June 2016 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puppycow (Post 11314853)
It's not like she would be destitute if they had just split up.

Although she's reported as spending far in excess of her own earnings to a degree where readjusting to living on her own means might be "hard" for her.

Skeptical Greg 4th June 2016 03:58 AM

Why is this even newsworthy on this forum?

Maybe in Humor...

Polaris 4th June 2016 06:00 AM

Didn't she come out as a lesbian a few years ago?

Consternatio 4th June 2016 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polaris (Post 11315040)
Didn't she come out as a lesbian a few years ago?

No, she's always been open about being bisexual - she dated Tasya Van Rees before she met/married Depp.

Jules Galen 4th June 2016 07:51 AM

Amber Heard is not a victim - she's a vicious Gold Digger.

If Amber had really been hurt, she would know that the best way forward is to file a Police Report. Instead, she makes strategic releases via doctored E-mail and the testimony of friends. What Amber won't do is file that Police Report and go on the official record - for she knows how much trouble that would bring her.

3point14 4th June 2016 07:57 AM

None of those mentioned come close to some of the stuff most of you outside the UK or those in the UK under 30 have probably, and this is your good fortune, never heard of.

Try Love thy Neighbor for horrific 'comedy'.

Information Analyst 4th June 2016 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 11315152)
None of those mentioned come close to some of the stuff most of you outside the UK or those in the UK under 30 have probably, and this is your good fortune, never heard of.

Try Love thy Neighbor for horrific 'comedy'.

One of those programmes where the intentions of the writer were completely misunderstood and embraced in the wrong way by those he meant to lampoon.

Jim_MDP 4th June 2016 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puppycow (Post 11314497)
I ...
Me: it's hard for me to believe that she is completely making it all up. Maybe there's some exaggeration, but it's not like Gone Girl or something where the woman is totally framing an innocent guy for something he didn't do.

Dude... spoilers. :mad::mad::mad:

Just kidding, couldn't care less. :p

As for our celeb couple... the entire Dogs in Oz debacle has been such a spectacle, I wonder... has either of them even been sober this past year? :confused:

Piss on 'em both. :rolleyes:

Corsair 115 4th June 2016 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puppycow (Post 11314853)
That's different. Those people didn't even exist. Of course it's possible, it just doesn't have the same aura of "you have got to be kidding me" that Jackie's story had.


And yet that story was taken at face value and believed by many. Indeed, it took the determined persistence of a few to really dig into the story and start uncovering its shortcomings. And even now there are still some who believe Jackie was sexually assaulted in some manner and who hold her up as an example of courage in the face of a terrible event.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Puppycow (Post 11314853)
These allegations are more mundane. As far as what she has to gain, it seems to me like no amount of money would be worth putting yourself through that. It's not like she would be destitute if they had just split up.


What do you mean "putting yourself through that"? There are going to be many—just as with Jackie—who will simply 'Listen and Believe' and take her story as the gospel truth, and doubting her makes you a misogynist or domestic abuse apologist or what have you. She'll get plenty of sympathy and support and attention from such folks. All she has to do is go on a few television shows, turn on the tears, and many people will believe and think Depp an utterly vile creature.

From what I understand, allegations of domestic abuse are not uncommon in (acrimonious) divorce cases, as it is a means of gaining a much more favourable settlement than would otherwise be the case had the parties been fair-minded and reasonable in their split.

mgidm86 5th June 2016 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg (Post 11314979)
Why is this even newsworthy on this forum?

Maybe in Humor...

Ditto.

rjh01 5th June 2016 03:08 PM

I wonder if dog smuggling had anything to do with the divorce?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-1...t-dogs/7333662

Cain 5th June 2016 04:04 PM

I don't know, and I don't really care. I find it plausible that a soft-spoken guy with a substance abuse problem -- someone notorious for trashing hotel rooms* in fits of rage -- would throw a phone at their wife. Ms. Heard seems especially conniving and punchable, but I totally understand why someone would want to marry her. Anyway..

What I read is that she wants $50,000/month (accidentally wrote "year"), which makes no sense to me. How long would she expect to receive that kind of support? Is it until a judgement is made? Should we have spousal support at all? Apparently there's no pre-nup, so just give her half of everything the two made while they were married minus expenses. He probably netted at least 10 million dollars, so cut a check with six zeroes and be done with it. He's a centi-millionaire.

*Or was it just the one hotel room?

ZirconBlue 6th June 2016 08:55 AM

I'm not sure that the Court of Public Opinion should be the first venue she should have taken her accusations to.

Lerxst 6th June 2016 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trebuchet (Post 11314570)
I've no idea. But I have to admit this only the second time I've ever heard of her, the first being on Top Gear when she was the "Star in a Car" and had Jeremy Clarkson pretty much slobbering over her.

For me it was the other way around. I knew who she was and that she was from my home state, but I just saw the Top Gear episode the other day. I can see why Jeremy was slobbering over her.

Segnosaur 6th June 2016 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puppycow (Post 11314497)
A brief summary: About a week ago Depp's wife of about 1 year, Amber Heard filed for divorce. The next day she posted pictures of her bruised face on Instagram and claimed that Depp had been physically abusive toward her. Depp has defenders though, including his ex-wife, daughter and friend comedian Doug Stanhope.
...
I don't put too much stock in what his ex-wife says, because people can change, especially if they have a substance abuse problem. He may well have not been an abuser in the past, but has become one recently.

Possible, but one of his defenders was Vanessa paradis, who was his girlfriend until 2012. He married Amber Heard in 2015, but started dating her in 2012. So, he'd have to go from nice guy to abuser in, well, under a year (at the minimum) or 3 years (at the maximum). That seems like quite a change in a very short amount of time.
Quote:

Any thoughts Rebuttals? Relevant information I'm missing here?
Keep in mind that Depp has more defenders than just ex-wives, friends and family...

- 2 security guards who worked for the couple mentioned that it was Amber Heard who tended to "fly into rages". Furthermore, they related an incident when they heard Heard yelling "Stop Hitting Me", but when they rushed into the room (seconds later) they were roughly 20 feet apart, and suggested it looked like a "setup".

- Police supposedly responded to a call where Heard claimed that she was hit by a cell phone, but the police saw no bruises (despite pictures she claims were taken after, showing lots of bruising.)

Now, its possible that the guards are lying (maybe they're paid by Depp rather than by Heard.) Maybe she was injured by the cell phone but the cops didn't see any signs because the bruises just happened to show up late. Maybe these 'sources' are people who are making things up. Still, to believe that all of that evidence (exonerating Depp) is wrong seems less possible than assuming that Heard is lying.

http://hollywoodlife.com/2016/05/31/...omestic-abuse/
http://hollywoodlife.com/2016/05/27/...eating-attack/

Quote:

Me: it's hard for me to believe that she is completely making it all up.
Why is that?

Relationships are messy, and ending a relationship is even worse. Heard could be doing things to get more money in the divorce (being an 'abused spouse' would make her more sympathetic. Or maybe she just wants to hurt Depp.

This is a second hand story, but I trust the person I heard it from... A friend of a friend was accused of molesting an ex-girlfriend's mentally handicapped daughter. The case dragged through the courts for years, getting appeal after appeal. Until during one of the trials, the daughter said something like "that's what my mom told me to say". She admitted she was coached by her mom to lie. Was it for money? No... the guy wasn't wealthy, and she wasn't going to receive any spousal support from him regardless. She just wanted to hurt him. With people like that around (who used their daughter to try to get an ex-boyfriend convicted of child molestation), is it so far fetched to believe that someone might fake domestic abuse?

Jules Galen 6th June 2016 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjh01 (Post 11316885)
I wonder if dog smuggling had anything to do with the divorce?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-1...t-dogs/7333662


I don't think it was the primary motivator. I bet Johnny cut Amber's allowance - and that's where things got ugly!

Lerxst 6th June 2016 01:56 PM

How long before people start pointing out that Heard is an atheist and that this surely must be the reason why she is doing this to poor little Johnny?

cullennz 6th June 2016 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lerxst (Post 11318600)
How long before people start pointing out that Heard is an atheist and that this surely must be the reason why she is doing this to poor little Johnny?

She sounds a bit weird

RobRoy 6th June 2016 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZirconBlue (Post 11318078)
I'm not sure that the Court of Public Opinion should be the first venue she should have taken her accusations to.

Agreed. I was hoping there would be better information at this point. I've enjoyed Depp's work for years, so I don't want it to be true. Seems like so far this is just a he said/she said and I can't really form an opinion on that. :(

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lerxst (Post 11318600)
How long before people start pointing out that Heard is an atheist and that this surely must be the reason why she is doing this to poor little Johnny?

Isn't Depp an atheist? Seems like that sword would cut both ways.

angrysoba 6th June 2016 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lerxst (Post 11318600)
How long before people start pointing out that Heard is an atheist and that this surely must be the reason why she is doing this to poor little Johnny?

I don't know. But anyone doing it is probably not someone to take seriously.

Darth Rotor 6th June 2016 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cain (Post 11316948)
I don't know, and I don't really care. I find it plausible that a soft-spoken guy with a substance abuse problem -- someone notorious for trashing hotel rooms* in fits of rage -- would throw a phone at their wife. Ms. Heard seems especially conniving and punchable, but I totally understand why someone would want to marry her. Anyway.

The correct response to Ms H is "I'd do her" not "I'd marry her."

Just sayin'

Depp made what we used to call "an error in judgment."

Cain 6th June 2016 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor (Post 11319124)
The correct response to Ms H is "I'd do her" not "I'd marry her."

Just sayin'

Depp made what we used to call "an error in judgment."

You're right, of course, but everybody makes mistakes. My mother did.

phiwum 6th June 2016 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lerxst (Post 11318600)
How long before people start pointing out that Heard is an atheist and that this surely must be the reason why she is doing this to poor little Johnny?

Hypothetical people in your world are kinda weird.

Jules Galen 6th June 2016 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor (Post 11319124)
The correct response to Ms H is "I'd do her" not "I'd marry her."

Just sayin'

Depp made what we used to call "an error in judgment."

Well...that is a lot better than "I'd marry her", for sure. However, even though she has a great body, I personally wouldn't "Do Her" with a stolen dick.

Damien Evans 7th June 2016 01:25 AM

All I know is she has nice hair.

Matthew Best 7th June 2016 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cain (Post 11319160)
You're right, of course, but everybody makes mistakes. My mother did.

And we're all grateful.

RobRoy 7th June 2016 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Best (Post 11319717)
And we're all grateful.

Not . . . all of us. :D

sphenisc 7th June 2016 11:03 AM

Heard is an atheist and that this surely must be the reason why she is doing this to poor little Johnny.

RobRoy 7th June 2016 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sphenisc (Post 11320403)
Heard is an atheist and that this surely must be the reason why she is doing this to poor little Johnny.

39 posts.

I have no idea how much bearing this has on the case, but apparently Heard was arrested for domestic abuse in 2009 but let go with a warning for . . . I dunno, some reason? The article doesn't make it clear. On the other hand, it does include one of Heard's friends and witnesses, iO Tillett Wright, making a public statement on Twitter about the incidents . . . so we're still where we began.

Information Analyst 8th June 2016 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobRoy (Post 11320436)
On the other hand, it does include one of Heard's friends and witnesses, iO Tillett Wright, making a public statement on Twitter about the incidents . . . so we're still where we began.

I naively assumed that was a typo....

3point14 8th June 2016 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Information Analyst (Post 11321916)
I naively assumed that was a typo....

If you hadn't mentioned it, I'd have lived the rest of my life happy in the lack of knowledge that someone decided to call themselves or their child Io, and that, whomsover it was, clearly missed the class on capitalisation.

AdamSK 8th June 2016 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor (Post 11319124)
The correct response to Ms H is "I'd do her" not "I'd marry her."

Just sayin'

Yes, but which one would you kill?

RobRoy 8th June 2016 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Information Analyst (Post 11321916)
I naively assumed that was a typo....

I quoted it directly from the article:
Heard's friend iO Tillett Wright—who was named as a witness to one of Depp's blow ups in Heard's court documents—defended the actress on Twitter Monday night, sounding off on the constant "victim blaming" being thrown against the blonde.
I hadn't heard of her before reading her statement. Here's her Wikipedia page.

ETA: The spelling and capitalization are correct, although, without digging much deeper, I can't ascertain if it was Wright's parents or Wright's own version.

Information Analyst 8th June 2016 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobRoy (Post 11322140)
I quoted it directly from the article:
Heard's friend iO Tillett Wright—who was named as a witness to one of Depp's blow ups in Heard's court documents—defended the actress on Twitter Monday night, sounding off on the constant "victim blaming" being thrown against the blonde.
I hadn't heard of her before reading her statement. Here's her Wikipedia page.

ETA: The spelling and capitalization are correct, although, without digging much deeper, I can't ascertain if it was Wright's parents or Wright's own version.

It's more likely a later affection. I wouldn't think it's the sort of thing that's common in Kidderminster.

Lerxst 8th June 2016 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phiwum (Post 11319171)
Hypothetical people in your world are kinda weird.

They are weird in the real world as well.

RobRoy 8th June 2016 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Information Analyst (Post 11322201)
It's more likely a later affection. I wouldn't think it's the sort of thing that's common in Kidderminster.

I could see it going either way, since some of the edgier artists come from parents who were edgier. As we were on the subject, it wasn't a big strain to actually find out which way this went.

It was her parents: "You read it right. Her name is actually iO. Little i, big O. When they registered her name her parents said 'everything in life is made of lines and circles'."

So, there you have it. :D

Caper 8th June 2016 10:00 AM

Making this even harder to form an opinion on is that all involved (Heard, Depp and say Tillett) are complete weirdo's.

Joey McGee 8th June 2016 10:43 AM

Standhope is a megaweirdo.

Don't do coke kids.

Jules Galen 8th June 2016 12:10 PM

I got to really admire the way Doug Stanhope ran diversion for Johnny with the column he published entitled, "Johnny Depp Is Being Blackmailed by Amber Heard – Here’s How I Know". If you read the column carefully, you will see that Stanhope makes no defamatory remarks...only the Title of the Article is objectionable (and Doug Stanhope probably didn't choose the title for this opinion piece).

So...even though Amber Heard is suing Stanhope and Friends - or thinks she will - it looks like an airtight case on Stanhope's side. And...this wiley move by a guy like Stanhope does not surprise me. I mean, Stanhope is 49 years-old: he's seen a few things and knows how to conduct himself. Additionally, Stanhope is a long-time successful comedian: and this type have average IQs higher than the average IQs of Doctors, Lawyers and Scientists.

As a result of the column, Stanhope has caused heard to expend additional resources for attorneys (i.e., spend money) that she will not be able to replensh soon. In other words, his diversion is help draining her Bank Account - and once Amber's Bank accounts are drained then Amber's friends and Attorneys will leave her - and then Johnny can easily get the settlement he wants.

Furthermore, if Johnny and Stanhope (and other friends of Johnny, too) really did have a discussion of what was about to happen between himself and Amber (i.e., she was going to make false allegations according to what Stanhope said), then don't bet against Johnny not having that condo wired for video and sound the night that the supposed Domestic Abuse incident occurred - it's an act that any smart man would have recommended to Johnny given the circumstances. Also, Johnny had witnesses on hand, and was smart enough to be away from the scene when the cops arrived (he had obviously been coached and prepared - he knew what to do!).

But...even more telling is Johnny's.....ABSOLUTE SILENCE: which is incredibly smart for it allows Johnny time to scope out what is about to be done and said against him before he must make a counter move. People often confuse Silence with guilt - and they couldn't be more wrong. A smart man remains silent and lets the other side infect the discourse with stupidity and falsehoods until he must make an official on-the-record statement (and this gives the other side no time to prepare a response!). Johnny's Silence is indicative of his discipline and his good legal consul - and it's going to be a major factor in him winning this fight.

it should be interesting.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.