As you may have heard, actress Amber Heard recently filed for divorce from almost-Reason Rally speaker & dear friend of Lawrence Krauss, Johnny Depp. Since news of the divorce hit, a litany of character smears have come out against Heard, in an attempt to paint Heard as a gold digger, greedy bisexual, and uncaring harpy.
In response, Heard’s legal team has released the following statement about her ongoing legal battles and divorce from Johnny Depp:
“As the result of Amber’s decision to decline giving an initial statement to the LAPD, her silence has been used against her by Johnny’s team. Amber did not provide a statement to the LAPD in an attempt to protect her privacy and Johnny’s career. Johnny’s team has forced Amber to give a statement to the LAPD to set the record straight as to the true facts, as she cannot continue to leave herself open to the vicious false and malicious allegations that have infected the media. Amber has suffered through years of physical and psychological abuse at the hands of Johnny.”
“In domestic violence cases, it is not unusual for the perpetrator’s playbook to include miscasting the victim as the villain. In reality, Amber acted no differently than many victims of domestic violence, who think first of the harm that might come to the abuser, rather than the abuse they have already suffered. Amber can no longer endure the relentless attacks and outright lies launched against her character in the Court of Public Opinion since the tragic events of May 21st. With her statement Amber hopes to give the LAPD the opportunity to conduct an accurate and complete investigation into the events of that evening and before. If that occurs, and the truth is revealed, there is no doubt that Amber’s claims will be substantiated beyond any doubt, and hopefully Johnny will get the help that he so desperately needs.”
“From the beginning it has been Amber’s desire to keep this matter as private as possible, even though LAPD officers responded to a 911 call made by a third-party. The LAPD officers viewed not only the disarray that Johnny had caused in the apartment but also the physical injuries to Amber’s face. We filed the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage at the very end of the day on Monday May 23rd and we did not serve Johnny with the Petition at the premiere of Alice Through the Looking Glass that evening. We sent a letter to Johnny’s counsel team the next morning making it clear we wanted to keep this matter out of the media. We then held off requesting a domestic violence restraining order as we knew that Johnny was out of the country.”
“We took the high road. Unfortunately, Johnny’s team immediately went to the press and began viciously attacking Amber’s character. Amber is simply a victim of domestic violence, and none of her actions are motivated by money. Amber is a brave and financially independent woman who is showing the courage of her convictions by doing the right thing against Johnny’s relentless army of lawyers and surrogates.”
“The Family Law Court is not going to be influenced by misinformation placed in the social media based on anonymous sources. Amber is the victim. Amber is a hero.”
Featured Image by Kamillo Kluth
Is theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Dr. Lawrence Krauss, arguing that because Johnny Depp is the sweetest, kindest, gentlest man that Paul Bettany has ever known, that he’s innocent of spousal abuse allegations? Or is he saying that because Depp is such a nice guy to all his friends, that it shouldn’t matter if he is abusive towards his wife? I’d love to hear Krauss explain further, and hope he will do so soon!
Krauss will be speaking at the Reason Rally this weekend, and also at the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry’s Con in Las Vegas this October.
Of course he will be speaking because 99.9% of skeptic and atheist gatherings are garbage and controlled by people who bow down to or suck up to Richard Dawkins who is also garbage.
Why are they garbage? Why is Dawkins garbage? I think you’re doing yourself and everyone else a disservice by making statements unsupported by reason. It’s sort of ironically, really, given the subject matter.
Oh honey, if you expect us to sit down and explain years of garbage and abuse to you because you can’t be arsed to do your own digging, you’re going to be severely disappointed.
Another non answer. It’s starting to sound like you don’t know what you’re talking about. Disagreeing with Dawkins and atheism on certain points, like evolution, isn’t enough to call it garbage. Unless you’re just bias and apathetic toward making a legitimate argument.
Yes, evolution and atheism is what people here disagree with him on. Not Islamophobia, misogyny, and dismissal of child abuse.
But keep pretending you know what’s going on here.
It’s not really unsupported by reason. If a famous person headlines a harassment campaign against site’s founder, it may be reasonable to expect a degree of reasonable animosity towards that famous person on the part of that site’s employees.
And if that were the only negative dimension to Dawkins’ behavior it’d be reasonable to expect that degree of hostility from the writers here, but he’s got a history of using his role as a famous atheist to stir up directed Islamophobia and bigotry, and minimize the impact of things like actual child abuse as compared to teaching a child religion.
None of that is to say he’s a completely terrible person, just that he’s not necessarily using his role as a famous atheist in a way that instills confidence.
Just of a couple points of interest: I would argue that Islam is a dangerous religion and that indoctrinating your child with any religion is abuse. Child abuse doesn’t start at molestation, that’s a poor standard of measurement. Abuse starts well before for the child, psychologically.
Look, just because you can contextualize and personally choose to disregard criticism of a person doesn’t mean it’s ungrounded or irrational. Or as you called it “unsupported by reason.”
These are very clearly reasonable concerns that come from serious examination of him as a public figure. I’m not asking you to AGREE with Amy(even though she’s totes right). I’m asking you to not be that pompous ass who declares people to be irrational about their serious concerns as a way of puffing yourself up.
I agree Amy, and I’ll enjoy missing Richard Dawkins at the CSI Con, too. I think the best that feminists can now hope for from organized skepticism/atheism is lip service over concern for women, and wink wink nudge nudge support of partner abuse, harassers, rapists, etc. I wonder what would have happened if *any* skeptic/atheist organization, besides Skepchick, had decided not to venerate Dawkins because of his poorly-reasoned, harmful, anti-feminism, but I’m delighted that I’m no longer a member of that community.
Could it be that one or both of them are stretching the truth. I mean, it’s not like they’re getting a divorce and would have motivation to make stuff up. The only people who know the truth are the people involved.
Not true. Amber Heard wants compensation. She’s grown accustomed to a certain lifestyle she would like to maintain after the divorce is finalized. This is the part of the story that has me at a crossroads. Depp could be guilty but why would Heard want 50k a month? My mom was abused for years and when she finally divorced her abusive spouse the only compensation she fought for was child support. These two have been together for only 15 months, have no children, and she wants 50 thousand dollars a month. Even if he was abusive this kind of retribution on her part seems, to me, immoral. On the other hand, Heard could simply be using this story to bully Depp into giving her whatever she asks for.
So let me get this straight. If your partner abuses you, shut up and deal with it, right? If someone is being abused should they contact Johnnn from the Internet to decide how much “retribution” is moral?
It’s very telling where your priorities are.
Your interpretation has nothing to do with my comment.
California has no-fault divorce. Demonstration of abuse isn’t required to get a divorce or to get spousal support. You just say you don’t want to be married any more and make less money. They do not care if either or both people were asshats, cheaters, etc.
Anyway it kind of sounds like you are angry about something other than the details of a celebrity divorce between people you’ve never met.
Is it possible that Amber Heard is receiving such a negative backlash because the story of Johnny Depp abusing her seems suspicious and people simply do not believe her? Personally, I haven’t made up my mind. I’m still waiting for the encriminating evidence before making up my mind that Depp is a bad person. A photograph is not going to cut it. She says she has a video, release it. Better yet, have both of them take a polygraph test. Either Depp is an abusive spouse or Heard is a gold digging man-eater. We’ll see…
If only we had some background knowledge about the prevalence of domestic violence we could draw from, Sadly we don’t know anything about this that might inform our conclusions.
If only there were some sort of pattern established, like maybe if Winona Ryder or Kate Moss say were to have talked about his jealousy and temper.
Oh yes, I know but he’s Johnny fucking Depp, man. He was in that great thing once, you know the one with the hair… you know with Burton and Helena Bonham Carter… no no, the one where he acted all weird and used a funny voice. You know, that great one where he danced around like a prat.
Anyway, how can someone who acts so likable in a movie possible do anything wrong, man. I mean, he certainly wouldn’t ask his friends to smear her in the press after priming them that she’s the bad actor (shades of Gone Girl?), or hire a publicist to make her look bad, I mean, do they even do that? (Oh, they do)
Oh well, I guess there’s still one celeb I can admire.
What sort of ‘incriminating evidence’ could there possibly be that would satisfy you? Unfortunately, the wounds from mental abuse and gaslighting don’t show up for the camera. It’s not like I could say, “hold on a sec before yelling at me, I gotta hit record on my phone,” to my abuser. Also, polygraph is bullshit. (I bet you’re wondering how I could possibly know that there was mental abuse going on. As a survivor, let me let you in on a secret. There is ALWAYS mental abusing happening, with or without physical violence.)
Why is it so hard to believe women when it comes to this stuff? We know that domestic violence is pathetically common. You just don’t want to believe because it’s some celebrity.
I’m reserving judgement. I believe a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law. I think these internet sites do a massive disservice by taking sides and giving anyone a soapbox to stand on. I don’t like that Heard is asking for money from Depp after alleging that he abused her. I’ve spoken with my mother about this issue, a person who was abused for 15 years, and she thinks Heard asking for 50 thousand dollars a month is ridiculous. I agree. The position I’ve taken is based on what we know so far. We don’t yet whether Depp is guilty but if it turns out he is I will refuse to watch his films from that point forward. I would encourage others to do the same. If it turns out that Heard has been lying and has fabricated this story of abuse it will ruin her career and she will become an outcast, as she should.
Oh, I see.
The “innocent until proven guilty” defense of shitty behavior.
You do realize that is one very small step this side of “well I have the right to my opinion/freedom of speech” defense of shitty behavior, right? Which you bizarrely seem to be arguing against for some reason? But I digress…
Think of it this way. You don’t want to believe that Depp has done this thing that happens on the regular because he hasn’t been found guilty in a court of law? How magnanimous of you, I’m sure Johnny appreciates it so much. Proves his work (and his publicist’s work) of character assassination is doing its job.
Tell me, what other opinions do you withhold until you have an airtight courtroom case worth of evidence to convince you? Are any of them about people that you do not know, have no way of knowing, and will most likely never meet?
For example, would you believe someone you have never met is lying because you personally haven’t seen something they said happened to them? Would it matter if what they said was a common occurrence like say having their car stolen? Would it matter if the person, who you also have never met, they said stole their car always seemed like a nice guy? Would it matter if the crime involved was sickeningly more common than grand theft auto?
Because from where I stand your “innocent until proven guilty” defense of Depp is not really reserving judgement like you believe it is. I see it as moving the guilt from a possible abuser (and remember, this is just a belief that the abuse may happened, not a conviction) whose reputation you believe you will tarnish (talk about magical thinking) if you simply believe he may have done this, to the possible victim of abuse who you believe (there’s that word again) to be lying because of dubious “evidence” like she dared to asked for money in a divorce. Never seen that happen before, wonder what might be the underlying cause?
tl/dr It’s admirable that you want to reserve judgement, but arguing on the internet about the accuser’s motives is not withholding judgement.
It is the opposite.
You. Are. Doing. It. Wrong.
STOP VICTIM BLAMING.
P.S. Oh, and before you pull out the tu quoque argument and insist I am just as bad because I believe Johnny did it let me put that to rest.
I believe he probably did this because he has a pattern of being violent especially when drunk (as he was reported to have been on that night). I have seen the pictures, read the police report, read the statement of the neighbor, seen the statistics on domestic abuse, etc. etc.
And I weighed all that against Doug Stanhope saying that Johnny said she was manipulative, and that Depp seems to be a kinda cool guy, and how many celebrities say he’d never do that, and what I know of abuser’s techniques, etc. etc. and I came to the conclusion that Amber really has nothing to gain by lying about this and that all the “evidence” on Depp’s side is hearsay and or character witnesses that are his friends. To wit, Amber’s “case” is more believable then Johnny’s.
But she asking for money you say. Sure, but it is the type of money that she could have gotten by simply asking for a divorce, California being a no-fault state and all.
But his mom had just died. Yes and I feel for him. And while that may explain his drunkenness it doesn’t excuse abuse.
But his reputation. Ah yes, but her face and psyche.
I don’t know if Depp’s a monster, but I don’t doubt that he did this.
If Depp didn’t do this I will apologize for sullying Depp’s reputation (as if I could) but until then I Stand With Amber.
What an overly long comment… Look, your entitled to your opinion. Neither one of us knows whether Depp is guilty or not, and won’t until after the case is settled. I’m reserving judgement because I believe it’s the fair thing to do. I have been a fan of Depp for years, but if it turns out he’s guilty I will have no problem not seeing his films anymore. It will be the right thing to do at that point. We haven’t arrived there, yet. If it turns out Heard has fabricated this story it wouldn’t be the first time a woman has married for money. And, women have lied about abuse before. I would never call Amber Heard a “lying bitch” or claim “it’s her best performance yet”, as I’ve seen others do. Those comments are gross, insensitive, and unfounded. I think it’s equally wrong though to call Depp a “woman beater” or “alcoholic scumbag”.
Well, I’ll keep this short since you hate reading.
You are withholding judgement on Depp, in doing so you are judging Heard a liar.
I wonder why you are more inclined to believe him even though the evidence (no just hearsay) leans more the other way.
And seriously? “Women have lied about abuse before”? Seriously!
Have men lied about abusing before, because if we are going on what has happened before it still goes in her favor.
Occam’s razor cuts both ways you know.
Let me just say this: You’ve already conceded that you could be wrong and would apologize if you were. I’ve explained what I would do if Depp was guilty. We place different emphasis on the if. We don’t know the details, yet, and shouldn’t be rushing to conclusions. Also, I don’t appreciate your snide remarks, and I’m done with this exchange.
Buh-bye!
You know, it occurs to me that Adolf Hitler was never PROVEN guilty in a court of law. Maybe historians have been doing a massive disservice by taking sides and given his supposed “victims” a… I’m sorry, I just threw up in my mouth.
Let me put it this way: If someone walks up to you and punches in your face, do you go around saying “I believe a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law”? I’m willing to be no. That’s because you’re perfectly capable of making up your own mind when there’s sufficient evidence. If you haven’t made up your mind about this case, then say that. If you think others are jumping to conclusions that aren’t warranted given the evidence at hand, then say that. Don’t hide behind the fig leaf of “innocent until proven guilty.” That argument’s bullshit.
This has got to be the stupidest comment I’ve read so far.
Listen, if you think one of the original principles of law and justice in America is bullshit and that we should replace it with hearsay (he hit me, now force him to give me lots of money), well, I’m glad we’re not living in your ideal America.
Also, I have said all of those things. What we know thus far is that she filed for divorce, wanted a lot of money from Depp, then, started claiming, and now photos and texts are being “leaked”. Johnny Depps side has denied the allegations against him, his ex wives have defended him, his friends have defended, his family has defended him. But you’d rather believe Heard. You’re a feminist and are very biased. You’re rushing to conclusions and taking part in ruining a person’s life before there have even been charges placed against him. In my mind, that’s disgusting. I would never talk about Heard in the same way you’re so willing to talk about Depp. Of course, though, you’ll interpret my comments as being something else, of meaning something they don’t.
You obviously made up your mind. Read your own comments and description of Heard.
After reading them I can see why you would feel more comfortable at Richard Dawkins dot net.
And James Randi, another Reason Rally and CSI Con speaker, tweeted today that Johnny Depp is innocent (in all caps, no less). Krauss and Randi will have so much to talk about at their two shared skeptical/atheist speaking engagements! What fine examples of the present day skeptical movement they are.
Hey Kelly! Is this the one you’re talking about? Cause this is a fake Randi account. https://mobile.twitter.com/amazingrandi
Yes, I’m very sorry, I thought that account was real.