This is a very insightful and thoughtful post. I am not sure I share your opinion, but I am certainly glad to have read and engaged with it.
From what little I know about the trial - I don't follow it in any strict sense of the word - it seems like this turned into a mutually abusive relationship. This is more common that one might think, but of course, it almost always the man who poses the greater threat. That need not apply here, and I could be entirely wrong in my overall guess.
That being said, if you are right, Amber Heard just does incredible harm to all women who are abused by their partners. It*s difficult enough for them to reach out to begin with, and sadly, very often they are not believed. A prominent case, such as this, where the woman lies about being abused will only make this a lot worse. It will do unlot of what victims organisations have achieved over the past few years.
I’ll just add, I’ve seen several women posting online something to the effect of “I was abused for years, and this is not how it goes, this is not how it feels, this is not how you remember/ fail to remember.”
I can’t speak to that, but it’s interesting that so many women — especially women who would normally be in Amber’s camp— believe that she’s lying.
I haven't followed the trial at all but was vaguely aware of it from my 'headline scanning' of various news feeds. I seldom pursue stories about celebrities. I enjoy the 'work' of many of them, but their personal lives are seldom of interest. I read this post all the way to the end, frankly, because you 'suckered me in' with your lead, and then did your usual excellent job of writing about something I normally wouldn't find of interest in an engaging and interesting way. So, props for that. 21 always worth the time and effort.
I guess my only comment about this would be that, from the relatively few such 'celebrity stories' that I have read over time, their celebrity status would not seem to confer any more immunity to bad luck or bad judgement on them than the rest of us 'regular folks' possess. If anything, they may be more susceptible to it because of the milieu in which they live their lives.
M, first of all, thank you so much for those nice comments! It’s great when a reader feels like something was worth their time and thought!
I love batting ideas back and forth and really appreciate your ideas and comments too.
Your idea about the celebrity status maybe not protecting them from the bad events that befall us all — I agree. I suspect it’s quite the opposite. Imagine you’re having a rough day — if you’re a celebrity, the world is there to witness it, exaggerate it, spin it, speculate on it (“make it more exciting”) and judge it.
If you were a big enough celebrity (like JD), you would probably get to the point that you often wouldn’t want to leave your house. Meanwhile, you wouldn’t know who was really your friend and who was interested in your fame and money. And you’d be approached by strangers all the time who feel like they know you and want to be friendly.
In fact, I wonder whether this weird isolated life that the biggest celebrities endure (where you spend all your time with people you pay to take care of you, and a few “friends” and family, where you’re cut off from building organic relationships) made JD a little more susceptible to AH.
He might have been more willing to believe that here was a perfect amazing person because he hadn’t been living in the same world as the rest of us.
If he hadn’t been a household name since his young adulthood, if he hadn’t been cut off from the real world for the last three decades, might he have developed a richer life and/or more life experience and skills and wisdom to protect himself from a relationship like this?
It’s fun to imagine being so rich you have your own island and teams of people to cook, clean, drive, and do errands for you — but I’m thinking that trade-off is probably not worth it if your goal is to build a satisfying life with people who care about you.
Ok. Substack is having a moment here, I guess. Just posted a reply that copied itself and posted twice. So, I'll give it another go.
Think you're right about all you said above. And while noting what I said about not following such stories closely if at all, one can't not be at least a bit cognizant of some such things and a few of the details unless one never looks at headlines or listens to news reports in the mainstream press / media. That said, I've sometimes pondered a sort of chicken and egg question when thinking about the famous, the wealthy, or the famous and wealthy, since one often begets the other. And the question is: Did these folks gain their fame and / or fortune because of who and what they are, or are they who and what they are because of the $$$ and / or fame? I know there's no hard and fast answer to this, but I've often thought when seeing some 'scandalous' headline or hearing some negative news story about someone or another in this group of people that if that's what fame and fortune do for you, I'm glad I don't have any of either. What I've gained from life by dint of hard work and no small amount of good luck is enough for me, and I think about how the definition of that word seems so different for some. But then, I'm a pretty simple guy with pretty simple and straight forward tastes and needs, so I guess I'm pretty lucky in that respect as well!
Yes! There’s definitely something to be said for being happy with what you’ve been given (luck) and what you’ve created for yourself (through effort).
There was that research that made the media rounds several years back that said more money brought more happiness up to about a salary of $70k per year (now adjusted for inflation, no doubt), after which happiness didn’t keep increasing. A lot of people discussed why that is — I think many people concluded that once you have the basics and aren’t worried about paying for rent and food and utilities, that brings some security and therefore happiness; but additional money does not.
But yes — the question of whether people got fame and fortune because of who they are; or whether fame and fortune turns you into a certain type of person — the ol’ nature-nurture question applied to fame and money.
Of course (the boring answer) must be that both play a part. JD is considered a really talented actor and he’s worked hard and been successful — without talent (nature) he’d be… not as famous and wealthy. But if he didn’t have bucketloads of cash and an entourage of people doting on him and making problem disappear (nurture) would he be so irresponsible and reckless with substances and hotel rooms? If he had to show up at work every morning, if he didn’t have the money and people to fix whatever he destroys, would he be doing that out-of-control stuff? I’m guessing no? Or not as much?
It would probably be a good thing for him to be forced to live a normal life by everyone else’s rules.
Money no doubt can create a buffer or even a pretty solid wall against consequences, and lack thereof doesn't exactly foster responsible behavior. Living by everyone else's rules is no longer the imperative it is in more normal, less affluent lives. It would be a good thing if people such as this had to take a remedial or refresher course in 'normal living'. But of course, that's not going to happen, so a lot of these folks will sadly just go on being their own worst enemy. And when they are 'big enough' that the consequences of their actions spill over onto all the rest of us in some way (I'm not going to go all political here, but certain politicians and their enablers and major financial supporters come to mind), then we have a problem with a whole other dimension.
Yeah, now that you mention it, the politicians -- the celebrities whose bad choices affect our lives. There’s an interesting thing to think about.
It would be much better if government was a side gig (temporary gig) and public servants were regular people, not people who want to make a career of power and money.
Not to go all religious either, but Amen! to that. ;-)
I think Big Money and big-moneyed people in our politics is just another thick layer in the wall that separates us and the government that's supposed to serve our interests as a people and a nation.
But I'll do you the favor of not launching in on that one, other than to say that I recall reading about how in the democratic system of ancient Athens, a system somewhat like what you mentioned was used. I expect you know of it. Don't recall all the details, but each year 500 citizens were chosen from all citizens to serve in government for a year, and they pretty much ran the whole show.
Too much to hope for that anything similar might happen in the here and now. But that's also an interesting concept to think about.
This is exactly the kind of thoughtful post I expect from you. Just the other day I apologized to my son, because way back when the abuse allegations from both sides were first becoming public, my son said that Johnny Depp sounded more credible, and that he thought that Heard had abused Depp. I went all “believe women” on him, and so that’s why I apologized and said it really seemed like he had been right. (For the record, he had forgotten about the whole thing.)
I didn’t know that Depp had grown up in an abusive home, but your analysis of its effects accords with something my aunt, who grew up in an alcoholic home and was married to an abuser, once told me: If you walk into a room and are immediately attracted to a person, then that is exactly the person you should stay far away from.
Your aunt is a wise woman. I wish this truism were more widely known.
It’s especially good advice for people who seem to get into one bad relationship after another and don’t understand it.
Good on you for apologizing to your son even if he didn’t remember (just the sort of thing I’ve come to expect from you)!
When this story first came out, I paid very little attention to it, other than to think “Oh how awful; and he seemed like such a nice guy, too!”
I’m not typically invested in celebrity doings, so it just seemed like another violent entitled substance abusing man who lost control.
How terrible for him, that the world assumed the worst. I wasn’t a particular fan, although I had seen a number of his movies over the years, but in my eyes his reputation was tarnished.
So now I feel bad for being part of the public who initially believed this woman ***even though I know people just like her.*** (I knew zero about “Amber Heard” at the time, though, other than being the name of an actress I wouldn’t be able to pick out of a lineup.)
So in a way, this is my apology to him as well. I assumed it was true. How horrible to be internationally famous and to have something like this widely believed of you. It’s got to be hellish. When he said he wanted the truth known for the sake of his children, that rang true for me.
But if I’m completely honest, to an even greater extent, this is me writing a post about celebrities because every time I hear anything more about this case, I find myself coping with intense anger toward this person whom I’ve never met.
I struggle not to look at the case too carefully. The effect it has on me is unhealthy (thus my readiness to believe the easily Google-able Snopes thing about ripped off movie lines—I’m really trying to keep some distance from the whole mess, but also failing).
If there’s an Achilles heel left in my psyche, it is exactly this type of abusive, damaging, calculating person who manages to turn the tables and look like a victim (as a means of continuing and escalating the abuse: if she can’t have his love, she’ll try to make sure no one else will ever love him either). Needless to say, I wouldn’t be a good choice to be fair and impartial on this jury.
Far, far from impartial. I find myself hoping she never finds another acting job to feed her ego, never finds another partner to abuse. I find myself hoping that the world equates “Amber Heard” with “abusive, bed-pooping, soul-less liar,” that she becomes a pariah, that her child is taken away and raised in a loving stable home far from her. I’m really angry to an extent that doesn’t make sense, given that she is a total stranger.
So, writing a post was …cathartic and helpful to me. I think. Not the usual point of my newsletter, for sure!
"If there’s an Achilles heel left in my psyche, it is exactly this type of abusive, damaging, calculating person who manages to turn the tables and look like a victim"
For me, too. Nothing makes me see red like this kind of person, and I'm confident that will never stop being true. As you said, it is what it is.
I feel the same way. It is terrible how vulnerable good people (like us 😊) are to psychopaths. Malcolm Gladwell has a whole book about how our friendly, trusting human nature leaves us open to being tricked in this way. (My son is autistic, as I’ve probably mentioned before, and I suspect that he is able to see situations like this more clearly than us neurotypicals.) I agree with your concern for Heard’s child. How awful to have her for a mom.
All I've heard seen is people dunking on Herd and her terrible case. Then again, I haven't sought any serious sources for this case so all my info comes from r/dankmemes.
It is terrible. It’s cringey. And it especially annoys anyone who’s ever had to contend with actual abuse, or who’s ever had to deal with a lying person with BPD.
I have to say I have no experience (that I know of) of people with BPD. I usually model behavior in terms of incentives. I also think there's a been a bit of an overreach with regards to mental health, with a lot normal behavior being put into an endless degree of mental health categories. Which isn't to say that BPD isn't real, just that it can be hard to tell the legit stuff from the nonsense.
Hi Jeff could you shoot me an email please? carina.substack@gmail.com (I know that sounds weird but I promise this is not spam... will explain when I respond.)
Whatever else it may be, mate, borderline personality disorder isn't "fluff"! Sounds like you've had some experience with it, as have I, so I'm presuming you know of what I speak.
As an outcome #3 person, who has indeed worked very hard for it and is confident about that 50 paces thing, I concur with everything you've said here. Your analysis is spot-on.
(Also, I have pointed thoughts on that comment trying to shame you, but I'll refrain from replying, so as not to sully your space. But, hooboy, I just have to state for the record, I'm not a fan of that old chestnut about BPD being a diagnosis to control women. Do these folks likewise think antisocial personality disorder is just a way of controlling men? Somehow, I doubt it.)
Ugh - I'm getting a divorce from a cluster-b narcissist/borderline personality type and she's been lying to my children for the last few weeks about me. I went from having a great relationship with my kids to having one of them hate my guts.
I know in the long run they'll understand what happened, but it makes me wonder just how much more chaos she'll create before that happens.
This post has discredited every other thing you've written. It's not 'fluffy' because people are diagnosed with this - in the context of court case, publicly, for Heard - and because it's known that women diagnosed with this stigmatising 'condition' will be branded every type of insult, called a liar, abusive etc. Like witchcraft and hysteria, it's used to control women. It's a culturally bound non-definition of something so broad and contradictory that almost anything can be read into it. It's disgraceful that you would publish this.
Sometimes, no doubt, people with borderline personality disorder are vilified and probably (just like any other person) treated unfairly at times.
Many people who have had experience living with such a person will tell you it’s very difficult, and it often takes a toll on their own mental health. No one owes another person the sacrifice of their own mental health.
I can feel very sorry for people with BPD -- it must be terribly difficult to be them -- but I also believe that in many cases they bring karma down upon themselves through their truly horrible and completely unacceptable behavior.
I wouldn’t expect anyone who was mistreated to be especially kind or forgiving to their abuser, nor “come back for more.” That’s just how life is.
You can wish someone well, but from a distance, and you can still tell your own story about how that person mistreated you, as Johnny Depp has done.
My wish is for all everyone to be happy. Sometimes being happy includes the need to protect yourself from people who treat you poorly.
Thank you for writing this. I have not followed the proceedings particularly closely, or really at all outside of a few clips that YouTube serves up, which universally mock Heard's outlandish performances on the stand or put Depp's conduct and character witnesses in the best light possible. From this, it seems like the public is entirely on Depp's side, win or lose -- though that is also far from a sure thing, because the dreaded algorithm is likely shielding me from any adverse information, and I have no interest in exerting myself to find it.
I did see a Twitter thread recently in which a woman detailed the abuse she and her mother received from her alcoholic father, which over the course of years caused her mother to become physically and verbally abusive in return, until the man was reduced to an incoherent cowardly dog who slept every night on the couch. In other words, the mother was brutalised, in the original sense of the term -- "to be made into a brute" (much like 'to victimise' someone is to turn them into a victim). It was through this lens that the thread's author gave a Heard-friendly (or at least friendlier) perspective on what might have happened, even granting all of Depp's claims. The thread garnered many sympathetic responses, so it is also quite certain that a number of women see themselves in Heard, or at least can understand why Heard may have been moved to act the way she seems to have done.
From the scant facts I have gathered in my limited exposure, it is clear that the relationship was toxic in both directions, and it would not surprise me if it involved physical altercations beyond Heard throwing a pair of bottles at Depp, some of which Depp may well have instigated himself. The culture we have built heavily penalises men for such altercations, even if men do not start them -- and not for no reason, given the general tendency of men to be more violent and more physically capable of inflicting serious bodily harm once violence has begun. But there is also an extreme to this social penalty, a vision of the world in which all women are terrified damsels incapable of instigating physical abuse, condemned to suffer the whims of an abusive man. (That this view is often implicitly or even explicitly propagated by feminists is a curious phenomenon worthy of note but somewhat ungermaine to my purpose here.)
But that is not the world we live in. Women have agency, even those who suffer borderline personality disorder or malignant narcissism or some related condition that guides them down a destructive path of personal hell. They have egos and desires and pride; they are fully capable of lashing out -- yes, even physically -- when they feel wounded, and of spinning a web of deceit and delusion in order to insulate themselves from the necessary psychological implications of their behaviour. And men are perfectly capable of being pulled into a hurricane of narcissism, of having their own wounds balmed and their own hopes stoked in the opening stages of what will turn into a vampiric exchange of emotions -- and, all too often, time and money, along with reputation and self-respect once they have finally had enough and walked away.
If you have never dealt with such a person first hand, if you have never watched them treat you or someone you love utterly unacceptably over weeks or months or years only to claim to be a victim once the target of their abuse gains the courage to leave, consider yourself extremely lucky. It is a harrowing experience, having such a person insinuate themselves into your life; having them slowly, by degrees, make you responsible for their emotional well-being even as they assume a duty to mould you to their every expectation; witnessing them cross every boundary you try to establish and throwing temper-tantrums whenever you step a toe out of the ever-shifting line they have set up around you; giving you just enough love and affection to keep you questioning your own perception until they've wrung yet another promise from you that you hadn't intended to make -- until you've doubled-down on your commitment to them at the expense of your own sanity; claiming that you have used them and taken advantage of all the selfless work they put into making you a better person, that they hadn't done anything to deserve you abandoning them, that all they ever did was try to be a good partner or friend.
I feel truly sorry for both Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. I hope, once the trial is over, neither one of them ever sees the other again. I hope that Heard can find the space to breathe, to understand the path of carnage she has wrought and the lives she has ruined in her desperate attempt to outrun the voices in her head telling her half-truths about herself that she has not yet been strong enough to face and to change. I hope that Depp can reassemble the wreckage of his life, that he can salvage something of worth out of the debris he's been left with; that he can believe he is a man worthy of looking his children in the eye and feeling the fuzzy warmth of their love.
Your source for the "ripped off lines" is.... Distractify? Which posted a random instagram comment that was unsupported by video evidence? Probably because it's not true: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/amber-heard-johnny-depp-trial/. If you have a source that has video evidence of her saying these lines (which should be very easy to find, as the trial is being live streamed), please post it, because I'd love to believe you didn't fall for this.
I have an open mind about this case and I truly don't know what to believe (it seems like a total mess, and I'm not on anyone's "team"). I'm really interested in the content you have been posting here and have several of your posts in my "to read" list, but this piece is so.... one sided and sloppy that I'm genuinely having doubts about reading your posts with as much of an open mind as I have been.
And re the Guardian article: that comes down to the judge believing the things Heard said. Don't you find it funny that Heard has been arrested before (in 2009) for hitting another partner? And no other partner involved with Depp has said he's ever become violent? But supposedly he became violent just with her, and she's the victim? That's not how it works.
I just came across an article below and was reminded of this comment thread. I've done a little more reading on this case, still with an open mind, and still with more or less the feeling that this relationship consisted of two very troubled people who both hurt each other in various ways.
I understand that you have personal experience with others who have BPD, and for that I'm truly sorry. I don't, and don't have any bias toward people who may or may not suffer from that condition. And I read in other responses on this post that you are trying to keep your distance from this case - please disregard this if it is too upsetting. I completely understand and I don't want to cause you undue stress whatsoever.
I'm curious about this case, but more about how this is playing out between observers. A few people whose opinions I respect (including yours) seem to be in this very "pro Depp" camp. I genuinely have not seen or read anything from a legitimate source that is actually convincing me of most of what the "pro Depp" camp is saying. But SO many people seem to be on his side, very passionately so. I want to believe that those that I respect that are defending him as the SOLE victim in this relationship have really strong foundations on which to make these claims, but I keep coming up short.
From the best that I can tell, no other domestic partner of his has formally accused him of being violent. But - to borrow your phrase - don't you find it odd that he's been arrested 4 other times for assault and violence?
I came back to read this post and your comments again and they are so certain. With the understanding that this is a "fluff" post, your claims and language are so definitive: not a SHRED of evidence. ZERO witnesses. But these things are so easily disproven by just googling it that I'm genuinely (not trying to be snarky at all) confused. Tertiary googling shows actual evidence. There are witness statements abound. The woman whom Amber was arrested for assaulting not only said it was actually a homophobic misinterpretation, but she is also on the witness list FOR Amber, as in, she is defending Amber in this case, and said that her previous arrest (which I believe you are using in the comment above to prove that Amber has a history of abuse) was based on a homophobic lie and not true at all.
This isn't meant to be a "pro Amber" comment by any means. I'm trying to express that I don't understand how one gets to be so solidly on one side of this case when every legitimate source I read says, if anything, that they were both terrible and violent to each other.
So I don’t think it was a homophobic lie? How many cops want to go through the trouble, the paperwork, of arresting someone they see in an airport hitting their partner, unless it’s really a serious problem and the person needs to be (literally) arrested?
Whatever Amber’s partner said afterward -- that the lesbian cop witnessing the physical violence in the airport “misunderstood” blah blah -- I think various simpler explanations (like abused partners minimizing and denying their own abuse even when there are witnesses) is more compelling than a homophobic lesbian cop who arrested someone capriciously.
I read about Johnny Depp’s belligerence. Here are the incidents:
“The bad-boy actor picked up a long wooden plank and began swinging it, threatening to bash the snappers if they didn’t go away, authorities said.” (Horrible behavior. No one was hit.)
“Depp, 25, was arrested and held for three hours early Wednesday after police answered a noisy party complaint at a hotel, a Vancouver police spokesman said. Depp assaulted a security guard during a scuffle, police said. Telephones in the lobby were also damaged in the incident.” (Horrible behavior-- no mention of injuries, and he was released after 3 hours.).
The BBC headline that said he “punched someone” was actually described by CBS quite differently -- as him being wasted, getting mad at the crew guy, swinging feebly and missing , and immediately apologizing and asking the guy to hit him. (Horrible, messed up behavior. He needs all sorts of help.)
And he trashed a hotel room in 1994 and caused $10k damage. Horrible behavior.
This man has real problems with substances and impulse control. He’s even gotten into a couple of scuffles. He needs all sorts of help. It strikes me how _little_ violence has been attributed to this guy who seems to be chronically wasted, very volatile, and very high profile. For how disinhibited and angry he seems when wasted, he seems to be remarkably nonviolent.
I’m not excusing any horrible behavior. I’m still responding to the claims by Amber that he beat and raped her; but he seems not to have beaten anyone, including other men he was angry at.
Even with all the volatility, you are not hearing about anyone who’s ever been hurt -- exes describe him as gentle -- this is just not the profile of a guy who beats and rapes his wife.
If untrue -- and based on his personal and criminal history, and the statements of his exes, and Amber’s lack of evidence and inconsistent stories, these claims seem to be untrue -- JD can be a guy who has a lot of horrible behavior, serious personal problems, who has also been abused and defamed by someone even less functional.
As I said, I don't know all that much about this case, compared to what most people seem to know. And the fervour with which it's being covered - and the frothing-at-the-mouth defending of each of them on social media from their respective "sides" - is almost terrifying. So I can't comment on the facts of the individual items you are mentioning here and frankly I am not interested in delving in to them.
In terms of my opinion however, if your question is if I find it "funny" - maybe you meant possible - that this is the first partner that Depp has been violent with? Just speaking as a person with opinions and life experience, yes I believe that is possible. I believe that's probably not how it usually "works", and therefore not necessarily plausible, but I certainly wouldn't try and persuade a jury to disbelieve someone's claims of abuse based on that assertion.
No, I do not find it funny that Heard has been arrested before for hitting another partner. But again, I certainly wouldn't attempt to convince a jury that it's not possible to both be a (previous) perpetrator AND a victim of abuse. I hope that's not how the law works.
I find it odd. I’ve never met, nor heard of, a 50-year-old man who suddenly turned violent and did the things he’s accused of doing. And especially not one who’s universally described as kind and gentle by his exes. His exes.
And he’s a rich celebrity. Anyone with beef would surely be coming out of the woodwork by now. No one but Amber has beef with this man. No one saw any “violence.” His staff remain with him for decades and universally like him.
God knows his drug use, drinking, and eccentricity were not new in his life. The only new thing was the claims that he suddenly turned violent. With just one person. That no one else ever witnessed. Or saw pictures of. I’ve never met someone who did that.
But she says he did. With no shred of evidence. So he just needs to establish that she made false claims, which were intended to cause harm, and which did cause harm. Good luck to him.
I’ve haven’t met a person who changed that much late in life with just one partner. I’ve met plenty of physically abusive liars though, and Amber is pretty run-of-the-mill: arrested for abuse on a previous partner, and her own sister describes her as “extremely violent.” The pooping on the bed is new, but not entirely unexpected from someone so emotionally dysregulated.
This is my fluff opinion to a fluff post. As I said, I don’t know these people. I know people like them. My opinion is that he made horrible choices (and developed a level of anger and hostility to her, thinking horrible thoughts about her that he didn’t act on--heck, at this point I admit to thinking horrible thoughts about her) but _she is the abuser_.
She undertook to make his life hellish because in her primitive mind she decided he was “all bad” and she is calculatedly lying about his physical and sexual violence. To paraphrase Tolstoy badly: “all unhappy people with BPD are alike.”
Johnny Depp messed up in many ways, but he is a victim of this person. I feel sorry for him. I can’t help but wish for karma or the jury to catch up with Amber. I hope someone will be looking out for her child but I believe she is the only legal parent. Heaven help that defenseless child.
This is a very insightful and thoughtful post. I am not sure I share your opinion, but I am certainly glad to have read and engaged with it.
From what little I know about the trial - I don't follow it in any strict sense of the word - it seems like this turned into a mutually abusive relationship. This is more common that one might think, but of course, it almost always the man who poses the greater threat. That need not apply here, and I could be entirely wrong in my overall guess.
That being said, if you are right, Amber Heard just does incredible harm to all women who are abused by their partners. It*s difficult enough for them to reach out to begin with, and sadly, very often they are not believed. A prominent case, such as this, where the woman lies about being abused will only make this a lot worse. It will do unlot of what victims organisations have achieved over the past few years.
I have heard and seen a lot of women making this point. There is a sense of this being an insult to women who suffer domestic abuse. I can’t disagree.
I’ll just add, I’ve seen several women posting online something to the effect of “I was abused for years, and this is not how it goes, this is not how it feels, this is not how you remember/ fail to remember.”
I can’t speak to that, but it’s interesting that so many women — especially women who would normally be in Amber’s camp— believe that she’s lying.
I haven't followed the trial at all but was vaguely aware of it from my 'headline scanning' of various news feeds. I seldom pursue stories about celebrities. I enjoy the 'work' of many of them, but their personal lives are seldom of interest. I read this post all the way to the end, frankly, because you 'suckered me in' with your lead, and then did your usual excellent job of writing about something I normally wouldn't find of interest in an engaging and interesting way. So, props for that. 21 always worth the time and effort.
I guess my only comment about this would be that, from the relatively few such 'celebrity stories' that I have read over time, their celebrity status would not seem to confer any more immunity to bad luck or bad judgement on them than the rest of us 'regular folks' possess. If anything, they may be more susceptible to it because of the milieu in which they live their lives.
M, first of all, thank you so much for those nice comments! It’s great when a reader feels like something was worth their time and thought!
I love batting ideas back and forth and really appreciate your ideas and comments too.
Your idea about the celebrity status maybe not protecting them from the bad events that befall us all — I agree. I suspect it’s quite the opposite. Imagine you’re having a rough day — if you’re a celebrity, the world is there to witness it, exaggerate it, spin it, speculate on it (“make it more exciting”) and judge it.
If you were a big enough celebrity (like JD), you would probably get to the point that you often wouldn’t want to leave your house. Meanwhile, you wouldn’t know who was really your friend and who was interested in your fame and money. And you’d be approached by strangers all the time who feel like they know you and want to be friendly.
In fact, I wonder whether this weird isolated life that the biggest celebrities endure (where you spend all your time with people you pay to take care of you, and a few “friends” and family, where you’re cut off from building organic relationships) made JD a little more susceptible to AH.
He might have been more willing to believe that here was a perfect amazing person because he hadn’t been living in the same world as the rest of us.
If he hadn’t been a household name since his young adulthood, if he hadn’t been cut off from the real world for the last three decades, might he have developed a richer life and/or more life experience and skills and wisdom to protect himself from a relationship like this?
It’s fun to imagine being so rich you have your own island and teams of people to cook, clean, drive, and do errands for you — but I’m thinking that trade-off is probably not worth it if your goal is to build a satisfying life with people who care about you.
Ok. Substack is having a moment here, I guess. Just posted a reply that copied itself and posted twice. So, I'll give it another go.
Think you're right about all you said above. And while noting what I said about not following such stories closely if at all, one can't not be at least a bit cognizant of some such things and a few of the details unless one never looks at headlines or listens to news reports in the mainstream press / media. That said, I've sometimes pondered a sort of chicken and egg question when thinking about the famous, the wealthy, or the famous and wealthy, since one often begets the other. And the question is: Did these folks gain their fame and / or fortune because of who and what they are, or are they who and what they are because of the $$$ and / or fame? I know there's no hard and fast answer to this, but I've often thought when seeing some 'scandalous' headline or hearing some negative news story about someone or another in this group of people that if that's what fame and fortune do for you, I'm glad I don't have any of either. What I've gained from life by dint of hard work and no small amount of good luck is enough for me, and I think about how the definition of that word seems so different for some. But then, I'm a pretty simple guy with pretty simple and straight forward tastes and needs, so I guess I'm pretty lucky in that respect as well!
Yes! There’s definitely something to be said for being happy with what you’ve been given (luck) and what you’ve created for yourself (through effort).
There was that research that made the media rounds several years back that said more money brought more happiness up to about a salary of $70k per year (now adjusted for inflation, no doubt), after which happiness didn’t keep increasing. A lot of people discussed why that is — I think many people concluded that once you have the basics and aren’t worried about paying for rent and food and utilities, that brings some security and therefore happiness; but additional money does not.
But yes — the question of whether people got fame and fortune because of who they are; or whether fame and fortune turns you into a certain type of person — the ol’ nature-nurture question applied to fame and money.
Of course (the boring answer) must be that both play a part. JD is considered a really talented actor and he’s worked hard and been successful — without talent (nature) he’d be… not as famous and wealthy. But if he didn’t have bucketloads of cash and an entourage of people doting on him and making problem disappear (nurture) would he be so irresponsible and reckless with substances and hotel rooms? If he had to show up at work every morning, if he didn’t have the money and people to fix whatever he destroys, would he be doing that out-of-control stuff? I’m guessing no? Or not as much?
It would probably be a good thing for him to be forced to live a normal life by everyone else’s rules.
Money no doubt can create a buffer or even a pretty solid wall against consequences, and lack thereof doesn't exactly foster responsible behavior. Living by everyone else's rules is no longer the imperative it is in more normal, less affluent lives. It would be a good thing if people such as this had to take a remedial or refresher course in 'normal living'. But of course, that's not going to happen, so a lot of these folks will sadly just go on being their own worst enemy. And when they are 'big enough' that the consequences of their actions spill over onto all the rest of us in some way (I'm not going to go all political here, but certain politicians and their enablers and major financial supporters come to mind), then we have a problem with a whole other dimension.
Yeah, now that you mention it, the politicians -- the celebrities whose bad choices affect our lives. There’s an interesting thing to think about.
It would be much better if government was a side gig (temporary gig) and public servants were regular people, not people who want to make a career of power and money.
Not to go all religious either, but Amen! to that. ;-)
I think Big Money and big-moneyed people in our politics is just another thick layer in the wall that separates us and the government that's supposed to serve our interests as a people and a nation.
But I'll do you the favor of not launching in on that one, other than to say that I recall reading about how in the democratic system of ancient Athens, a system somewhat like what you mentioned was used. I expect you know of it. Don't recall all the details, but each year 500 citizens were chosen from all citizens to serve in government for a year, and they pretty much ran the whole show.
Too much to hope for that anything similar might happen in the here and now. But that's also an interesting concept to think about.
This is exactly the kind of thoughtful post I expect from you. Just the other day I apologized to my son, because way back when the abuse allegations from both sides were first becoming public, my son said that Johnny Depp sounded more credible, and that he thought that Heard had abused Depp. I went all “believe women” on him, and so that’s why I apologized and said it really seemed like he had been right. (For the record, he had forgotten about the whole thing.)
I didn’t know that Depp had grown up in an abusive home, but your analysis of its effects accords with something my aunt, who grew up in an alcoholic home and was married to an abuser, once told me: If you walk into a room and are immediately attracted to a person, then that is exactly the person you should stay far away from.
Heck. Yes.
Your aunt is a wise woman. I wish this truism were more widely known.
It’s especially good advice for people who seem to get into one bad relationship after another and don’t understand it.
Good on you for apologizing to your son even if he didn’t remember (just the sort of thing I’ve come to expect from you)!
When this story first came out, I paid very little attention to it, other than to think “Oh how awful; and he seemed like such a nice guy, too!”
I’m not typically invested in celebrity doings, so it just seemed like another violent entitled substance abusing man who lost control.
How terrible for him, that the world assumed the worst. I wasn’t a particular fan, although I had seen a number of his movies over the years, but in my eyes his reputation was tarnished.
So now I feel bad for being part of the public who initially believed this woman ***even though I know people just like her.*** (I knew zero about “Amber Heard” at the time, though, other than being the name of an actress I wouldn’t be able to pick out of a lineup.)
So in a way, this is my apology to him as well. I assumed it was true. How horrible to be internationally famous and to have something like this widely believed of you. It’s got to be hellish. When he said he wanted the truth known for the sake of his children, that rang true for me.
But if I’m completely honest, to an even greater extent, this is me writing a post about celebrities because every time I hear anything more about this case, I find myself coping with intense anger toward this person whom I’ve never met.
I struggle not to look at the case too carefully. The effect it has on me is unhealthy (thus my readiness to believe the easily Google-able Snopes thing about ripped off movie lines—I’m really trying to keep some distance from the whole mess, but also failing).
If there’s an Achilles heel left in my psyche, it is exactly this type of abusive, damaging, calculating person who manages to turn the tables and look like a victim (as a means of continuing and escalating the abuse: if she can’t have his love, she’ll try to make sure no one else will ever love him either). Needless to say, I wouldn’t be a good choice to be fair and impartial on this jury.
Far, far from impartial. I find myself hoping she never finds another acting job to feed her ego, never finds another partner to abuse. I find myself hoping that the world equates “Amber Heard” with “abusive, bed-pooping, soul-less liar,” that she becomes a pariah, that her child is taken away and raised in a loving stable home far from her. I’m really angry to an extent that doesn’t make sense, given that she is a total stranger.
So, writing a post was …cathartic and helpful to me. I think. Not the usual point of my newsletter, for sure!
It is what it is.
"If there’s an Achilles heel left in my psyche, it is exactly this type of abusive, damaging, calculating person who manages to turn the tables and look like a victim"
For me, too. Nothing makes me see red like this kind of person, and I'm confident that will never stop being true. As you said, it is what it is.
I feel the same way. It is terrible how vulnerable good people (like us 😊) are to psychopaths. Malcolm Gladwell has a whole book about how our friendly, trusting human nature leaves us open to being tricked in this way. (My son is autistic, as I’ve probably mentioned before, and I suspect that he is able to see situations like this more clearly than us neurotypicals.) I agree with your concern for Heard’s child. How awful to have her for a mom.
Yes when I think of that baby, I go a little nuts. There is no legal dad. There is NO one else whose responsibility it is to protect that child.
All I've heard seen is people dunking on Herd and her terrible case. Then again, I haven't sought any serious sources for this case so all my info comes from r/dankmemes.
It is terrible. It’s cringey. And it especially annoys anyone who’s ever had to contend with actual abuse, or who’s ever had to deal with a lying person with BPD.
I have to say I have no experience (that I know of) of people with BPD. I usually model behavior in terms of incentives. I also think there's a been a bit of an overreach with regards to mental health, with a lot normal behavior being put into an endless degree of mental health categories. Which isn't to say that BPD isn't real, just that it can be hard to tell the legit stuff from the nonsense.
Re a lot of behavior being put into categories: yes I agree. It’s a bit excessive.
BPD is a way of life.
BPD is real. There are some good memoirs about it.
Sadly I know it’s real. So much suffering.
Hi Jeff could you shoot me an email please? carina.substack@gmail.com (I know that sounds weird but I promise this is not spam... will explain when I respond.)
Yes in fact my cousin Harold Prince of Nigeria wants a word.
(srsly I shall)
BPD is terrifying, if you are on the receiving end of it.
Whatever else it may be, mate, borderline personality disorder isn't "fluff"! Sounds like you've had some experience with it, as have I, so I'm presuming you know of what I speak.
One word suffices, for me: Yikes!
I agree, completely! Yikes!
As an outcome #3 person, who has indeed worked very hard for it and is confident about that 50 paces thing, I concur with everything you've said here. Your analysis is spot-on.
Thank you, Tytonidaen! Yay for the outcome #3’s of the world!!!
(Also, I have pointed thoughts on that comment trying to shame you, but I'll refrain from replying, so as not to sully your space. But, hooboy, I just have to state for the record, I'm not a fan of that old chestnut about BPD being a diagnosis to control women. Do these folks likewise think antisocial personality disorder is just a way of controlling men? Somehow, I doubt it.)
I agree. Not a fan of that either.
I appreciate your contributions very much!
Ugh - I'm getting a divorce from a cluster-b narcissist/borderline personality type and she's been lying to my children for the last few weeks about me. I went from having a great relationship with my kids to having one of them hate my guts.
I know in the long run they'll understand what happened, but it makes me wonder just how much more chaos she'll create before that happens.
This post has discredited every other thing you've written. It's not 'fluffy' because people are diagnosed with this - in the context of court case, publicly, for Heard - and because it's known that women diagnosed with this stigmatising 'condition' will be branded every type of insult, called a liar, abusive etc. Like witchcraft and hysteria, it's used to control women. It's a culturally bound non-definition of something so broad and contradictory that almost anything can be read into it. It's disgraceful that you would publish this.
Sometimes, no doubt, people with borderline personality disorder are vilified and probably (just like any other person) treated unfairly at times.
Many people who have had experience living with such a person will tell you it’s very difficult, and it often takes a toll on their own mental health. No one owes another person the sacrifice of their own mental health.
I can feel very sorry for people with BPD -- it must be terribly difficult to be them -- but I also believe that in many cases they bring karma down upon themselves through their truly horrible and completely unacceptable behavior.
I wouldn’t expect anyone who was mistreated to be especially kind or forgiving to their abuser, nor “come back for more.” That’s just how life is.
You can wish someone well, but from a distance, and you can still tell your own story about how that person mistreated you, as Johnny Depp has done.
My wish is for all everyone to be happy. Sometimes being happy includes the need to protect yourself from people who treat you poorly.
Be well.
Thank you for writing this. I have not followed the proceedings particularly closely, or really at all outside of a few clips that YouTube serves up, which universally mock Heard's outlandish performances on the stand or put Depp's conduct and character witnesses in the best light possible. From this, it seems like the public is entirely on Depp's side, win or lose -- though that is also far from a sure thing, because the dreaded algorithm is likely shielding me from any adverse information, and I have no interest in exerting myself to find it.
I did see a Twitter thread recently in which a woman detailed the abuse she and her mother received from her alcoholic father, which over the course of years caused her mother to become physically and verbally abusive in return, until the man was reduced to an incoherent cowardly dog who slept every night on the couch. In other words, the mother was brutalised, in the original sense of the term -- "to be made into a brute" (much like 'to victimise' someone is to turn them into a victim). It was through this lens that the thread's author gave a Heard-friendly (or at least friendlier) perspective on what might have happened, even granting all of Depp's claims. The thread garnered many sympathetic responses, so it is also quite certain that a number of women see themselves in Heard, or at least can understand why Heard may have been moved to act the way she seems to have done.
From the scant facts I have gathered in my limited exposure, it is clear that the relationship was toxic in both directions, and it would not surprise me if it involved physical altercations beyond Heard throwing a pair of bottles at Depp, some of which Depp may well have instigated himself. The culture we have built heavily penalises men for such altercations, even if men do not start them -- and not for no reason, given the general tendency of men to be more violent and more physically capable of inflicting serious bodily harm once violence has begun. But there is also an extreme to this social penalty, a vision of the world in which all women are terrified damsels incapable of instigating physical abuse, condemned to suffer the whims of an abusive man. (That this view is often implicitly or even explicitly propagated by feminists is a curious phenomenon worthy of note but somewhat ungermaine to my purpose here.)
But that is not the world we live in. Women have agency, even those who suffer borderline personality disorder or malignant narcissism or some related condition that guides them down a destructive path of personal hell. They have egos and desires and pride; they are fully capable of lashing out -- yes, even physically -- when they feel wounded, and of spinning a web of deceit and delusion in order to insulate themselves from the necessary psychological implications of their behaviour. And men are perfectly capable of being pulled into a hurricane of narcissism, of having their own wounds balmed and their own hopes stoked in the opening stages of what will turn into a vampiric exchange of emotions -- and, all too often, time and money, along with reputation and self-respect once they have finally had enough and walked away.
If you have never dealt with such a person first hand, if you have never watched them treat you or someone you love utterly unacceptably over weeks or months or years only to claim to be a victim once the target of their abuse gains the courage to leave, consider yourself extremely lucky. It is a harrowing experience, having such a person insinuate themselves into your life; having them slowly, by degrees, make you responsible for their emotional well-being even as they assume a duty to mould you to their every expectation; witnessing them cross every boundary you try to establish and throwing temper-tantrums whenever you step a toe out of the ever-shifting line they have set up around you; giving you just enough love and affection to keep you questioning your own perception until they've wrung yet another promise from you that you hadn't intended to make -- until you've doubled-down on your commitment to them at the expense of your own sanity; claiming that you have used them and taken advantage of all the selfless work they put into making you a better person, that they hadn't done anything to deserve you abandoning them, that all they ever did was try to be a good partner or friend.
I feel truly sorry for both Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. I hope, once the trial is over, neither one of them ever sees the other again. I hope that Heard can find the space to breathe, to understand the path of carnage she has wrought and the lives she has ruined in her desperate attempt to outrun the voices in her head telling her half-truths about herself that she has not yet been strong enough to face and to change. I hope that Depp can reassemble the wreckage of his life, that he can salvage something of worth out of the debris he's been left with; that he can believe he is a man worthy of looking his children in the eye and feeling the fuzzy warmth of their love.
It’s looking like Amber Heard may have done a bump of cocaine while on the witness stand. It sure looks like she did in the video.
I heard speculation it was menthol which some actors use, to try to induce tears?
I wish this was better.
Your source for the "ripped off lines" is.... Distractify? Which posted a random instagram comment that was unsupported by video evidence? Probably because it's not true: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/amber-heard-johnny-depp-trial/. If you have a source that has video evidence of her saying these lines (which should be very easy to find, as the trial is being live streamed), please post it, because I'd love to believe you didn't fall for this.
From the tiny bit of reading I've done on this, there are witnesses: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/nov/02/johnny-depp-trial-how-the-judge-ruled-on-14-alleged-assaults "The judge said: “There is evidence which I find compelling of witnesses who saw Ms Heard with injuries to her face and who took photographs of these.”
I could go on and on from more reputable sources.
I have an open mind about this case and I truly don't know what to believe (it seems like a total mess, and I'm not on anyone's "team"). I'm really interested in the content you have been posting here and have several of your posts in my "to read" list, but this piece is so.... one sided and sloppy that I'm genuinely having doubts about reading your posts with as much of an open mind as I have been.
And re the Guardian article: that comes down to the judge believing the things Heard said. Don't you find it funny that Heard has been arrested before (in 2009) for hitting another partner? And no other partner involved with Depp has said he's ever become violent? But supposedly he became violent just with her, and she's the victim? That's not how it works.
I just came across an article below and was reminded of this comment thread. I've done a little more reading on this case, still with an open mind, and still with more or less the feeling that this relationship consisted of two very troubled people who both hurt each other in various ways.
I understand that you have personal experience with others who have BPD, and for that I'm truly sorry. I don't, and don't have any bias toward people who may or may not suffer from that condition. And I read in other responses on this post that you are trying to keep your distance from this case - please disregard this if it is too upsetting. I completely understand and I don't want to cause you undue stress whatsoever.
I'm curious about this case, but more about how this is playing out between observers. A few people whose opinions I respect (including yours) seem to be in this very "pro Depp" camp. I genuinely have not seen or read anything from a legitimate source that is actually convincing me of most of what the "pro Depp" camp is saying. But SO many people seem to be on his side, very passionately so. I want to believe that those that I respect that are defending him as the SOLE victim in this relationship have really strong foundations on which to make these claims, but I keep coming up short.
Is this the arrest for hitting another partner that you are referencing? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/amber-heard-johnny-depp-tasya-van-ree-domestic-violence-allegations-a7072126.html
From the best that I can tell, no other domestic partner of his has formally accused him of being violent. But - to borrow your phrase - don't you find it odd that he's been arrested 4 other times for assault and violence?
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1989/03/09/Teen-heart-throb-Johnny-Depp-who-plays-an-undercover-policeman/8389605422800/
https://nypost.com/1999/02/01/cops-johnny-busted-for-depp-lorable-conduct/
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/stars-who-trashed-hotel-rooms/8/
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-44778997
I came back to read this post and your comments again and they are so certain. With the understanding that this is a "fluff" post, your claims and language are so definitive: not a SHRED of evidence. ZERO witnesses. But these things are so easily disproven by just googling it that I'm genuinely (not trying to be snarky at all) confused. Tertiary googling shows actual evidence. There are witness statements abound. The woman whom Amber was arrested for assaulting not only said it was actually a homophobic misinterpretation, but she is also on the witness list FOR Amber, as in, she is defending Amber in this case, and said that her previous arrest (which I believe you are using in the comment above to prove that Amber has a history of abuse) was based on a homophobic lie and not true at all.
This isn't meant to be a "pro Amber" comment by any means. I'm trying to express that I don't understand how one gets to be so solidly on one side of this case when every legitimate source I read says, if anything, that they were both terrible and violent to each other.
Hm I thought I replied to this but it... disappeared? Or maybe the thread here just got really messed up?
The Seattle cop who witnessed and arrested Amber for hitting her partner is a lesbian.
https://people.com/movies/amber-heards-arresting-officer-speaks-out-i-am-so-not-homophobic/
So I don’t think it was a homophobic lie? How many cops want to go through the trouble, the paperwork, of arresting someone they see in an airport hitting their partner, unless it’s really a serious problem and the person needs to be (literally) arrested?
Whatever Amber’s partner said afterward -- that the lesbian cop witnessing the physical violence in the airport “misunderstood” blah blah -- I think various simpler explanations (like abused partners minimizing and denying their own abuse even when there are witnesses) is more compelling than a homophobic lesbian cop who arrested someone capriciously.
I read about Johnny Depp’s belligerence. Here are the incidents:
“The bad-boy actor picked up a long wooden plank and began swinging it, threatening to bash the snappers if they didn’t go away, authorities said.” (Horrible behavior. No one was hit.)
“Depp, 25, was arrested and held for three hours early Wednesday after police answered a noisy party complaint at a hotel, a Vancouver police spokesman said. Depp assaulted a security guard during a scuffle, police said. Telephones in the lobby were also damaged in the incident.” (Horrible behavior-- no mention of injuries, and he was released after 3 hours.).
The BBC headline that said he “punched someone” was actually described by CBS quite differently -- as him being wasted, getting mad at the crew guy, swinging feebly and missing , and immediately apologizing and asking the guy to hit him. (Horrible, messed up behavior. He needs all sorts of help.)
And he trashed a hotel room in 1994 and caused $10k damage. Horrible behavior.
This man has real problems with substances and impulse control. He’s even gotten into a couple of scuffles. He needs all sorts of help. It strikes me how _little_ violence has been attributed to this guy who seems to be chronically wasted, very volatile, and very high profile. For how disinhibited and angry he seems when wasted, he seems to be remarkably nonviolent.
I’m not excusing any horrible behavior. I’m still responding to the claims by Amber that he beat and raped her; but he seems not to have beaten anyone, including other men he was angry at.
Even with all the volatility, you are not hearing about anyone who’s ever been hurt -- exes describe him as gentle -- this is just not the profile of a guy who beats and rapes his wife.
If untrue -- and based on his personal and criminal history, and the statements of his exes, and Amber’s lack of evidence and inconsistent stories, these claims seem to be untrue -- JD can be a guy who has a lot of horrible behavior, serious personal problems, who has also been abused and defamed by someone even less functional.
As I said, I don't know all that much about this case, compared to what most people seem to know. And the fervour with which it's being covered - and the frothing-at-the-mouth defending of each of them on social media from their respective "sides" - is almost terrifying. So I can't comment on the facts of the individual items you are mentioning here and frankly I am not interested in delving in to them.
In terms of my opinion however, if your question is if I find it "funny" - maybe you meant possible - that this is the first partner that Depp has been violent with? Just speaking as a person with opinions and life experience, yes I believe that is possible. I believe that's probably not how it usually "works", and therefore not necessarily plausible, but I certainly wouldn't try and persuade a jury to disbelieve someone's claims of abuse based on that assertion.
No, I do not find it funny that Heard has been arrested before for hitting another partner. But again, I certainly wouldn't attempt to convince a jury that it's not possible to both be a (previous) perpetrator AND a victim of abuse. I hope that's not how the law works.
Funny in this context means odd.
I find it odd. I’ve never met, nor heard of, a 50-year-old man who suddenly turned violent and did the things he’s accused of doing. And especially not one who’s universally described as kind and gentle by his exes. His exes.
And he’s a rich celebrity. Anyone with beef would surely be coming out of the woodwork by now. No one but Amber has beef with this man. No one saw any “violence.” His staff remain with him for decades and universally like him.
God knows his drug use, drinking, and eccentricity were not new in his life. The only new thing was the claims that he suddenly turned violent. With just one person. That no one else ever witnessed. Or saw pictures of. I’ve never met someone who did that.
But she says he did. With no shred of evidence. So he just needs to establish that she made false claims, which were intended to cause harm, and which did cause harm. Good luck to him.
I’ve haven’t met a person who changed that much late in life with just one partner. I’ve met plenty of physically abusive liars though, and Amber is pretty run-of-the-mill: arrested for abuse on a previous partner, and her own sister describes her as “extremely violent.” The pooping on the bed is new, but not entirely unexpected from someone so emotionally dysregulated.
This is my fluff opinion to a fluff post. As I said, I don’t know these people. I know people like them. My opinion is that he made horrible choices (and developed a level of anger and hostility to her, thinking horrible thoughts about her that he didn’t act on--heck, at this point I admit to thinking horrible thoughts about her) but _she is the abuser_.
She undertook to make his life hellish because in her primitive mind she decided he was “all bad” and she is calculatedly lying about his physical and sexual violence. To paraphrase Tolstoy badly: “all unhappy people with BPD are alike.”
Johnny Depp messed up in many ways, but he is a victim of this person. I feel sorry for him. I can’t help but wish for karma or the jury to catch up with Amber. I hope someone will be looking out for her child but I believe she is the only legal parent. Heaven help that defenseless child.
Nevertheless, whether it's clearly marked as a "fluffy post" or not, I've edited it and given you credit. Because I fix things when I make a mistake.
I wish this were better too, but it is clearly marked as "a fluffy post" and that's what you got.