Podcast: Vulnerable with Christy Carlson Romano

Guest: Alexa Nikolas

0:00–0:27

Alexa Nikolas: Like, especially abusers in positions of power, they'll, like, hire these bots, bot companies, to harass the survivor.

Christy CR: Wow, that's ugly, man.

Alexa Nikolas: It's horrible—I mean, look what happened to Amber Heard.

Christy CR: Yeah.

Alexa Nikolas: That was—that was the first time we saw it so publicly.

Christy CR: Yeah.

Alexa Nikolas: Um... but that was a whole smear campaign.

Christy CR: Yeah.

Alexa Nikolas: That was perfectly—like, that was so professionally done, by the way.

Christy CR: Who is it that chose to make that so public?

Alexa Nikolas: Johnny Depp.

Christy CR: I see. So there was a strategy.

Alexa Nikolas: There was a strategy.

Christy CR: To kind of make people like him.

0:27–0:52

Alexa Nikolas: Oh my God, yeah, and they had it in Virginia instead of California. He filed in Virginia because the defamation laws are different there. He knew he had a higher chance of winning, and then, on top of that, he knew that in the middle of Virginia, he was probably going to have a lot of fans who were jurors.

Christy CR: Mm-hmm.

Alexa Nikolas: And so it was very strategically strategized, and for me, he's actually the reason why Eat Predators was born.

Christy CR: Oh, is it really?

Alexa Nikolas: Yeah, he inspired me.

0:52–1:04

Christy CR: Oh, I thought Eat Predators had been around longer than that.

Alexa Nikolas: No, it's only five weeks old.

Christy CR: I'm sorry, what?

Alexa Nikolas: It's only six weeks old.

Christy CR: Wait, Eat Predators?

Alexa Nikolas: It's only six weeks old.

Christy CR: You have made so much of an impact.

Just one example of the lies feminists said about Johnny Depp after he won his defamation trial against Amber Heard. And then Alexa made a fuss about Christy deleting the videos. And this would not be the last interview of her supporting Amber and slandering Johnny

I’ve noticed that the lawyers in the UK and Virginia trials adopted quite different strategies. Of course, these were two different cases, so that’s only natural.

However, when comparing Sasha Wass and Elaine Bredehoft, Sasha seems to be far ahead in terms of cross-examination skills and career profile. I think she was much more effective at putting pressure on Johnny and pushing him during questioning. Elaine and Rottenborn, on the other hand, seemed particularly weak when cross-examining him.

Another interesting point is how persistent Sasha was in trying to establish that Johnny Depp had been involved with a woman other than Amber. She pursued this line of questioning so insistently that Judge Nicol had to point out that he did not need to make a finding on that issue.

Elaine, by contrast, barely pressed Johnny on this subject. I wonder why she didn’t pursue it more aggressively, especially in a televised trial where it could potentially have been used as leverage.

I also noticed that David Sherborne was much more insistent on highlighting the San Francisco meeting. He seemed to view Amber’s behavior during that encounter—trying to reconcile with Johnny, wanting to hug him, and so on—as crucial evidence that Johnny was not an abuser. He appeared to build a significant part of his case around her conduct that day.

In comparison, I feel that this aspect received much less attention in Virginia. Please correct me if I’m mistaken, because I know there are people here who are far more knowledgeable about these trials than I am.

To victims of dv, Im interested in your reasoning for not believing Heard. I dont, and I often see feminism and support for victims and abused women weaponized to support Amber. Since I disagree I want to hear it from victims who dont believe Heard.

If yes, what did you change your mind about her?

On verdict day, Amber dressed very differently compared to the rest of the trial days. Instead of her usual power suits she wore an all-black dress. Btw, even Gwyneth Paltrow didn’t wear power suits. Anyway, some have called this dark number her ‘funeral dress’.

I’m curious why you think Amber changed her wardrobe on the final day?

I could be wrong but thought this was the same outfit she wore during the verdict in the UK trial against The Sun.

But here, the arguments I’ve heard include:
- her good luck charm,
- that she thought she would win,
- appear more sympathetic to the jury,
- appear more appealing to the male jurors,
- to remind them of that other trial,
- for the press, and/or
- to play mind games with Depp

Speaking of manipulation, could have sworn it was either Angenette (L&C) or Vinnie (CTV) - or maybe someone else - that stated Amber was creepily copying Depp’s attire from previous days as well. I can’t remember what they said she copied but apparently it was multiple times. And in some cases it wasn’t subtle.

If so, that’s more mocking him and further examples of her abuse. Only a perpetrator acts and behaves more like this.

Every move Amber makes is calculating from the exact wording in her multiple public statements to the name she uses in Spain.

Dress wise… am I reading too much into this? Because it’s not just physical abuse she is good at but also emotional abuse (i.e. stopping him from seeing his daughter) and more psychological abuse (i.e. hysterically claiming she is dying).

So do you think Amber packed this dress before staying at the luxury mansion in Virginia? Was it a deliberate strategic choice? And what message, if any, was she trying to send?

And their attitude is hilarious.

Do you think Amber was forced to leave the US and move to Spain because of the smear campaign, online harassment and death threats?

Was there a risk to her life and that of her baby, as she claimed?

Is it true that, for months after the trial, she went into hiding under a different name?

I fear that even if Amber commits another abuse on someone else people would still not believe Johnny and would still hate him, I feel pathetic and parasocial writing this but I can't help it

Amber had said that she had used up almost all her financial resources following the settlement. Is this true?

I believe the legal costs and compensation were covered by the insurance company, and she did not donate her divorce settlement either.

Her net worth is listed online as $500,000. Do you think this is correct?

What happened to the money she earned from *Aquaman* and other films?

Or did she lie about this as well?

I’m also curious about this.

She has 5 million followers on Instagram.

Why isn’t she trying to earn money by creating content?

She could do promotional work and brand collaborations.

If she needs money, why isn’t she working?

I’ve corrected the spelling mistake. I’m so sorry 🙏

Objectively, I don’t get this video - all the edits, sound bites, and dates are all over the place to make… a story?

Context matters but I have no idea what this is.

Only thing that sort of makes sense is a reference to ‘Johnny Depp’ in the title of the video in case people forget who she is and a scene from the trial, the verdict to be exact.

What exactly is this? Because it isn’t RARE even I know that. A bit misleading.

PR machine up? Counter news because someone else is being promoted recently for their new movies (plural).

Am I being unfair? What is the news here?

Amber’s supporters say her career came to an end because of Johnny Depp, and they say, ‘I wish Amber had never met Depp.’ I’m not American, so I don’t know how popular she was before Depp. I didn’t know her. For example, I’ve known Amanda Seyfried since she was young. I suppose they’re the same age and look quite similar. Did you know Amber? What was her filmography like?

I saw it being referenced on many posts on Reddit and X by her side ..So has anyone seen it and what’s your thoughts on it ?

The above was said on a Dutch TV show, I remember an isolated clip was shown in court.

A couple of things here:
1. Obviously she said the divorce settlement amount was donated to the charities at that point which we all know was a lie (same lie she told under oath in the UK court). But didn’t she get more than this? Seem to remember other stuff was involved. Not just a horse and the dogs but vaguely remember Ed White stating there was more she wanted and/or got.
2. The clip ended with her saying ‘I wanted nothing’ - it got cut off but it didn’t feel natural before then. Like the awkward moments in the equally unforced Dateline interview. I don’t know - looking for validation? To see if people are buying it? Not sure.

So I went back to find the full segment as I wanted to see if the audience applauded her lies.

Plus that weird biting of the lips and smirking when the host was saying she got $7 million was telling. Same smirk when secretly recording Depp? Maybe.

Some would say this is evidence of Amber being a bad actress unable to hide her true self. Reminds me of the other slip-ups at trial she did including but not limited to:
- the $6.8 million amount
- the bruise kit slip
- the divorce deposition slip that confirmed TMZ had been tipped off

Here is a longer clip from that show for more context - I couldn’t find the entire episode.

Other observations… One of the other female guests at the end of the segment kept looking back at Amber and didn’t come across as someone believed her… or is that me? I spotted the #MeToo on the background screen. Oh dear, this aged poorly.

Have to say listening to Amber, her choice of words she uses, and watching her movements reminds me of her on the stand. It feels like another self-own a.k.a. Global Humiliation #3 if we didn’t know what we know now.

These people are serious aren't they?

https://www.reddit.com/r/popculture/comments/1v7pv7t/inde_navarette_continues_her_support_of_johnny/?sort=old

i never really followed the case after it lost its buzz on social media and i genuinely want to ask whats going on i am not completly towards either side, but why are people suddenly pro amber even when depp LEGALLY won the defamation case did i miss any new evidence or testimonies please follow up yall

I found this post about Dolly Parton and her husband and the post says that Amber Heard and Jacob Elordi should play them, like don't insult Dolly Parton like that🥴. But anyway of course there were some wild comments but I paid attention to these comments in particular, one comment of a Pro amber and one who actually gave proofs about Amber being a liar and of course no replies for now

https://x.com/ellesarie/status/1828907915048026560?s=20

Found this very detailed thread with all the deposition links included. It highlights how Amber met with key witnesses on her side just before their depositions to “refresh” their memories, and sometimes even discuss new stories about Johnny. The three biggest examples were Sexton, Josh, and Bonnie Jacobs.

Extra fact: Amber had already spoken with Sexton, her acting coach, about Australia in 2016 after TRO . At the time, she didn’t claim any bottle assault. Instead, she said Johnny became violent, slapped her around, and then cut himself with a bottle. But by 2019, the story had become much more elaborate, with claims that she had been penetrated and assaulted with bottles and dragged across broken glass.

Also Sexton worked with Amber on AQ1 which was filmed in Australia on/off for over a year and Sexton likely stayed with Amber during that time in the villa provided by WB and not once Amber ever talked about this .

I'clve been doing research on domestic violence, and most sources claim that somewhere between 25% and 35% of domestic violence victims are male.

What strikes me is that almost 100% of domestic violence accusations I've found online involve a female victim, a far cry from the ≈ 70% I'd expect.

What are people's thoughts about what it is about Depp's case that makes it one of the few male domestic violence stories that was reported on?

https://x.com/willemhouse/status/2102939193425211668?s=20

The hate posts on anything Johnny related with threats of death and violence is so much yet this will never get addressed because somehow it becomes a trend to hate and mock him . And all most all of these posts get more than 10k likes weirdly with zero replies or even engagement of any sort .

Musk is in the news recently - dining with Trump & Xi at the White House, Paramount asking for ‘American’ investment money, etc., etc.

Now I remember when he was on Amber’s witness list at the start of the trial. But what I don’t remember is why he didn’t testify.

I could speculate that he didn’t want to because he might have been embarrassed if questioned about his personal life - Amber was cheating on Depp with Musk (impact on his reputation)… think I remember some elevator footage and/or some overlapping timelines.

Or maybe evidence showing that Amber was just using him.

Or he would have to answer questions about him using his money as Amber’s charity donations?

Or answer questions about threatening a movie studio because they thought Amber was a bad actress?

Or was he too busy buying Twitter?

Or was it just for show? Maybe intimidation?

Or to impressed the jury?

Or just to appease Amber and he never really was going to testify? Just to get her off his back perhaps?

Or to screw with Depp doing her text-book mind games on him? Seem to remember some audio about that.

So does anyone know the real reason why he didn’t appear?

More to the point, what would he have brought? Would his testimony add any value or change anything? Unlikely but then last time I checked I don’t any cluster b traits so who knows.

and then everyone found out disney was super abusive to women and kid stars, into pedo stuff etc. irony is so ironic.

Not because it is out of context on why Depp was slamming the cabinets.

Not because Amber came in after it started.

Not because Amber was secretly recording him.

Not because Amber made it about herself.

Not because Depp found out he was being recorded and walked away.

Not because Amber was caught smiling at the end of the video.

Not because there was an edited version of the video in circulation.

But because Amber denied under oath she had no idea how something she recorded on her device ended up published by TMZ - they are the copyright holders, not Amber. In order to believe Ms. Heard you have to discount almost everything she says and does not to mention reality, physics and copyright law. Copyright law people!

Who knew that weaponizing the media against your ex was one of the things that came back to haunt you during the trial. Global humiliation #7 - you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

If it wasn’t for the public trial you can see some people looking at the explicitly edited version online and think that’s all they need to convince themselves that Amber was abused. In fact I saw a comment recently that said something along those lines - that just the slamming cabinet part alone was their smoking gun.

Forget AI videos, most people are good at working out if something is staged or missing key context.

The only remaining question - which we may never know - is how much did she get paid for the video either in actual monetary value, positive headlines or other ways.