Camille Vasquez

“Mr. Depp will go to his grave knowing that whatever he does, there are people out there in this world who will always believe that he abused a woman.”

Closing argument on irreversible reputational harm — frames the case as damage to Depp's legacy that a verdict cannot fully undo.

“She has been passing notes to Ms. Heard during this trial. She passed up a cell phone with an undated screenshot picture of Ms. Deuters' post that's two years old. That's highly inappropriate in our view.”

Depp's team's on-the-record allegation that Eve Barlow passed misleading, misdated materials to Heard's counsel from the front row.

“Because she asked him to set up the meeting after she had the TRO entered against him to breach the temporary restraining order”

Vasquez's basis for admitting P-571 — that Heard herself initiated contact with Depp while the TRO was in effect, undercutting her narrative of seeking protection.

“I can't rule anything out completely. I can't rule out that he caught it in the door, cut it with a knife, or slammed it in the car door. Or again, as Dr. Gilmer said, we can't definitively say what caused this injury.”

Vasquez reads Moore's own deposition answer verbatim, showing his prior sworn statement was far broader than his trial testimony suggested.

“did you consider Dr. Kipper's deposition testimony that while Dr. Kipper was providing emergency treatment for Mr. Depp's finger injury in Australia in the driveway of the house, Mr. Depp told him that his finger was injured when Ms. Heard threw a vodka bottle at him?”

Surfaces a contemporaneous account by Depp's treating physician — a category of evidence Moore acknowledged reviewing — that Moore said he did not recall, suggesting gaps in his pre-testimony review.

“He worked for TMZ, and he will testify that TMZ did receive the video from Ms. Heard, also was directed to be there on May 27th, 2016, to take certain pictures of her face, where she would be.”

Proffer for Morgan Tremaine's rebuttal testimony alleging Heard coordinated TMZ's coverage of her injuries following the May 2016 incident.

“She observed Ms. Heard hit Ms. van Ree and rip off her necklace, leaving marks on her neck.”

Vasquez's proffer of what Leonard would testify to — the specific conduct offered for impeachment of Heard's self-defense claim.

“which include the words "abuse hoax," includes the words "fake sexual violence." This is her case. They're interrelated.”

Vasquez argues the counterclaim language itself makes the abuse-hoax question fair game on cross, connecting rebuttal evidence to the counterclaim's core allegations.

“She lied again when she told the world over and over again that she donated all of the $7 million divorce settlement to charity.”

Encapsulates the plaintiff's core attack on Heard's credibility over the charity donation pledge.

“Either she was raped by a bottle or she's the sort of person who would get on the stand in this courtroom and lie to you and the world about being raped.”

Frames the jury's credibility determination as binary: either Heard's most extreme allegations are true, or she is a wholesale liar.

“This is not a Me Too situation. There are no Me Toos. Just not Mes.”

Directly challenges Heard's positioning as a representative of the #MeToo movement.

“It's not about money. It's about giving Mr. Depp his life back, six years ago when she took it away.”

Closing appeal reframing the verdict as a matter of reputation and justice rather than financial compensation.