Rebuttal Closing — Plaintiff

MS. VASQUEZ: Hello. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Ms. Heard's counsel has mischaracterized the record multiple times, and Ms. Heard lied to you. They've mischaracterized the testimony of Police Officers Saenz and Howell, who explicitly testified that they saw no signs of injury and no property damage.

MS. VASQUEZ: They mischaracterized the testimony of Walter Hamada, who testified clearly that there was no impact on Ms. Heard's career at Aquaman 2 from anything said by Adam Waldman or Johnny Depp. And Ms. Heard's costume was delayed because of creative issues. They mischaracterized the testimony of Detective Sadanaga. They mischaracterized the testimony of Ronald Schnell. You've been here. You've listened to the testimony. You know the record. Ms. Heard lied, and she lied again and she kept lying. She lied six years ago on May 27th, 2016, when she walked into court in Los Angeles to publicly accuse Mr. Depp of abuse for the first time.

MS. VASQUEZ: She lied again when she told the world over and over again that she donated all of the $7 million divorce settlement to charity. You've heard the evidence about what she donated. And you watched her, you watched her try to save her lie about that broken promise with more lies on the stand in this courtroom. She lied again, when she told the world in her op-ed on December 18th, 2018, that she was a public figure representing domestic abuse, painting herself as a representative of abuse survivors everywhere and painting Mr. Depp as a representative of perpetrators. She's come up for. She can't back down. She's lied too many times to too many people. So when Mr. Depp finally decided to fight, to clear his name by filing this lawsuit, Ms. Heard responded by making up more and more stories of more and more extreme abuse. She came up with a new accusation that Mr. Depp raped her with a bottle in Australia. And she keeps making new claims up even now.

MS. VASQUEZ: At this trial, for the very first time, she claimed that she had been sexually assaulted the night of her 30th birthday, even though she had testified repeatedly about her birthday prior and - never mentioned it. And at this trial, she also claimed for the very first time that Mr. Depp was hitting her all the time during the first year of their relationship, even though this first year, she had testified previously, was magic and bliss with absolutely no violence. Her story is a constantly moving target. It never stays the same. Mr. Depp owns his mistakes. He owns all of them. You saw him do it on the stand in a raw and powerful way. But in this trial, Ms. Heard has been confronted with her lies and the damage she has caused, and she cannot take any responsibility for what she has done. And you've seen the story, her story, it doesn't hold up. You've watched her performance on the stand. You saw her get caught in lie after lie. The time has come for those lies to come to an end.

MS. VASQUEZ: The time has come for you, the jury, to decide the truth. I started this trial giving you an opening statement, and I said to you that words matter. And this case is about Ms. Heard's words, the words she published in an op-ed about Mr. Depp. Ms. Heard and her attorneys have talked a lot about - in this trial about the First Amendment. They've talked about the importance of free speech, and we agree. I'm a lawyer. Of course I agree with that. But the First Amendment doesn't protect lies that hurt and defame people. And there's a difference. Ms. Heard has no right to tell the world that Mr. Depp physically or sexually assaulted her when that isn't true. That's not protected speech. Our U.S. Constitution doesn't protect that speech. And it is a core value of American society that you are innocent until proven guilty. There is a presumption of innocence in this country.

MS. VASQUEZ: A person's life cannot and should not be destroyed by a baseless charge and no opportunity to defend yourself. That's why Mr. Depp had to bring this claim. Ms. Heard was never going to stop calling him an abuser. The only way to clear his name was to stand up in this court where both sides are bound by the same rules of American law, a jury will be tasked, you, ladies and gentlemen, will be tasked with deciding once and for all Ms. Heard's lies could be exposed in a fair and impartial process. When Mr. Depp sued her, Ms. Heard apparently decided she needed to sue him back, and because there were no statements made by Mr. Depp on which she can base a claim, she sued him based on statements made by one of his lawyers, Adam Waldman, calling Ms. Heard's accusation of abuse a hoax. Make no mistake, though, they are a hoax. Ms. Heard made up claims of abuse, and then she gave a performance where she passionately repeated those made-up claims of abuse on the stand in front of each of you.

MS. VASQUEZ: But ask yourselves, who's really the one alleging a hoax here? Who wants you to believe that everyone else is lying, committing perjury? Ms. Heard needs you to believe that all the people who showed up in this courtroom to testify on behalf of Mr. Depp, they're all lying. She needs you to believe that the witnesses you heard from, including security professionals, former cops, medical professionals, and police officers, they're all lying, covering up for Mr. Depp. She's asking you to believe that she's the one telling the truth and that the rest of the people in Mr. Depp's life are all part of the conspiracy of silence. This case is not just about whether you believe Mr. Depp or you believe Ms. Heard. This case is about whether you believe Ms. Heard, Mr. Depp, Christi Dembrowski, who, yes, is here supporting her brother, Isaac Baruch, who weeped in front of the world, Keenan Wyatt, who doesn't work for Mr. Depp, Sean Bett, a former LA sheriff's department, Malcolm Connolly, who worked at prisons in the U.K., Starling Jenkins is a former U.S.

MS. VASQUEZ: Marine, Travis McGivern, also another former police officer, Ben King, who worked for the Queen of England, David Kipper, Dr. David Kipper, Ms. Heard's doctor, and, yes, Mr. Depp's doctor, Debbie Lloyd, a nurse, Erin Falati, Ms. Heard's personal nurse, Officer Saenz, an LA police officer with training in domestic violence, Officer Hadden, her understudy, yes, in his first week, studying to pick up on these signs of domestic abuse, Officer Gatlin, Brandon Patterson, who worked at Eastern Columbia Building, Kate James, Ms. Heard's former personal assistant, Tara Roberts, Alejandro Romero, he took his deposition from his car because he had to go to work, but that didn't stop him from telling the truth, Edward White, Mr. Depp's business manager, Laura Wasser, one of the most famous divorce lawyers in California, Morgan Night, Beverly Leonard, Morgan Tremaine, and Kate Moss. And all the other witnesses whose stories support Mr. Depp's description of what took place.

MS. VASQUEZ: These people have nothing to gain by coming forward. They have everything to lose. You see Mr. Waldman's statement in evidence in this case. When you look at them you can tell that the key point Mr. Waldman was making in each of these statements were simply that Ms. Heard's accusations against Mr. Depp were lies. That's why he talks of an abuse hoax. Now Ms. Heard has the burden of proof of proving that Mr. Waldman's statements are false. And that means that Ms. Heard has to do more than prove that Mr. Waldman got some details wrong. She has to prove that Mr. Waldman's statements are false in their essential meaning. In other words, she has to prove that her abuse claims are not a hoax. But as you've seen, the evidence is overwhelming that Ms. Heard's claims of abuse are false. We should also spend a bit of time talking about actual malice. It is Ms. Heard's burden to prove that Mr. Waldman's statements were made with actual malice.

MS. VASQUEZ: And actual malice means knowledge that the statements were false or reckless, that's an important word, reckless with regard for the truth. But here, there's clear evidence that Mr. Waldman genuinely believed that Ms. Heard had committed a hoax. You watched him give the testimony by definition in this case. He testified about the evidence he found persuasive, the numerous witnesses and the sworn depositions of the police officers who went to the penthouses that night and, again, saw no injury. There is no evidence in this record, none, that Mr. Waldman acted with actual malice. He believed Mr. Depp. He believed the record. It's also important to understand that because Mr. Waldman's statements were not made by Mr. Depp, Ms. Heard needs to prove that Mr. Waldman was acting as Mr. Depp's lawyer and within that scope of that agency, within the scope of the agency of the employment, when he made the statement, Mr. Waldman is a lawyer. Ms. Heard has not presented evidence that making those statements is part of Mr.

MS. VASQUEZ: Waldman's responsibilities as Mr. Depp's lawyer. There's nothing in the record. Ms. Heard is also claiming to be suffering from PTSD and claims that should have something to do with Mr. Waldman statements. Ms. Heard wants you to believe that she suffers from PTSD because Mr. Depp purportedly abused her. But as usual, Ms. Heard is not telling the truth. As you heard from Dr. Shannon Curry, Ms. Heard does not have PTSD and she does not act like a person with PTSD. Ms. Heard is an actress in a major film, involved in some IA training. She just had a baby. Dr. Curry also found that Ms. Heard attempted to grossly exaggerate her symptoms during testing, which is a sign of malingering, or said differently, of Ms. Heard lying. Ms. Heard hired Dr. Dawn Hughes to help her with this narrative. Dr. Hughes did not catch Ms. Heard's exaggeration during testing because Dr. Hughes used an improper malingering screening test. She wasn't going to find it.

MS. VASQUEZ: One that is meant to identify an examinee's intent to fake a severe mental illness or psychosis, not PTSD. Dr. Hughes diagnosed Ms. Heard with PTSD without administering the gold standard diagnostic test used for PTSD. She diagnosed her, think about that, she diagnosed her with PTSD administering the test she admitted was the gold 2] standard, two years after diagnosing Ms. Heard with PTSD and shortly, curiously shortly after ` Heard speculates wildly that she has somehow been damaged by Mr. Waldman's statements. But in reality, Ms. Heard has not 16:shown any damage .at-all that was because of or by Mr. Waldman's statements. There's evidence of a mountain of negative press coverage about Ms. Heard, including past reports about the defecating in Mr. Depp's bed, cutting off his finger, and putting out a cigarette on his face. But none of that has anything to do with Mr. Waldman's statements. And Ms. Heard presented no evidence, 3. none, of any film or other project that she has lost, lost, because of those statements. In fact, you heard from Warner Brothers' president, Walter Hamada, who explained that Ms. Heard suffered no loss, none, no loss of compensation or other adverse effect on her major film Aquaman 2. You heard it straight from him. Ms. Heard's expert, Kathryn Arnold , testified but for the statements from Mr. Waldman, Ms. Heard would be much more successful in her career.

MS. VASQUEZ: To form this opinion, Ms. Arnold compares Ms. Heard to actors such as Jason Momoa, the actual Aquaman, Chris Pine, Gal Gadot, and Zendaya. But as Richard Marks, who does deals every day, that's his job, not testifying here for a paycheck, does deals in Hollywood and Doug Bania, both testified that these actors are simply not comparable to Ms. Heard. After all, Jason Momoa, he was Aquaman, Chris Pine, he was Captain Kirk, Gal Gadot, Wonder Woman, Zendaya, she's been acting since she was 13 years old on the Disney Channel, and she's in every single Spiderman movie. Further, the Q scores of these actors are not at all comparable with Ms. Heard's

MS. VASQUEZ: Scores. As Mr. Bania testified, Ms. Heard's rating was less compared to these actors and all of Ms. Heard's Q score ratings were less favorable than the average of all performers. As you heard from Michael Spindler, because Ms. Arnold relies on the salaries of these comparable actors to calculate Ms. Heard's damages, Ms. Heard's claim for damages makes no sense: There's no connection. Further, and more fatally for Ms. Heard's damages claim, is that there's no connection to the Waldman statement, to Mr.

MS. VASQUEZ: Waldman's statement, Even if you find damage to her career, you have to connect it to the defamatory statements. There is no connection. Mr. Bania testified that all the negative tweets that Ms. Heard has entered into evidence has no causal connection to the statements underlying Ms. Heard's counterclaim. Specifically, Ms. Heard's expert, Mr. Ron Schnell, presented a full methodology that included picking out hashtags at random, including #Justice for Johnny Depp. What does that have to do with the Waldman statements? And counting accompanying tweets even though it had nothing to do with Mr. Waldman. Ms. Heard's counterclaim is based on statements by Mr. Waldman, not Mr. Depp. Ms.

MS. VASQUEZ: Heard knows perfectly well that she hasn't suffered any damages from those statements buried at the bottom of articles in a mere tabloid, the Daily Mail. And the statements are substantially true since they all -- since all they do, really, is point out that Ms. Heard's abuse allegations are false. Ms. Heard's counsel argued that Ms. Heard did not write the title of the online version of the op-ed, which stated "I spoke out against sexual violence and faced our culture's wrath. That has to change."

MS. VASQUEZ: Heard affirmatively reiterated the statement. She posted it on her Twitter. If we could please pull up Plaintiff's Exhibit 3. This is the tweet Ms. Heard sent. She retweeted the Washington Post tweet to a new audience, her own Twitter followers. And she affirmatively reiterated the statement by proudly declaring "Today I published this op-ed in The Washington Post." She didn't quibble with the title. She said, proudly, "Today I published this op-ed in The Washington Post." The title of the op-ed was prominently displayed in the tweet. That is enough for you, members of the jury, to find that Ms. Heard republished the title of the op-ed and adopted the statement as her own. She can and should be held liable and responsible for that statement. Ms. Heard tries to make something out of the fact that Mr. Waldman reported her to law enforcement in Los Angeles for perjury after her allegations of abuse were made against Mr. Depp.

MS. VASQUEZ: But I'll submit to you that all this proves is that Mr. Waldman believes Ms. Heard has committed Mr. Rottenborn argued that the lack of supporting evidence from Ms. Heard's allegations of horrendous constant abuse is somehow not something to be considered. But it is shameful for you to consider the fact that she didn't document all the terrible injuries that she claims to have suffered. That was a twisted argument. First, May 27, 2022 you know, because you have seen and listened to Ms. Heard in action, that Ms. Heard is a woman who's documenting things throughout their relationship. And it is instructive that the things she chose to document had nothing to do with violence. She documented Mr. Depp sleeping. She documented lines of cocaine featuring prominently Mr. Depp's loan-out company -- or production company, Infinitum Nihil. Staged photographs, that's what she documented. Mr. Rottenborn's entire argument assumes that Mr.

MS. VASQUEZ: Depp, a man, should be disbelieved because -- despite the fact that Ms. Heard can't support her accusations with actual evidence. What we have put to you, the jury, is not because Ms. Heard didn't take enough pictures or tell people about abuse, that it didn't happen. What we offer to you is that given how brutal and constant the abuse Ms. Heard claims, she would have had serious injuries. That's a fact. She would have had serious injuries. That would have been observable in the pictures we looked at and by the witnesses we heard from and would have required medical attention. That's it. Ms. Heard testifies to injuries that multiple people didn't see. What you have in the end is Ms. Heard's word. Do you trust it? We are not here because Ms. Heard told the world Mr. Depp is verbally abusive. This is not about the words used by Mr. Depp. We are here because Ms. Heard told the world that Mr. Depp was physically and sexually abusive. That's what Ms. Heard was saying in the op-ed.

MS. VASQUEZ: On May 27th, exactly six years ago today, 2016, Ms. Heard walked into court with a mark on her face to tell the world that her husband was abusive. She renewed that falsehood in her op-ed, describing herself as a public figure representing domestic abuse. And she published the op-ed, including the title, claiming that she spoke up against sexual violence. Everyone, everyone knew who she was talking about when she used those words. She was alleging physical and sexual abuse. She was not alleging emotional or psychological abuse. She was alleging physical and sexual abuse. Ms. Heard cannot run away from her own allegations now. You have all of the evidence of what she alleged against Mr. Depp in 2016, and you have all heard her incredibly dramatic, over-the-top story of physical and sexual abuse. That story was a defamatory lie. Ms. Heard tried to argue that you only need to find that Mr. Depp might have touched Ms. Heard once in order to find in her favor because that makes her a victim of abuse.

MS. VASQUEZ: But common sense should tell you that you can't pick and choose Ms. Heard's allegations. You saw her on the stand. We all did. She gave the performance of her life, telling story after story of abuse. And not just any abuse, but extravagant, over-the-top allegations of abuse that would be truly brutal, horrific, if true. You either believe all of it or you believe none of it. Either she's telling the truth, including in her most extreme allegations, or she's lying. 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. And if she would lie about that, what wouldn't she lie about? You can't find that Mr. Depp hit her once. Either he hit her countless times or you can't believe a single word that comes out of her. And what is the actual meaning of Ms. Heard's op-ed? That's an important question. It's not that Mr. Depp said a nasty word to her once.

MS. VASQUEZ: It's not that Mr. Depp might have hit her once. It's that she is a representative of domestic abuse and by extension Mr. Depp is a representative of abuse perpetrators. Words matter. Ms. Heard has shown you a lot of text messages from Mr. Depp with some very vivid language. As I told you at the start of this trial, Mr. Depp has a unique style of writing. He PLANE'(7954 to May 27, 2022 uses words I don't use, and you probably don't use either. But as you also heard during this trial, Mr. Depp writes in that way, in part, because he modeled his writings on literary giants like Hunter S. Thompson, and he's got a dark sense of humor. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but it's who he is, In Mr. Depp's own text messages he acknowledges that he said those things. And he said things that he shouldn't have. But using bad language and colorful humor does not mean that you are a violent abuser and, ironically, as much as Ms.

MS. VASQUEZ: Heard is trying to use Mr. Depp's words against him, it is Ms. Heard who repeatedly admitted to violence in her own words. You've heard the tapes. You've heard her admit to violence. Ms. Heard can try to distract you with text messages showing that Mr. Depp uses bad language and has a dark sense of humor. But none of that, I submit to you ladies and gentlemen, none of that is evidence of abuse. Hitting your husband is evidence of abuse. Mr. Rottenborn talked about the burden of proof. Let's talk about that for a minute. Mr. Depp only has to show that it is more likely than not, more likely than not, that the statements in the op-ed are false. That it is more likely than not that they have a defamatory implication; that it is more likely than not, that Ms. Heard designed and intended the statements to refer to Mr. Depp. And the evidence on these points is clear, Ms. Heard made these allegations six years ago today, May 27th, 2016. She went out of her way to make them public, tipping off TMZ.

MS. VASQUEZ: When she published the op-ed she was reminding everyone in Hollywood and the world of her abuse claims, and those claims are a lie. Consider that the true purpose of the article. Mr. Rottenborn said it was to promote legislative reforms. But what was it actually? The evidence shows it was to promote Ms. Heard. It was timed to be released at the same time as Aquaman on December 21st, 2018. And it was timed to coincide with her announcement of her ambassadorship at the ACLU for women's right. That's not a coincidence. It is designed that way. That is not a statement about legislative reforms. This was about furnishing Ms. Heard's reputation at the expense of Mr. Depp's. It was about Ms. Heard continuing to portray herself as a heroic survivor of abuse. And on the question of actual malice, that just means whether or not Ms. Heard knew the allegations were false. Ms. Heard knows perfectly well that she wasn't abused. She has direct knowledge of that. She was in that relationship. So actual malice is easily established.

MS. VASQUEZ: You may have noticed that no one showed up for Ms. Heard in this courtroom other than her sister. Other than a witness who traveled to Virginia for her as a paid expert. This is a woman who burns bridges. Her close friends don't show up for her. Mr. Rottenborn tried to discredit Mr. Depp's witnesses by suggesting they're all on Mr. Depp's payroll so he double downed the hoax theory that everyone's just lying. First of all, that's not even true. Keenan Wyatt isn't on his payroll, Ben King isn't on his payroll, Officer Melissa Saenz isn't on his payroll, Morgan Tremaine isn't on his payroll, Officer Tyler Hadden, he's not on his payroll, Beverly Leonard, Alejandro Romero, Brandon Patterson, Morgan Night. None of those people are on his payroll. And Kate Moss, Kate Moss is most definitely not on Mr. Depp's payroll. Ms. Heard wants you to believe that all these people were lying. Let's talk about the Boston plane. Ms.

MS. VASQUEZ: Heard wants you to believe that the recording you heard is from the Boston plane flight. But that's quite telling. What did Ms. Heard capture of this supposed rampage? Mr. Depp moaning in distress? That's what she chose to record. What sort of person records something like that. What sort of person takes pictures of their husband or boyfriend or fiancé, who is struggling with sobriety, nodding off with ice cream dipping down his leg, his hand in his pocket. Or asleep on the ground. What sort of person does that? Definitely not someone that's afraid of him. And Ms. Heard's attorney told the story of May 21 that was completely, utterly inconsistent with the testimonies of Officer Saenz and Hadden, who testified, clearly, that they saw no signs of injury, no sign of property damage. And she told a story about how Officer Sadanaga, I'll get that right, Sadanaga's testimony was also wrong. She testified that the report was only required in case of a crime. Ms. Heard's attorneys tried to tell you that Mr.

MS. VASQUEZ: Depp apologized on May 22nd because he had hit Ms. Heard. Mr. Depp didn't apologize to Ms. Heard on May 22nd for hitting her. He apologized because he was leaving Ms. Heard. And this was a woman, that in spite of all her violence and all her rage, Mr. Depp, he loved her. He had been with her for years. Of course he apologized when he finally broke it off. Ms. Bredehoft also tried to tell you that Ms. Heard did everything in her power to keep the authorities away and to not get Mr. Depp in trouble on May 21st, 2016. Take a minute and think back to what Ms. Heard did six days later, six years ago today. She walked into court with a visible mark on her face, not wearing makeup that day, she tipped off TMZ, she made it public and she showed up on the cover of People magazine with a mark on her face. Is that protecting Mr. Depp or was she trying to destroy him? Mr. Rottenborn asked you to consider why you're here. So why are you here? You're here because of a lie.

MS. VASQUEZ: And that was the lie that Ms. Heard repeated in the op-ed. At the start of this trial, we told you that this trial was about the evidence, The evidence overwhelmingly shows that Ms. Heard is an abuser and that she is a liar. She lied about Mr. Depp and took on the role of a lifetime as a public figure representing domestic abuse. What is her best evidence of that abuse? A video of Mr. Depp flinging cabinets around and text messages of Mr. Depp using bad words and dark, ugly humor. But never once admitting to abuse. Pictures of Mr. Depp sleeping. That's her best evidence. Ms. Heard, herself; Ms. Heard held herself out to the world as a representative of abused survivors everywhere. The face of the #MeToo movement. This is not a Me Too situation. There are no Me Toos. Just not Mes. Ms. Heard does not deserve to be known as a representative of survivors of abuse. And Mr. Depp does not deserve to be known as a representative of perpetrators of abuse.

MS. VASQUEZ: That is what this case is about. It's not about money. It's about giving Mr. Depp his life back, six years ago when she took it away. While you deliberate, ask yourselves why Mr. Depp would put himself through this, expose every embarrassing detail of his life on national television, if he was guilty of anything, anything, that Ms. Heard accuses him of. We ask you, we implore you to render a verdict for Mr. Depp. We ask you to set the record straight, that he is not the abuser she described and that she is not the heroic survivor she portrayed. And we ask you to tell Ms. Heard that what she did was wrong. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.