In a resurfaced clip on TikTok, an Oxford student came up with a question that abuse victims have been trying to ask Camille Vasquez, Johnny Depp's lawyer. Referencing the UK court, which found 12 out of 14 abuse claims in court are 'substantially true', the student confronted Vasquez about her personal take on the case against her client.
'How did you feel as a woman not only defending but as you said to court "going to care" for a man who is already known as a prolific domestic abuser here in the UK, a man who said to court "Let's drown here before we burn her I will f*** her burnt corpse afterwards to make sure she's dead"?', the student asked.
@nosleepenergy 🔥Student GRILLS🔥Camille Vasquez at 🏰Oxford Union🏰 How did Camille hold up👀？ #camillevasquez #oxforduniversity #oxfordunion #universitylife #deppvheard #amberheard #johnnydepp #depptrial Union membership called me poor. Not paying up the university any more dosh after my 30 grand tuition lol. didn't go to the talk in person. Video clips were circulated around text threads.
♬ original sound - nosleepenergy
Instead of dodging the question, Vasquez explained why the cases in the US and UK were very different. She pointed out that Amber Heard wasn't a party in the UK case, meaning she didn't have to submit all the evidence she had, like phone or computer files. Some of her evidence was even seen as doctored or contradictory to her story.
Depp's Lawyer on UK Court Trial
Vasquez also explained that in the UK, witnesses don't get to tell their story freely. This means they can only answer questions during cross-examination.
'Ms. Heard was not a party to make a case and therefore disclosure obligations were very different. And she got to pick and choose the evidence she submitted, including not submitting her phone and computer and devices that showed her photographic evidences having doctored', Vasquez said.
That meant the UK trial couldn't present Heard's side in the same narrative way as the US case. Finally, Vasquez mentioned that Heard's claim of PTSD wasn't medically tested in the US case the same way it might have been in the UK. She was making a technical but important point: differences in the legal systems — and in who was involved — led to dramatically different outcomes.
Public Reaction to Depp's Lawyer Choosing the Case
A large number of Reddit users were supportive of the student who raised such a difficult question, mentioning that it necessitated a conversation on how lawyers manage their own morals while representing their clients. One user clarified that even a lawyer who holds very strong beliefs might still have to defend a person he doesn't agree with in order to maintain the justice system.
Some individuals who disagreed with the question referred to it as being confrontational and basic in nature. They argued that lawyers are supposed to give the needed representation regardless of how controversial the client is.
Nevertheless, others believed that a lawyer should not behave like Vasquez in the court, like reportedly spraying Depp's cologne in spaces Heard used, which she called 'psychological warfare'. Quite a few people felt that it was far beyond being a normal legal advocate, and it raised the question of ethics on how far a lawyer can go in helping their client.
It's interpreted that Vasquez didn't actually defend Depp on a personal level; she laid out the reasons why the US legal system permitted them to present the case in a different manner, why Heard's evidence was selectively submitted, and that law and procedure differences affected the results.
Basically, she indicated that the issues were not about morality but about legal rules and evidence. Nevertheless, the Oxford student did not receive a reply to their question regarding how Vasquez felt, as a woman, defending a man who suggested the brutalisation of another woman.
