I have indeed read them, admittedly not in as much detail as I'd like to, but I see what Judge Nicol got with his reasoning. I think it was a fair trial and his reasoning was sound, what Depp's team did was try to suggest that Heard had instigated altercations, this is material irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether both of them were fighting, what matters is that she produced credible evidence to that judge he was abusive. I think the judge could've questioned the credibility of the evidence a little more (he was happy with her assertion she had 'donated' money for example) but he saw as much as he wanted to see and wasn't interested in picking apart her evidence.

The trial in America focussed much more heavily on the credibility of that evidence. It was also a fair trial and it was (legally speaking) an uphill battle for Depp. Defamation is a high bar and I didn't think he'd get there. I think the jury overreached and did so because Heard and her legal team engaged in the wrong strategy. It was the strategy that worked in the UK; but didn't work in the US. She wasn't attempting to convince one judge who wasn't particularly interested in the he-said/she-said notion of who hit who, she was trying to convince a jury that she was the victim of horrendous physical and sexual assault. A much better strategy would've been to stick to the legal arguments about what constitutes defamation and force Depp into an uphill battle to prove the piece was talking about her.

Heard was unconvincing on the stand and she was unconvincing in cross. I believe they likely engaged in mutual physical altercations at some stage. It seems feasible, but her testimony and the lack of evidence to back up some of the hyperbolic statements she made (no medical records, few witnesses, a lack of photographs) hampered her case. Had she alleged he hit her once and she qualified as an abuse victim on those grounds, and that the 'sexual assault' title didn't refer to Depp then I think she'd have won. She didn't. She went all in and she was a tricky client for her legal team to handle.

For what it's worth, I would've thrown out two of his three claims and all of hers. I would've found no punitive damages either side - and ordered her to pay $7m dollars to him in damages. That would've been defamation on Twitter for alleging sexual assault. I think it's very likely they hit each other at some stage because they're both toxic, however I think it's very unlikely he sexually assaulted her in the way she suggested - or that he physically abused her to the extreme she suggests. The reason I would've picked $7m is symbolic, it's what she was awarded for divorce settlement. There would be a heavy implication he donates it to the children's hospital she pledged (but didn't donate) the money to.

I think we may disagree because we favour the legal system of the opposing countries; but this has been a fun and respectful chat :o)