I think that’s a fair assessment, though I’d argue that Nicol’s reluctance to take in other witnesses (to prevent DARVO) - meant he threw the baby out with the bathwater. There were problems in not exploring the veracity of all the evidence - and this became the backbone of the US case.

DARVO was also very successful in this instance because Amber Heard’s testimony was so weak and had periods of self incrimination. I think the jury made an error in their overreach on two of the three counts and the whitewashing of JD’s behaviour is happening off the back of that. Juries can be misled by DARVO, but I think in this instance they believed this was Amber Heard’s strategy.

As always, it often comes down to the strategies employed by the legal teams. She did better than she should’ve done in the U.K. and he exceeded expectations in the US. I would be interested to know what the US judge made of the whole thing, but she seems far too professional to talk.