It may have made sense to hold the trial in California, but Depp's team were looking to win and that would've put them at an unnecessary disadvantage. The jurisdiction was chosen for a reason and, as it turned out, this wasn't an unnecessary vexatious case. The televising of the trial was also Depp's choice - and I think there was good reason for that too.

I don't think this was an open and shut case, whether or not she cut his finger off or shat in his bed is neither here nor there. We don't KNOW that Depp is abusive, that was what she failed to prove across the course of six weeks. She had the burden of proof on this one, she had to prove her statement was true. Only once. She had to prove that on ONE occasion she had a compelling witness or an indisputable piece of evidence.

Regarding the text you've said, the testimony given by Stephen Deuters in the British case was clear. He said Depp tapped her on the bottom with his shoe. He later went onto say he sent the texts to Heard to placate her at Depp's request. The judge took in the evidence of the text and ignored the testimony because he believed Deuters was a compromised witness - neither side brought Deuters into court on this case presumably because he would've been a shit witness for both sides. Here is the actual testimony he gave. https://www.nickwallis.com/_files/ugd/5df505_3af069960ed64ffa8fe68eacf51d1767.pdf

I have argued that I think the jury did an overreach on this one... not because I think Depp is abusive and a monster, but I think there was very likely mutual abuse at some point and this meets the criteria for a successful defamation defence. However, across the entire trial Heard tanked her own legal defence. It was a difficult case for Depp to win and Heard's lack of evidence and unconvincing witnesss did not help her.

The jury should've been sequestered - but once again, you get what you get. I disagree with you. I think The Sun Group (not Heard) won in the UK because she was a witness for the defence, not a defendant - and so she wasn't subject to any of the legal rules of disclosure. Her evidence did not need to be given to Depp's legal team and it was not scrutinised closely enough. There are a number of barristers over here in the UK who have questions about how the case was handled by the judge - an over reliance on her testimony against the evidence and believe it could be (and might be) appealed. This may put it in line with the US case as the two were so markedly different. Here's a British barrister talking about some of the concerns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPfPG0qSERs&t=235s

It was found in a court of law and a unanimous jury against the odds of legal precedent that Mr Depp was the victim of defamation, it is widely believed he was the recipient of physical abuse and yet we're still having the 'he made it up' debate, bringing in evidence from outside of the trial itself, calling into account behaviours like his drinking or drugs, bringing up issues like sequestering - and make no mistake this largely because Depp is a man and some people don't like the result.