No. I don't know. I know what people testified to, but I don't KNOW because I wasn't there. These audios are ambiguous at best - and so open to interpretation. You're reading it as Depp as an abuser, but as I'm listening he's occupying about 5% of the total talk time and she is overwhelming. Having met and worked with people who have BPD on a professional basis, that diagnosis seems pretty much on point.

You either believe in a legal system or you don't. I do. I think the trial was a fair one - and I believe the evidence submitted was fair. Though, as I've said I think the jury reached the wrong conclusion. However, I'm not a member of the jury. There were things left out on both sides of the argument that can go down the conspiracy theory argument. Jerry Judge's audio was omitted (because he's dead), likewise Amber Heard's texts to her mother weren't available either and much of Jessica(?) Howell's testimony was redacted - because she was reporting what Whitney had said to her about what Amber Heard had done. You can always find more and more evidence... but that's not the point. I found (like the jury did) Amber Heard to be unconvincing on the stand... and it would've taken a mountain more evidence to move me into believing her narrative, there were just too many inconsistencies.

Now you can call that a masterful manipulation and controlling the narrative if you like - but that's what lawyers are paid to do. You cannot pre-decide the case and then look for evidence to support your hypothesis, you have to look at the evidence presented to you in its entirety... not speculate about what was missing, or what could've happened, who could've been paid off, who was missing, what was unsaid, or even what was found in previous court cases. You look at the evidence in the court case and you make the decision. My decision was similar (but not the same) as the jury because on the balance of probabilities I think she lacks credibility - I also think he does too. But I think she was guilty of defaming him. If you want to debate further then bring me evidence from the case itself, not the previous case, not something on audio that wasn't submitted because there's some nefarious conspiracy theory going on etc.

I'm not saying that people can't argue there has been a miscarriage of justice - what I'm saying is that if you haven't bothered to watch the trial and you're going on your 'gut feeling' then you're ill-equipped to make that argument. In fact, it's arguing this 'gut feeling' position that caused much of the problem in the first place. I think my posts are pretty well researched and I'm not wandering off down subjunctive rabbit holes of what might've been, if we'd been looking at a different case or with different people, or had some wishful thinking in play