All three statements pertained to Amber Heard's 2018 Washington Post Op-ed in which she did not include Johnny Depp's but it was clear (and the jury specifically found) she was referring to him. The op-ed was in both the print and online editions. These are the three statements:

• "I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture's wrath." (headline to article which Amber Heard repeated in a tweet with the link to the op-Ed) and some other comments which the jury found amounted to a re-publishing of the headline
• "Then, two years ago, I became public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture's wrath for women who speak out."
• "I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse."

The jury awarded Johnny Depp 10 million in compensatory damages and 5 million in punitive damages. Like I said, a home run. The judge later reduced the punitive damages to $350,000. which is the maximum under Virginia's statute.

As to Amber Heard's counterclaim, she alleged three statements by Johnny's former lawyer, Adam Waldman, were defamatory to her. (She alleged Johnny was liable for them because the lawyer acted as his agent/representative). The jury found Heard did not carry her burden of proof as to two of the three statements -- the jury did not even find the first two statements were false. The lawyer's third statement was found to be false, defamatory and made with malice. (Johnny was held liable under an agency theory, that Waldman was acting as his agent at the time).

All three statements were made in a single interview with the lawyer that appeared in England's The Daily Mail:

• Amber Heard and her friends in the media use fake sexual violence allegations as both a sword and shield, depending on their needs. They have selected some of her sexual violence hoax 'facts' as the sword, inflicting them on the public and Mr. Depp. (Not defamatory, even though the word "hoax" is used.)
• "Quite simply this was an ambush, a hoax. They set Mr. Depp up by calling the cops but the first attempt didn't do the trick. The officers came to the penthouses, thoroughly searched and interviewed, and left after seeing no damage to face or property. So Amber and her friends spilled a little wine and roughed the place up, got their stories straight under the direction of a lawyer and publicist and then placed a second call to 911. (False, defamatory and made with malice. Emphasis by me as to the parts that could be considered defamatory. They match the police testimony at trial and the admissions of the lawyer as to what he said. The jury did not find the use of the word "hoax" itself to be false and defamatory in the first and third statements, so it has to be the remainder of the quote the jury found false.
• "We have reached the beginning of the end of Ms. Heard's abuse hoax against Johnny Depp." (not defamatory, even though it uses the word "hoax").

On the second trip back to Johnny's apartment, the officers found no evidence of spilled wine, and the place wasn't roughed up. The three women present (Amber, her sister and her former friend Rocky) were not cooperative with the police. Shorter version: There was no evidence the second police visit that night was a set-up by Amber and her friends so only the second statement by Waldman was false and defamatory.

The jury awarded Amber $2 million in compensatory damages and rejected her request for punitive damages. Her lawyer mentioned her legal fees so far were $6 million. Several media outlets have written that the insurance company for Amber's homeowner policy is covering the fees.

I am glad Johnny Depp won so decisively. He did not deserve to have to go through this. Not every drug or alcohol abuser resorts to domestic violence. How much money he makes and how he spends it is his business. Not ours.

The long and short of it in my view is that Johnny's legal team outclassed Amber's legal team and ran rings around them. Amber's lawyers couldn't keep up. They didn't have the same handle on the evidence. Their courtroom skills were fair to poor. The most glaring examples were when Amber admitted under re-direct examination by Johnny's super fast-on-her-feet lawyer Camille Vasquez, that she did in fact write the op-ed about Johnny.

The second was when Amber's female lawyer Elaine tried to question Amber on re-direct in the counterclaim part of the suit and in rapid fire, Camille objected to about 30 questions as leading, hearsay, irrelevant to issues in the case, lacking foundation, outside the scope of cross, etc. Almost all the objections were sustained. Elaine finally gave up. There are tik-tok videos of the episode, it was so unbelievable that an experienced lawyer got so flustered she couldn't get a proper question out.

In my view, Amber Heard and her legal team failed miserably. Her lawyers claimed she had a "First Amendment" right to publish the op-ed. That fizzled quick. Amber's continual assertions that she is just a Proud and Patriotic American exercising her rights was a joke, especially after admitting multiple times she struck Johnny. When Johnny Depp's former girlfriend, super-model Kate Moss, testified by video from the U.K. that Johnny never threw her down any stairs when they were on vacation as Amber had testified she had heard, and in fact Johnny was not even in the room but had rushed back in after she fell to help her, I think that sealed the verdict against Amber.

It is true that public opinion weighed heavily in Johnny's favor starting with his own testimony at the beginning of trial. During Amber's testimony, she admitted punching Johnny. In my view, and this is solely my opinion having watched almost all the trial testimony on You Tube, she came across as unconfident and often non-responsive (no matter what was asked, she would look at the jury and tell them what she wanted to tell them, rather than answering the question like she was supposed to.)

Amber seemed to me and thousands of others who watched parts of the trial as playing a role -- the victim-- and it came across to me as a performance. The abuse episodes she brought up dramatically increased in number and intensity between when she testified at earlier depositions and at this trial. The "rape by bottle" incident was one such newly disclosed incident -- one for which she denied seeking medical attention. She delighted in filming and recording Johnny, but curiously didn't take photos or selfies of the injuries she claimed to sustain.

Another instance: Amber had always maintained her first year of marriage to Johnny Depp was "magic" and then in the second year, drinking and drugs turned him into a monster. But during this trial, she said the physical abuse (of which none was proven during the trial) -- being slapped by Johnny -- began during their honeymoon. Inconsistencies in Amber's testimony were everywhere.

As Depp lawyer Camille Vasquez pointed out in closing, no one other than Amber testified Johnny Depp had ever physically abused any woman, and not a single woman in his 40 year dating history had ever come forward to make such a claim against him.

Amber's sister and friends were not helpful. Her sister and her former friend "Rocky" lived for years in one of Johnny Depp's LA penthouses, without having to pay rent. At times, to me, they came across like a family of grifters.

Amber also didn't come off well when she tried to explain why she do what she pledged at the time of her divorce settlement agreement: She would give the $7 million she was awarded to the Children's Hospital and the ACLU. In fact, she gave a fraction of it.

On Tuesday, a prerecorded deposition from Candie Davidson-Goldbronn, a representative of Children's Hospital Los Angeles, said the organization only ever received $250,000 directly from Heard, in addition to a $100,000 payment made by Depp's money manager as part of her divorce settlement. That's far less than the $3.5 million she had pledged to the organization. The representative said they followed up with Heard's contact about whether to expect any future payments on that pledge and never received a response.

Earlier in the trial, a representative of the ACLU said the organization only received three payments made in Heard's name, totaling $950,000. They said only one came directly from Heard, while another was from Depp's money manager, and the third was believed to be from Musk.

Other testimony hurting Amber: The former producer from TMZ who filmed Amber getting a TRO against Johnny in 2016 testified as to how he got the tip and what he was told. He was told Amber would be going to the LA courthouse the next day with her publicist to get a TRO against Depp and that she would stop on the way out so that TMZ could get a photo showing the "bruise" on one of her cheeks. The tip obviously came from Amber's camp, and in fact she did stop and her cheek was photographed. Amber's lawyer accused him of testifying for his 15 minutes the same. He cleverly retorted that he could same she was doing the same thing by representing Amber.

Another Amber misstep: Maybe she thought a Virginia jury would be all Republican white women. The jury was anything but. She should have dropped her "it's my constitutional right as a patriotic American" argument. She came off like a child of Donald Trump with that line, which she repeated and repeated towards the end.

Amber's most unpardonable sin, however, again in my view, was her turning her head after being asked every question to answer directly to the jury. I'm surprised his lawyers didn't object. (Camille once told her to stop arguing to the jury as no question was on the table, but I don't recall an objection to her turning to answer every question to the jury. Jurors are spectators, not trial participants. Lawyers question witnesses, and the witness is supposed to answer the lawyer's question while looking at the lawyer -- no one else. Amber's continuous and very distracting turn of her head to face the jury before answering any question made it appear she was trying to curry favor with the jury and it didn't work (and was improper in my view). I'll add a 9th Circuit judge's explanation of why this is improper when I find the case I recently read on it.

No one expected Johnny Depp to win this case, after he lost a similar case in the U.K. I think there are three reasons for Johnny's win: (1) Johnny was a very credible, humble and thoughtful witness. (2) Amber was a terrible witness. (3) And Johnny's lawyers were in a league of their own compared to Amber's lawyers.

Johnny Depp brought in lawyers from an internationally renowned law firm with offices in several countries. The ones trying his case were from the firm's Litigation & Arbitration Practice Group . Check out the credentials of Benjamin Chew, the leader of his trial team. Here are the credentials of Camille Vasquez, who has become elevated to "rock-star status" in the eyes of Johnny Depp's fans. (Rightfully so, in my opinion, with one exception: She wrote out her entire closing argument and read it word for word to the jury, rather than just referring to it for the points she wanted to remember to make and speaking extemporaneously. )

Depp's law firm, Brown Rudnick, issued this press release after the trial, praising the trial team.

Partner Ben Chew led the BR litigation team, which also included partners Wayne Dennison and Rebecca MacDowell Lecaroz, and associates Stephanie Calnan, Andrew Crawford, Yarelyn Mena, Jessica Meyers, Samuel Moniz and Camille Vasquez.

Here is the firm's list of all of its partners and associates just in the Litigation and Arbitration section.

Shorter version: The jury used its common sense in evaluating the different versions of events presented by the parties and witnesses from both sides and found that all three of the defamatory statements Depp complained of were in fact false and made with malice. It awarded Depp 15 million damages and $5 million punitive damages (later reduced by judge to $350k which is statutory max in VA for punitive damages). The jury found Depp's former lawyer Adam Waldman made one defamatory statement with malice to Heard and awarded her $2 million compensatory damages and no punitive damages.

Congratulations to Johnny Depp. He did what he set out to do: He got to tell his side of the story in his own words to the world. He cleared his name as to allegations of physical abuse. He won.

Let them both move on. We should all move on too. The only message I find from this case is a welcome one: No one should be deemed credible and able to destroy another person's career based solely on their gender. Everyone deserves their day in court.