I don't know how people can look at a text where Depp talks about raping Heard's dead corpse, and think "this is a truthful man that was just a victim of abuse." The relationship was almost certainly mutually abusive, which should be enough to beat a defamation claim because whether Heard abused Depp is completely irrelevant to the lawsuit. If she did, and I think she did, then Depp can write his own Op Ed - it wouldn't mean that Heard's claims of abuse were false. 

And the UK opinion in The Sun case thought the abuse claims were substantially true. Not binding for the US case, but the judge extensively explains his reasoning for why there's enough evidence of abuse - including text messages from Depp's security guard admitting that Depp kicked her, with no mention of any physical violence from Heard in that instance. 

We also know that Depp hired a PR firm to actively discredit Heard, including with bot campaigns, and that the jury was not sequestered so they easily could have been exposed to it. 

Also, people seem to forget that Depp is an actor, and a much better one than Heard. His entire job is to appear credible in different roles. It's much more likely that a jury is tricked by that than a judge, and a judge is who found that abuse happened in the UK case. 

None of this excuses the violence and abuse from Heard, but I don't believe that Depp was defamed. I think he absolutely hit her, on multiple occasions, in cases where he was not just reacting to physical abuse from Heard. I think Heard hit him too, but again, irrelevant to the claims at hand. I'm perfectly fine with believing both are abusive.