I think they would have won if they'd kept it about boring semantics and freedom of speech, focussing purely on the article at the centre of it all. But Amber Heard's insane narcissism and society's insane feminism made them think they were undefeatable, even if they used the trial as a stage to re-narrate Heard's victim narrative. That made it less about technical questions of her free speech and all about her credibility, of which she had none.

Honestly, if you put an 'expert' like that Dr Spiegel in front of me to validate your account of events, I'm just going to assume that you lie about anything and everything and you think I'm an idiot. That was probably the jury's reaction.