brainlet, it was a preponderance of evidence that dissolved any notion that she was not as Depp's team argued. This is what her useful idiots in the media avoid talking about by always stating that her article "didn't mention him by name" when they know the plaintiff claim was 'defamation by implication'. Because she has personality disorders, she's habituated to using covert means to achieve her goals in any social situation because 'the real Amber' is someone she can't rely on. She hates her and reasonably expects others would too if they could see her. She could never talk candidly about her marriage to Depp; it doesn't mean her intent to attack him in order to present herself in a favourable light is any different than if she had been explicit. She's forced to be implicit, but the intent and effect is and was the same. It can further be seen in how she instructed her counsel; feeding a hilariously distorted and self-absorbed account of the appointment with Dr Curry, which provided a complete vindication of Curry's assessment.
Depp meanwhile outright admitted to his failings as a man and husband, showing contrition and humility. This contrasted with his previous relationships where his personal troubles were just as bad, and yet he was nothing like the person then which Heard had attacked the reputation of(and then compounded with her hearsay about Kate Moss). The determining factor in the toxic relationship was of course, Amber Heard; the fake philanthropist.