The only thing I think has been proved here is how rotten the system is. It's a rich person's playground where the best legal team will likely win, and the twisting in the interpretation of the evidence by both sides at the end seems to me totally immoral. I was stunned that this was allowed.
My own feeling is that he's economical with the truth but she's a pathological liar. I'm still reasonably convinced that he is abusive. As for her, lying and screwing with people's heads is also a form of abuse so this in itself places her firmly within that category.
It doesn't matter a toss what I think, of course, but if I were a juror I'd put aside these personal inclinations. What matters is what the evidence shows. Because she stood up and made hideous accusations against him, her team needed to provide some compelling evidence as to their truth. Granted I didn't watch every single witness but I don't believe I saw it. As for her counter claim, it's undeniable that there has been an orchestrated and particularly horrible media campaign against her, but it will be the devil to prove that Depp was responsible for that. Society hates women and Heard won't be the first or last to experience this (cd. Meghan Markle).
So they're left with mostly her word, and a few bits of circumstantial evidence, but that evidence overall is weak. His team know their job, are good at it, and have shot her credibility completely to shreds. She was convincing in the stand, but pathological liars very often are.
It sticks hugely in the craw, but were I on that Jury, I'd be inclined to find for Depp. I don't think Heard has a hope in hell of winning this case; her counterclaim, even less so (I've changed in that position, as I did think she might have a chance of proving that).
I would not be her right now for anyone's money. The media are going to a vicious number on her regardless of the outcome, but if she loses she'll be destroyed. I hope she doesn't come to harm.
Either way, Depp is certain to be okay.