In the first few paragraphs he is summarizing her testimony. Her testimony, if true, is shocking. The question is if its believable. In one important way, this trial is quite different from other cases of abuse. Usually there is one potential victim and one alleged perpetrator, who denies the allegation. In this case both sides level drastic accounts of abuse against each other and both accounts are incompatible with each other. In this situation the notion, that we should take accusations very seriously and shouldn't disregard them, applies to both sides equally.
I havn't read this blog post completely, but as far as I can tell, it omitted all the evidence, that put Amber's account into question, most notably the audio recordings. I am 99% sure, that without these tapes, Amber would have won this case, but they are make her look so bad. They just don't fit with her version of events at all.
"I didn't punch you. I didn't punch you. By the way. I'm sorry that I didn't hit you across the face in a proper slap. But I was hitting you. It was not punching you. Babe, you're not punched. You didn't get punched. You got hit. I'm sorry I didn't hit you like this. But I did not punch you. I did not fecking deck you. I fecking was hitting you. I don't know what the motion of my actual hand was, but you're fine. I did not hurt you. I did not punch you. I was hitting you."
She even gets agitated when Depp is saying, that its not okay to punch him. In these few minutes she confirms pretty much every single cliché of an abuser, not the victim. If Depp would have said that, the trial would have been over after 5 minutes, rightfully. There is obviously other evidence and its fine to come to different conclusions, but we don't need to come up with "social media trial" explanations, to understand why the jury came their conclusion.
