Trashing her reputation in the court of public opinion, as he has rather successfully done is pay back for her daring to speak up about the abuse that she suffered at his hands, as well as her history of abuse, which quite likely made her susceptible to become involved with him in the first place. The ACLU doesn't take cases lightly or inadvisedly, so if they are involved at all, that speaks volumes right there. Your assumption that they didn't do any due diligence whatsoever is based in nothing but you wanting it to be that way for the convenience of your narrative. This sort of baseless prognosticating is irresponsible and besides that you don't actually know that she has a personality disorder just because some shill on Depp's legal team determined that she did. Paid witnesses aren't actually worth the paper the money they are paid is printed on as far as being definitive or unbiased.

Of course he will bounce back quicker than she will because of the gross social and cultural power imbalance and the fact that problematic men with clout never pay any significant cost for what they do unless it is so egregious and happened so often that they they are actually prosecuted under the law, as with Cosby or Weinstein.

I'm not asserting that one of them is good and the other is bad. There's a lot more nuance to be had in this case, but as usual, you've made assertions you can't remotely back up, so I'm not sure what the point is of saying them except to produce your own Op-Ed.