What vindication? He lost the UK case, won the US case. He's 1-1. I don't know if he's guilty or not.
Have you actually read any of the details on the UK case or is your opinion based merely on headlines?
The judge in that case ruled in favor of The Sun because he opted to simply believe that Amber Heard and a couple of her friends were being truthful, despite the major holes in their testimony. For instance, the judge said that he didn't think Amber Heard could've possibly been a gold digger because she claimed to have donated the entirety of her divorce settlement, and not only did the judge not require paperwork verifying her claim, it turns out she didn't donate ANY of her divorce settlement. The judge also dismissed all of Depp's evidence, including: survellance footage, emails, audio recordings, pictures, tapes, cheques, and witness testimony. Meanwhile, Amber's photographic "evidence", which was later proven to be photoshopped or completely fabricated, was allowed in the trial.
Furthermore, and most importantly,
the judge in the UK case should've never presided over the case because his son works for the same person who owns The Sun magazine (i.e. the defendent).
In fact, when you actually look at the bias, corruption, and connections between those who were suppose to be neutral parties, it makes the American justice system look amazing:
When Heard was put on trial in
AMERICA and didn't have the benefit of a corrupt court, all of her evidence was debunked, while all of Depp's evidence showcased how Heard was the actual abuser and not him (for example, she severed his finger).
