1) Yes. And she claimed on the stand that she was physically abused. Therefore the jury concluded that she was lying.

I shouldn’t have used “abused,” actually. They beat up on each other. They were two people who routinely beat up on each other. It was a volatile relationship between two volatile, violent people.  It’s fucked up, but to call yourself a victim of abuse as if it were a one-sided affair is a lie by omission. It’s just…

I’m a lawyer so I’m statistically unlikely to be chosen for a jury.  Lawyers don’t like other lawyers on the jury because they can’t trick us.

Sure, but I don’t think a couple of quotes pulled from an interview are meant to convey that that was the entire basis of the verdict either.

Because all you keep doing over and over again is show that you don’t understand how a defamation tort/suit works. If you accuse me of libel, the burden of proof is on me to prove to in a court of law that I what I said is true and not libelous. It’s not a “best interest” thing. It’s literally what you are required to…

You are right but you will never get anywhere arguing it here as people here are not lawyers and do not understand the law. Way too many media people falsely said if Heard proved she was hit once she wins, and that was not the case at all.  She claimed the abuse was all one way and it was obvious she was talking about…

He’s on a press tour. How many Tom Hanks interviews are you reading when he’s not?

Your “belief” is wrong in this particular case since it was Depp who sued Amber because of the WaPo op-ed piece. The burden is on her to prove to the court and the jury that everything she was saying in that article was true. She counter-sued, so that put even more burden of proof on her.

Throughout my life I’ve found that the vast majority of people who can turn the waterworks on/off at will are at best less than trustworthy, at worst they use that ability to get what they want whenever possible.

Witness credibility is left exclusively to the jury.  Everything counts--not just what’s being said, but how it’s being said.

Yeah I’ve learned that the vast majority of people who can turn on and off the waterworks at will are not generally trustworthy.

1) Judging by the extended quote the juror concluded she wasn’t physically abused.

She had the burden of proof if she was claiming truth as a defense. 

Judging witness credibility is the primary job of the factfinder (jury in this case, judge in bench trials).

“I think you might be under the impression that the system we have for meting out justice in American society is a fundamentally good one, and I’m afraid to say that you’d be utterly wrong.”

1) The juror did not apparently believe that she was abused.

No, that’s that what ElectricSheep is saying. In a case like this where she is the defense, the burden of proof is on her and her crappy lawyers did not do a good job convincing the jury of that proof, nor did they do a good job coaching her on testifying on the stand enough to convince a jury. This happens all the…

She’s not a victim... 

You can put it that way if you want.  Or her lawyer could have told her not to put on a performance at all and to just get up there and talk like a normal person.

For greater context, from the original interview on GMA.com: “Heard’s credibility was suspect throughout the duration of the trial, the juror said. Besides how she acted on the stand, several other factors led the jury to believe Heard was not credible, the juror said.