Amber Heard's testimony “didn't seem credible,” says juror

A juror in the libel trial against Johnny Depp and Amber Heard said one of the reasons for the verdict against the actress was that her testimony did not seem “credible”.

Speaking to the US news program Good Morning America (GMA), the anonymous juror said the Aquaman star had been poorly advised by her legal team.

Two weeks ago, a jury in Fairfax County, Virginia, found a 2018 article Heard wrote for the Washington Post about her experiences as a victim of domestic violence to be defamatory.

In her first television interview with NBC Today, which aired in two parts on Tuesday and Wednesday, she said she did not blame the jury for viewing her and her former partner as “Hollywood brats,” but stressed that she harbored “no ill feelings or resentment” toward Depp.

The actor consistently denied the “outrageous, absurd” allegations of abuse during his own testimony and said he had “speak out for what I have reluctantly carried on my back for six years.”

The 59-year-old was awarded $10.35 million (£8.2 million) in damages.

After the trial, Judge Penney Azcarate ruled that the identities of the seven jurors would remain secret for at least a year.

Regarding Heard's testimony, the juror told GMA: “It seemed like she could switch her emotions.

“She answered a question, started crying and two seconds later she went ice cold.

“It didn’t seem natural to me.”

Depp, on the other hand, he added, “just seemed a little more genuine in his answers to questions.”

The juror also said there were inconsistencies in Heard's testimony about her use of makeup and that the dispute over her charitable donations was “a fiasco” for the actress.

During the six-week trial, Heard was confronted with questions about why she had not yet donated her $7 million (£5.7 million) divorce settlement to charity as promised.

The juror said Heard's legal team “had sharp elbows instead of being sharp.”

“They cut people off during cross-examination because they wanted a concrete answer without context,” he said.

“They forced people to answer only a very narrow question… which was obvious.

“She needs better advice.”