A jury trial is not a propaganda movie... though each side of a jury trial will attempt to skew the facts in their favour whilst calling into question the evidence of the other side. That's how an adversarial court system works and that's how we separate truth from lies.
We're getting into non-legal territory here; the question was 'Did she defame him?' the answer after the jury listened to both sides was 'yes'. That's the legal question being asked and answered. Whether or not he took drugs, said horrible things or texted horrible things was included in their decision making. They listened to it, he spoke about it, they believed him. Their marriage doesn't have to be going well for her to make accusations she can't substantiate.
I think the jury over-reached but largely because Heard's legal strategy was so poor. She was caught in lies far too many times, presented poor evidence/no evidence and doctored photos. That's why seven people unanimously reached the same verdict.
I have put my thoughts down in an article if you want to further analyse... so I'll save repeating too much.
