After six weeks of testimony, the jury in the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard defamation trial heard closing arguments on Friday.

Deliberations began immediately afterward, and some observers predicted that the seven-person jury would return with a verdict that same day.

For the most part, this prediction was put forth by Depp supporters.

From the start of the trial, legal experts opined that a long deliberation would be bad for Depp and good for Heard.

So as we enter the afternoon of the second full day of deliberation, the alpaca contingent is growing concerned about what this prolonged period of reflection and debate might mean for Team Depp.

Speaking with Yahoo News Los Angeles attorney Chris Melcher warns that it's much too soon to jump to any conclusions.

"Court watchers have made up their mind and some cannot understand why the jury has not immediately returned a verdict for their favored party. That's not the way it works," Chris Melcher tells the outlet.

"The jurors spent six weeks listening to conflicting evidence. They must weigh that evidence and decide who told the truth," he continues.

"Then they must figure out what the jury instructions mean, which are statements of law that are easily understood by lawyers but no one of the jury is a lawyer," says Melcher.

"The verdict must be unanimous under Virginia law, which means all seven of the jurors must agree on the answers to a series of questions. Getting seven people to agree on anything is difficult. This will take time to do it right."

Attorney Rachel Fise echoes Melcher's comments, telling Yahoo that there's little to be gained by scrutinizing the jury's deliberation time.

"Since the trial was over six weeks and the various elements and damages are fairly complex, the deliberation time thus far does not quite give us a window into what they are thinking," Fise says.

Thus far, the jury has only submitted one question to the judge, and of course, the internet is dissecting the query in search of insights into the jury's thought process.

The question had to do with the headline to the 2018 Washington Post essay in which Heard identified herself as a victim of domestic abuse.

Depp is suing Heard for $50 million, alleging that the piece is full of lies and did irreparable damage to his career.

"Amber Heard: I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture's wrath. That has to change," the piece was titled.

On Tuesday, jurors asked the judge if they need to consider that statement on its own, or if it should be viewed only in context with the rest of the piece.

"Johnny Depp claims that specific portions of her 2018 op-ed are false. Those passages were identified for the jury and they must decide whether each statement is false. One of the alleged defamatory statements is the headline of Amber's op-ed article," Melcher says.

"The jury asked whether they must find that the headline is a false statement about Johnny or whether they must consider the whole article is false. The judge answered that they are only asked, in this instance, whether the headline is false," he continues.

"This indicates that the jury is taking their job seriously. They cannot answer the questions on the form unless they are clear about what is being asked."

Heard's legal team emphasized that she did not write the headline, and many have taken the jury's question as a sign that they're ignoring that caveat, which could be a good sign for Depp.

But again, Melcher warns, no one will really know what the jury is thinking until the trial is over and the seven Viginians are permitted to speak with the media.

"Juries are unpredictable," Melcher says.

"Trying to decipher who they might be leaning toward by their questions, or facial expressions during trial, is like reading tea leaves."

We'll have further updates on this developing story as new information becomes available.