Still, a second juror said the similarities between the attacks lent credibility to the women’s accounts. “Each act happened the same way,” the juror said. “Each person said the same thing.”

The three jurors thought Mr. Weinstein’s decision not to testify or to have his brother or close associates vouch for him probably hurt his case. The one friend who did testify, Paul Feldsher, did not help the defense, two jurors said.

Mr. Feldsher, a writer and former talent agent, said Mr. Weinstein was a “sex addict” whose appetite for women was “to put it mildly voracious.”

“He threw him under the bus,” the second juror said. “That didn’t help his case at all.”

Though the jurors said they were aware of the trial’s importance to the #MeToo movement, they said they concentrated on the evidence. The deliberations went on for 26 hours, exhausting them physically and emotionally, they said.

By the third day, the jury table was strewn with snacks — a box of Dunkin’ Donuts, takeout boxes of coffee, Sour Patch Kids, chocolates. Every day, the jurors, unable to go out for lunch during deliberations, ordered from the same deli. They took short breaks to venture outside, to smoke or just to get some fresh air.

They drew timelines on a second whiteboard. An oversized pad was brought in to write notes on. They scribbled down a partial verdict, then ripped it up, worried it might leak.

On the first day, the jurors settled on a system. First, they sought to understand the legal definition of each charge. Within the first hour, they asked the judge for an explanation of the law and definitions of several terms, including consent and forcible compulsion.