My quote is being used out of the context it was given. Someone asked *why* the jury was not allowed to use what he did after she fell, or what he was holding in the picture to determine his guilt or innocence. I used a hypothetical to aid in making my point, in order to hit home why it was irrelevant in determining why she went over the balcony. At no time, was any evidence produced, that what was in his hand, was used to force her off of the balcony. Even if you could identify what is in his hand, which you cannot, there is nothing to tie it to why she went off the balcony, especially at the time of deliberations. Most everyone here vilified the juror that posted on Instagram, and have questioned the intelligence of the jury as a whole. The judge obviously felt the same way when he received the question. It was a signal that one or more jurors were trying to play CSI, and hanging the jury up with what was in his hand. My hypothetical, (what if they could identify the object), was intended to make one realize that yes, even if it was a cheese knife, then it didn't really play a part in anything else presented, clangy noises or not. They were deliberating. No evidence was given that any object forced her off the balcony. At no time did I state that LE shouldn't be trying to look for it, trying to identify it, or otherwise. Obviously, they should have, and potentially should still be aware it could surface. I even speculated in that same post, that it could be something containing video of the altercation. It could have also been his weed stash he didn't want LE to find, or an embarrassing sexual aid he also didn't want LE to find. No one knows. Thus, the judge forced the CSI jurors to stop focussing on something that couldn't help the case along to a verdict.