Sometimes the simple answer is the answer. They might have all just known and they did the initial vote and it wasn't difficult because there was no disagreement. The charges were not complicated. They didn't have to decided did he actually physically do the murdering, was it manslaughter, was it 1st degree, etc. They just had to decide if he knew before. It was very simple because if they thought he knew or had any involvement big or small, he was guilty. Some cases it's a matter of arguing over degree of murder or is it manslaughter, was it an accident, was it intentional, etc. This was easy in that way because if they all believed he was involved in any way, he was guilty.
We've spent years looking at this case and seeing things the jury didn't, looking up good and bad about the victims, the accused and so many theories we've discussed angles we've looked at or connections between people that we know about and the jury just had what was presented in court. We don't even have all of that because some people opted out. I think we all made it more complicated and maybe some expected it to be proven he was actually there that night. I can remove Jake and Angela from testifying and still see proof that he knew and participated. That is all the state had to prove.
