[UCANSEE2]

Why would all 12 have to adopt that theory?

I didn't state clearly what I meant, apparently. Of course, each juror could pick their own reason for REASONABLE DOUBT.

I was centering on her idea of the print/hair/dna in the MH as being the core of the evidence. Guess what she said didn't support my proposal as much as I first thought.

[truth_seeker]

Of course, each juror could pick their own reason for REASONABLE DOUBT.

I guess then, conversely, each juror could pick their own reason, for GUILT? I mean this seriously.

Presuming that from one to twelve jurors DO vote guilty (murder), I believe they may be swayed to differing degrees, about certain items of evidence.

Say two vote guilty. One might say, he was convinced of guilt, because of the blood. The second might say she was convinced of guilt, because of the prints.