He wanted to find him innocent? How can that be -- the innocence of a defendent in a criminal trial is assumed! That presumption of innocence is the starting point, and the required priority in decisions as to whether a thing that might indicate guilt one way or innocence another -- the innocent way must be followed, even if it is much less likely, yet in some way reasonably possible.
Rather than looking for a thing that "doesn't fit" to a presumption of guilt, a juror has to require that all things fit perfectly and have no alternative. To act as a juror in allowing that there is some theory of facts that would lead to a guilty verdict, and then proceed to look even most forcefully and painstakingly for something that just doesn't fit -- is NOT the way is expected by long established common law practise, by statute, by juduicical instruction and by oath.
I see that you're clutching at straws to keep from appearing a fool for supporting this child-murderer.
Too late, by the way.