In order to vote for life because of the lack of evidence, you would have also had to vote guilty despite the lack of evidence.
Does anyone here understand that it's wrong to send a man to prison for life because you don't think he's guilty? If he's guilty, he gets the death penalty. If he's innocent, he gets life. Does this really make sense?
Yes, of course. But perhaps some jurors were only 85% sure he was guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt) and can't go further down that road to the death penalty. However, if I were on a jury with you, your cold hard logic would probably win me over. And maybe that's exactly what went down in the jury room. We'll soon find out.