I'm not, of course, but the ID process leaves the jurors emotions (about the DP) entirely out of the equation, and instead focuses them on deciding the merits of underlying reasons for which (in this case) there was no doubt whatsoever imo. And I think you and all the others here would agree.
There were 6 questions in all, the following x 3
1 Was this murder of ____ committed for remuneration of some kind? [He clearly did each to obtain sex and money. Easy to say yes. Obvious.]
... If yes, were the mitigating factors sufficient to make the DP unjust? [No. There were no mitigating factors to consider.]
2 Was this murder of ____ committed in a heinous, extreme, cruel way of some kind? [Each murder fit that description too.]
... If yes, were the mitigating factors sufficient to make the DP unjust? [No. There were no mitigating factors to consider.]
All were clearly yes, and not offset by any mitigating factor. And that was all the jury had to figure out. None of the jurors had to wrestle with whether they like the DP or not, but rather with those 2 questions for each murder.