Wow, love this question. Impartial due process as it relates to the presumption of innocence? Bottom line, imo...I don't think it's humanly possible because of the nature of the human brain.
As a juror, you begin at innocent. As testimony accumulates, it becomes part of the process. That process, which comes naturally to humans, is to categorize information based on recognizable patterns. That is how we label and file things in our brain to make sense of information.
As information is obtained, we assign a value of importance based on how it is fits or doesn't fit into a perceived pattern - in this case, pattern of guilt or pattern of innocence. A juror is aware of the overall balance as the information accumulates, and while they certainly can say they are not leaning one way or another, they are definitely aware of the tipping of the scale. The opinion being formed is fluid. It has to be in order to know where to focus when going into deliberations. Otherwise, every single thing that was presented during trial would have to be discussed all over again to be assigned a value. Obviously, much of the testimony is re-discussed in deliberations, and that is where individual categorizations can be changed to have more or less weight. I don't believe you can listen to six months of testimony and truly have no opinion as to which way the scale is tipping. Due process doesn't really exist as technically defined. It exists a fluid process, not a fixed one.
At websleuths, we are not held to the standards of jurors, which allows us to formulate theories that may be completely wacky. Frankly, I think trying to set up a separate thread to "act" like we're jurors is absurd. We've been exposed to way to much information to try to revert to a clean slate.