Can say this. I've paid a great deal of attention to the computer trial within a trial, and read far more than what the jury has been allowed to know. Also, I don't think I'm stupid.
But, I find all the computer stuff baffling. The technical details go in one ear and out the other, and I think its a safe bet that's true for most of the jurors.
If I were a juror, there are only a couple ways I could only make sense of why the computer stuff looms so large:
1. I'd get that the DT is whispering to me that Travis was a pedophile. I'd assume that the DT is hammering me about *advertiser censored* on the computer because they want me to believe there was child *advertiser censored* on the computer.
But......the State said not, and the DT couldn't say there was. FAIL
2. Less clear, but not by much, I'd think that maybe the DT is so big about *advertiser censored* on the computer because they want me to believe their story of Travis leading a double life. Good Mormon versus *advertiser censored*-watching, multiple GF sexting jerk, which opens the door to doubts. If he was all that, maybe he abused her too?
There's likely to be a discussion about the end of that line of thought. But it won't be whether or not fragments of a *advertiser censored* video exist on his computer.
3. I'd be aware that both sides seem to be accusing the other of not playing fair about what was found on the computer. For whatever reason. Beats the heck out of me why. Seems strange. So, if my fellow jurors find the computer stuff relevant and we have to choose who to believe, I'm gonna go with the side that seems to have been telling me the truth about things I can understand.