There is something strange there that we don't know. What my question is, is that if all the jurors thought that the judge would decide (LWP or LWOP) if they couldn't be unanimous, then why didn't they all just vote life? There is something there that we don't know. I thought maybe the Foreman was being deceiptful, but then Juror 6 apparently said all the jurors got along really well and are a team, and she apparently didn't say anything negative about Foreman.
To me, there is something very fishy about the fact that 2 hours in or so into deliberations, they asked the judge what form to use if they couldn't come to a unanimous agreement. Then the Foreman through the media has said that in the end "they" didn't think it was a fair burden to put on them deciding life/death b/c they are not legal minds or versed in the law.
Could it be that they had already discussed this scenario in earlier deliberations? For example, perhaps the earlier deliberations were very tiring and wore them out (which Foreman admitted), and he also said they had heated discusssions. Could it be that they somehow had made an agreement that during the life/death phase, they were going to defer the decision to the judge? I am trying to understand....I hope someone interviews a juror about exactly what happened during those deliberations....
