Just catching up after...washing the lunchbox
Yet another mundane thing I can't approach straightforwardly.
Just thinking on the requested clarification. I know we're indulging in quite useless speculation, but for what it's worth IMO:
1. I think it's QUITE revealing that only one juror hung back in the courtroom, if only from a group dynamics perspective. Leaving him/her behind could be interpreted as a kind of 'got that now?' thing;
2. Could be that there is one piece of circumstantial evidence one or more are stuck on. Unlikely to be the scratches IMO, but take for example the blood in the car. Just like on here, some jurors may think the ONLY rational inference to be drawn from that evidence is that Allison bled in there on the 19th/20th, thereby proving the fact that she was violently assaulted, by the accused, at that time. Other/s might think there is another rational and innocent reason for it being there and that if that is more likely than the assault theory, they are to err on the side of the accused's innocence;
3. If that's the case, I don't think it speaks against a conviction, for there are many pieces of individual, circumstantial evidence to be sifted through in that fashion and added together.
I hope that makes sense?