I know it's distressing to hear juror questions that seem to explore alternative theories or accept Jodi's story, but I wouldn't take them at face value. In many instances where you find someone who seems unreasonably skeptical, they're simply confirming their belief by arguing for the other side and seeing if they get the answer they expect. It's surprisingly common in adult learning. Anyone who has ever facilitated a seminar or workshop knows the type. They sit in the back of the room with their arms folded across their chest and sharpshoot every imagined inconsistency and demand proof of every assumption. At the end though, if you've been responsive and provide them with patient explanations, they're not only convinced, they can become zealots.
I haven't seen formal research about this, but in my experience these people are frequently a group I call "cautious risk takers". That sounds like an oxymoron, but it makes sense when you understand how their decision making process works. A cautious risk taker will spend a lot of time assessing pros and cons, gathering information, and imagining outcomes. They're not impulsive at all. At the end of their fact finding phase, however, they're not only decisive but they also will accept extremely high levels of risk. They just hate surprises. Once they believe that they know what the dangers are, they aren't deterred by the prospect of failure.
I think there are one or two jurors who fit this profile and might make deliberations longer than necessary, but in the end they'll be more convinced than anyone that the 1st degree/premeditation verdict is correct.
