It seems like those in the "guilty" category are angry about others trying to be objective about the evidence and I wish I could understand that. I have a science background, worked as a chemist for many years and I think it's my instinct to look at everything with an open mind and scrutinize everything as thoroughly as possible.
It's a good observation. I think for many (most?), there is a tendency to "weight/process" new facts/evidence against the already formed opinions. Things that support the opinion are emphasized, things that do not are minimized (consciously, or unconsciously), this is what happens... it just does.
Some of this is human nature I think and the way we (as individuals) are 'wired' It actually takes a great deal of effort - (probably almost constant) to stay
purely objective (in this matter and pretty much any other matter where there's some degree of empathy/resonance and potential for emotion).
Just MO...but it's also part of the reason the guidance from the judge to the jurors is to not only refrain from talking about the case, but to refrain from a rush to judgement until seeing all the evidence, from both sides. [ Prosecution has a (slight) advantage here in that if they can bias the jurors to have a filter by the time the defense comes on board... it helps them... defense has advantage in that they get to go last... maybe it balances...]
That said, while there's a lot of folks on the board who's 'intuition'/gut thinks he did it (perhaps for good reason, and general stats back that up no doubt), there's also definitely a lot (like yourself) who are trying to keep it scientifically balanced until proven, focusing only on the facts/evidence.
Based on the evidence/testimony given to date, and posts on the board, I'd still be surprised if a significant number would/could honestly return G 'beyond a reasonable doubt' if on the jury today. [Obviously there's a lot more to come though, and we shall see to what extent that changes when the prosecution rests. (later this week?) ]
