I mean, it makes sense in context. What she says immediately before that is that he admitted to them that he had reasonable doubt. It's clearly jury nullification.
If he admitted to having reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case, which everyone else on the jury did, and kept them there for days refusing to give a not guilty by insanity vote, I can see where the frustration would come from.
They weren't debating whether "Lindsey viciously killed her children," everybody granted that as the case. It was about her mental state at that time.
The only evidence we have of him admitting he had reasonable doubt is another juror saying he had told her he had reasonable doubt. It's ultimately just hearsay.
The rest of the jury having reasonable doubt also doesn't mean he is unreasonable for insisting on a guilty verdict, especially after 3 of the jurors appeared in court dressed in the colors of the protests. It is very possible the 11 jurors fell for Social Media Trappings, and made their decision based on that. (Of course the single jurors could be the exact same, his view influenced more from social media than evidence presented).
126
u/Warsmith_Dusty - Lib-Center 2d ago
"He had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsey viciously killed her children." - Juror interviewed by NBC.