Sounds like there maybe a few hold-outs amongst jury members, charged as they are in determining proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Over the weekend I was recommended reading on former NSW prosecutor, barrister and author, Mark Tedeschi's views on reasonable doubt:
Another is that circumstantial evidence can often prove to be more effective than direct evidence to establish guilt. In such a case it is the combination of a number of pieces of evidence to build a complete, or near-complete but unmistakable picture, that is significant in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Here he's referring to celebrated murder cases yet a few on the left suggest circumstantial evidence applies in this case also. Maybe this is the sticking point amongst jury members.
