Here's the part I'm most interested in, why did one jury get deadlocked in five hours of deliberation and the other find him guilty in just over one hour? What changed? Was there new evidence that came to light or was the jury biased against him? It's noted that the second jury was almost entirely female and they are generally considered extra protective of their children. Is it possible that they were all mothers and biased against him from that?
If the evidence were the same then any reasonable jury should always come to the same conclusion. Considering the first jury was deadlocked it doesn't seem like the evidence for him knowing that the boy was a teenager was all that strong.
He did do furry a terrible injustice with his description of it though.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Here's the part I'm most interested in, why did one jury get deadlocked in five hours of deliberation and the other find him guilty in just over one hour? What changed? Was there new evidence that came to light or was the jury biased against him? It's noted that the second jury was almost entirely female and they are generally considered extra protective of their children. Is it possible that they were all mothers and biased against him from that?
If the evidence were the same then any reasonable jury should always come to the same conclusion. Considering the first jury was deadlocked it doesn't seem like the evidence for him knowing that the boy was a teenager was all that strong.
He did do furry a terrible injustice with his description of it though.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~