This is specious. They needed unanimity, so they would only need 1 to hang the jury - and the mob would only have to coerce that one in order for what you falsely label a 'crackpot premise' to in fact be trueYou say it wasn’t proven. 12 people more versed than you on the subject disagreed. Wait. Are you or anyone here saying that their more competent concerning the details of this case than the 12 people on the jury? He was convicted by his peers. People who put well more time in on the subject than us armchair QBs. The ONLY fallback you guys have is the crackpot premise that all 12 of them, who in your opinion thought he wasn’t actually guilty, were intimidated into reaching the conclusions that they did. It’s easy to reject that, and think that people who say such are justifying why the jury didn’t reach the decision you wanted.