Juror Four replied, “No, I couldn’t say for sure if it was Straub or the Rabbi. You see, his collar was too high on his neck and therefore a birthmark was not visible. In the courtroom, when they zoomed in on his face, it was as if I had been standing next to him, and I still couldn’t tell if he was the Rabbi or Straub. I also couldn’t tell for sure if the man left with a gun in that package.”
Juror Six immediately challenged Four. “It was a gun show, for heaven’s sake. What else would he have left with, a Subway sandwich or a McDonald’s hamburger wrapped up in newspaper?” he asked sarcastically.
“I don’t think you need to get nasty about it. I was just giving you my opinion.”
“I wasn’t trying to get nasty about it,” replied Juror Six. “I apologize if I came across that way, but we are dealing with a murder case here, and based on what you said, I just thought that you hadn’t put any thought into it.”
Juror One tried to calm things down. “All right, I can see that tempers are flaring quickly, and so early in the deliberations! That will get us nowhere in our discussions. We won’t be able to reach an agreement on any verdict. Please try and control your emotions.” She then said that she would ask to review the video again later.
Juror Eight chimed, “If Straub’s intention was just to go and talk to his brother at his home to prove that he was his twin, then why burn the body after he found his brother dead?”
Juror Four tried to clarify her position. “All I could see was that it was either Straub or the Rabbi on the video, but I did not see a gun wrapped up. For all I know, it could have been some fishing gear. I’m still not convinced.”
This pissed off Six again. “Allow me to remind you, Four, of one piece of evidence that may convince you that he did not buy fishing gear. If you go back to the video of his entering and exiting the gun show, Straub completely denies it was him on the video or that he was even at the show. If he had been at the show just buying fishing gear and not a .45 caliber Glock with a silencer, he would have had no reason to deny having been there. Plus, they don’t sell fishing gear at gun shows, for heaven’s sake. We have good reason to believe that it was not the Rabbi at the show because of all the evidence that it was Bloom who was cremated.”
“Now I understand. I forgot his testimony about the video at the gun show. I’ll think about what you just explained,” replied Juror Four to Juror Six.
Juror Eleven still had doubts. “Well, Number Six, you make a viable argument, but maybe Straub felt that he was just going to incriminate himself more by admitting that he was at a gun show, so decided to take his chances that perhaps some of us wouldn’t recognize him on the video. I for one didn’t recognize him, and I’m still not convinced that he committed the murder.”
“I understand, Eleven, but he had already perjured himself by his own admission and still refused to concede that he was on the video and left it to us to decide if we recognized him on the tape. He just lied and lied and lied. Now, I agree that doesn’t make him a killer, but as the old adage goes, “If you lie about one thing, how do I know you didn’t lie about everything?” Madam foreperson, why don’t we take another vote and tally it up?” asked Juror Six.
Juror One called for a hand vote. She asked everyone to raise their hands if they are now voting guilty and ten raised their hands; only two raised their hands for innocent.
It was now 11:45 a.m., and the foreperson took lunch orders from everyone, walked out of the jury room, and handed them to the bailiff. They waited for about twenty minutes before lunch was delivered. They all ate together in the room and discussed the case among each other. About 12:30 they notified the bailiff that lunch was over, and both the bailiff and a court janitor came in and cleaned up the room and refreshed the cold drinks and coffee/tea. The jury remained silent while the two men were cleaning the room.
Once the room was clean, jury deliberations continued.
Number One said, “Alright, Number Five, you voted innocent, why don’t you try and convince the rest of us why you believe Straub did not kill the Rabbi.”
Juror Five was a man in his late twenties, a factory laborer newly married to a saleswoman at a department store cosmetics counter, as revealed from the vois dire.
“All that the D.A. has proven to me are the things that Straub himself admitted to. Everything the D.A. accused him of is based completely on…what do you call it…?”
Juror Nine spoke up, “Conjecture.”
“That’s right, Number Nine, thank you. It’s conjecture and coincidence, because nobody actually saw Straub kill the Rabbi,” said Juror Five. “For me, the only proof I can accept is an eyewitness, fingerprints, and maybe what some of this new-fangled DNA stuff indicates, if they can get me to understand it, that is. Nothing else will do.”
“So, without a witness, fingerprints, or matching DNA, you will not change your mind from innocent, is that correct, Number Five?” asked Juror One.
“I believe that’s exactly what I said, Number one. I don’t recollect any testimony in which any of the three things I mentioned were brought up by the prosecution.”
Juror Seven was a stately older woman most likely in her late sixties and very smart. She remembered
