As far as Bob's point, one may claim that "overwhelming/preponderance" of evidence is present, while another on the same jury, may disagree. Right?
Well, another point I was trying to get across is that the way people think specifically can mean that what some people believe to be hard evidence, other people don't believe that it is and may think that something else sounds more plausible. If a debate drags on for days and all of the different arguments are used up and exhausted, with no budge of opinion on either side, then there's really nothing you can do and re-using the same old debates is just like talking to brick walls. It's not necessarily hard-headedness, it's just the way their brain thinks, if you understand what I mean. I had a really good way to word it, but I can't recall what it was...
But there are only 7 reports that are left so soon enough all will be out with the Emily,Rita and Vince reports are the most important of those 7 left.