A decision object stands out as very unique, potentially marking the start of a new line of inquiry. The survey comprised 700 questions across 143 pages, an extensive workload that itself invites careful interpretation. In the room this Wednesday, observers noted a shared sense of confusion among the jurors as they navigated the myriad options presented by the presiding judge, who tried to narrow the field while still showing the scope of possible outcomes, averaging around 70 considerations per victim in some moments.
This unfolds during an appearance called by the judge under Section 57.2 of the Jury Act, a provision described as optional by some. Typically, deliberations proceed at a measured pace, paused only when jurors raise questions themselves, and carried forward as long as needed.
During the hearing, all lawyers and defendants were present and agreed to convene in a public setting precisely to address the complexity and length of the survey, and to avoid delays that could arise from a closed process.
Jury members—seven women and two men—made a request and presented two questions. The judge acknowledged the dialogue with warmth, noting expectations of lively exchanges and partial congratulations as he read the jurors’ concerns aloud.
The first question asked, what is meant by macho dominance. The term was introduced in the survey because both public and private accusations have highlighted the role of gender as an aggravating factor. In brief, the accused selected certain victims because they were women, and the judge framed this behavior as a form of asserted superiority rather than a standalone crime.
The president explained that this factor is a cross-cutting element, not a single crime in itself, deriving from a belief in personal superiority that can intensify any criminal act. To illustrate the point, he offered a parallel about racial discrimination: liking to mingle with someone who is non-white or insulting someone on account of race reveals a prejudice that goes beyond a discrete act and expresses a belief of superiority over others, which can drive abusive conduct regardless of the initial crime.
Disrespect for the result
The second question drew more reflection and confusion, hinting at the jurors’ state of mind during deliberation. They asked whether the accused understood that cocaine intoxication could be deadly, yet that the intention might not have been to kill, instead revealing a pattern of pushing boundaries in his practice. The inquiry distinguished between outcomes that could be fatal and the intent to provoke death through actions themselves.
The first statement reveals hesitancy about the accused’s intent to kill Jorge Ignacio PJ in sexual encounters with victims. When asked to clarify the legal difference, the jurors described two scenarios applying to willful homicide: final intent, where death is foreseen and accepted as the consequence, and direct intent, meaning the death is the explicit purpose of the act. The goal was to illuminate how intent is interpreted in context, not to redefine the case by itself.
The judge cited an example from a courtroom forensic expert: a scooter driver who accelerates or brakes at an amber light while a pedestrian crosses. It may look like a quick, automatic decision, yet it carries consequences that a thoughtful mind would recognize as dangerous. This example served to separate actions driven by self-deception from those taken with a direct aim to cause harm, while noting that criminal liability can arise in either scenario because the action itself creates a foreseeable risk.
Another illustration generated debate: a scenario of reckless murder. The judge had not introduced this possibility during the trial, but the written record of the decision included it, prompting jurors to revisit their thinking. The defense signaled openness to the idea, while the prosecutor urged caution, saying the topic was not to be pressed in that setting.
In closing, the magistrate reminded the jurors that reasonable minds may interpret the same facts differently. If a juror feels stuck on a question or a case, they should keep reviewing the material until the end, because new connections can emerge as the mind revisits what has already been seen. Even without immediate clarity, the process can reveal the essential pieces that fit together to support a careful verdict.
In this way, the session underlined the importance of deliberation, the effect of complex evidence on juror perception, and the careful balancing of intent, possibility, and consequence in reaching a just conclusion. The day’s discussion left jurors with a clearer path forward, even as they acknowledged the inherent difficulty of weighing these nuanced questions.