> I'm not sure why the article purports that "two white men" (I'm not white) were the "problem" here, and not that the problem was her inability to stand by her

> I'm not sure why the article purports that "two white men" (I'm not white) were the "problem" here, and not that the problem was her inability to stand by her convictions. She didn’t stand by her convictions because she had a history of being told to defer to white men. There was a whole section about her background to go into why she felt this way. The story is more about the woman, her situation and her desire for justice after decades so I can see why they left her reasoning in. Otherwise we would be clueless as to why she decided to vote guilty after feeling the guy wasn’t guilty then immediately change her mind again once the trial was over.