The article cannot substitute for what the jurors saw, to be fair. Not that jurors are infallible, but still, all we know comes from a few lines on Wired. Presu

The article cannot substitute for what the jurors saw, to be fair. Not that jurors are infallible, but still, all we know comes from a few lines on Wired. Presumably the jurors saw the evidence and didn't believe his denials. There is knowing with all its degrees but also there is 'should have known.' I suspect that he knew what his pals were up to and that's good enough.