Reading the Libby tea leaves.

The Libby jury quit early for the weekend today but left a big clue where they are going:

"We would like clarification of the term 'reasonable doubt,'" jurors wrote. "Specifically, is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

Of course, I'm only speculating, but if this is really the question that's hanging them up, it looks to me like Libby's goose is cooked (or getting there fast).

This sounds to me as if there are one or two hold outs for acquittal who have been saying that they can't be absolutely, 100% sure that Libby might not have forgotten and that the government didn't prove that it was not humanly possible for him to have forgotten. The others, holding out for conviction have probably forced the one or two holdouts to agree that if the judge puts the government's burden lower than this, then they will go along.

Of course, the burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is much lower than proof that it's not humanly possible, and I sure the judge will tell them that, though I'm sure Libby's defense team will try to get the judge to use language that's so confusing the jury won't be able to understand it. We'll just have to wait and see.