Going Forward With 11 Jurors
Tongues wagging about why Fitz wanted to add another juror and Wells didn't move for a mistrial but insead wants to go ahead with 11 jurors. The best explanation I've seen so far (and Christy agrees) comes from froggermarch in the comments:
Reading between the lines of Well’s comments, it seems that he was defensive about “not being on the precipice of a mistrial” or somesuch. It seems to me that one reason Fitz would want to have the next alternate join in deliberations now is that it is more dangerous for an alternate to be tainted. He is concerned about the short bench of alternates and believes the deliberations are going to go on for a while. He WANTS them to take their time, because the more they go through the evidience, the less the memory defense holds water. Introducing a new juror, particularly one he thinks is sypathetic to the prosectuion, would tend to push any pro Libby jurors to look more carefully at the evidence.
Just a WAG, but that’s my take on why Fitz preferred to go with 12.
That jibes with what I've seen in the courtroom. Both of the alternate jurors (one white, one African American) are women and appeared very attentive to Fitzgerald's points. Wells only needs one hold-out, but neither of those looked particularly likely to be one, especially not during closing arguments.
I don't buy the argument that Wells is afraid Libby will run out of money, that will NEVER happen, and a mistrial would serve to delay things, which definitely serves the interest of Team Libby. I imagine that whatever happened was just not that bad, as Walton noted, and didn't make its way to the rest of the jury.
Andy McCarthy has another thought.