Anyone else look at every poll result and then take the percentage of guilty votes and work that out as a percentage of 12 to see if we'd still get enough of a majority guilty verdict if it reflects the jury's feelings too?

(No? Just me?) FWIW the answer is still 'yes' if we include the 'some but not all' guilty votes (10.4 people out of 12) and almost yes (9.9 people) on the guilty of all category. I'm sure it means nothing, it's just my anxious control-freak way of trying to know the as-yet unknowable of what the jury are thinking. I've tried it on the Facebook group polls as well but it was far less reassuring...
I don't view the opinions of people who voted in the poll here as being representative of the jury at all.
Mainly as when I read the reasons and arguments being made by the 'innocent' or 'scapegoat' supporters both here and on other forums, I know they're not valid. I've followed the case through court nearly every day for the last many months and debated in depth on another forum so I know the prosecution arguments and evidence for every case. I know the defence didn't have one single expert witness to refute any of the prosecution allegations.
The defence only called on one person - a plumber whose testimony was a sideways issue completely unrelated to the illness or deaths of any babies (because none of the babies died of any type of ailment caused by poor sanitation and there has never been any suggestion of that).
Initially, I firmly believed LL had been scapegoated and targeted due to a failing, dysfunctional hospital, maybe under staffed with high staff turnover and a lot of temporary staff and agency staff. I believed that she may have been present more often because she worked far longer hours etc. Every single one of the points of view that I firmly held have been completely shot down in flames over the last 7 months and there is clear and cohesive evidence as to when and how LL harmed the babies.
I believe the jury will quickly convict. Just my personal opinions, I am not a lawyer.