The testimony in the murder trial of Richard Tuite is over. The evidence is in, some 592 pieces of it. But just where the jury is leaning is a question no one has an answer for.

The eight women and four men on the jury have spent fewer than five hours deliberating the case. They had a day off Friday; they'll pick it up again Monday morning.

At stake is the fate of Tuite, a 35-year-old mentally ill transient who prosecutors say slipped into the Crowe home in January 1998 and stabbed 12-year-old Stephanie Crowe as she lay in bed at her Escondido home.

The jury has heard from investigators that spots of the girl's blood were found on the shirt he was wearing that night.

But the jury has also seen videotaped interrogations of Stephanie's brother, Michael, and one of his teenage friends, interrogations during which both admitted to the killing.

Jurors know that Michael Crowe, then 14, and pals Joshua Treadway and Aaron Houser were jailed and charged with murder. They also know that Crowe and Treadway recanted.

The jury watched all three boys testify that they were not involved in the murder. And they've heard bits and pieces that the boys' families filed a civil suit regarding the case.

As for Tuite, they've heard testimony placing the schizophrenic man in the neighborhood. They've also heard arguments that police could have accidentally gotten Stephanie's blood on Tuite's clothing.

There are no fingerprints, hairs or fibers that place Tuite inside the Crowe home.

Poker-faced jury

During the three-month case, jurors gave little indication as to which way they might be leaning. Some took copious notes, others mostly listened.

There was some laughter from them during lighter moments of testimony, and a few dabbed at their eyes following tougher, more emotional moments. Many let out heavy sighs after listening to the panicked 911 calls from Stephanie Crowe's parents the morning they found their daughter in a pool of blood.

One raised her eyebrows in surprise when she heard that Tuite had ripped a screen door off the hinges on the home of a young girl whom prosecutors said Tuite followed.

At least five of them scribbled notes when a police officer testified that he thought Stephanie's brother, Michael, was faking tears as the officer interrogated him.

And there was at least one "whew" from the jury box when the judge told them more than a week ago that they had finally heard from the last of the 169 witnesses called to the stand during the three-month trial.

But throughout most of the trial, the jurors were poker-faced.

Guesswork

Legal experts agree that it's hard to read a jury.

"You can never predict what a jury will do," said Marjorie Cohn, a criminal defense attorney and a professor of criminal law at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego.

Cohn said she sometimes has been surprised by what a jury will find important or tangential.

"Sometimes you would never expect they had the concerns they did or decided on the basis they did," Cohn said.

San Francisco-based jury consultant Constance Bernstein, who has been in the jury-reading business for more than two decades, said she looks to see who the most sympathetic characters are in the trial. Those are the folks, she said, that jurors often identify with most.

"It's all about credibility and who they like," said Bernstein. "All of us make our decisions based on our feelings. … Then we find whatever rationale we need to to justify it."

Reasonable doubt?

Still, experts agree, reading a jury is all just guesswork. And this time, it seems tougher than usual to offer up a guess.

"This case is so different from any other I've seen," said Cohn, the law professor. "You've got a confession from three boys, but a different person charged. … There is built in reasonable doubt."

If reasonable doubt does exist, she said, the jury will have to come back with a verdict of not guilty.

"Not guilty is not the same as innocent," Cohn said. "It's saying not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

And if the jury doesn't buy the theory of two separate instances of accidental contamination of Tuite's clothing, are spots of blood enough to convict him when there is no other physical evidence placing Tuite in the Crowe home?

Kevin Cole, a professor at the University of San Diego School of Law, said a jury can harbor doubt about how a crime was pulled off but can still feel the defendant did it beyond a reasonable doubt.

"There's room for some uncertainty," Cole said. "It's not easy to reconstruct what happened."

Consequences of the verdict

Both sides have already formally agreed that Tuite's jury can consider first-degree murder, second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. They will have to make their deliberations without hearing from Tuite himself, who did not testify.

If convicted on the most serious charge, Tuite could receive anywhere from 27 years to life in prison.

If the jury acquits him, he could still face charges for a brief escape from the courthouse in February.

If the jury can't reach a unanimous decision and return as a hung jury, Tuite could be retried.

Contact staff writer Teri Figueroa at (760) 740-3517 or tfigueroa@nctimes.com.