Court TV Host: Send in your questions now for Durst juror Chris Lovell. Mr. Lovell, thanks for being our guest today online. Before we start, anything you'd like to say that you haven't gotten a chance to talk about so far?

Chris Lovell: I want to thank Court TV for giving me this opportunity for getting the jurors' side out because I know that it was a shocking verdict. And I can certainly say that some didn't want to talk to the media. They were overcome with emotion, and I can understand that. There are twelve people who know what happened in that deliberation room, and I'm glad that we have a chance to get it out to the public.

Question from Dave: Since Durst's testimony, the dismemberment and disposal of the Black's body, and Durst's flight were not considered in your verdict, what was considered?

Chris Lovell: What was considered was the evidence, the physical evidence, that the prosecution presented -- hundreds of pieces of evidence, and that's part of the reason that it took us almost thirty hours. We looked at everything in those boxes over three days, and I was looking for something to convict Mr. Durst on. I felt like we owed it to the prosecutor to look at everything he presented. He put a tremendous amount of work into this case, and I believe that Mr. Sistrunk and Mr. Bennett did the best job they could with what they had to work with. But after three days of pouring through all of the physical evidence, including testimony from witnesses, there was nothing to support the prosecution's claim that it was not self-defense. I did not know this, but it was told to us in the trial, that in Texas, that if you claim self-defense, you do not have to prove it. The prosecution has to prove that it was not self-defense. If they can't, then by law we have to believe the defendant that it was self-defense. And there was no physical evidence to support that it was not self defense, including two crucial pieces of testimony from the lead homicide investigator in the case.

Question from magnolia: Do you think there would have been a different verdict in this case if the D.A. had given the jury the option of manslaughter and not limited the jury's choice to murder or not guilty?

Chris Lovell: I don't want to go there. That is one of the what-if's or could-if's. But manslaughter was not an option in the charges, so therefore I couldn't tell you the outcome. It wasn't in the charges, I didn't think about it. Thank God I didn't have to.

Question from emcas: Was anyone convinced he was guilty at the beginning of deliberations?

Chris Lovell: Yes. When we went into deliberations Wednesday at 4 o'clock, after we had a brief discussion and then we took a quick vote, and the vote was 3 guilties, 5 not guilties and 4 undecided. Mr. Durst never had more than 3 guilty votes during the entire deliberation. We took another vote Friday evening before we went home for the weekend. We did not take a vote on Thursday. Friday night's vote was 9 not guilty and 3 undecided. We had already lost all the guilty votes. Monday afternoon we took a third vote, and that vote was the same as Friday's 9 not guilty, and three not decided. And Tuesday, we had the final vote.

Question from Was: Was the final verdict reached on evidence rehashing or jury tiredness or both?

Chris Lovell: Jury tiredness had nothing to do with it. It was evidence rehashing. The deliberation room was tiny, it was hot and uncomfortable. But at no time did anyone's discomfort rush our decision.

Question from massviewer: Would you classify your 'not guilty' verdict as 'not proven' or 'innocent'?

Question from ctm: Do you really think he is innocent or was there just reasonable doubt?

Chris Lovell: There was reasonable doubt, and I'm not saying I think he's guilty. There are so many unanswered questions in this case, and the only one who has those answers is Robert Durst.

Question from John_Springer: Chris, first let me say how great it is that most of the jurors are out there discussing this controversial verdict. I'm wondering: If the jury disregarded Durst's testimony, does mean he would have been acquitted even if he hadn't testified based on your feeling that prosecutors didn't prove murder?

Chris Lovell: There's a simple one word answer, and that's yes. Robert Durst spent three or four days on the witness stand. He had obviously been well-coached.

Question from ally: Chris, what was your opinion of Durst, when he testified?

Chris Lovell: He told a story, and I didn't believe all of it -- he said a lot of things that obviously were not true. And in closing arguments, the defense must have sensed that some of the jurors were not buying Robert Durst's story, so the defense attorney told us, if you're having trouble believing Durst's story, throw it out -- and judge this case based solely on the physical evidence and testimony from the other witnesses. And we felt his story had so many lies in it, we didn't know what to believe in it. So we threw it out. And after looking at every single piece of physical evidence and a key piece of testimony from the police investigator -- he was asked by the defense, and I'm not quoting this -- the question was something along the lines of 'Did you find any evidence that this death was not self defense?' -- and his answer was no, sir. And the same investigator was asked, did you find proof as to whose fingerprints were on that trigger when it was pulled? And he said no, sir. And no proof is no proof, and the prosecution has the burden of evidence, and their lead investigator admitted twice that they did not have the proof to prove that it was not self defense. That was a very strong piece of evidence. And the jurors admired this police officer's honesty. He got up there and told the truth and just couldn't convict Mr. Durst.

Question from debbie: How does somebody kill, cut up the body, admit it and get acquitted?

Question from emcas: Did the gruesomeness of his acts afterward make it hard to come up with a not guilty verdict?

Question from qdpie: Why wouldn't you convict the guy if he admitted to dismembering the body? Doesn't that show that he knew he was wrong?

Chris Lovell: First of all, he never admitted to killing him. He claimed Morris Black died accidentally. I believe that chopping up the body was a cover-up but not covering up a murder. He had accidentally killed Morris Black and he was covering up a suspicious death inside his apartment. He didn't think people would believe his story.. He was under suspicion in the disappearance of his first wife. He was living a very bizarre lifestyle, living as a woman in a $300-a-month apartment when he had millions of dollars. It was just too weird of a story to believe.

Chris Lovell: I've got to run now, but I'd just like to say... I can certainly understand how people would have a hard time believing the verdict. There had been two alternate jurors released who both went on TV and said they thought he was guilty. There are two ways to make a decision in any murder case -- the first is go through seven weeks of trial, listen to testimony of 60 witnesses, view hundreds of pieces of physical evidence, deliberate twenty five to thirty hours with eleven other people who have just seen and heard the same thing you did, and come to a conclusion. Or you can watch TV. Before you answer that question, I want you to answer this: If you were on trial for murder, how would you want the twelve people deciding your fate to base their decision?

Court TV Host: Thank you very much for being our guest today.

Chris Lovell: Thank you for giving me the chance to get the juror's side of the story out.