A couple of things about the length of deliberations:
1. Jeralyn of TalkLeft wrote the protests were very loud and that she would file a motion to move deliberations where the jury wouldn't hear the protests. Maybe one or more jurors were intimidated but eventually did the right thing.
2. Or, what I think is more likely, one or more jurors tried to find the state's case.
Seriously, think about it: You know very little about this case. You're not a trial watcher, so know little about the legal process. You sit through weeks of testimony. You sit through those closing arguments. Now it's time to deliberate. It's easy to articulate the defense's theory of the case and point to evidence to back it up. What is the state's theory? Anyone? Well, there has to be one. Wouldn't you be worried that maybe you missed something? Yes, all six of you - never underestimate the low self-esteem/lack of confidence of any woman. Besides, all it takes is one who wants to understand the state's case before rendering a verdict.
So, they talk awhile, can't figure it out. Ask for the evidence list, looking for anything. Remember, E6, iirc, was checking her notes against BDLR's lying closing. And wasn't that a beautiful thing since the state was hammering on "Why lie?" The manslaughter questions could have been just about the language/legalese which apparently, they ended up resolving themselves.
I hope one of the jurors makes an anonymous statement at some point so we'll know for sure. But right now, that's what I'm thinking.
PS - Jeralyn has several posts up, see link above.

Edit to fix link.
_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.
