It might seem provocative to some, suggesting that a spirit of confusion carried the day during the recent Jim Eckstein defamation trial. But how else can the outcome — a mistrial — be logically explained?

Eckstein, a former Butler County commissioner, had been sued for defamation by former fellow Commissioner Dale Pinkerton, county human resources director Lori Altman and her husband, state police Trooper Scott Altman. He was accused of spreading a rumor that Pinkerton got out of a drunken driving pullover by giving Lori Altman an extra 20 percent pay hike in 2011.

During the eight-day trial, plaintiffs’ attorneys Doug Linn and Al Lindsay peppered Eckstein with questions intended to depict a defense witness who confused dates and names, gave conflicting and evasive responses and frequently answered questions that had not been asked. At times Linn and Lindsay seemed impatient and frustrated with Eckstein and at other times showed overabundant patience, as if to demonstrate to the jury that the tone of questioning had little influence on Eckstein’s responses.

Defense attorneys Larry Rodgers and Timothy Wojton did nothing to counter the depiction. They didn’t have to; the trial wasn’t about Eckstein’s personality.

Apparently they chose a winning strategy. In an interview published Monday, jury foreman Christine Pflugh said the jury was convinced Eckstein, a former Butler County commissioner, was not guilty of defamation.

But when the jury was later polled about their individual votes, five jurors changed their overall stance by voting no, she said.

Pflugh, of Franklin Township said at least 10 of the 12 jurors voted in favor of Eckstein on each of seven counts alleged against him.

The mistake could have been when Judge Kelley Streib polled the jurors once for all seven counts, when it would have been more appropriate to poll jurors separately on each count — seven counts, seven polls.

The jury foreman related plausibly that there had been a minimum 10 votes of not guilty on every count, making all seven not-guilty verdicts valid.

Yet, when polled on all seven counts at once, the five jurors who might have dissented on just one of the seven counts would have answered — again, accurately — that it’s not exactly how they voted.

Technically, that’s not true. If all of the jurors knew they had a minimum 10-vote not-guilty verdict on each count, then they all knew there was a valid verdict.

Pflugh also admitted there was confusion when attorney Lindsay asked to poll the jurors. They didn’t anticipate being polled and probably didn’t understand what they were being asked.

And the result was a spirit of confusion ruled the day. A mistrial had to be declared.

A bizarre civil court case begins anew.