Juries are notoriously unpredictable.  Recall that last game here, "bippy" thought he was casting a sympathy vote for a buddy finishing in dead last, and it ended up as the deciding vote in that player's win.

I don't think this is necessarily true. I think it's more that FTC actually has a huge impact on most games if the people who make FTC know what to do and that F3s are very volatile because people have very different reasons for casting certain votes (i.e well this person can't actually win so I'll vote x way) and there are 3 options. In an F2 there's a lot more clash and there only being 2 choices make it a lot easier to predict. Though without us being able to see confessionals that impedes that ability incredibly (well assuming players are commentating FTC, only a handful usually do).

A tie vote should be a punishment for failing to cobble together a majority.

So I don't actually get this reasoning for an unfun tiebreaker at 4. Like wouldn't the people most at fault for the tie vote be specifically the people who were not the targets of the vote? Like this is why in an unresolved tie the targets are the ones immune at everything except F4. So why further punish the targets with an unfun tiebreaker for the actions of others? Is the failure to convince really that much worse than the failure to make a choice that preserves a majority.

With an amazing blown lead by Burton comeback, Holly Short has won the Suicide Pool!

I am very confused why Poirot thinks that Judy being immune means Judy decides the vote? Like...does he really think Judy would try and flip it on him if he disagreed.

Holly is forced into taking Lennie

Taking Jake, might be a mistake.

Yeah I feel this will just be Lennie and Poirot compete to take Judy and Leon and maybe Jake, since let's be real, Jake has enough people who will vote against him at the end he likely isn't a huge threat.