With the Enron jury set to return from its weekend break today, it's worth looking at what we have learned from the trial.

.

Fortune senior writers Bethany McLean and Peter Elkind, who wrote Smartest Guys In The Room, have a good summing up of the case in last week's piece Enron: Some things don't change while Bloomberg's Ann Woolmer's analysis looks at the way the lawyers have played on the sympathies and prejudices of the jurors:

"At different times, the two men on trial in Houston federal court have generated far-flung admiration and widespread animosity as Enron Corp. saw explosive growth followed by stunning collapse.
"So when attorneys on both sides of the case uttered their final pleas to jurors this week, they reminded them of the judge's warning (to base their verdict solely upon the evidence 'without prejudice or sympathy').''
"And then, while recounting the evidence that supports their version of events, the lawyers tried to slip in a little sympathy for their side and prejudice against the other.
"The message: Don't let the other side play on your sympathies or prejudices. Let us do it."

But the most chilling comes from Loren Steffy's warning in the Houston Chronicle. Don't expect this case will end with the verdict. There will be no closure.

"If Lay and Skilling are convicted in the criminal case, they will undoubtedly appeal, and the case will be revisited in New Orleans and perhaps even Washington.
"Even if the appeals are upheld, critics will argue, as they already have, that the government overstepped its authority and resorted to state-sanctioned thuggery to compel testimony from witnesses in an effort to get a conviction at any cost..don't expect more closure if Lay and Skilling are acquitted. That will result in lingering doubt and anger from Enron's devastated shareholders and employees. The points of the case will be rehashed. Perhaps the government simply failed to make its case, but why? Why didn't prosecutors call this witness? Why didn't they bring up that issue?
"If the jury can't reach a decision, that, too, will prompt protracted speculation. Should the case be retried? Is it worth the expense to taxpayers? Is the government's case simply too weak or too complex?
"We've seen this before with the conviction of Enron's auditor, Arthur Andersen. Indicted, decimated, convicted, Andersen later got a reprieve from the Supreme Court, which overturned the verdict on a technicality."