deliberations.” (citing Gardner v. Malone, 60 Wn.2d 836, 840, 376 P.2d 651, 379 P.2d 918 (1962))). ¶10 Later case law specified what matters inhere in the verdict and cannot be considered: The mental processes by which individual jurors reached their respective conclusions, their motives in arriving at their ver diets, the effect the evidence may have had upon the jurors or the weight particular jurors may have given to particular evidence, or the jurors’ intentions and beliefs, are all factors inhering in the jury’s processes in arriving at its verdict, and, therefore, inhere in the verdict itself, and averments concerning them are inadmissible to impeach the verdict. Cox v. Charles Wright Acad., Inc., 70 Wn.2d 173, 179-80, 422 P.2d 515 (1967); see also Gardner, 60 Wn.2d at 841-42 (<HOLDING>). ¶11 Reynoldson argues that the facts that the
holding that thirdparty guilt evidence may also be excluded where it does not sufficiently connect the other person to the crime as for example where the evidence is speculative or remote or does not tend to prove or disprove a material fact in issue at the defendants trial quotation omitted holding that allegation that jurors  had omitted to consider important evidence or issues  or had by any other motive or belief been led to their decision  is insufficient to support a motion for a new trial quoting 8 john henry wigmore evidence in trials at common law  2349 at 681 mcnaughton rev ed 1961 holding that a party had failed to preserve an argument for appellate review when that party had failed to argue the issue to the trial court either at trial or in his postjudgment motion holding inmates evidence failed to prove that decision maker had an improper motive holding other crimes evidence admissible to show motive where motive was put in issue by defense at trial