July 4, 2025 • 18 mins
One of the 12 jurors in the Diddy trial defends the verdicts they reached amid speculation they were influenced by Diddy’s celebrity. Amy and T.J. discuss that juror’s outrage and talk about new details from “George,” the alternate juror who said the freak-off videos they watched in court were “tame.”
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hey there, folks, it is Friday, fourth of July twenty
twenty five. If we're hopping on here because we have
heard for the first time from Adjuror in the Diddy trial,
a bunch of stuff to go through. One of the highlights,
at least for me, the freakoffs were tame and welcome
to this episode of Amy and TJ Road. We didn't
(00:25):
expect to do an update today. Lokt so much interest
in this, and yes it is a holiday, but we're
hopping on because we're hearing from Ajur for the first time.
That is a big deal. We're getting a lot of insights.
But you looked at me funny when I said that
was a highlight. But some of the stuff, that's one
of the things that jumped out. We heard so much
about freak offs. Someone who actually saw a freak Off
video is telling us it was kind of tame.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Yeah, said it was just basically a lot of people
rubbing baby oil on one another and not a lot
of sex, So that was interesting. He pointed out George
he was an alternatur who gave this detail, but he
claimed that as they were watching the videos it sounded
or seemed salacious, but actually it was tame. That is
(01:05):
the word he used.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
Isn't that wild to think all this we've heard and
all of this we think of how nasty, and we
hear how people have described them. He actually saw it.
And look, they didn't show them everything, but they saw
sweet are on some days forty I remember forty minute
video that was played.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Sh I mean, I don't know what this alternate juris
perspective is. It might not have seemed tame to me.
You know, that is something to consider. It's through the eyes,
through his lens, which might be different than my life.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
Relatively, it was, oh, that was nothing. You should see
the stuff right.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
No, but who knows. Some people have a lot of
experience in looking at certain types of Maybe they thought
the quality was too homemade, or who knows what his
perspective was, but it was interesting and the point being,
the defense definitely tried to show excerpts of these freak
off sex parties were or they were just kind of
hanging out and chilling and playing music and talking. They
(02:04):
wanted to see or at least show the jurors that
it wasn't all sex field, that there were other elements
and other aspects to these parties beyond sex.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
Okay, and we should be clear about who we're talking about.
This person has been only identified as George, no last name.
He did, however, put his face in front of a camera.
He did do an interview with CNN. He also did
an interview with The New York Times, but they're not
giving his full identity. But beyond just calling him George,
I thought in something you just said, ropes, it stood
(02:33):
out to me as much as we've been talking about
in public and maybe in press and even tabloid press,
freak all freak afll freakof I heard him during the interview.
He kept referring to it as a hotel night like
it seemed as if everything salacious we think we think
about freak offs. He as a juror who has more
(02:54):
access to any of this stuff than we do, seemed
to have a different tone in talking about.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
These he did, and it was interesting too, just this
is somebody who said he I think he said. He
took more than three hundred pages of notes, three hundred
and fifty pages of notes during this trial because he
wanted to remember what he thought. He thought maybe he
could be deliberating, so he was preparing himself to make
the decision. But yes, hearing it from his perspective, someone
who sat in that courtroom day in and day out
(03:21):
and took copious notes, it didn't feel as salacious coming
from him. Hearing his impressions, and he had very specific
thoughts about how he thought the prosecution did, how he
thought the defense did, which witnesses he thought were credible,
which ones he thought weren't as credible, And first.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
And foremost, he was not in a deliberation room, but
he was asked his opinion about the decision that the
jury made. He said, absolutely, he agrees, one hundred percent.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Yeah, he said, I understand why they came up with
that mixed verdict, and he said, I'm almost certain that
that would have been the verdict I would have agreed
to present as well, So he said he would be
he would have been in that unanimous decision. And he
didn't think that the government met the rico charges. He
didn't think the government meant the sex trafficking charges, and
(04:10):
he thought the defense did an excellent job at discrediting
several witnesses, he said, with one witness in particular, he
described he went back and looked at his notes and
said it was a takedown by the defense. He wanted
to remember key moments in the trial.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
Stay on that point, Don Rechard, Don Richard was a problem.
She was up there. I can't remember how many days,
but she was a key, key witness who talked about
what she saw violence against Cassiventur or fine, but the
defense went at her, went at her hard, and some
people that look in some circles think she was a
(04:43):
I guess, a minion if you will. She was doing
a lot of his bidding and now has come out
she's suing him, right.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
She issuing him.
Speaker 1 (04:50):
Yet so they didn't at least going to this juror
didn't buy her for a second, it seems.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
And that's true. And you know what, he even said,
it wasn't even with the Cassie Ventur and the money.
We talked about this before. That took away some of
the credibility from some of these key witnesses. He said
that was not the issue. She just he specifically said
she was not very credible, that is how he put it.
And yes that he wrote that the defense had a
takedown of her, and so it seemed like he and
(05:18):
perhaps even other jurors had lost all. I mean, once
the defense and even the judge said this, if you
don't think someone's credible, something they said was incredible, you
can basically eliminate all of their testimony from you for
your consideration. And it sounds like that's what George was
prepared to do.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
It sound like he'd put he singled her out.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
He did.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
He absolutely did. I mean, he sounded like he didn't
buy anything in the rest of his And again he said,
a lot of them they had lunch together every day,
but they abide it by the rules. They didn't discuss
this or anything. But if this one guy sitting through it,
he was very strong in his react when he was asked.
He was very direct in answering about don Richard, who
you had a problem with credibility?
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Oh yeah, he dropped her name immediately.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
We listen to him immediately. The other thing Robes that
was fascinating to me is that he said they walked
into the room with doubt. Right, it's reasonable doubt is
what the bar is supposed to be, not all doubt,
but a reasonable doubt. So he said, before the case
even started, he came in with a doubt about like
(06:25):
why are we here? Almost why are we talking about racketeering?
The prosecution seemed like they had a very, very steep
hill to climb before the case even started, before opening argument.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
Yes, and you know, obviously, lay people like you and
I we've talked about how racketeering and conspiracy charges are confusing, complex,
and yes, we think of them when we think of
mob bosses. We think of them when we think about
criminal enterprises. We don't think about someone who is using
sex for pleasure in perhaps you could say deviant ways,
(06:57):
or even just in non traditional ways, but you wouldn't
put racketeering and conspiracy charges with that. And so yes,
to hear him say that he and he said he
believed other jurors walked into the trial thinking how are
they going to prove this? So it was as if
the cards were already stacked against the prosecution. And sort
of what we talked about in a previous podcast that
(07:18):
when you overreach, when you try to people aren't dumb.
Even if we aren't legal minds or we haven't been
trained in the law specifically, we still get the fact
that that didn't make a lot of sense and was
going to be an uphill battle, and it proved to
be for sure, you know what.
Speaker 1 (07:33):
I am, and I think a lot in a lot
of ways robes and reading this yur in particular, I
felt validated. And I say that in that the last
it probably at least three, but certainly two weeks of
this trial, you and I were having different conversations about
Wait a minute, that doesn't make sense. Wait that's a
(07:55):
little bit of a stretch, isn't it. They're going that far.
He is saying some of the same exact doubts, like oh,
I didn't think that, or I didn't think that, or
that was It seems like a lot of people were
viewing this case from the outside exactly like the people
in that jury box.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
For exactly exactly. And when he started talking about the
credibility of other witnesses, specifically, he was asked about Cassie
venture a Fine and he first of all wanted to say,
both with Cassie and with Jane, he did not believe
after hearing their testimony that either one of them were
sex trafficked. He said that he did not think that
(08:32):
that sex was forced. Ever, and so he said he
not only watched the footage, but listening to the testimony,
all of those things in his mind made him believe
that both of those women were there because they wanted
to be.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
Okay, And the other thing he said about them is
what they were both credible. I believe they went through
what they went through. But then at the same time,
I wouldn't have voted to convict him on rackets hearing
or sex trafficking. Isn't that what the rest of the
country or a lot of people in a lot of
circles were saying that thing.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
And both things be true.
Speaker 1 (09:10):
Yeah, And it's interesting to hear him he's the one
that had to decide, or the jurors had to decide.
They had to make the call. We didn't, but they
made the call that in a lot of ways, it
was fascinating to hear that. Wow, that's the exact same thing.
A lot of people were thinking.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
Yes, you can still be a victim of something, have
suffered something, but it doesn't mean that you were forced
to do something against your will. So that's kind of interesting.
And he even specifically said that Cassie was very credible,
and he said, I don't think she would have come
here and just lied. It just didn't seem right. So
they believed her and they believed still Jane, and they
(09:47):
still didn't believe that either one of those women were
forced to do what they did.
Speaker 1 (09:53):
It was interesting. George is someone identified as someone who
knew the name. He knew Sean did he combed, but
he said he wasn't familiar with his music. Agin, Yeah,
didn't know who this guy was. So celebrities wasn't a
part or a factor at all for him.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
What do you?
Speaker 1 (10:10):
I am surprised. Why come out? Why do it? Why
agree to an interview? Why go talk to the Times?
Why go go put your face on television? Why? Why
do it? This is speculative, Maybe we shouldn't, but it's
just it's just interesting.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
It's interesting to me that he put his face on
television and I'm guessing that's his actual first name. Maybe
it's not. But he didn't want his last name used.
And he also said that, you know, he was concerned
and the reason why he didn't want his last name
used about any sort of retribution because people have strong
feelings about the verdict and whether or not the jurors
made the right decision. Now, again, he wasn't one of
(10:45):
the jurors in the deliberation room, so.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
Consider that he is protecting himself from a decision he
didn't even have to.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
Make correct But I thought it was interesting to I mean,
I guess he just felt like he wasn't identifiable, But
I don't know if he's.
Speaker 1 (10:59):
Wherever he's from, everybody knows who you are. This isn't
his identity was out there. But it turns out George
is not the only juror we heard from. Yes, let's
(11:20):
continue now we've been talking about George. George came out,
the jur the alternate came out, did an interview with
the New York Times, did an interview with CNN. Didn't
give his last name, but as an alternate, he didn't
vote on the ultimate verdicts, but he sat through the
entire trial, just like the rest of the jurors. But
Robes we did hear and very briefly from a juror
(11:43):
who was actually in that deliberation room, and I guess
it was just a couple of sentences, but I guess
some insight in there as well.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
Yes, so the juror. It seems as if this person
who did not want to reveal name, gender, nothing identifiable,
So we just know it's the.
Speaker 1 (12:01):
Juror didn't want to be bothered, it seems.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
And it seems as though we don't know exactly how
it happened, but some journalists must have been able to
cold call this juror or run into this juror, and
it was almost as if the juror didn't want to
say anything but was kind of not don't why he
was tempted or they were tempted to talk because of
the accusation that somehow jurors, these jurors were swayed by
(12:26):
the celebrity of Ditty. There was a legal analyst and
there have been legal experts who say, hey, we think
that perhaps celebrity could have been a part of this,
and that's why they let him off so easy without
actually convicting him on the more serious charges. And so
that's when this juror felt like they had to say something,
and they said that that was highly insulting and belittling
to the jury and the deliberation process. But the juror
(12:47):
didn't stop there, said a few more sentences, and we
think it's pretty interesting. So they went on to say this,
we spent over two days deliberating. Our decision was based
solely on the evidence presented and how the law is stated,
we would have treated any defendant in the same manner,
regardless of who they are. I have nothing else to say.
That's my favorite part of the comment, but that lets.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
You know they didn't want they didn't plan to be talking,
and they didn't want to be talking. They didn't want
to and again they grabbed a comment. I think, look,
we got to give everybody a break, like we need
to give. Whatever you think about this, you got to
give these folks of grace. They spent two months of
their lives during this sacrifice, and you know it wasn't
(13:27):
easy in that deliberation room hearing all that stuff. They
might be fearful of their own lives or families or
any This is not This was a major in my
life changing potentially undertaking for these folks. And to just
come out simply and say, you idiots are caught up
in the celebrity that is offensive.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
Highly offensive. And I do appreciate the fact that the
juror did speak out on that specifically and wanted to
talk to the level of professionalism among the jurors, and
we as we were following, we saw it's a tough
thing to do to sit there, not only through the
whole trial, but then in those deliberation rooms with twelve
or eleven other people who have come from very different
walks of life, who have very different opinions, who have
(14:11):
very different lenses that they see things through, and to
have to send notes and say we can't get there,
We're at a stalemate. People aren't budging. And then to
see the process work the way it's supposed to, which
was pretty impressive, and it seems as though the decisions
they made everyone agreed to it ultimately, which is remarkable.
And yeah, to then have it be questioned is not
(14:33):
the way it should go.
Speaker 1 (14:34):
I don't feel necessarily outrage on either side. There are
people who are disappointed in some way, form or fashion,
but there's I don't feel there's an overwhelming sense in
the country that and a severe injustice was done in
the verdict. Maybe an injustice in the charges that were brought,
maybe an injustice in how the case was brought, a
(14:55):
few other things, and how the victims were let down
in several ways, But the fact that the jury came
to this decision. Do you feel or see somewhere in
some circles I'm not seeing.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
No.
Speaker 1 (15:04):
I think there's an outrage over this.
Speaker 2 (15:06):
Verdict, I think disappointment is a good way to put it.
And there certainly we did hear from people who testified
and people who put their names through the ringer to
try and explain what happened to them at the hands
of Ditty. So they say they were upset. I think
they claim that they're afraid. They claim that they believe
Ditty is somebody who is revenge oriented or revenge seeking,
(15:27):
and so they were concerned. And I know that there
was that chatter a bit, But in terms of being
outraged at the verdict, no, And I think look, if
he had gotten off completely, if he had been not
guilty on all charges, I think you would have seen
raise a lot more outrage from those groups who feel
like their side wasn't taken seriously enough.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
No, if we were told he was found guilty of
racketeering and he's facing life in prison, I think there
might have been more outrage as well about that. So
I think that what we always say in our career
is do a story about politics, and Republicans and Democrats
are equally upset with you, then you probably got it
(16:06):
about right.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (16:07):
So in this case, it seems like there's some kind
of a balance to where maybe they got it right
from a public standpoint.
Speaker 2 (16:14):
I kind of I agree with you on that. I
think when you look at it from that perspective, one
hundred percent. And I'm curious if we will hear and
if any juror will actually say I was on the
jury and here's what happened. I'm curious, maybe more time
needs to pass. It's I'm sure this is something they
had to take with them each night. They weren't supposed
(16:36):
to talk about it with friends or families, So I'm
sure there's so much just digest and then maybe maybe
someone would talk. But I mean, I just in the
world we live in in social media, people are so
cruel and people are like to put your name out there,
to put your face out there with a decision like
that that people do have strong opinions on. I think
it is a little scary and unnecessary. Do you really
(16:57):
want to bring all the negativity that you know is coming?
You know it is, That's true, and people there's a
way for journalists to pay for certain interviews, you get
paid for photos, you get paid for whatever.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
Certain outlets don't care, and certain out.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
Let's pay regardless, get a free trip to New York,
you get an all much but yeah, a.
Speaker 1 (17:16):
Book deal to talk about the deliberations and the trial,
the new trial of the century.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
Okay, yes, that is capitalism and uh well the way
it works here in America. But anyway, it was interesting
to get some of the details we did get from
George and of course from this uh unidentifiable juror. But
certainly just you know, I think that they did an
incredible civic duty and we appreciate their time. And I
(17:41):
know it's our justice system depends on people like George
and the unnamed duror. So anyway, thank you all for
listening to us. I hope you got a little insight
from what we're hearing from what happened inside that courtroom.
But hope you have an even better fourth of July
and a great weekend. Everybody.
Speaker 1 (18:01):
The pitcher, the kitchen, p
Hey there, folks, it is Friday, fourth of July twenty
twenty five. If we're hopping on here because we have
heard for the first time from Adjuror in the Diddy trial,
a bunch of stuff to go through. One of the highlights,
at least for me, the freakoffs were tame and welcome
to this episode of Amy and TJ Road. We didn't
(00:25):
expect to do an update today. Lokt so much interest
in this, and yes it is a holiday, but we're
hopping on because we're hearing from Ajur for the first time.
That is a big deal. We're getting a lot of insights.
But you looked at me funny when I said that
was a highlight. But some of the stuff, that's one
of the things that jumped out. We heard so much
about freak offs. Someone who actually saw a freak Off
video is telling us it was kind of tame.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Yeah, said it was just basically a lot of people
rubbing baby oil on one another and not a lot
of sex, So that was interesting. He pointed out George
he was an alternatur who gave this detail, but he
claimed that as they were watching the videos it sounded
or seemed salacious, but actually it was tame. That is
(01:05):
the word he used.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
Isn't that wild to think all this we've heard and
all of this we think of how nasty, and we
hear how people have described them. He actually saw it.
And look, they didn't show them everything, but they saw
sweet are on some days forty I remember forty minute
video that was played.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Sh I mean, I don't know what this alternate juris
perspective is. It might not have seemed tame to me.
You know, that is something to consider. It's through the eyes,
through his lens, which might be different than my life.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
Relatively, it was, oh, that was nothing. You should see
the stuff right.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
No, but who knows. Some people have a lot of
experience in looking at certain types of Maybe they thought
the quality was too homemade, or who knows what his
perspective was, but it was interesting and the point being,
the defense definitely tried to show excerpts of these freak
off sex parties were or they were just kind of
hanging out and chilling and playing music and talking. They
(02:04):
wanted to see or at least show the jurors that
it wasn't all sex field, that there were other elements
and other aspects to these parties beyond sex.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
Okay, and we should be clear about who we're talking about.
This person has been only identified as George, no last name.
He did, however, put his face in front of a camera.
He did do an interview with CNN. He also did
an interview with The New York Times, but they're not
giving his full identity. But beyond just calling him George,
I thought in something you just said, ropes, it stood
(02:33):
out to me as much as we've been talking about
in public and maybe in press and even tabloid press,
freak all freak afll freakof I heard him during the interview.
He kept referring to it as a hotel night like
it seemed as if everything salacious we think we think
about freak offs. He as a juror who has more
(02:54):
access to any of this stuff than we do, seemed
to have a different tone in talking about.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
These he did, and it was interesting too, just this
is somebody who said he I think he said. He
took more than three hundred pages of notes, three hundred
and fifty pages of notes during this trial because he
wanted to remember what he thought. He thought maybe he
could be deliberating, so he was preparing himself to make
the decision. But yes, hearing it from his perspective, someone
who sat in that courtroom day in and day out
(03:21):
and took copious notes, it didn't feel as salacious coming
from him. Hearing his impressions, and he had very specific
thoughts about how he thought the prosecution did, how he
thought the defense did, which witnesses he thought were credible,
which ones he thought weren't as credible, And first.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
And foremost, he was not in a deliberation room, but
he was asked his opinion about the decision that the
jury made. He said, absolutely, he agrees, one hundred percent.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Yeah, he said, I understand why they came up with
that mixed verdict, and he said, I'm almost certain that
that would have been the verdict I would have agreed
to present as well, So he said he would be
he would have been in that unanimous decision. And he
didn't think that the government met the rico charges. He
didn't think the government meant the sex trafficking charges, and
(04:10):
he thought the defense did an excellent job at discrediting
several witnesses, he said, with one witness in particular, he
described he went back and looked at his notes and
said it was a takedown by the defense. He wanted
to remember key moments in the trial.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
Stay on that point, Don Rechard, Don Richard was a problem.
She was up there. I can't remember how many days,
but she was a key, key witness who talked about
what she saw violence against Cassiventur or fine, but the
defense went at her, went at her hard, and some
people that look in some circles think she was a
(04:43):
I guess, a minion if you will. She was doing
a lot of his bidding and now has come out
she's suing him, right.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
She issuing him.
Speaker 1 (04:50):
Yet so they didn't at least going to this juror
didn't buy her for a second, it seems.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
And that's true. And you know what, he even said,
it wasn't even with the Cassie Ventur and the money.
We talked about this before. That took away some of
the credibility from some of these key witnesses. He said
that was not the issue. She just he specifically said
she was not very credible, that is how he put it.
And yes that he wrote that the defense had a
takedown of her, and so it seemed like he and
(05:18):
perhaps even other jurors had lost all. I mean, once
the defense and even the judge said this, if you
don't think someone's credible, something they said was incredible, you
can basically eliminate all of their testimony from you for
your consideration. And it sounds like that's what George was
prepared to do.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
It sound like he'd put he singled her out.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
He did.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
He absolutely did. I mean, he sounded like he didn't
buy anything in the rest of his And again he said,
a lot of them they had lunch together every day,
but they abide it by the rules. They didn't discuss
this or anything. But if this one guy sitting through it,
he was very strong in his react when he was asked.
He was very direct in answering about don Richard, who
you had a problem with credibility?
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Oh yeah, he dropped her name immediately.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
We listen to him immediately. The other thing Robes that
was fascinating to me is that he said they walked
into the room with doubt. Right, it's reasonable doubt is
what the bar is supposed to be, not all doubt,
but a reasonable doubt. So he said, before the case
even started, he came in with a doubt about like
(06:25):
why are we here? Almost why are we talking about racketeering?
The prosecution seemed like they had a very, very steep
hill to climb before the case even started, before opening argument.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
Yes, and you know, obviously, lay people like you and
I we've talked about how racketeering and conspiracy charges are confusing, complex,
and yes, we think of them when we think of
mob bosses. We think of them when we think about
criminal enterprises. We don't think about someone who is using
sex for pleasure in perhaps you could say deviant ways,
(06:57):
or even just in non traditional ways, but you wouldn't
put racketeering and conspiracy charges with that. And so yes,
to hear him say that he and he said he
believed other jurors walked into the trial thinking how are
they going to prove this? So it was as if
the cards were already stacked against the prosecution. And sort
of what we talked about in a previous podcast that
(07:18):
when you overreach, when you try to people aren't dumb.
Even if we aren't legal minds or we haven't been
trained in the law specifically, we still get the fact
that that didn't make a lot of sense and was
going to be an uphill battle, and it proved to
be for sure, you know what.
Speaker 1 (07:33):
I am, and I think a lot in a lot
of ways robes and reading this yur in particular, I
felt validated. And I say that in that the last
it probably at least three, but certainly two weeks of
this trial, you and I were having different conversations about
Wait a minute, that doesn't make sense. Wait that's a
(07:55):
little bit of a stretch, isn't it. They're going that far.
He is saying some of the same exact doubts, like oh,
I didn't think that, or I didn't think that, or
that was It seems like a lot of people were
viewing this case from the outside exactly like the people
in that jury box.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
For exactly exactly. And when he started talking about the
credibility of other witnesses, specifically, he was asked about Cassie
venture a Fine and he first of all wanted to say,
both with Cassie and with Jane, he did not believe
after hearing their testimony that either one of them were
sex trafficked. He said that he did not think that
(08:32):
that sex was forced. Ever, and so he said he
not only watched the footage, but listening to the testimony,
all of those things in his mind made him believe
that both of those women were there because they wanted
to be.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
Okay, And the other thing he said about them is
what they were both credible. I believe they went through
what they went through. But then at the same time,
I wouldn't have voted to convict him on rackets hearing
or sex trafficking. Isn't that what the rest of the
country or a lot of people in a lot of
circles were saying that thing.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
And both things be true.
Speaker 1 (09:10):
Yeah, And it's interesting to hear him he's the one
that had to decide, or the jurors had to decide.
They had to make the call. We didn't, but they
made the call that in a lot of ways, it
was fascinating to hear that. Wow, that's the exact same thing.
A lot of people were thinking.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
Yes, you can still be a victim of something, have
suffered something, but it doesn't mean that you were forced
to do something against your will. So that's kind of interesting.
And he even specifically said that Cassie was very credible,
and he said, I don't think she would have come
here and just lied. It just didn't seem right. So
they believed her and they believed still Jane, and they
(09:47):
still didn't believe that either one of those women were
forced to do what they did.
Speaker 1 (09:53):
It was interesting. George is someone identified as someone who
knew the name. He knew Sean did he combed, but
he said he wasn't familiar with his music. Agin, Yeah,
didn't know who this guy was. So celebrities wasn't a
part or a factor at all for him.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
What do you?
Speaker 1 (10:10):
I am surprised. Why come out? Why do it? Why
agree to an interview? Why go talk to the Times?
Why go go put your face on television? Why? Why
do it? This is speculative, Maybe we shouldn't, but it's
just it's just interesting.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
It's interesting to me that he put his face on
television and I'm guessing that's his actual first name. Maybe
it's not. But he didn't want his last name used.
And he also said that, you know, he was concerned
and the reason why he didn't want his last name
used about any sort of retribution because people have strong
feelings about the verdict and whether or not the jurors
made the right decision. Now, again, he wasn't one of
(10:45):
the jurors in the deliberation room, so.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
Consider that he is protecting himself from a decision he
didn't even have to.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
Make correct But I thought it was interesting to I mean,
I guess he just felt like he wasn't identifiable, But
I don't know if he's.
Speaker 1 (10:59):
Wherever he's from, everybody knows who you are. This isn't
his identity was out there. But it turns out George
is not the only juror we heard from. Yes, let's
(11:20):
continue now we've been talking about George. George came out,
the jur the alternate came out, did an interview with
the New York Times, did an interview with CNN. Didn't
give his last name, but as an alternate, he didn't
vote on the ultimate verdicts, but he sat through the
entire trial, just like the rest of the jurors. But
Robes we did hear and very briefly from a juror
(11:43):
who was actually in that deliberation room, and I guess
it was just a couple of sentences, but I guess
some insight in there as well.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
Yes, so the juror. It seems as if this person
who did not want to reveal name, gender, nothing identifiable,
So we just know it's the.
Speaker 1 (12:01):
Juror didn't want to be bothered, it seems.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
And it seems as though we don't know exactly how
it happened, but some journalists must have been able to
cold call this juror or run into this juror, and
it was almost as if the juror didn't want to
say anything but was kind of not don't why he
was tempted or they were tempted to talk because of
the accusation that somehow jurors, these jurors were swayed by
(12:26):
the celebrity of Ditty. There was a legal analyst and
there have been legal experts who say, hey, we think
that perhaps celebrity could have been a part of this,
and that's why they let him off so easy without
actually convicting him on the more serious charges. And so
that's when this juror felt like they had to say something,
and they said that that was highly insulting and belittling
to the jury and the deliberation process. But the juror
(12:47):
didn't stop there, said a few more sentences, and we
think it's pretty interesting. So they went on to say this,
we spent over two days deliberating. Our decision was based
solely on the evidence presented and how the law is stated,
we would have treated any defendant in the same manner,
regardless of who they are. I have nothing else to say.
That's my favorite part of the comment, but that lets.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
You know they didn't want they didn't plan to be talking,
and they didn't want to be talking. They didn't want
to and again they grabbed a comment. I think, look,
we got to give everybody a break, like we need
to give. Whatever you think about this, you got to
give these folks of grace. They spent two months of
their lives during this sacrifice, and you know it wasn't
(13:27):
easy in that deliberation room hearing all that stuff. They
might be fearful of their own lives or families or
any This is not This was a major in my
life changing potentially undertaking for these folks. And to just
come out simply and say, you idiots are caught up
in the celebrity that is offensive.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
Highly offensive. And I do appreciate the fact that the
juror did speak out on that specifically and wanted to
talk to the level of professionalism among the jurors, and
we as we were following, we saw it's a tough
thing to do to sit there, not only through the
whole trial, but then in those deliberation rooms with twelve
or eleven other people who have come from very different
walks of life, who have very different opinions, who have
(14:11):
very different lenses that they see things through, and to
have to send notes and say we can't get there,
We're at a stalemate. People aren't budging. And then to
see the process work the way it's supposed to, which
was pretty impressive, and it seems as though the decisions
they made everyone agreed to it ultimately, which is remarkable.
And yeah, to then have it be questioned is not
(14:33):
the way it should go.
Speaker 1 (14:34):
I don't feel necessarily outrage on either side. There are
people who are disappointed in some way, form or fashion,
but there's I don't feel there's an overwhelming sense in
the country that and a severe injustice was done in
the verdict. Maybe an injustice in the charges that were brought,
maybe an injustice in how the case was brought, a
(14:55):
few other things, and how the victims were let down
in several ways, But the fact that the jury came
to this decision. Do you feel or see somewhere in
some circles I'm not seeing.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
No.
Speaker 1 (15:04):
I think there's an outrage over this.
Speaker 2 (15:06):
Verdict, I think disappointment is a good way to put it.
And there certainly we did hear from people who testified
and people who put their names through the ringer to
try and explain what happened to them at the hands
of Ditty. So they say they were upset. I think
they claim that they're afraid. They claim that they believe
Ditty is somebody who is revenge oriented or revenge seeking,
(15:27):
and so they were concerned. And I know that there
was that chatter a bit, But in terms of being
outraged at the verdict, no, And I think look, if
he had gotten off completely, if he had been not
guilty on all charges, I think you would have seen
raise a lot more outrage from those groups who feel
like their side wasn't taken seriously enough.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
No, if we were told he was found guilty of
racketeering and he's facing life in prison, I think there
might have been more outrage as well about that. So
I think that what we always say in our career
is do a story about politics, and Republicans and Democrats
are equally upset with you, then you probably got it
(16:06):
about right.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (16:07):
So in this case, it seems like there's some kind
of a balance to where maybe they got it right
from a public standpoint.
Speaker 2 (16:14):
I kind of I agree with you on that. I
think when you look at it from that perspective, one
hundred percent. And I'm curious if we will hear and
if any juror will actually say I was on the
jury and here's what happened. I'm curious, maybe more time
needs to pass. It's I'm sure this is something they
had to take with them each night. They weren't supposed
(16:36):
to talk about it with friends or families, So I'm
sure there's so much just digest and then maybe maybe
someone would talk. But I mean, I just in the
world we live in in social media, people are so
cruel and people are like to put your name out there,
to put your face out there with a decision like
that that people do have strong opinions on. I think
it is a little scary and unnecessary. Do you really
(16:57):
want to bring all the negativity that you know is coming?
You know it is, That's true, and people there's a
way for journalists to pay for certain interviews, you get
paid for photos, you get paid for whatever.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
Certain outlets don't care, and certain out.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
Let's pay regardless, get a free trip to New York,
you get an all much but yeah, a.
Speaker 1 (17:16):
Book deal to talk about the deliberations and the trial,
the new trial of the century.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
Okay, yes, that is capitalism and uh well the way
it works here in America. But anyway, it was interesting
to get some of the details we did get from
George and of course from this uh unidentifiable juror. But
certainly just you know, I think that they did an
incredible civic duty and we appreciate their time. And I
(17:41):
know it's our justice system depends on people like George
and the unnamed duror. So anyway, thank you all for
listening to us. I hope you got a little insight
from what we're hearing from what happened inside that courtroom.
But hope you have an even better fourth of July
and a great weekend. Everybody.
Speaker 1 (18:01):
The pitcher, the kitchen, p
Hosts And Creators
Lauren Zima
Chris Harrison
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.