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