RATHER: Now, you were saying?
JORDAN: I was saying that I am very much aware that people who have been wonderfully competent and successful businessmen and who build big companies can commit crimes. And so can people who are failures. They can commit crimes, too. Anybody can.
And that's the fact that they're successful or not successful in the sense of the crime is irrelevant. As one of my thoughts about this whole trial has been that I think that the intent of the-- prosecution with those-- that apartment and that party was to cast, I believe, it was to cast the defendants in a very unattractive-- repugnant light. And it had a complete boomerang with me because it made me think I'm insulted also that they think that I would fall for that.
And, secondly, it made me think, "Well, maybe the prosecution doesn't have a very good sense. Why do they need to bring all this junk in here if they can trust their own case?" So it diminished my confidence in the-- prosecution instead of the opposite.
RATHER: Was it or was it not your opinion, other jurors were the same or similar mind?
JORDAN: They were of a similar mind. I-- I heard-- especially in deliberations. That they were just really insulted by that kind of thing.
RATHER: Well, help me. Help the audience understand your thinking on that. That the prosecution laid out, yes, in some detail what they viewed as obsessive extravagances. Perhaps they didn't use that phrase. But I think it's very clear that's the thought. And they were trying to demonstrate that these people, the defendants, had taken money which rightfully belonged to the shareholders of the company-- and were spending it on lavish parties and far away places-- overdone apartments. So explain to me why you were insulted with that and why the other jurors were.
JORDAN: I wasn't-- I was insulted with the fact that the prosecution thought that that display of excessive and often bad taste things would persuade the jurors that the character of these men were so bad that it would add to their probability they committed a crime. In my view, all that excess had-- really didn't have-- was beside the point.
Because we're not convicting them on their lifestyle. Or on-- if the money was their own money. And I think I heard this throughout the jury. If it is that money was their own that they had rightfully earned as the defendants would claim, then they had the right to spend it any way they want to.
And it was brought in in order to prejudice the minds of the jurors. I didn't think it was a-- well, I can't-- I guess it was a good face -- piece of evidence on the part of the prosecution. But it certainly didn't work.
RATHER: Not only with you but also with the other jurors.
JORDAN: With the others. I didn't hear any jurors say, "Oh, look at that."
RATHER: What did you want to hear?
JORDAN: Oh, maybe a few were saying, "Look at that very bad lifestyle. That-- that could be-- or amount of money they were spending." Then-- the question of whether that is the right amount of money for them to spend or to have or to earn to me is another question. It doesn't come into the question did they intend to-- commit a crime.
My own personal view about this inequality of vast amounts of earnings with some people where there were other people in this country who were having trouble paying for their housing, I don't think that's good. But that's a moral question that we need to address somewhere else. And I do think we do need to address it. But I don't think it has a bearing on whether they committed a crime. It-- one of the kind of things you have to put aside when I'm trying to decide did the evidence show that they intended a crime.
In the same way that my diminished respect -- for the-- district attorney by putting this kind of evidence on, I had to put that aside, too. I had-- those are all peripheral things. The thing that is important is to look at the evidence and see what happened. Does that show that these defendants were meaning to take money they weren't entitled to?
RATHER: Excuse me, if I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong, one order of business is did they commit what amount to crimes? And then it's, well, even if they did, did they intend to do it? Did they know they were doing it?
JORDAN: Yes. That's-- very much-- That's correct
RATHER: --your understanding of where the case was?
JORDAN: Yes. Yes.
RATHER: And that's where you were--
JORDAN: Let me rephrase that again. I think you said did these intended-- did these defendants take money or-- they-- it's well known that they received large amounts of money in the form of bonuses. And through the loan program in that was provided by the company. And I believe they did use a facility that was provided by the company were two very large loan programs.
And in the course of that, received bonuses because of the-- some of the great big deals they had done. Yes, did intend-- they worked very hard to bring about that result. But I don't think they thought they were committing a crime when they received the money. Because I think they thought it was authorized.
RATHER: And that's where you differed with at least some, if not at all, of the rest of the jury?
JORDAN: That's really what the crux of the argument was about. Were they authorized to do this or were they not? And how do you look at that? How can you decide that? Well, you have to look at the kind of statements, writings, decisions made in the board and in the Compensation Committee. And sometimes the silence from other-- written-- notifications and the board of directors didn't object.
You have to-- we did-- work on trying to build up a conclusion that, yes, not only had they been authorized. But even to the extent if they hadn't, they thought they had because it's the intent in their head about what they were doing. How do you establish that? You have to look and see what other things-- lead to—
RATHER: And-- and that's where you thought the case-- that's--
RATHER: --on that is where you thought the case turned?
RATHER: In the beginning, did you--
JORDAN: I thought that the district attorneys failed to-- I believe that-- first of all, in the presumption of innocence. You have to presume them innocent. You start there. That's where you should start. That they were acting in good faith. The defendants were acting in good faith. Then it's the district attorney's job to say that you have to overcome that presumption by saying, "This and this and this and this indicate that they knew what they were doing and it was wrong."
RATHER: Now, in the end, at the very end, were you prepared to vote guilty on any count?
JORDAN: It's very hard for me to answer. Basically, I think probably no. But I did waver in the midst of it. But it was not because-- what had happened was is that there had been some-- outside interference. And the judge-- and also the jury everybody, I think, knows had sent notes to the court saying, "We cannot continue. One of the jurors is not deliberating in good faith." And--
RATHER: Were you?
JORDAN: Yes. Absolutely I was. But I don't think that my fellow jurors believed that. Well, I don't know what they believe. That's in their own mind, you know? But the-- well, they stated they thought that I was not deliberating in good faith. I thought I was because I was still saying that doesn't prove it.
You go that far, you can see this. You go-- that does not go beyond the threshold needed to establish that they knowingly were acting wrongly. There were too many things the defendants did to, in my way of thinking, that left a trail of notice that we have taking these actions. We've awarded, these bonuses have been awarded.
We've given notice to board of directors for sometimes when it appeared that they actually had at least a verbal agreement from the directors that was not recorded in the minutes. So it's very elusive. But it's still, to me, that you haven't quite done it. You haven't quite gone all the way.
And that caused the breakdown in the jurors' willingness to continue. And they began sending notes to the judge saying we can't go on.
RATHER: Now, at one point, and I have copies of these. At one point, the foreman of the jury sent the judge a note saying, "Well-- things are poisonous in here." Was that true?
JORDAN: Yeah, I think so. That was the sentiment of a couple of jurors. And it's the foreman's duty to write the note and send it in. She is not necessarily expressing her own view. But she is obliged to notify the judge or ask for things that the jurors asked her to do.
And so she was following the jurors' instructions. Yes, I think it had gotten poisonous. But, you know, Dan, I wanna say this. I went into this jury determined to do my very best, to do the job as a juror. And to give my all and I think all the other jurors did, too.
I don't think I have any better or exclusive claim to have tried hard to come to a just verdict and seriously and faithfully consider the evidence and try to make a decision. I think all of them were trying just as hard as I was. And I don't, I am not at all ready to subscribe to some of the things that are going on right now. I think there's a great deal of public bickering and back and forth. "She did this. And she did that."
You know, for one thing, there's a lot of stuff that is said in the firestorm of a jury that under tremendous pressure that is-- may not well have been meant. And try to even recast it and report it later is almost impossible. And the thing, I, the judge admonished us as we were leaving to, and he said, "You don't, you can say whatever you want to say because this is not, hasn't come to a verdict. But you're free to say. But I advise you not to do that because if one juror says this and then it goes to the other juror who is triggered to say something more who bounces back to this one and that one."
And then, it escalates. And, to me, and he said, "And that's what will happen." And that's what has happened.
RATHER: If the other jurors have not spoken out. Would you be sitting here talking to me and talking this way?
JORDAN: I don't think so. No. I really, sure I wouldn't. Because this is a big deal for me. I don't do this. But I do feel that since there are things that I know that there's very bad news about me which I say is not so, that the bits that I've heard, do not report accurately who I am or what I am or how I've behaved. And I'm very grateful that I have an opportunity to try to say my views on it and to speak my piece. To speak--
RATHER: Well, let me take you through some of the things that have been alleged about you. One, did you at any time give the defense an A-OK sign?
JORDAN: No. I would never do that. I mean, it's, I don't do that. First of all, it's completely contrary to what I was supposed to be doing there as a juror, to making an impartial decision based on the evidence and not on something outside. And we were admonished constantly not to contact any of the parties.
And that would be conduct, and beyond that, that's so unbelievably stupid. This is in the middle of a court? I mean, I wouldn't do it, on principle I wouldn't do it. But I wouldn't--
RATHER: You didn't do it?
JORDAN: I did not do it. No.
RATHER: Did you do anything that even approached it? Did you try to signal the defense in any way?
JORDAN: No. I did not try to signal the defense at all. I have been very conscious (UNINTEL) of this of what happens with my hand. And I do know I do speak with my hands. I move them when I talk. I've also taken a look and realized so does everybody. I have now come to the conclusion that-- everybody talks not only with their face, their facial expressions, their voice.
But there's a whole second conversation going on which is happening with your hands. And I spoke to someone recently who pointed out to me that the Chinese and Westerners have done very badly in negotiating with Chinese because the Westerners look at the Chinese men's faces. But the Chinese men look at the hands. And in those old pictures you see where they sit in robes and they have their hands inside the robes. It's because they have learned the hands tell a lot.
And there is a whole second conversation. And I didn't ever know that. I never paid any attention to it. It's all unconscious. And ---
RATHER: Question. It's a question of intent, if you will.
RATHER: Did you intend at any time to signal the defense?
RATHER: In any way, shape or form?
RATHER: By giving an A-OK sign--
RATHER: --or giving them a wink or--
JORDAN: No, no.
RATHER: Then explain to me, if you can, how some people in the gallery, including some very experienced court reporters say that they did see you give the defense an A-OK sign or something very, very close to it.
JORDAN: How can I tell what was in their mind? And I'm not trying to be cute and cagey about -- the big, hard question with-- tricky, little ways. But I do know that I touch my head quite a lot. It's a habit that I have. There's some little bit of (UNINTEL) reason why I need to. I brush my hair back.
I'm not usually conscious of it. I'm very conscious with what I do with my hands. But all I can say is it must have been one inadvertent thing like that that looked to them as if I was signaling them. But there was no—none -- if I did-- I can't even say, yes, I did or, no, I didn't because I don't-- I'm not aware of it. I'm--
RATHER: You mean it's your hand went to your head in some way?
JORDAN: Yeah, that could be.
RATHER: But I wanna be-- want you to be explicitly clear about the A-OK sign.
JORDAN: I did not send anybody an A-OK sign.
RATHER: Didn't happen?
JORDAN: Didn't happen.
RATHER: Now, you mentioned that you had one physical thing that may have played into this.
RATHER: Do you want to talk about that—
JORDAN: Sure, I don't care. Fine. Four years ago, I contracted what (UNINTEL)-- it's old age chicken pox is what it really is. The chicken pox virus. I did have chicken pox when I was a child. And I always, I knew that you, when it goes away, you're left with the antibodies and that's why you don't get chicken pox again.
But I never thought about the virus. I thought it just went some place. Well, I've now learned that it doesn't. It goes into your dermasis (PH) and it stays there dormant maybe for the rest of your life. But when you're particularly, when you're older, it can waken. It, especially in response to some kind of stress or -- I think the doctors said it's either stress or some kind of interference with your immune system.
And I did have reason to have that happen. And it did wake up. And I did have a second round of it four years ago. And had a rash on the right side of my forehead. There's a line right straight down the middle of my forehead. Got a rash. Later on, it took about four or five days I think. Or maybe it lasted about eight or nine days.
RATHER: Did this leave you with arthritis or something?
JORDAN: No, what it does is, once it's-- you get blisters. They go away. Then the whole chicken pox, that second stage chicken pox is over. And it's gone and the virus I think goes back down to the edge of your spine. But it damages the nerves.
And it causes pain. And it was the most excruciating pain I can-- it's indescribable. And that, this is after the chicken pox. It's a post-- (UNINTEL) thing. And it just felt like I had needles. And it was inside my eye, inside the eye sockets.
Fortunately, it didn't get into the optical nerve so I can still see very well. But it was all up through here and up through (UNINTEL). And it's still there. If I touch that, I can feel it now. If one hair, one single hair comes onto my forehead it feels like needles are sticking into it. And I do, I have actually got a topical pain killer that I wear, use all the time. It's-- comes in a little bottle I'll show you. I put it on. And it makes -- stop for a while. But--
RATHER: So this causes your hand to go to your head some of the time?
JORDAN: All the time, I think. And I'm always -- and if I move a hair-- I have to pull my hair back all the time. One single thing makes it. And that happens a lot. I've gotten so used to it that I don't notice that I'm doing it.
RATHER: Is there a name for this?
JORDAN: I think it's called post-herpetic neuralgia is its actual medical name.
RATHER: In short, is it kind of shingles?
JORDAN: Yes. (LAUGHTER) That's the sort of popular name for it. And, but shingles is when you had the rash. Now, that's all gone. What's left is the post-her-- it's nerve damage.
RATHER: And this is only worth discussing in-- I recognize talk about something that's personal, it's not something you'd prefer to do.
JORDAN: I don't care about it, you know? What it-- all I know is that it has slowly, slowly, slowly, slowly gotten better. And I have been to doctors and hospitals. And, I mean--
RATHER: But you often go to your hair to brush it away because of this condition.
JORDAN: Right, because-- right, yes. That's-- (LAUGHTER) here we go.
RATHER: Well, is it or is it not your judgment that that might have been what others--
JORDAN: I think that might have been. Because I am searching my mind for what it could have been. And-- that's possible. Yeah.
RATHER: Well, I want to show you the New York Post. I'm not sure you've seen this. I suspect you have. But the question is did you see this that appeared a couple of days after you allegedly, supposedly and reportedly gave the A-OK sign?
RATHER: That the first time you've seen that?
JORDAN: Oh, I've seen it before now. But I didn't see it-- (UNINTEL). People told me about this now, you know? So, well, I don't know, somewhere in the-- after the-- somewhere there's somebody said there's a statement about you having made a sign with your hand to your head.
RATHER: Well, of course, this is a drawing. But, again, did this happen?
RATHER: Anything close to this happen?
JORDAN: Not to my knowledge. I-- no intent there.
RATHER: Now, just before this, in fact, part of what led to this, the Wall Street Journal put on their Web site that you had done such a thing and they identified you by name. Which is not against the law. But is-- It's not against the law. It is against the journalistic tradition which has overwhelmingly been followed that jurors are not named.
RATHER: Were you surprised to be named?
JORDAN: I'm trying to recall when I actually knew that I was named. I had received a phone call. And it was a threatening phone call. And I understood from that somebody knows about me. And that, and they-- and-- it was a suggestion that I was being bribed.
So I could tell there was something happening out there. And that it had to be-- I had to be named. Because I would they know who to call?
RATHER: You received a telephone call?
JORDAN: Uh-huh (AFFIRM).
RATHER: What can you tell me about that call? You just said it was suggested or you were accused of being bribed?
JORDAN: Yeah, right. I am just now learning that-- I know the judge sealed that. And I think it's unsealed now. I'm not even positive about that.
RATHER: Well, the information is out.
JORDAN: It is out. So I'm not saying something out of court that I should. Yes, it did suggest-- it just was the voice that said, "How much are they paying you?"
RATHER: Male or female?
RATHER: How long was the conversation?
JORDAN: Very short. It just-- it was the middle of the night. I think it was like-- oh, I don't know. But-- 4 o'clock in the morning or something? Or maybe a little bit later. Maybe it was 2 a.m.. But anyway, I was asleep. And the phone rang and I picked it up.
And this voice said, "How much is the Kozlowski team paying you?" And I just said, "I don't know what you're talking about," and hung it up. Hung up the phone.
RATHER: Did you tell the judge about this?
JORDAN: Yeah, next morning I told the judge about it.
RATHER: And what did the judge say?
JORDAN: And the judge said, "You were right to come and tell him about it." And he asked me if I thought that in view of that that I could go on deliberating in good faith. And I said, "Well, I think so." It's -- how does that make me feel? Scared a little. It's was kind of unreal among other things.
And I was like, "What-- how could they say that?" You know? But, obviously, somebody did have that feeling. And so-- I was so anxious to go on with the trial, I'm so conscious of all the time and all the effort and all the work and all the money and all the months and everything that everybody had put into it that I was trying to really do my utmost to say, "I'm not gonna let something like that stop me. I wanna go ahead and try to do my best to deliberate in good faith with the other jurors."
RATHER: And you did that?
JORDAN: I did that.
RATHER: I wanna make sure that we understand the sequence of events here. That some in the courtroom, including experienced courtroom observers, thought-- they believed that they saw you make a positive, "I'm with you," sign to the defense.
RATHER: You're frowning 'cause you wanna underscore that didn't happen.
RATHER: But they believed it or said they believed it at the very least. Wall Street Journal then identifies you by name. After that, the New York Post runs this cartoon, caricature, drawing on the front page showing you doing that. And then some time after that, you received this threatening telephone call?
JORDAN: Right. And there have been another sort of intervening-- happening also. But as you just ran that sequence, Dan, I was unaware of that. I didn't know what the Wall Street Journal had done. I didn't know about that. Eventually somewhere in there I heard somebody was saying, "You are in the newspapers. And saying that you went a signal to the defense with your hand to your head."
RATHER: But you hadn't seen the newspapers?
JORDAN: But I hadn't seen any of them. I never, in fact, it's only in, really the last couple days that I even know who first opened my name. I didn't even know that. But, in addition, that had been the same weekend, I believe, that jurors had sent in a-- two notes. First note saying-- the atmosphere is poisonous. And then I was the one that sent the note saying they're not giving the one juror a credit to be deliberating in good faith. I'm not acknowledging that.
And then the next day there was a second note sent to the judge which began saying, "With all due respect, your Honor, we feel that the jury is unable to continue deliberations and to the point of trying to reach a verdict." And this wise judge leaned toward the jury and said, "That's contradictory because you are saying that you can't find the strength to continue deliberations which is not respectful of the court. But you're saying you are respectful. Those can't both be true."
RATHER: Well, I have copies here and we won't read the whole thing. But this is, both of these are signed by the foreperson of the jury. And one says, "Your advice and counsel, the atmosphere in the jury room has turned poisonous. The jury contends," and I emphasize this. This is my emphasis, "One member has stopped deliberating in good faith. Said juror believes that they," I assume they mean the defendants, "are being persecuted."
So it says, "The jury contends that one member has stopped deliberating in good faith. Said juror believes they are being persecuted." That said juror was you.
JORDAN: Yes. But I didn't-- that's an inaccurate statement. I did not feel I was being persecuted. What was it? Said that they were being persecuted. That--
RATHER: But it also says that, "We believe we could reach a fair conclusion without the presence of this juror."
JORDAN: I think that is completely inaccurate. If I were try to-- I don't want to get into a critical and pointy and name calling position toward my fellow jurors. I think they were doing their best. But it was chaos (LAUGHTER) in there. People were talking over each other.
And not having a fair chance to have themselves heard. And they were aware of that because they began trying to think of systems to bring order to the process starting with saying instead of just speaking when you have, wanna say something, why don't we have whoever wants to say something stand up? And then the other people will sit down and that whoever has the floor can say his piece and then he sits down.
Well, I thought that sounded like a great idea. Except that it resulted in then three or four people standing up at the same time. So it didn't really work.
RATHER: But you-- at that point, it was chaotic--
JORDAN: It was chaotic. And it--