Part 4: Tyco Juror No. 4

Read More Of <B>Rather's</B> Interview With Ruth Jordan

Read Part IV of Ruth Jordan's interview on the Tyco mistrial with 60 Minutes II.
RATHER: You say a couple things on your mind you really wanna say.

JORDAN: I feel very strongly throughout this whole process that even ugly people deserve justice. Even people who have bad habits deserve justice.

People who have repellant lifestyles. Even greedy people, if they are greedy. Even people who have so much they don't know how to spend it and still want more.

Even they deserve justice when it comes to whether or not they committed a crime. And whether or not there is in the country, there is a wrong, in my opinion. … That there are some people, because of the way the country's economics are work, who are making an awful lot of money. Huge. Irrational amounts of money.

But in the roaring '90s and in the fuel in which they operated, which was the corporate world, they were just normal. I mean, and at one point in fact I did a little calculation that the largest bonus that Dennis received, which was I think the high, the highest amount was $32 million dollars, in terms of the deal, for which he was claiming it was earned, it was .0038 amount, fraction, of what the deal was.

Derek Jeter makes a much higher percentage. And so the numbers are kind of, they're unrealistic, but you're flinging around billions right and left and millions and comparing them to them. And in that little small area-- under that microscope of that particular area of that action and that world and that amount of activity and on that level, it was reasonable. It's crazy. But it was reasonable. (LAUGHS)

RATHER: Under the law?

JORDAN: Under the law.

RATHER: That's your judgment?

JORDAN: Right. At the time. That it—well, it isn't even-- in real—a realistic look at what was happening. And yeah, it's legal to make huge amounts of money. What's not legal is whether you took it when-- unlawfully. …

I think that a lot of people are shocked, and I am too, that some people have that much money and other people can't even pay their housing. I agree. That's wrong. I think that needs to be addressed. We have to do something. I can't figure out on Earth what we are gonna do, because--

RATHER: Well, some people would say that's criminal.

JORDAN: I don't think it's criminal, because so far it's not unlawful to make a lot of money. And even in this particular, to narrow that down the phone (PH) and to where it wasn't unlawful in this particular situation. That's what we were there to decide.

RATHER: Exactly. Now, in the end, would you have voted guilty on any count?

JORDAN: I really don't think so.

RATHER: You can't know, because you never got to—

JORDAN: Yeah, right.

RATHER: --the mistrial was declared.

JORDAN: Right. I don't think so. I think at best, at best, it would be a hung jury. But even when that became a possibility, there were strong commentaries on the side, "Well, if we're gonna be a hung jury, then I'm not gonna do this at all."

And I have a feeling that we'll never know, because it didn't happen that way. I think it was gonna be a mistrial always. And I don't, well, not always, but even by that point it was clear that some people could not tolerate a hung jury. And that had been voiced throughout the trial. "We're not gonna have a hung jury." So--

RATHER: But again, at the possible expense of being redundant, I want to be clear--while you can't know, because you never really had to get to the final, final, final vote.

JORDAN: Right.

RATHER: Mistrial declared. You believe or you don't believe that you would have voted guilty on any counts?

JORDAN: I don't think I would have voted guilty on any counts.

RATHER: You don't think you could have gotten there?

JORDAN: I don't think so.

RATHER: Now, you say that and I respect you're speaking truthfully. Knowing that there are any number of people who will say something along the line, "What is wrong with this woman?" To them, to the people who would say that, it's so obvious that they must have committed some crime. To someone who may be saying that, you would say what?

JORDAN: I would like to maybe take one of the counts about which there was disagreement. And try to go through the reasoning that was in my mind and in the minds of other jurors. This had to do with a payment, to a director who had been hugely instrumental in bringing about the CIT acquisition.

He wanted a fee, and asked for the fee. Dennis agreed. There's a great deal -- Mark testified that Dennis had said that we talked it over and went and negotiated the amount. And that it turns out of course was hearsay, because it's what Dennis said that Mark said-- I mean what Mark said that Dennis said.

The fee was paid. But before it was, Mark asked for an invoice. And the invoice named the amount of the fee, who it was to be paid to, which the name of the deal that had caused it. That invoice was sent to the records in Tyco. It was found in the records. It was noted in the ledger books that this fee had been paid. And for a while, I thought, "Oh, well, I guess they're guilty because it wasn't not-- notified there." But then it turned out that it had been reclassified and that it was perfectly available to see in the books. That it was there.

RATHER: And the point here is?

JORDAN: Is that this was throughout all of these charges. That Dennis and Mark had left a paper trail that they did what they did. That they took that action out in the open. Available for anybody to look and see what had happened.

And since that was there, they knew that it could come to light. That it was a kind of a way of approving it. If you take an action and it's out there available for all the directors to see or anybody else to (UNINTEL), plus a number of other-- underling-- employees in vic-- because it was given to Mark Foley, the finance person and by the people who put it in the ledger book. And it was noted on it, per Mark Foley, what it was. All in the ledger book. If were planning to steal something, you don't leave a big trail like that.

RATHER: And that—led you to conclude --

JORDAN: Well, that was--part of the way (UNINTEL). Because the others would say, "Well--" which they did say, "Well, that's not noticed because-- who's gonna-- tell the directors?" And I said, "You know they left the smoking gun out there. The fact that nobody picked it up doesn't mean that they put it there and they knew it was there and that it could be picked up."

"And therefore they'd be putting themselves at huge risk. And you wouldn't do that if you thought you were doing something that you shouldn't be doing."

RATHER: And you tell us this by way of explaining how you would say to yourself, "Look, I may-- I don't approve of things they did. But they haven't proven to me that they're guilty of any crime."

JORDAN: A little more intricate than that. To me, it's hard to say it. This showed that they thought they were doing what they were authorized to do. Because they left the record there available.

RATHER: And this goes to intent?

JORDAN: This goes to intent. Because they can be caught. And in fact, they were caught. (LAUGHS) And that very paper trail is the very thing that put them in the position they're in. So it worked.

RATHER: Let me, as time goes along here, I'm gonna loop back to something before we leave it and the memory grows cold. The jury foreman said that the atmosphere had become poisonous.

And you said indeed it had become poisonous. You used the word chaotic. Why had the atmosphere become so "poisonous?"

JORDAN: OK. Of course I thought about it quite a lot. I think that the starting point was that the jurors were under incredible pressure and desperate to get out of there before they even got into the jury room.

RATHER: After six months?

JORDAN: After six months. What they were confronted with was a huge, lumbering, unwieldy case, extremely complex in its details and overburdened with masses of unnecessary evidence to wade your way through. And I thought of it-- it's complex. It's too heavy. It's unwieldy.

There was one more thing and I guess that-- it will come to me. But there were things about it that were, but-- very hard for them to deal with. They're to deal with this complicated evidence of which there was too much and after too long a time. And they were exhausted. And they were frantic to get out.

RATHER: And you--had, with at least one juror, who you've described as-- I'm not sure you did--

JORDAN: He's very strong to-- to find guilty. To convict. … Very strong to convict. Right.
--for guilty.

RATHER: Was he an angry man at this stage?

JORDAN: I don't want to characterize these jurors.

RATHER: Fair enough. But I'm trying to get you to flesh out the picture of why it was poisonous … Been there for six months. Complicated case. People, for various reasons, wanted to get out. … You had one juror, who you've described, gently, as being strong for guilty. And you had another juror, yourself, who had doubts. Too strong to say extreme doubts as the whether—guilty had been proved?

JORDAN: I think extreme is too strong, but very solid, sound doubts that had not been moved within even close range. I wonder, one other thing too. I think people are "their favorite people" to quote.

And mine is often, it's not only Abraham Lincoln as some of the defense that the prosecution did. But I like Teddy Roosevelt. And when I thought about what was happening here with the attempt to prosecute white collar crime, I think that our juror's system, our whole judicial system, which started way back in England was, I think Henry II.

Developed and grown. And had been refined. And it has finally, of course, brought to this country. We do live under the original case law -- English system. But it still rests on the old ancient concept of a judgment by your fellow jurors. Now it's old and lasting. And I think it's fundamentally good and workable.

It's now confronted with trying to deal with an extremely elusive, complicated crime, white collar crime, which is not at all easy to get a handle on. And when I said that I quote Teddy Roosevelt comes to my mind, I wanted to say that I do-- when I was teaching history, one of the things that I did read about was that, when Teddy Roosevelt was trying to deal with the Columbians to arrange for the Panama Canal.

And with all respect to the Columbians, they're wonderful, but they were a little country trying to deal with a great big country. And they waffled about what they were going to do until Teddy Roosevelt finally just said, reportedly clasped his head and said, "Ah, dealing with them is like trying to nail currant jelly to the wall."

Which to me was a real Rooseveltian saying. But I would say that for our judicial system, trying to convict white collar crime, with all of its cleverness, is like trying to nail currant jelly to the wall.

RATHER: Is that the way you felt when you were deliberating?

JORDAN: I think so. … I think that explained why that prosecution was so long and so encumbered with so many things. As they were trying to nail currant jelly to the wall. And they kept getting more and more and more things-- to try to get a handle on it. And to my view they never did. … Not really.

RATHER: To use your quotation of Teddy Roosevelt, with you, they never nailed the currant jelly to the wall?

JORDAN: Right.

RATHER: Now to the person who's watching or listening to this and trying to make up their mind, saying, "Well, was it, Mrs. Jordan, a case of you're having the gumption, if that's the proper word, to stick to your beliefs. Or, in the end, was it a case of you're just being stubborn?"

JORDAN: I am sure that I was not stubborn, because I did listen and talk with the others. And I was willing-- I kept every now and then saying, "Well, maybe they are really not telling the truth. Maybe they had an elaborate, wonderful, clever scheme."

I have a belief that they may very well have been doing what was common practice throughout the corporate world. But what we were not asked to judge or do was what was going on in the corporate world. We're only looking at this particular corporation and these particular defendants.

And I have a feeling that they were doing what was the usual thing to do. They were men of their time in their circumstances, in the level of large amounts of money. Running a huge corporation. Making it bigger. Doing tremendously hard work.

Going and producing a lot of things. I mean you have to, to me I look at all of the facets of it. And said, "You know what, maybe one of these days somebody's gonna need a life saving brain surgery for their child. Well, that will be developed by U.S. Surgical, which is part of Dennis' work in Tyco." He did a good job.

But what has that got to do with anything? To me, I'm trying to say I was open minded enough to entertain the fact, "Maybe these guys really were doing dishonest things. But maybe they were doing just what everybody did."

But just because everybody did it, doesn't mean that it -- you have to put that aside. Because that doesn't absolve them from having to do a crime. It's this particular specific case.

RATHER: I'm gonna move on. But for clarity, looking back on it, sometimes we look back on our own actions and our thoughts and things we had done differently—and how. What would you have done differently here? Anything?

JORDAN: I haven't really had time to look back. I've been dealing so much with the present. Well, I'm not manipulative. I don't like doing, I'm not very good at it and also I don't like it.

So, what was going through my mind there when I was pausing was thinking, "Well, I could have pretended that I am not so contrary (PH). And I should, could have let out my feelings sort of in little parcels so that I wouldn't have alarmed other people and-- sort of gotten their backs up." And then maybe that way they would have thought I was more credible.

RATHER: But in the end, without a mistrial, you would have to hold up your hand, "I vote guilty."

JORDAN: I can't--

RATHER: Or-- "I vote not guilty."

JORDAN: Uh-huh (AFFIRM). You know, among the other things that made it poisonous, besides the pressure, to much to handle, too complicated, too much sacrifice going on, desperate to get out. There was also no communication. Very little communication.

Not only was it in their-- there was some of the shouting and the talking over and the-- not listening to each other. And then it got into some rather personal-- bad remarks to each. I'm talking about answering the first question that you asked about that. There was also, was no communication. Not really. Because quite early in those first two days, I thought, "Wait a minute, they're saying this is wrong. That's bad. They shouldn't have done that."

I would say, "But wait a minute--" they would say, "I wouldn't have done this." And I said, "But it's not what you would do. It's what they would do. It's not only what they would do, it's what they thought they were doing." When they said it. And it was I who asked, on the-- if you could ask-- fill out a form to ask questions.

And the foreperson did forward that it was I who said, "Can the judge read a definition of intent." And you under the intent to commit a crime. And--we did-- which he did. And the-- I think that helped some jurors-- some jurors may have very well have understood it. But a lot I-- I think did not.

That on Friday, I guess. This is the very beginning of the trial. On Monday, when we came in, I thought, "Well, you know what--" they were still talking, "This was the wrong thing for them to be doing."

And I thought, "Well, I will give them some example, personal examples of how intent works." And I gave them an example about myself. That I might have been irritated enough to-- I never have hit somebody, but if I was, I might have hit them. And what if the person died?

And I said, "I might-- you could say I intended to hit him, but I didn't intend to have the consequence there." That's-- and then I gave another example about it. A different one. Two other jurors.

I later on found out, oh my goodness, they said, "You picked on me." I said, "I didn't mean to pick on you. I was trying to make it vivid for you." But they didn't communicate, and I kept trying to explain some of the points of, they would feed the line back to me. And it wasn't what I'd said.

RATHER: So communication was a problem.

JORDAN: Communication was a big problem.

RATHER: You said that it got heated enough for some name calling. Did anyone call you any names or a name?

JORDAN: No, I don't think so. It just-- you're not deliberating in good faith. It was pre -- I don't think (UNINTEL PHRASE). I can't—

RATHER: But they said that to--

JORDAN: You know I don't remember?

RATHER: --you directly?


RATHER: Someone said that? Several someones?

JORDAN: Well, (UNINTEL) I can't say exactly if they said those words, but it was, "Oh, well, she's never going to-- vote any differently. This is useless." … And-- and one of the jurors kept intoning, every other day, "This is hopeless. We're never gonna get anywhere. I don't wanna waste another day."

Oh, somebody did say, "I don't want you to waste another one of my precious days," to me. And, "Oh, this is, you know nothing's gonna change. Nothing's gonna move." And-- "I wanna get out of here. I'm not gonna waste my time here."

RATHER: You have said that you don't wanna get into any arguments with any other jurors. And I respect that. For one thing, you pointed out correctly that sometimes people's-- say things and it gets reported in a somewhat different way. But the juror, Peter McEntegart (PH)-- … This gentleman who wrote in Time Magazine, made a serious personal accusation in print, so there's no doubt about it, what he said. And I don't-- have you read that article?

JORDAN: I've heard-- I haven't read the article. But I've heard a report, synopsis of what this -- whatever his statements are.

RATHER: Well, me read a direct quote from it. And I've checked and double checked the quote. He said that you, and now I'll quote, "authored her view that when things went to hell at Tyco, the Ivy League educated, WASPy board of directors closed ranks. And served up, in her words, the 'Pollack and the Jew on a platter.'"

"For a DA eager to make an example of somebody, anybody, for the corporate greed for the late 1990's." End of his quoting you. Did you say that?


RATHER: Did you say anything close to it?

JORDAN: I said, well, the first thing is that I would never use the phrase, "Pollack and a Jew," because that is an (UNINTEL) characterization. There's a slur. I don't have any-- I never do that. That's not who I am. That's not good. I don't even use the-- I don't use words like that and I don't do any – ethnic characterizations. I did not do it there.

RATHER: You flatly did not say that.

JORDAN: I flatly did not say that. I did say that I did not have confidence in the director's testimony because there were too many times when they would say, "Well, we never saw those loans." And then the defense would present a paper where they had signed their signature at the bottom of a page showing that they had.

So I began to not feel I could give weight to the director's testimony. And since it was unanimously that we never approved these, it led me to believe, "Well, these directors are being sued in a civil suit that's going on after this, being sued for negligence. And it would be in their interest to find these defendants guilty because it would help them in their own suit." Why they really were doing that or not, I don't know. They may not have been.

RATHER: But for purposes here, you never used the phrase, "The Pollack and the Jew?"

JORDAN: No. I never did. And I never talk that way. I did, in the course of that saying, that where the directors, were part of a background that was similar, whereas Dennis-- it was brought out. It was in the evidence that Mr. Kozlowski was of Polish descent.

At one point the evidence said that they had a Polish maid, Mariola, who cleaned the New York apartment and the Boca Raton house. And that she states she thought he was an absolutely wonderful man. And he had allowed her to bring her-- her family down there at Thanksgiving at one point when she couldn't get up.

And invited him to dinner. And this top CEO, paid CEO in the country, went and had dinner with the housekeeper and had a Polish meal. Which he enjoyed. And I thought, does that have anything to do with being guilty? Essentially no. It doesn't-- it's almost beside the point. But it did illuminate that he has a Polish background, of which I think he's very proud. And I think was delightful.

RATHER: Yeah. I wanna move on, but I know you would agree--

JORDAN: That and as a remark, they said, "Oh, well, he's got a German name." I said, "OK, whatever, German and Polish. Never mind. They are not part of the--" well, I guess, White Anglo Saxon community that most of the directors belong -- gone to similar colleges.

They had summer homes together. They had places in Boca Grande (PH) together. They were part of a group. And the fact that these others were not really in that it's more like a grace not to the rest of the my feeling about what was the director's evidence.

… But I never said that. I wouldn't say that. "Pollack and the Jew." That's not my language. … I don't talk that way.

RATHER: That's where --

JORDAN: I don't talk that way.

RATHER: --going with the-- it-- it's one thing to speak of someone being of Polish heritage.

JORDAN: Right.

RATHER: Or having an ethnic background-- of Poland. It's not thing to use the phrase "Pollack and the Jew."

JORDAN: --it can make me so mad, because I don't talk that way. I can't even remember the last I even heard that epithetical kind of name used. But it was way back years ago. Maybe. I was born in Illinois. It was in Chicago. There was a very strong Polish population in Chicago. And I remember--

RATHER: But you don't use these words?

JORDAN: I don't use those words.

RATHER: And you're sure that you didn't say that?

JORDAN: I am absolutely sure. And all I can say is it suggests to me that those are the words that were in the mind of the writer. They're not mind. When he hears me say someone has a Polish background, what he hears is that word. And that's not my word. I don't talk that way.

RATHER: So (UNINTEL) is not your contention. It may say something about him, but it doesn't say anything truthful about you?

JORDAN: Yeah. It-- definitely truthful about me. Whether it says something about him or not, only he knows.

RATHER: I wanna move to some of the things that were said in the press. We've covered the ground that the Wall Street Journal named you as a juror, which is very unusual journalistically. Now that you know that happened, what's your feeling about that?

JORDAN: I think it's outrageous. I think they must have known that that was against all of the principals. I have heard it said, somewhere in this discussion recently, maybe something I've read recently, that their contention was that my supposed, so-called hand gesture made it, in some way, entitled them to say that I had-- I'll have to think if I can follow the reasoning through that.

But that it made me somehow a personage that therefore I was already known in some way. And therefore they, it was already for them to give, put my name on it.

RATHER: May I read you the quote. It's a direct quote-- from a spokesman for Dow Jones, which owns the Wall Street Journal. It says, "The fact remains that Juror No. 4, Mrs. Jordan, drew attention to herself through her own behavior in open court."

"We decided then that her name was newsworthy and of value to the public. We still believe this to be true." I think that's what you're referring to?

JORDAN: I think so. Yes. I don't think that in any way you can say that I drew attention to myself in a way that would warrant any of that because, as I've said earlier, I did not make any hand signal. I did not try to say something to the defense.

I cannot tell you if what I did with my hand was. I have no memory of it. But I know that I never would do that. And so I have to believe what I know. If I had made a hand signal, that I would know. And that's not in my mind.

Part V: Interview With Tyco Juror Ruth Jordan