I just got off the phone with Juror #9. He said he tried to register at the Court TV message boards under the hat name "Juror #9," but his membership application was rejected. I've put in an email to the moderator on his behalf, and hope that will correct things. We'll see what happens.
This entry had been percolating in my mind for several days, especially when I saw that Juror #10's personal information had somehow been appearing on the Internet. That really disappointed me. It's my understanding that the main stream media found out his full name, since it was reported on KFI on the John and Ken show. I don't know if this information was initially revealed by Juror #10 or not. There also has been a lot of discussion on the Court TV message boards about Juror #10 being a Mormon, and an inference that his religion played a significant role in how he "judged" Lana. I believe there also might have been some inference that Juror #10 was associated with some of the fringe offshoots of the main LDS Church. I spoke with a dear Internet friend this morning, a devout Mormon, to get her perspective on Juror #10, and learn a bit more about the structure and teachings of the church.
First off, I don't believe there is any verification out there that Juror #10 is involved in a fringe sect or the Fundamentalist cult offshoot of the Mormon faith, led by Warren Jeffs. There's quite a bit of stuff you can read about the Mormon church online at LDS.org. You can even do a search of their entire website, and pull up a particular teaching, just using a phrase. According to my friend, "We're not like Jehovah Witnesses or other groups that do shunning or judging. We are taught just the opposite. And, it doesn't matter where Mormon's are located in the world, we are all taught the same thing. We are always taught to love everyone and have service to help change them." And she went onto imply, that meant change them into better people. She also said that the title of 'Elder' "...is the lowest ranking for a grown man. It doesn't mean you are 'high up,' in the church. Now, if it was a Bishopric, that would be high up, or if he was part of the Elder's Quorum, that would be higher up."
My friend also said that in the Mormon faith, they are taught that the "laws of the land" come before the laws of the religion. That they are taught to, "Follow the law of the land." And I did some searches of the LDS site using that phrase "laws of the land," and "judging," and it was pretty interesting reading the Mormon Scriptures, and other entries from their Gospel library.
Juror #9 and I talked a bit about Asperger's and Juror #10. At first, #9 felt that there was nothing "wrong" with #10, because he didn't sense anything "wrong" with #10. In fact, Juror #9 said he easily bonded with #10, because they had a few things in common, and he really liked him as a person. He was surprised that people perceived #10 as having a "flat affect." However, after we talked, there were some things that stood out.
The 13 notebooks. You know how the steno notebooks the jurors are provided have a line down the middle? Well, Juror #10 only wrote on the right side of that page line when he took his notes. And Juror #10 took detailed notes all during deliberations. So that note taking was not as much as people originally thought, but only writing on one side of the page, in my opinion is another unusual characteristic, as well as the taking notes during deliberations.
#9 said, "Every doubt was reasonable." This was not limited to Juror #10, but was also felt by other jurors, including Juror #1. To me, this tells us that some of the jurors lacked the ability to come to conclusions about behavior, and what type of behavior was more reasonable than other behavior.
Juror #9 said that #10 was wrong when he said, "We had discounted the forensics." Not true. He said they never came to a consensus on that. It was more along the lines of, "Let's say they were inconclusive." And #9 disagrees with #10's statement that #1 was at one point guilty. Juror #9 said #1 "Definitely was." (Another interesting point, Juror #11 was always wanting all the jurors to agree to the same thing, or agree that something occurred a specific way.)
Juror #9 thought it was possible that Juror #1 was jealous of Lana. Juror #1 said, "I'm a strong Mexican woman, and I don't understand why Lana would allow anyone to put anything in her mouth." Juror #1 said that she would never let anyone put a gun in her mouth. I find this interesting that, because this juror felt that "she" would never let something like that happen to her, she didn't have the ability to perceive that someone else could be terrified in the same situation, or that the gun was possibly forced inside Lana's mouth when she opened it to possibly scream. My thoughts on this are, did Juror #1 see Lana as a weak woman, and that she was stronger, or possibly morally superior to Lana?
Juror #9 has said that one juror had difficulty articulating their position, as well as understanding the definition of malice, as it was outlined by the court. He also said that Juror #2, would not be doing interviews, a show for Dateline, or write a book. In his own words, (via Juror #9), #2 said, "I don't want people to perceive a conflict of interest." Juror #9 called #2, "An honorable guy."
Juror #1 was looking through her notebooks and reading quite a few of Lana's emails and always focusing on the negative to support her position, no matter how tiny or insignificant the point would be. And, Juror #1 made this statement about Spector, "He's old." And the inference that Juror #9 got from that was, as if we should let him go. Juror #9 had to keep pointing out the jury instruction that they were not allowed to consider the consequences of their verdict.
I don't know if Juror #1 was jealous of Lana, and I don't know if Juror #10 has a form of Asperber's Syndrome or not. Certainly a "diagnosis" of Asperger's is all speculation to explain Juror #10's vote, as well as his flat affect in front of the camera and his odd answers to questions on Ashleigh Banfield's show. I do find it interesting that even with the information (that did not come into evidence) that Ms. Banfield gave him, he was still able to say that he could basically argue that information both ways.
Taking that into consideration with everything else we have learned about Juror #10, my impression is that #10 was not able to evaluate the information that was presented, and put "weights" to the evidence. He weighed all things equally, and kept them equally in his mind. He was unable to put an emotional weight to proposed behavior and take one side or another and determine if a behavior was reasonable or not. Having been presented with several different possibilities, he thought all were possible and was unable to reject any and pick a specific one. In that respect it is my opinion that he failed as a juror on this trial.