OK, here it is http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2984.msg108070.html#msg108070
Tony only THINKS he read it.
The campaign team would be using such for propaganda if such story did exist.
In the meantime even when jurors do say such things it is worthless. A juror saying that they would have been swayed by unsupported claims and inadmissible evidence is quite meaningless. The whole reason inadmissible evidence is kept out is to prevent jurors from irrationally assigning weight to unreliable claims as this juror allegedly did.
To make matters worse a juror won't even remember all the evidence in the case years later so the more time that passes the less the juror will even know just how strong the case was unless the juror makes an effort to learn all the evidence and details again.
For a jury verdict to be undone new ADMISSIBLE evidence must be found which could have resulted in a rational jury acquitting the convict. An actual juror hearing all the convict's inadmissible BS and/or BS of the convicts supporters and being swayed by such would not mean squat. Such juror likely would only hear one side anyway, not the BS being taken apart.
