Here's a full 15 minute interview with the jury foreman, asked reasonably probing questions.
He does clarify some of his earlier statements, but tellingly, he repeats the comment about moving on after getting bogged down on the first day (which was previously noted as being related to prior art on the trade dress patent), and he never says that they went back and addressed this later.
He reaffirms that they moved on and went straight to the patent infringement checks and then the damage awards. He concentrates repeatedly on the wilful infringement of the patents, but it really does seem like they skipped going back to check whether the prior art invalidated the trade dress patents.
At about 13:20 in the interviewer asks specifically about the design patent and the fact that they found it to be valid. He doesn't answer along the lines of "we reviewed the prior art and found that it wasn't sufficient to invalidate the patent", instead he talks about checking the accused devices against the design patent to see if they infringed.
The closest he comes is at about 14:10 when he says regarding the Samsung devices and the iPhone:
"In the case of the design patent it was the look and feel of it, and how the device presented itself, and when you compared them side-by-side against the statements in the patent it was clear to every one of us that not only was the patent valid but that the Samsung products that were accused were legitimately a problem."
It's not a comparison between the accused devices and the iPhone against the patent that determines whether the design patent was valid, it's a weighing of the prior art.
The prior art was key to whether there was a valid trade dress patent for Samsung to infringe, and it is still
appears that this jury foreman missed that point.