The foreman is unhappy with rules set up by presiding judge Brinkema that allowed the dissenting juror's identity to be kept secret from the other jurors. Votes were taken on the basis of anonymity so they had no idea who was holding out against the death penalty. It seems to completely beyond the comprehension of the foreman as to why this juror might have been a little bit shy about sharing their name with even the other jurors on the case.
This might give her a clue:
Brinkema ordered that the identities of the jurors be withheld for security reasons. The foreman contacted The Post and the interview was conducted on the condition of anonymity by a reporter who recognized her from the trial.
For security reasons. I'm sure it's security from the long reach of al qaeda and all the operatives of that secretive organization and not the ravings of wingnuts upset that Moussaoui didn't get the guillotine. The juror who wanted life in prison instead of the death penalty wouldn't possibly have faced any retribution from the unhinged among us after the trial. It's not like other jurors are talking to reporters or anything. His/ her name would never have gotten out.
As for the Washington Post; reporting this foreman's words might be something I'd write off to the nature of journalism if it happened a few years ago. Journalists used to live by the credo "we report, you decide." But if there's anything the Bush era has taught us about journalism it's that that credo is dead. Now that journalists live by the credo "we decide what to report" reporters can't use the excuse that they go where the news takes them.