The verdict. "Not Guilty" Juror B37 says Zimmerman is not innocentJuror B37 was interviewed by Anderson Cooper on CNN. She clearly thought that Zimmerman should have had accountability for his actions. Depite this, she herself had thought "not guilty" even before any jury deliberations.
Transcript of the interviews and talking heads
Interesting is it not?
When the 6 jurors left the courtroom, two of them thought Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter and one of them thought he was guilty of M2.
Given that B37 was one of the three "not guilty" votes, her reservations about Zimmerman's actions indicate that at least four of the 6 thought that he should have stayed in the truck.
The jury ended up returning a “not guilty” verdict. This was not because they discovered evidence that changed their minds in a pile that so disorganized that they had to request an itemized list to even begin to make sense of it.
It was because they found that the jury instructions did not allow them to consider anything but the fight itself. They were not allowed to consider what led up to it.
The "Original Aggressor" instruction was removed at the last moment.
The jury could only consider the fight itself and were not allowed to consider what led up to it.
They could not consider
- why he hung around for about 2 minutes after the NEN call ended, or
- why Zimmerman had consistently asserted that he headed straight back for his truck ASAP, or
- that in the face of those assertions and an absence of any explanation, Mark O'Mara was left suggesting that Zimmerman might have been "looking around" during those minutes, and
- Zimmerman making no attempt whatsoever to defuse a situation by identifying himself, giving a provocative response to a question - and then putting his hand to his hip/waistband.
Even Juror B37, who came away from the courtroom thinking “not guilty” says she wanted to find Zimmerman guilty of ……. (read below)
She thinks that Zimmerman
- started the whole thing,
- should not have got out of the truck,
- was frustrated and wandedso badly to catch those people.
- did not know when to stop and went beyond what he should
- lied in his stories and
- confronted Martin.
It seems clear from her CNN interview that had a “not guilty but at the same time not innocent” verdict had been available, she would have gone for that.
I wanted to find him guilty of not using his senses. He started the ball rolling. He could have avoided the whole situation by staying in the car, but he wanted to do good. I think he had good in his heart. He just went overboard.”
I think he just didn't know when to stop. He was frustrated, and things just got out of hand. .
She thinks that Zimmerman was hunting for Martin
I think George Zimmerman is a man whose heart was in the right place, but just got displaced by the vandalism in the neighborhoods, and wanting to catch these people so badly, that he went above and beyond what he really should have done. But I think his heart was in the right place. It just went terribly wrong.He wanted to catch these people.
I think he’s guilty of not using good judgment. When he was in the car and he called 911, he shouldn’t have gotten out of that car.
I think the roles changed. I think, I think George got in a little bit too deep, which he shouldn’t have been there. But Trayvon decided that he wasn’t going to let him scare him and get the one- over, up on him, or something. And I think Trayvon got mad and attacked him.
He was the hunter but the roles changed.
She is sure that Zimmerman lied about some aspects
I’m sure there were some fabrications, enhancements,Her certainty that Zimmerman lied about heading for the truck may be related to the fact that she understands that times are unexplained by his stories.
I think there were maybe some other issues and stuff leading between that, like what exactly — where George went exactly, and where Trayvon went exactly, because nobody knows where the two of them went to.
and I think there was 2 minutes between when George hung up from his 911 call to the time when Trayvon and Rachel had hung up
In the trial, there was no evidence to indicate where Zimmerman was during those missing minutes after the call. In his stories afterwards, Zimmerman had insisted that he was returning immediately to his truck. No delays, no missing minutes. In his interview on the Hannity Show, he took this lie to new heights/depths. "Less than 30 seconds".
In his closing - faced with the reality of the gap and the absence of any explanation at all from Zimmerman - Mark O'Mara offered a theory that Zimmerman “might have been looking around”. He didn't venture to offer a theory as to what Zimmerman might have been looking around for.
She wasn’t specific about the other “fabrications and enhancements” ( aka "lies" ) that she is sure that Zimmerman asserted as being truth.
A leading candidate has got to be the “circling”. Although the dispatcher was right then asking him to tell if the guy did anything, Zimmerman does not mention anything. He came out with it later -–although he dropped it in Hannity.
.She might have had doubts about a guy who clearly is utterly confused about significant parts of events that happened during the NEN can remember a dialog from a movie when they encountered. She might also wonder that a guy whose head was about to explode could remember lines from a different movie.
She believes that Zimmerman confronted Martin
he could have -- when George confronted him and he could have walked away and gone home
Apart from her stating that “nobody knows where the two of them went to”, the missing 2 minutes and MOM suggesting that Zimmerman might have been ”looking around” during those missing minutes, it might be that she considered that Zimmerman’s responses to Martin on the encounter were confrontational – this would apply both to Zimmerman’s version and Jeantel’s version. See Quiz.
She goes on to say that she would not be happy to have anyone who acted like Zimmerman did on the night being on watch in her neighborhood.
She would be OK with Zimmerman being there because she thinks that Zimmerman now – despite “not using good judgement” on the night and “not knowing where to stop” would now be the “most careful person on the planet”. She thinks that Zimmerman had learn his lesson from what happened.
Well, one might expect him to have had a reality call. Quite apart from the realization that his stupidity and recklessness had resulted in the death of a person, there was all that terribly inconvenient stuff that happened afterwards.
Cut to the Hannity Interview…
HANNITY: Is there anything you regret? Do you regret getting out of the car to follow Trayvon that night?
ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.
HANNITY: Is there anything you might do differently in retrospect now that the time has passed a little bit?
ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.
LiesFor some strange reason, neither she nor Anderson Cooper got to wondering why Zimmerman would need to assert what B37 is sure were “some fabrications, enhancements” (aka “lies”).
His lies were all to do with Martin being a clearly dangerous violent thug, and he being a concerned citizen who did what he had to do, did not hang about unnecessarily – but got jumped as he headed straight back for his truck.
If Zimmerman believes that he did no wrong, why did he feel the need to 'talk up' a threat from Martin and 'talk down' any hint that he spent a very suspicious amount of time in that dark central path area.
Why the Jury Instructions forced the jury to return a "not guilty" verdict despite three thinking "guilty".Read: What You May Not Know About the Zimmerman Verdict: The Evolution of a Jury Instruction
Quite apart from overcharging as M2 and then putting in a buffoon to prove M2 via the medium of shouting, the prosecution blew the case by allowing the defence to take the "Original Aggressor" out of the picture at the last moment..
Was Zimmerman an "Original Aggressor"?We don't know for sure how exactly the fight started. The defence assert that Martin was the first to demonstrate aggression, but there is absolutely no proof of that.
It is clear that Zimmerman's accounts afterwards contained "fabrications and enhancements" ( to quote Juror B37.)
Zimmerman had formal NW advices
“Call from the safety of your home or vehicle."
"Do not approach.”
He had “We don’t need you to do that” – which is as far as the dispatcher was allowed by formal policy to go in the direction of giving an instruction.
What if Zimmerman had told the dispatcher that the guy had just circled the truck in a threatening confrontational manner - as he later told? He didn’t tell the dispatcher that for some strange reason, even though the dispatcher had asked him to let him know if the guy did anything.
Is it possible that had Zimmerman mentioned such a circling, that the dispatcher’s advice would have been “We really, really, like freaking REALLY, do NOT need you to do that.”?
There is "following" - and there is "following". The word is extremly elastic.
Read: a story about two construction workers following someone.