General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMore incredible things Juror B37 said on CNN!!
I swear I just heard her say to Anderson Cooper that the reason she didn't believe Rachel Jeantel's testimony is because the timing of the phone calls was such that if what Rachel said was true, that is, that she heard Trayvon interacting with Z ("Why you following me for?" that the police dispatch that Z was on the phone with would have also heard that and he didn't.
She then goes on to elaborate (because Anderson asked her to clarify) that Z had hung up 2 minutes before Trayvon and Rachel had ended their call, therefore the police dispatch should have heard the interaction between Z and Trayvon.
I swear she just said that! This was her reason for DISREGARDING RACHEL'S TESTIMONY!!! She said that herself to Anderson Cooper on national TV.
Go listen yourself and see if 1) she actually said that and 2) if you have a different interpretation of what the hell she meant if I got it wrong.
This woman is SERIOUSLY confused. And George is a free man because of it.
Holy shit. It just keeps going on and on.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Duer 157099
(17,742 posts)Of all the things she was told, it figures she'd pay attention to THAT one!!
stranger81
(2,345 posts)Or at least any concept of one event preceding another.
One wonders how she ties her shoes in the morning without assistance.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Or something.
I don't even know anymore.
It's cuckoo bananas out there.
Stay safe, people.
Quixote1818
(28,936 posts)Probably Freerepublic.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Duer 157099
(17,742 posts)She wants two things that are mutually exclusive to be true, and because they aren't she doesn't believe Rachel's testimony.
She thinks police dispatch should have heard the interaction.
But, she admits that Z hung up with dispatch 2 MINUTES before Trayvon and Rachel hung up.
And she thinks Rachel is the wonky one.
Get it?
dkf
(37,305 posts)But might she not have been saying the details of what happened prior to the call end, if you draw back all that happened according to Rachel, it would have started as z was still on the phone with the dispatcher?
That might be difficult to determine for us, not having all the times or the details at hand.
Honestly I've never tried to do that analysis.
madaboutharry
(40,211 posts)The calls are in the timeline and reflect the phone records. She is wrong.
Duer 157099
(17,742 posts)Unfuckingbelievable. She should go hide, not go on national television!
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Consideration One: that it was stated that if Trayvon's friend while on the phone to Trayvon, heard him say "What you followin' me for?" and the jury is told that this question was never made, because if it had happened, the dispatcher would have also heard the question Trayvon asked Z.
Consideration Two: But then the contradictory offering - that Zimmerman must have already hung up before that happened. If that statement is true, then it doesn't matter that the dispatcher and the dispatcher recording did not have Trayvon's remark down.
But apparently the jury followed an instruction not to pay attention to the second consideration.
dkf
(37,305 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Entire section of the interview that is pertinent to the OP. You an listen to it and make up your own mind.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Duer 157099
(17,742 posts)so the jury would have been able to see exactly when the phone calls were made and how long they lasted.
How she could have that info in front of her and STILL make the illogical conclusion she did is way beyond me. I am left seriously befuddled by how this juror makes decisions.
dkf
(37,305 posts)With all the things she said she heard, when would the first confrontation have started? The "why are you following me" or whatever
Duer 157099
(17,742 posts)were a) Z on the phone with police dispatch and b) Rachel on the phone with Trayvon.
None of those involved the screams. The screams came later, when neither TM nor GZ were on the phone with anyone. The screams were heard on a 911 call made from a resident.
The first confrontation according to Rachel was the "Why are you following me" one. I'd have to look at the logs and her testimony again to be sure of exactly which call it was, if I understand your question.
Someone had presented a timeline in court, sure wish I had that in front of me now.
dkf
(37,305 posts)That would have had her listening to the screams right? Those were on the 911 call.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)So it's possible the screaming started right after the disconnect. And this woman somehow thinks we should be able to hear Trayvon talking to GZ through the phone of the witnesses calling in. Had she went back and listened to how long the screams lasted, she would probably be surprised they lasted a minute or less. But I guess she had that book deal to start, time is money so they say.
Like in the OJ case, "They was deliberated".
I hope this is investigated. This whole thing stinks.
Duer 157099
(17,742 posts)that the "911 scream" call should have captured Trayvon/Rachel convo? Or the Trayvon/Z "why you following me?" part?
Either is ridiculous, but since she specifically mentioned GZ's phone call to NEN as the one she was talking about (ended 2 mins before TM/RJ one did), did she take a mystery leap in her story so that now she's talking about a different phone call?
And she has the nerve to say that Rachel was incoherent and unreliable??? JFC!
Duer 157099
(17,742 posts)to the next minute. So, there could be your 40 seconds of screaming.
Yes? No? Or am I not understanding your point?
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Zimmerman had hung up two minutes earlier, and so Trayvon could have said what he said to Jaentel without the dispatch hearing it.
But this is how people are when they have decided to do as they want to do. The "logic tree" is abandonned, and they simply do what they want.
This style of mis-logic summarizes the entire history of the "inferior races" as viewed by the superior race, the white man. The white person's own arguments present information they refuse to actually utilize to understand what is happening due to the apartheid influences in the nation.
I can remember sometime back in the Seventies, this guy I worked with bragging about how his connections to the inner circle of Democrats who ran Chicago had landed him a plush weekend job. "Yeah," he said, "without those connections, I wouldn't have had a shot at the job. Not a shot." The job required abut zilch in terms of effort - but paid very well. Then about five minutes later, he starts dissing African Americans - "You know, if you wanna work, you can always find something. There's no excuse for them lazing around."
And of course, you can substitute any ethnic group you want to in place of the African Americans.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)However, during the trial the jury was instructed to disregard Serino saying that he thought Zimmerman was being truthful, but by this woman's admission she said that she found that statement by Serino to be a big part of why she voted not guilty. She didn't as instructed by the judge during the trial disregard that statement Serino made.
Why if this was just a big reason that she voted not guilty did she not bring this up to the other jurors in deliberations as surely at least one of them would have recalled or noted they were to disregard Serino's statement, and surely if there was any question about it why did they not clarify this admonishment with the judge? That is a HUGE mistake by the juror and the jury as a whole.
I'm actually beginning to believe that this woman might have been a plant. I'll freak out if it's discovered that she was the foreman.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)I mis-typed.
I don't know that this woman was a plant. I think people in Florida happen to be like this!
Not all people, but certainly enough.
Duer 157099
(17,742 posts)Quixote1818
(28,936 posts)See here:
7:13:41 The end of Zimmerman's call to Sanford police.[14]
7:16:00 - 7:16:59 Martin's call from the girl goes dead during this minute.[14][15]
dkf
(37,305 posts)Is THAT what is conflicting?
Duer 157099
(17,742 posts)I don't have it in front of me. At what exact time did the screaming begin?
DURHAM D
(32,609 posts)but instead "worked" with the defense contrived fable. Little did we know the jury had a leader pushing her own narrative. Perhaps she is a fiction writer irl.
stranger81
(2,345 posts)Do we know whether or not it was her?
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)stranger81
(2,345 posts)TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)DURHAM D
(32,609 posts)I am thinking this juror probably volunteered and/or demanded the position. No doubt she probably used her husband's credentials to burnish her qualifications and I assume to add weight to her "positions".
Given how quickly she has jumped out in front for interviews and book deals she has been planning to line her pockets from day one.
stranger81
(2,345 posts)Her eagerness to profit from this situation is appalling.
Ignored said he didn't think it was her. I sure don't know.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)when does that happen?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)Had it all on an exhibit and everything. Apparently, this juror chose to ignore everything from the prosecution and ignore direct admonition from the judge in ignoring certain testimony that never should have been allowed to be uttered in the first place.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)that the jurors were not going to like Rachel Jeantel. Witnesses' personalities are a big part of whether or not the jurors will believe their testimonies. Right or wrong, that's how it is.
I don't think the prosecution ever got any traction after Jeantel's testimony. They were on their heels from then on.
naaman fletcher
(7,362 posts)I thought Jeantel was their only good witness. Every other witness almost was a total disaster.
The prosecution should have made the entire case on Zimmerman following TM on the known timeline, Jeantel's testimony, and then the lack of blood on Trayvon's hand's etc. and then pitched the clear narrative of a kid being stalked and murdered.
Instead they meandered around sort of casting doubt on Zim's story but every time seemed to be bringing up more "what ifs.
My personal belief is that they were dealt a difficult case that they had to prosecute for political reasons and to save their own careers just sort of through everything at the wall to see what would stick so that later they could say "look we presented everything to the jury in a case we didn't want, don't blame me" when going for job interviews.
johnnyrocket
(1,773 posts)Zimmerman is a good person who likes to help people.
I would be comfortable with George being on neighborhood watch, and with a gun.
I know George feared he would die, without a doubt.
Those people don't have a good education. (Regarding Trayvons friend on the phone)
.....
Should I go on? This woman is a piece of work!!! What the FUCK was she doing on a jury!?
Holy shit, god help us all.
madaboutharry
(40,211 posts)with Anderson Cooper she called Zimmerman "Georgie"
Cha
(297,213 posts)she's in love with a cowardly stalker.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Duer 157099
(17,742 posts)I thought I heard that too, but then my brain decided she must have said "George, he" without much of a pause. But I didn't re-listen to confirm.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)johnnyrocket
(1,773 posts)I swear to god that woman sounded like she could have been George Zimmerman himself, if George Zimmerman were a woman and happened to be on his own trial's jury.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Btw, the Judge instructed the jurors to disregard the comment Serino made about believing that Zimmerman was telling the truth.
But listen to what the juror says at 3:25 minute mark - she did NOT do what the Judge said to do !
dkf
(37,305 posts)It's hard enough to disregard after its been said, but after you've left enough time for it to sink in as reality it's hard to undo.
Duer 157099
(17,742 posts)and tell the world that my decision was heavily influenced by something the judge told me to disregard.
It tells us something very important about how she viewed this case and the process and the instructions.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)This juror said that Zimmerman had gone too far. He didn't use good judgment. She made the case for manslaughter. But then, she said that Zimmerman had the right to defend herself. Clearly, the prosecution did not make clear why the jurors should view Zimmerman as doing something unlawful, why, in this case, Zimmerman was the aggressor. That was the fault of the prosecution. Seems to me. The prosecution seems to have failed in explaining why Zimmerman was not exonerated by the Stand Your Ground law.
The juror seemed confused by that fact. She could not reconcile the manslaughter law with the Stand Your Ground law. The prosecutor should have clarified that in his closing argument. Apparently, the prosecutor did not point out that Zimmerman made the decision to follow Trayvon Martin and that it was that decision that was the aggression. Perhaps the prosecutor did not see it that way.
Further, I think the prosecutor erred big time in presenting the videos of Zimmerman telling his story. He should have left that out and forced Zimmerman to decide either to testify and face cross-examination or not have his story told in his voice. That was downright stupid on the prosecutor's part -- unless he really did not want to convict.
I don't want to live anywhere near Zimmerman. I sure hope he doesn't move to California. I don't think he would like it here.
7782.07?Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.
(1)?The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
. . . .
(3)?A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(2)(b) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
776.013?Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
(1)?A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
. . . .
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.07.html
776.013?Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
(1)?A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
. . . .
(3)?A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)One thing I'm pretty sure I heard on TV the other day was that in Florida the standard 'jury instructions' regarding 'self-defense' has the same wording as the standard 'jury instructions' regarding 'stand your ground'.
Anyway I'll come back to this tomorrow
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)stopbush
(24,396 posts)or that the burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) was too high, Juror B37 is showing that GZ was found not guilty based on the EXISTING PREJUDICES and STUPIDITIES of the jurors themselves, NOT on any evidence or lack thereof.
Why am I not surprised?
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)or All of the Above. Seems to me the fix was in across the board.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)It didn't matter what evidence was presented.
Hong Kong Cavalier
(4,572 posts)And I don't buy her "don't believe in media" crap. I bet she listens to Right-wing radio and watches Fox News.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Initech
(100,072 posts)Or how much the NRA is paying her.