Zimmerman Trial Juror B-29 Speaks! (PHOTO)

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
they had to find him not guilty because the way the system is set up it doesn't mean they can't feel in their hearts that zimmerman is gulty as sin!!! just like many people in their hearts believe oj and casey are guilty!!

So....regardless of your "feelings", can you prove that they are guilty?

Would you send a person to the chair based upon your "feelings"? What if they were found innocent because someone who didn't want to get involved at the time, finally found a conscience later?

Oops! My bad!...doesn't cut it.

no if i was on that jury i would have had to find him not guilty as well and i have mentioned that several times, it does not mean i would have felt good about it. it happens all the time, people get away with things because of slick attorneys, loopholes, lack of evidence etc etc

she's a coward, course encyclopedia dramatica have already "doxed" the jurors anyhow


Zimmerman was a hero and remains though

I hope none of you are followed by someone, with a gun. Seems to me like GZ played judge, jury and executioner. He judged someone's character, based on color and clothing; thought he was "guilty" until proven innocent; and then gave him the death penalty.

GZ had the right to be "innocent until proven guilty", but TM was "guilty before he could prove his innocence." Who was the one really on trial, in this case. Oh, that's right....the "thug". Unfortunately, no one can PROVE he was a "thug". If TM's tweets and blunt puffin' ways made him a "thug"; what did George's arrest record, make him; a saint?

Also, could someone please explain how contradicting stories by GZ isn't considered "evidence" or "proof"; when anything you say, CAN AND WILL BE HELD AGAINST YOU, IN A COURT OF LAW? Does anyone know anything about Miranda Rights?

What's with all the double standards? That's really my beef, in all of this!

What’s amazing is that with all due respect the woman is ignorant, jut like Juror 37.

They should know that IF YOU DEEM A WITNESS A LIAR THEN YOU CAN INFER THAT ALL OF HIS TESTIMONY IS A LIE

THE LIAR IS GEORGE ZIMMERMAN!

On that basis alone they could have convicted GZ

This lady made a huge mistake; I understand why she can’t sleep nights.

All she had to do is tell those other ladies to go to hell …Zimmerman’s guilty.

Then we would have had a hung jury.

Then O’Meara, rather than having another trial would have plea bargained a 3 to 5 year jail sentence for GZ

Then some justice would have been done!

reply to post by WonderBoi


Maybe the reason you have a problem with the standards as you put it is because based on what you just wrote you seem to not have a clue as to what the standards actually are.


Will someone please explain to him. I have tried to in other threads and so have many other people but it never seems to sink in. Maybe there is a language barrier I don't know.

reply to post by Grimpachi
There is no language barrier. All the evidence needed, came in 2 videos. 1 was the re-enactment video and the other was the Hannity interview. Not much of a trial, when both sides are working together. I'm not the one that has a hard time understanding our system.

I'm not going to quote the article, you can read all the contradictions for yourself.Zimmerman Video Reenactment Contradicts Statement and Crime Scene Evidence I will, however, leave you with someone's blog about it.

I haven’t had time to listen to all of the interviews, but I have a few thoughts on what I did hear. My first impression is that GZ is taking no chances on the self-defense claim. Trayvon was threatening his life in no less than three ways: (1) TM was repeatedly smashing GZ’s head into the concrete until GZ felt that his head might explode, (2) TM was holding one hand over GZ’s nose and one hand over his mouth (no DNA or blood transfer?), and GZ was smothering, and (3) TM saw GZ’s gun and was going for it, uttering a death threat to make sure that his intentions were unambiguous. Overkill, much?

By “straddling,” did GZ mean that TM was sitting on him or standing over him, presumably leaning down? If the former, then how could TM have possibly seen the holstered gun? His legs must have been covering much of GZ’s torso. And it was dark.

I am struck by how much conversation there was after the gunshot. GZ claims that TM sat up and spoke to him, after having been shot. He appeared so animated that GZ felt it necessary to restrain him by sitting on his back and holding his arms out to the side (how was it that TM was found with his hands underneath his body?), and he asked the neighbor who came out to help him restrain TM. Could he really not tell that he was dead? It seems unlikely that TM would or could have done anything other than grunt and collapse after such a wound, but I am certainly not an expert here. Why would GZ make this up, though?

It is clear from the tapes that GZ was feeling some aggression (they always get away, f*king punks, etc.) Trayvon was strolling home talking to his girlfriend. But we are asked to believe that suddenly the two exchanged attitudes, with TM becoming the aggressive one and GZ the pussy cat.

You may think the system worked, but i can't see how.

reply to post by WonderBoi


Wow you posted someone’s blog who says they haven’t had time to listen to the interviews.


That blog post was almost as bad as you starting the George Zimmerman Trial Thread then railing against the guy the whole time while admitting you were not watching any of it. Completely uninformed.

There is definitely a barrier of something, a disconnect maybe who knows.

I have a good idea why you think the system failed.

reply to post by Grimpachi
The system failed because you have the RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT, for a reason. Yet, his defense lawyer lets him spew out, lie after lie after lie after lie? What other "evidence" was needed? The evidence should have proven his lies. Slick, the way the system works.

Originally posted by WonderBoi
I hope none of you are followed by someone, with a gun. Seems to me like GZ played judge, jury and executioner.

It's not illegal to follow someone, even with a gun. It's not illegal to ignore the advice of 911 in this case either. What IS illegal is to attack the person following you just because you don't like it.

Trayvon Martin was (very likely) the one that committed the first truly criminal act by attacking GZ. Based on everything I've read about the case and each of their characters, I believe the right decision was made, I believe TM attacked Zimmerman first, you may not, but the system worked. There was REASONABLE DOUBT, so he was found "Not Guilty", he wasn't found "Innocent".

reply to post by Paschar0
There goes another one of those scripted words: "Attacked". All based on a known criminal's word.

Here's another example of how well the system works.

reply to post by WonderBoi

GZ had the right to be "innocent until proven guilty", but TM was "guilty before he could prove his innocence."

martin was acting suspicious. if i saw a strange person in my neighborhood cutting across yards i would stop and say something, and i'm usually armed with either a handgun or a rather large knife.

if i were stopped by someone and asked what i was doing while walking through a strange neighborhood i would explain myself. i most definitely wouldn't attack them, nor would i refer to them with derogatory racist language.

reply to post by WonderBoi

What's with all the double standards?

what double standards ??
1 standard - innocent until PROVEN guilty

as for what makes TM a 'thug' ... that'd be the assault he committed against a total stranger.

you've presented one warped theory so i'll have to ask ... are you one of those who believes it is OK to assault a stranger during a 1st encounter ?

the trial revealed much that your videos won't.
and that is why this juror wanted to base her decision on feelings which have no basis in law.

tbh, i fully expected a hung jury.
i am still shocked that 6 women came to a unanimous agreement about anything
at least they made the correct decision given all the facts presented.

TM was committing a crime at the time of his death (assault) and that cannot be disputed.
if you disagree with the punishment, fine ... don't do the crime.

reply to post by Willtell


Hung jury means he walks free until the next trial. Which would not have recieved the same media attention as the first.

Which would have probably resulted in the same verdict. And even more tax dollars spent for nothing.

The...evidence...just...was...not...there...to...convict.

reply to post by WonderBoi

zimmerman's criminal record? you mean the case of assaulting an officer that was dropped? restraining orders that were granted for BOTH parties, and speeding.

yeah, that's a hell of a wrap sheet.

Originally posted by WonderBoi
reply to post by Paschar0

 

There goes another one of those scripted words: "Attacked". All based on a known criminal's word.

Here's another example of how well the system works.

Yea, you might want to check that sister out a bit...

ireport.cnn.com...

reply to post by WonderBoi


If your post is indicative of how you think this may be a waste of time however I will try.

You keep all capping “Right to remain silent” for some strange reason.

If it is because there were some small inconsistencies between all the interviews he gave that really means nothing and if you had watched the trial you would know why. Detective Serino even said they were nothing to worry about. As far as inconsistencies I bet I could pull up more than a few you have made about this case.
news.yahoo.com...
www.usatoday.com...


If your problem is that he gave all those statements without an attorney that should actually go to benefit his credibility because it shows he wasn’t hiding anything.

If you are just throwing out “right to remain silent” to make yourself seem informed I am sorry to be the one to tell you but it isn’t working.



Go to 0:03:30

"As much as we were trying to find this man guilty…

Lovely. :shk: She was 'Trying to find someone guilty' but got stuck having to follow the law instead.
That's why she feels bad. She apologized for failing to find something on Zimmerman.
She apologized for following the law. Pathetic.

Originally posted by WonderBoi
So basically, the consensus is that in America, murder is ok, as long as you don't get caught?

No .. the consensus on this thread is that the woman wanted to find him guilty and felt bad that the evidence didn't support her pre-conceived notion of guilt. Guilty unless proven innocent. She got it backwards. That's how 'rule by mob mentality' works ... grab the torches and pitchforks. Luckily, there were 5 other people on the jury who were able to make sure that this woman wasn't able to convict a man when there was no evidence of guilt.