Zimmmerman Juror B-37 Seeks Book Deal

Updated to reflect the original article has been edited to make clear B-37 signed with a literary agent who is seeking a deal for her book, but she doesn't actually have a book deal yet.

Zimmerman juror B-37 and her husband have a literary agent who is seeking offers for their book on the George Zimmerman trial. What a surprise (not) - her husband is an attorney.

What B-37 said during the voir dire round on pre-trial publicity (from our forums where it was live-blogged.) [More...]

B-37 is a middle-aged white woman with many pets. She works for chiropractor. She described protests in Sanford as "rioting."

B-37 gets news from NBC. She watches the TODAY show. Since she has a lot of animals, newspapers go in the parrots cage without even being read. She has no use for newspapers because they aren't truthful. It's been a long time since she read one. She has at least: 1 parrot, 1 one winged crow, 3 dogs, 4 cats, and a lizard. She volunteers for a rescue group.

Her impression of the case: There was a death. Trayvon Martin, a teenage boy of color was shot and killed by Zimmerman after a scuffle late at night. She thought it was unfortunate somebody died and that's why you have a jury to prove innocence or guilt.

She has 24 and 27 year old daughters. One lives at home, one is 10 minutes away. She has not discussed the case with husband or daughters.

She remembers angry people, picketing people, and lots of news media. She thinks maybe it was overdone. She thinks the incident is just an unfortunate incident that happened. She does not listen to radio or do much on the internet. She shies away from politics and news. She doesn't pay attention to people giving opinions without facts.

During the second round of questioning she said she used to have concealed weapons permit. Her husband wanted to renew, but she wondered, what's the point?

< Monday Open Thread | Zimmerman Juror B37: It Was Self Defense >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Seriously (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 04:50:58 PM EST
    If you are going to start posting here, and especially on this topic, would please bring actual FACTS to your posts?

    This one is so full of falsehoods and half-truths, that have been discussed here ad nauseam, over the last 16 months, it's hard to even start to address your concerns.

    that comment was deleted (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 05:04:28 PM EST
    for personally attacking the jury with name-calling. It was the commenter's first comment on this site, she's been banned and her account has been zapped.

    Hey (none / 0) (#14)
    by dainla on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 05:22:58 PM EST
    I had previously seen that B37 described Trayvon as "a boy of color."

    Wondering why you left that out?  Was it not to inflame?


    Regardless, (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by magster on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 06:32:17 PM EST
    I prefer US courts over the Italian courts' rights of prosecutors to appeal an acquittal, even if it comes to light that one of the 6 jurors was a poopie-head.

    Nevermind (none / 0) (#16)
    by dainla on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 05:30:35 PM EST
    The other article just highlighted it for effect. You have it in there.  Apologies.

    "Boy of Color" and she made it (none / 0) (#18)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 05:35:23 PM EST
    onto the jury.  Was the prosecution out of challenges.

    Good question. (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 05:37:51 PM EST
    Would a challenge for cause work? (none / 0) (#21)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 05:39:13 PM EST
    Perhaps. Clear the courtroom and let counsel (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 05:42:05 PM EST
    inquire. But her honesty under oath is suspect IMO.

    Here's an article on the subject (none / 0) (#26)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 05:50:16 PM EST
    Interesting defendant is smiling. (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 06:09:54 PM EST
    She's a smart  _ss. Why tke a newspaper you never read?

    What is the significance of (none / 0) (#36)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 06:38:22 PM EST
    a defendant smiling about newspapers are better for lining parrot cages than reading?

    I agree with you, though. I'd take a neighbor's old paper before I'd pay for it to line my bird's cage. Unless her husband reads it.

    That video was long. I wish they had her second round on it. She was bending over backwards to sound like she knew nothing, imo.


    Just because she doesn't read it... (none / 0) (#85)
    by unitron on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:58:19 PM EST
    ...doesn't mean that her husband the lawyer doesn't.

    She didn't say they go into the bird cage immediately, did she?


    Poor taste and bad form aren't illegal. (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 05:00:24 PM EST
    That said, Juror B-37 should be careful when seeking to cash in on her Andy Warhol-allotted 15 minutes. It's pretty hard to predict what the future holds, and her decision to tell all could come back to haunt her in ways she presently cannot even perceive.

    I mean, seeking out fame and / or notoriety can cut two ways, in that it can both open doors for you and also slam them tightly shut on you. And given this development and speaking for myself only, I'd offer that this woman is hardly someone I'd ever want to hire or contract for any job requiring an ability to keep things in confidence.


    I am sure that... (1.00 / 2) (#13)
    by CuriousInAz on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 05:08:51 PM EST
    if they had convicted him this decision would be celebrated by the very voices that villify them now..

    Infact I suspect the book deal would already be signed and with the biggest publishing houses.


    The problem is that (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 05:41:02 PM EST
    Trayvon Martin is dead.  Some decorum would be helpful.

    OJ jurors (none / 0) (#30)
    by Pugfrench on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 06:11:09 PM EST
    Wrote a book to explain themselves. Why not her? I wonder how the other jurors feel. Hopefully she won't out anyone that doesn't want to be outed.

    My guess is that this is her one chance in a (none / 0) (#49)
    by Mitch Guthman on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 07:28:32 PM EST
    lifetime to really cash in, so it's hard to see her walking away from a probably huge jackpot just because of karma.  

    Whatever it is that the future holds for her, my guess is that this trial was her one shot at the gold ring.  She didn't strike me as a person who should not write a bestselling books and make a million dollars because doing something so unseemly would "close doors" to her.  

    This is her shot, I don't see any real downside for her, and she'd be a fool not to take the money.


    Has there ever been ... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 06:26:38 PM EST
    a successful, or even (yikes!) good, book by a juror in a high profile trial?

    I always see news of these deals after every "trial of the century" but I rarely recall seeing the books.  Let alone hearing any good things about them.

    I don't think this woman is looking to make a name (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Mitch Guthman on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 07:33:07 PM EST
    for herself as the next Louisa May Alcott.  I think she'd be happy to settle for being the next Ann Colter and making a million dollars selling poorly written screeds to the Fox News crowd.  

    (Which crowd is also likely to make Zimmerman a very wealthy man).


    She won't make a million dollars ... (none / 0) (#165)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 02:30:23 PM EST
    or anywhere near that.

    Not that I recall (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 07:03:38 PM EST
    I don't even know that the books by the prosecutors or the defense attorneys are that good either though some of those seem to make the best seller lists.

    I actually did a bit of googling ... (none / 0) (#163)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 02:26:42 PM EST
    it doesn't seem like books by jurors have made any kind of impact, financial or otherwise.

    How did this woman ever get on the jury? (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by Mitch Guthman on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 07:16:26 PM EST
    From a prosecution perspective, I don't know what the rest of the jury pool looked like but it would be hard to imagine a less favorable prospective juror. The references to rioting and calling the victim a "boy of color".  I don't understand why the prosecution didn't boot her for cause.

    Basically, unless all the remaining potential jurors were members of the KKK or the NRA, letting this person on the jury was a terrible, horrible, very bad decision. Whoever decided not to ding this woman should never be allowed back in a courtroom.  Not ever.  

    You just have to watch the video on the Gawker site.  Totally unbelievable!

    she also just said (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by dainla on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:39:36 AM EST
    Zimmerman "had a right to stand his ground" according to the law in an interview on CNN just now.

    So, hey guys, you know how everyone here keeps saying it wasn't about stand your ground?  Apparently the jury wasn't aware.


    She was got that from the jury (none / 0) (#111)
    by Teresa on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:59:53 AM EST
    instructions. It's right in the Self Defense part, I think. It's in there regardless. The defense didn't raise it, but apparently it doesn't matter.

    My guess is the other thing she said was there for them to consider that she couldn't remember is "No duty to retreat".


    I think the statute referred to as (none / 0) (#128)
    by Darby on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:53:24 AM EST
    Stand your ground has to do with an immunity hearing that could have happened before the trial. It did not in this case.   That is separate from the verbiage in the self defense portions the instruction.   IANAL

    Even if the case wasn't (none / 0) (#193)
    by Char Char Binks on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:43:02 AM EST
    about SYG, he still had that right, as does everyone in Florida, and the right to presumption of innocence.

    What does the "c" in (1.57 / 7) (#77)
    by Redbrow on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:17:06 PM EST
    NAACP stand for again? Maybe it is a culture thing, like Martin freely using the term  "cracka".

    The NAACP was formed ... (3.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:54:43 AM EST
    ... (and the name adopted) over a century ago.  The idea of what is acceptable has advanced over the past 100+ years.  Well, ...

    ... for most people.


    Apparently Martin's own lawyer (none / 0) (#201)
    by Redbrow on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 01:53:45 PM EST
    Did not get the memo.

    -Natalie Jackson


    The article said they had strikes (none / 0) (#47)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 07:24:06 PM EST
    left and didn't use one! Unless it's one the judge disallowed, but that article didn't say so.

    I just spent a day (one) on jury duty (none / 0) (#48)
    by Towanda on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 07:28:07 PM EST
    and was called for the trial of a quite similar case -- and the Zimmerman-Martin case came up in voir dire, by the way.

    But the questioning was a mishmash.  After we waited hours (including in line by our numbers in a hot, unventilated hallway), while the attorneys were going over our questionnaires, many of the questions suggested that they had not looked at the questionnaires closely, were constantly confusing us with others, etc.

    Several of the people on the jury that eventually was selected were quite surprising to me, considering their answers.  But maybe the attorneys got confused, again, by our numbers.  (Unfortunately, I was the only on singled out by name, again and again, and with many media there.)

    Ah, well, after we finally left after the long day in horrible conditions (the courthouse had an electrical fire a week ago, was closed for basic cleanup in the interim, reopened today but is so not ready), it turns out -- according to news reports tonight -- that the racial makeup of the resulting jury is being challenged.  Back I go tomorrow to see more mysteries of the justice system.


    Did you make the jury? I hope so. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 07:37:58 PM EST
    You're objective and would be a good one.

    No way. I never do. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Towanda on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 07:52:35 PM EST
    And if I had, I would not be posting about it now.

    The defense lawyer really did not want me and made it clear, calling me out by name, again and again -- because, when we were asked if any of us knew each other before today, I was singled out by a former student, who used my name instead of my number.

    So, the defense lawyer kept using my name and using me as an example of being WRONG! (he yelled it) for one thing after another -- and kept using my job title before my name, too.  More teacher-bashing.

    I finally asked the judge, who told us that the media had been instructed to not show our faces, to also instruct the media to also not use any audio or video with my job title and name, as the only juror not addressed only by a number.

    I have had to head to that courthouse before to deal with being stalked, harassed, etc. (because of my job).  I don't need that, again.


    Wow, I wonder why the defense (none / 0) (#56)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 08:00:06 PM EST
    attorney didn't want you? You aren't rigid and could be objective. I guess I "know" you and he/she doesn't. I didn't think about you wouldn't be posting about it. Of course, you're right.

    Dang, I wanted you to make it to hear about your experience. Are you still to be called for other possible trials or are you zapped for good?


    I think it was a ploy by the defense attorney (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Towanda on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 08:32:26 PM EST
    to impress anti-intellectual jurors.  Teacher-bashing has become all-out sport in my state.

    Yes, I have days ahead to return to the courthouse from hell, relying only on a generator as the heat wave worsens.  And after it was closed for a week after the fire, there is a backlog of cases, so I well may land on another jury callup to be bashed and not actually serve, for so many reasons.

    I almost hope to get called by the judge who used to be a DA and -- because I was a "public figure" as a teacher, so he claimed -- refused to do a thing about my stalking case and actually laughed about it.  


    Wow, Towanda. A teacher (none / 0) (#69)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 08:39:56 PM EST
    isn't deserving of protection even though teachers get attacked? What a shi*ty way he handled that!

    How many days do you have to show up (none / 0) (#73)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 08:52:01 PM EST
    at the courthouse and wait to see if you are picked? When called for jury duty in my county we must appear for two days in a row. If we are not picked for a jury in those two days, we are done for the next two years.

    Two more days, and then (none / 0) (#82)
    by Towanda on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:52:53 PM EST
    three years until we're called again -- allegedly.

    However, for several years, I received a summons almost every year.  That rule of three years off is new, and perhaps in response to my letter after my sixth summons in nine years.  I receive no reply, so I sent it to a friend in the media.  There was quite a bit of coverage for a while about problems with the process -- including racial balance, because the jurors allegedly were randomly picked from anyone with a driver's license, then.

    Soon afterward, a new process went in place to expand the potential pool by randomly picking from any registered voters.  

    I'm sure it's entirely coincidental, too, that I wasn't called up again for many years.


    Gees, sounds like quite an experience (none / 0) (#79)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:44:51 PM EST
    Get made Ms Bad Example for all. I know you can take the heat, but still.

    I give back the heat, too. (none / 0) (#81)
    by Towanda on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:48:28 PM EST
    I have written my letter that will come with me to the courthouse tomorrow -- when I have to take the horrible conditions in the actual heat wave.  I'm not taking the other kind of heat sitting down.  

    (Not that there are enough seats for us, either.)


    She said Trayvon would (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 08:23:55 PM EST
    whoop ass if someone was bothering him. I don't think she meant to say that.

    yes she meant it (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:45:38 PM EST
    she was pointing out that getting smacked in the nose isn't considered a beating in her neighborhood, it's just whoopas*

    cashing in (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by ZtoA on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:11:38 PM EST
    Everyone seems to be cashing in... defense and prosecution lawyers, media with extra ratings, blogs, and at least one juror. I think Rachel Jeantel should also write a book. Its the american way.

    now I agree with you (none / 0) (#91)
    by lily on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 10:10:43 PM EST

    Any (none / 0) (#126)
    by lentinel on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:46:01 AM EST
    proceeds should go to the Martin family.

    why not george zimmerman (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:48:41 PM EST
    whose parents are broke and left with nothing after a year in hiding. The Martins' already got more than $1 million from the homeowners' association. Why shouldn't she give to the person she believes was not guilty? George is unemployable due to safety issues.

    I see (none / 0) (#200)
    by lentinel on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:34:24 AM EST
    your point.

    I saw the interview with Dershowitz. At the end, he suggested that
    Zimmerman go into hiding - as he had suggested to Claus von Bulow. Easier said than done. Although maybe good advice, it did seem a little clueless. Claus had a load of money to fall back on, but that is not the case with Zimmerman.

    If you have a moment, I am curious about your opinion of President Obama's having said at the time of the shooting, that if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon. Wouldn't a comment like that have the potential to affect a jury pool?


    Victims Compensation Trust Fund (none / 0) (#202)
    by ding7777 on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 07:38:19 AM EST
    Sybrian Fulton also applied for an undisclosed amount from the Victims Compensation Trust Fund (this fund is administered by Pam Bondi's office)

    The state Attorney General's Office, which administers the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund, refused to disclose the sum sought by Fulton and her former husband, Tracy Martin. Payouts can reach $30,000.

    B-37 steered that jury (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:47:39 PM EST
    The initial vote was 3 not guilty, 2 manslaughter, 1 second degree murder.

    This juror was not guilty from the beginning.   She seems to be one of those jurors who steers the decision making.  Unfortunately for the Prosecution, she was all Zimmerman from the beginning. Keep her off the jury and it could have been a different result.

    Zimmerman's big, big smile at her during voir dire should have been picked up by someone on the prosecution side.

    Interesting because (none / 0) (#83)
    by Darby on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:53:35 PM EST
    She seemed to have no doubt that Zimmerma's self defense was justified.  IOW the prosecutors didn't seem to raise any level  of doubt with her.  I would say i had a small amount of doubt. Although as she pointed out the evidence in many instances was not handled properly so it was contaminated.

    Bizzaro Henry Fonda? (none / 0) (#86)
    by magster on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:59:39 PM EST
    Wait, that doesn't work. (none / 0) (#87)
    by magster on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 10:00:37 PM EST
    This GZ trial has my sympathies and outlook all out of whack.

    She wasn't the foreman (none / 0) (#99)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 11:18:42 PM EST
    There were three immediate Not Guiltys so we don't know who steered anyone. That's when they went through the evidence piece by piece.

    On HLN, Bernie discussed two jurors he tried to strike and judge wouldn't let him. He described the two and she wasn't one of them. (This comment is about your upthread comment about why didn't they strike or something similar, not this one.)


    B-37 said the foreperson (none / 0) (#100)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 11:30:34 PM EST
    was the one who did not want to state her opinion too strongly as to not unfairly influence the others-specifically with regard to the identity of the person screaming.

    My assertion that B-37 steered the jury is based on listening to how sure she was from the very beginning.....and is based somewhat on jury consultant lore that there are always leaders on the jury who are the most important ones in terms of forming the ultimate verdict--they mold the others.  Followers follow.

    The key is to avoid having a "leader" be solidly against you from the beginning.


    I'm not doubting you that she said that (none / 0) (#101)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 11:55:54 PM EST
    because I know you don't make stuff up or exaggerate. I've seen that interview twice, only because I watched both editions of his show, and I didn't hear it. Did I just miss it? It's possible with my brother talking to me part of the time with his views of what she was saying.

    I have his show taped while I watched the HLN one (now I find it's a two-part interview! dang). Do you remember about how far into it she said that?


    BDLR said in his interview that (none / 0) (#102)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 11:59:31 PM EST
    one of the women he tried to strike (not this one) knew too much about the case in his opinion. I was wondering if she was the foreperson. I don't guess we'll ever know, unless when the judge releases the names after whatever period of time she set, it says so.

    MKS (none / 0) (#105)
    by Teresa on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:18:33 AM EST
    "she didn't think it was Trayvon's, she just felt it could have been Trayon's. She wanted to give everyone an aboslute out of being guilty".

    Ok - her emphasis, my italics. I played it and stopped to type. No mention of foreman.

    Is there another interview, even though AC played it up that this is the ONLY interview she's giving (why go to NY then??) and doesn't want any profit from the book? I guess it'll go to animal rescue where she volunteers if she's truthful re: proceeds.

    I'm still watching to see when they get to jury deliberations to see if he asks again.

    This isn't concerning your post, but I understand her better on the defense "doctor" who was in Vietnam. He's a physician's asst, not Dr. AC said you mean the ME and she said yes, but she has the two confused or was nervous and wasn't listening.


    Good deal crawling (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:44:04 AM EST
    through the tapes.

    I think I assumed that the sixth person who was withholding judgment was the foreperson because I interpreted her comments as not wanting to unduly influence the other jurors.  

    The only person who would logically have a concern about not adversely influencing the others would be the foreperson, or so I thought.


    she also said (none / 0) (#110)
    by dainla on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:46:34 AM EST
    in the AC interview Zimmerman had a right to defend himself because of "stand your ground."

    Which the case wasn't about.  So, she knew the law and applied it to this case.


    I don't think she should have given (none / 0) (#112)
    by Teresa on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:03:47 AM EST
    the interview, but you're misconstruing what she said. It's in the jury instructions and she said none of them knew the law and they had to read them over and over for hours to determine what they could apply.

    Well it sure sounds like we won't be getting (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 10:03:00 PM EST
    the pious pronouncements from the media to 'let the healing begin' anytime soon.

    If he waited (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Darby on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 10:34:20 PM EST
    He might be dead. He was screaming for help, you could hear the terror in his voice,  he of course didn't know when the police would arrive.

    I thought everyone is innocent til proven guilty?

    If he (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by lentinel on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:35:04 AM EST
    had stayed in his car until they arrived, when they arrived wouldn't have mattered.

    But we don't have ... (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 02:41:00 PM EST
    "Quantum Court Rooms". Cases aren't tried on what could have happened.  But what did happen.

    If he had stayed in his vehicle (4.40 / 5) (#97)
    by sallywally on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 11:05:42 PM EST
    and waited for the police...pretty much what the operator had wanted him to do?

    Wrong (1.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Darby on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 11:08:40 PM EST
    I deleted that comment (none / 0) (#194)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:44:18 AM EST
    false as usual. The evidence is in. People need to stop arguing as fact things that were not only not proved at trial, but disproved.

    Not just (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Teresa on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:23:53 AM EST
    the dark underbelly of the criminal justice system vis a vis juries

    He, like Jeralyn, has said all along that blacks aren't treated equally in the justice system period, including by prosecutors like Ms. Corey.

    I read on Twitter that statistics show that blacks get 30% higher sentences for pot possession/selling than others. That's disgusting. That's what the "war on drugs" should be about - how it's prosecuted and not the drugs that aren't hurting anyone except the user, if even that. imo

    theresa I deleted those comments (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:52:48 AM EST
    they misrepresented what Geragos said/meant.

    And restating opinions from unnamed pundits is not authority.

    This case was over at jury selection in the sense that the defense was able to eliminate jurors whose opinions on issues in the case were in line with establishing self defense: the views on guns, etc. They didn't pick jurors based on their views on race.

    I'm tired of people who keep injecting their views of race into the discussion misrepresenting what I say and what others say.


    A (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by lentinel on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:20:05 AM EST
    really insulting and unfounded post, Frank.

    Frank is no longer with us (none / 0) (#145)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 10:01:00 AM EST
    He's been banned and his account has been zapped

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by lentinel on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:31:11 AM EST
    what you do not get is that the question is whether Zimmerman broke the law or not. Not whether what he did was moral or right, or whether is he a saint or the devil incarnate.

    That's the way with laws, it seems.

    Perhaps people who feel as you do could combine energies to  change these laws so that ordinary citizens are not granted the right to bear arms, and go on patrol.

    It seems to me that (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by lentinel on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:42:16 AM EST
    these two statements:
    B-37 gets news from NBC. She watches the TODAY show.

    She doesn't pay attention to people giving opinions without facts.

    are incompatible.

    Maybe not. How much fact is there (none / 0) (#125)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:45:51 AM EST
    on the Today Show?  They do their little news updates, but they also have celebrity interviews, cooking segments, movie previews, human interest stories, etc.

    If I had to guess, she watches Today for the fluff, not the hard stuff.


    I think (none / 0) (#147)
    by lentinel on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 10:12:22 AM EST
    we are saying the same thing:

    She claims that she gets her news from NBC and Today, but doesn't pay attention to people giving opinions without facts.

    If she pays no attention to people giving opinions without facts, she really can't be paying attention to anyone on her chosen sources of information since neither of them is known for being particularly fact oriented. At least in my opinion...

    On the other hand, if the news she is talking about concerns factual demonstrations regarding the making of pies or documented segments regarding the retrieval of lost dogs...


    Most disturbing comments by this juror IMO (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:06:13 AM EST
     - we never considered race or profiling at all
     - I wouldn't want George to be my neighborhood watch person....?
     - George went too far....?
     - Rachel Jeantel is not credible, because....I couldn't understand her?
     - I feel sorry for both in response to do you feel bad for TM at all.

    I watched AC's interview last night and was  stunned.

    You miss an important point (none / 0) (#136)
    by Darby on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:30:52 AM EST
    The prosecution told the jury quite emphatically  the case was NOT about race.

    I don't remember that (none / 0) (#139)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:56:59 AM EST
    especially considering prosecution's closing argument.

    It was emphasized in hs closing also. Just google (none / 0) (#141)
    by Darby on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:21:05 AM EST
    From the NYT "John Guy, a prosecutor in the case, insisted forcefully that the case was not about race"

    You may want to re-read whatever articles (none / 0) (#142)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:49:22 AM EST
    you read about that, or possibly check other sources.

    No need (none / 0) (#143)
    by Darby on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:54:11 AM EST
    I heard him say it with my own ears.  Your bias is blinding you

    No, it's not. (none / 0) (#144)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 10:00:24 AM EST
    The most discordant note in the entire three-week trial came in the prosecution's rebuttal closing argument, its last chance to drive its points home with the jury. John Guy, a prosecutor in the case, insisted forcefully that the case was not about race; relying on a strategy reminiscent of John Grisham's book "A Time to Kill," Mr. Guy asked the jury to consider a role reversal: would Martin be convicted if he had followed and then shot George Zimmerman? After this obvious, if implicit, reference to race, Mr. Guy finished up by reminding the jury that the case was not about race.


    Let's not argue about what said in the trial, it's over and this is a bit pointless.


    So let's get his straight (none / 0) (#154)
    by Darby on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:05:17 PM EST
    You think the jury should have found this about race when the prosecution explicitly told them it wasnt about race because they implicitly told thm it was?   Anymore samples on why the jurors should believe it was about race? I never heard them.

    Defend himself from what? (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Darby on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:12:54 AM EST
    Someon following from a distance and observing? No, there is no right to  assault someone even if that scares you.  You might think more transpired, but there is no evidence to proove it.

    the jury rejected the state's (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 10:07:56 AM EST
    wannabe cop argument.

    The test for self defense is not reasonable fear. It's a reasonable belief one is in imminent danger of the imminent use of use of physical force.

    There was not a shred of evidence Zimmerman exhibited any intent to use physical force on Martin before Martin attacked him. He was not entitled to punch Zimmerman and hit his head against concrete.

    Self-defense is an affirmative defense to a crime. Martin wasn't charged with a crime. (although had he survived, he probably would have been charged with battery.)

    and on retrospect i deleted the comment (none / 0) (#197)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:54:02 AM EST
    for name calling directed at GZ.

    Correct yourself (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 04:14:56 PM EST
    I'm not sure why you think I would be offended - I was correcting Yman's assertions that the correct term for black people is "African American" and I pointed out that that is a false statement - not all black people are African American (and there are some white people who are technically, "African American").

    I did not say the "correct term to apply to black people was African-American.  My post was in response specifically to this comment:

    what term should be used to describe What people who are not descendants of people captured in Africa and brought over here as slaves can or are supposed to call those who are is a constantly shifting target

    So congratulations on "correcting" something I never claimed.

    Another swing, ... another miss.

    Kind'a monotonous at this point.

    What you replied to (3.00 / 2) (#179)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 04:21:23 PM EST
    There seems to be no consensus (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by unitron on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 10:03:32 PM EST

    Referring to a non-white, usually a black, as a person of color, seems to be both acceptable and deplorable, depending on who you are and where you are and which day of the week it is.

    Your response?

    "Seriously?  African American."


    Too Bad the Deal Was Yanked (1.00 / 1) (#156)
    by flcstud on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:19:42 PM EST
    I really was looking forward to reading the juror's descriptions of the deliberation process.  But now we'll never get to read it because the Trayvon Martin crowd used Twitter to pressure the publisher.

    What is the matter with those people?  They act like they're the only people on this planet who have opinions or preferences that matter.   Where can I think thank them for denying me the opportunity to get a unique jurors perspective in an important trial?

    The problem (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:43:49 PM EST
    is that she was going to make money off of it. She can still tell her story for free to the media all she wants.

    And? (1.00 / 1) (#181)
    by flcstud on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 04:53:25 PM EST
    The last time I checked, we lived in a capitalist society.  If she takes the time to write the book, she should get paid for her labor.  I'm just sick of these TM supporters feeling entitled to stomp on everyone's parade just because they can't accept a jury verdict.  

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 05:43:31 PM EST
    it's a free country. They have as much a right as anybody else to say and do what they want. They probably would be using their wallets to do the talking and the company would lose readers. It's all something that I'm sure they took into consideration. Lots of people write books and ARE NOT paid for their labor. This lady just came off as somebody looking to make a quick buck.

    AC reported last night (none / 0) (#160)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:54:09 PM EST
    That she told him in the interview that it wasn't about the money. I didn't watch but a few minutes of AC, so I don't know if he said what she was going to do with any money they got.



    It may not (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 03:23:32 PM EST
    have been about the money but she wasn't doing it for free was she? I'm sure she was going to get paid so she would have been making money off the tragedy.

    Money? (none / 0) (#173)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 03:29:18 PM EST
    Many, many books have been written about tragedies. Why shouldn't this person? And, why shouldn't she make money from her effort should the book be successful.

    ANd, BTW she is not writing a book



    I know the deal (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 04:07:25 PM EST
    was called off. I'm just saying WHY people were upset about her writing a book. Frankly I can't see what she would have to say that interesting. If I were going to read a book about it, I would want someone who talked to the police officers, Trayvon's parents, Zimmerman, the defense team and everybody involved so you could get the whole story.

    The Reason (1.50 / 2) (#184)
    by flcstud on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:09:16 PM EST
    The reason they're upset is because they're self-righteous children who think they can sign petitions and bully everyone into submission when they don't get their way.  If this juror was the one who wanted to charge Zimmerman with murder and she wanted to write a tell-all about how she thought Zimmerman was an evil man, these same people would probably use Twitter to promote her book.

    The Article You Link To (none / 0) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 04:06:18 PM EST
    Says she doesn't have a book deal. Only that she has signed with an agent.

    Her husband was likely negotiating... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Cashmere on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 04:20:11 PM EST
    during the two weeks of the trial.  Oculus posted on a different thread, asking if she may have broken the jury rules by discussing the case with her husband.  I'm not so sure about this..  I predict her husband likely knew of or guessed her reason for being sequestered, and started making calls.  I believe a publisher would be interested in offering a book deal, regardless of the verdict.

    Even if there was no advance book deal, it could have quickly transpired over Sunday and today..

    bmaz link (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 04:24:52 PM EST
    Came through the networks..

    The juror contacted Martin on Sunday, "referred by a high ranking producer at one of the morning shows."

    My Impressions (none / 0) (#4)
    by RickyJim on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 04:27:25 PM EST
    There was nothing about her husband being a lawyer in her voir dire, only that she never discussed the case with him. As I was listening to it I got the impression that she was careful to say whatever would be necessary to get on the jury.

    I'm assuming that they had a pretty good idea (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Mitch Guthman on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 07:22:00 PM EST
    about her family members and their employment from the jury questionnaire.  

    I'm also assuming that for such a high profile case, the prosecution would have hired (a) done extensive investigations of the jury pool and (b) have hired a jury consultant or an actual trial lawyer who would have told them to keep this woman off of the jury at all costs.  So, after watching the clip from the Gawker website, I'm totally baffled about how this woman got on the jury.

    This really is just unbelievable.


    I doubt seriously... (none / 0) (#123)
    by heidelja on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:42:04 AM EST
    ...the prosecution conducted "extensive investigations of the jury pool"! LOL

    A questionnaire would have been about it before being personally questioned.


    Then how to do we know that prior (none / 0) (#5)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 04:30:19 PM EST
    to now? I knew it and I read it in more than one place when she was picked for the jury.

    I have no doubt, though, that some people tried hard to get on the jury. I'd have been running in the opposite direction.


    what are you saying? (none / 0) (#10)
    by RWunder on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 04:59:36 PM EST
    I don't understand your post at all. You knew she was married to an attorney? How do we know that prior to now does not make sense.

    From what I read, it was asked (none / 0) (#28)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 06:04:12 PM EST
    when they questioned the prospective jurors. It may have been missed here or the articles I read were wrong. I don't know for certain except that I know for certain I read it.

    RW, I want to correct my comment (none / 0) (#31)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 06:11:10 PM EST
    I read that A juror was married to an attorney, so I don't that it was her. I also could be wrong all together other than reading that a juror had an attorney in her family.

    I think that is more correct than what I said above. Sorry for running in circles.


    Here is one of the articles (none / 0) (#38)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 07:02:29 PM EST
    from before the verdict.

    Husband an attorney


    This published list... (none / 0) (#114)
    by heidelja on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 04:46:36 AM EST
    ...would seem then to have been compiled partially from the questionnaire prospective jurists filled out. Otherwise she was known by someone who knew someone with loose lips "doing time" at the Courthouse as an attorney's wife.

    What your spouse does (none / 0) (#20)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 05:37:58 PM EST
    for a living should come out during voir dire...

    A question for one being related... (none / 0) (#116)
    by heidelja on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 05:53:11 AM EST
    ...to "Law Enforcement" sort of did for one prospective jurist while I was watching. Understand, the specific questions asked, which we see, were queued by one's responses found in their questionnaire ...is what I saw happening when I watched.

    Would a "son of Sam" law be legal (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 04:30:40 PM EST
    as to jurors?  Probably not. But this decision by one juror will impinge on the privacy of the other jurors.

    I was thinking that too- how can one juror write a (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:54:51 PM EST
    book alone without talking about the others- without their inout. Really horrible thing to do to the others.

    I agree...eom (none / 0) (#7)
    by Cashmere on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 04:34:15 PM EST
    Very curious. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Adirolf on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 05:30:20 PM EST
    A prospective juror in Florida who had (or once had) a concealed carry permit, and really wanted on the jury sounds like the prosecution's worst nightmare.  If they had a choice, they made a big mistake.

    And so it starts (none / 0) (#17)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 05:32:36 PM EST
    That was quick....

    No doubt other book deals will follow...

    She has freedom of the press, (none / 0) (#25)
    by Char Char Binks on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 05:49:16 PM EST
    doesn't she?

    I'll buy it (none / 0) (#32)
    by Pugfrench on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 06:12:59 PM EST
    If someone puts out a book. I read RZSrs book.

    I'd prefer just a TV interview (none / 0) (#37)
    by ZucchiTadre on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 06:41:52 PM EST
    but if she wants to write a book then so be it.

    Juror B37 speaking out (none / 0) (#34)
    by PM on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 06:26:52 PM EST
    Anderson Cooper just tweeted out "I'll be speaking to Juror B37 on AC360 at 8:00 Eastern"

    Interview with AC (none / 0) (#40)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 07:13:14 PM EST
    She's got a lot of it right, but thinks that the "defense medical expert (Dr. Di Maio)" was the one who identified screams in Vietnam.

    She felt sorry for Rachel-didn't want to be there, was embarrassed by her lack of education, was most imortant for timing of calls.

    Most credible - John Good and Serino and the medical evidence. All jurors except possibly one thought it was GZ screaming because he was on the bottom and Good saw hands going down but couldnt' tell if they hit. (I thought they'd ignore the who screamed part because I would have.)

    B37 (none / 0) (#41)
    by PM on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 07:13:57 PM EST
    "The Vietnam vet was one of the most important witnesses to me. The other was the Detective and the other John Good. All but 1 of us was absolutely sure that it was GZ screaming. The 1 wasn't for sure who it was."

    More coming up he said. Just now (none / 0) (#42)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 07:14:21 PM EST
    completed. She is IN New York already! Or wherever AC is.

    O'Mara & West (none / 0) (#43)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 07:15:38 PM EST
    I hope Jeralyn sees this. They are Pissed at the prosecutors remarks. Also the discovery stuff.

    Maybe AC went to Orlando? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 07:20:25 PM EST
    With the attorneys there, maybe I'm judging the juror wrongly. We'll see if his normal legal guests are on the set with him. If so, she's in NY already.

    It wasn't late lady (none / 0) (#50)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 07:31:40 PM EST
    I guess they did look at that exhibit only that had crime statistics for that place. I figured they'd ignore exhibits that weren't testified about.

    This is kind of fascinating. I don't (none / 0) (#53)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 07:48:58 PM EST
    know on AC replays which is his 8:00 show and which is the 10:00 show, but anyone interested should DVR it. It's interesting to hear how they came down to their decision.

    In coming up promo, she gets tearful. I wonder if she's one of the ones who cried a little during Guy's closing. She thinks the situation could have been avoided by both of them (my paraphrase).

    You got me to watch a little (none / 0) (#96)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 10:54:48 PM EST
    I don't know....she is not all that interesting IMO.  She sounded thoroughly befuddled by the instructions, almost like she gave up on them. I'm not hearing any great insights. Giving up.

    I will scratch once potential book off my list.


    wow (none / 0) (#55)
    by PM on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 07:58:22 PM EST
    Wow is all I can say. That was fascinating insight inside the deliberations. #B37

    Rachel! On Piers Morgan live. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 08:01:04 PM EST

    Teresa...Did you know.... (none / 0) (#130)
    by heidelja on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 07:13:28 AM EST
    ...by the technical implementaion of this forum, each "thread is limited" to only about 200 comments?  I count 30+ by you alone for this thread out of the (so far) 122 comments. Several should have ben composed into a longer comment...or just left unsaid.

    Please be judiciousone how you use the constrained resource so as many as possible might comment.  


    Not to mention (none / 0) (#132)
    by Leopold on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 07:41:27 AM EST
    The unseemly spectator sport flavor. This isn't a sporting event.

    Leopold (none / 0) (#157)
    by Teresa on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:24:06 PM EST
    The absolute lights of my life are my niece and my nephews. They are mixed raced. Actually three of them are "step" nephews and aren't even mixed race. Those three are all teenagers. I know real life.

    I take no sport in this case. You offend me greatly to say that.


    irrelevant to my comment. (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Leopold on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 05:38:01 PM EST
    Yes, I do (none / 0) (#155)
    by Teresa on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:12:55 PM EST
    I've been here since 2006. I was trying to live blog like we do in debates, but just forget it. I know the rules on "chattering", too.

    You Are Not A Chatterer (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:48:38 PM EST
    Not even close, Theresa, and I have never heard anyone asking you to comment less. Not sure why the new people think that they should dictate how much commenting is ok or not.

    Squeaky is right , and this is how we roll (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:18:49 PM EST
    during live events, like we are all watching together and chatting. Jeralyn gets it, and the new people will get used to it, or learn to ignore it. if the thread is  getting full it's different and I think we allwatch that.

    Has her hair down. Very pretty (none / 0) (#58)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 08:03:12 PM EST
    girl. Really really disappointed.

    theresa you are free to (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:50:41 PM EST
    live blog on topic but Rachel is not the topic of this thread. People click on the comments to read responses to the topic of the post. Since I haven't started a thread on Rachel and Piers, you should assume I am not going to. So please don't live blog a different topic than the one under discussion.

    (but also feel free to ignore suggestions you are commenting too much. You are fine. It's just that your are off topic.)


    That sounds like I'm disappointed (none / 0) (#65)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 08:28:53 PM EST
    she looks pretty.

    The disappointed is her reaction to the verdict.


    Oh Piers (none / 0) (#59)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 08:06:35 PM EST
    "No one knows him better". They were back in contact two weeks before he left Miami. She can't tell us his history.

    She seems nice, though, so far. Pot only makes TM hungry. I'll post more if you all don't care. Only smoked about twice a week. She said she doesn't .

    I thought she only knew him two weeks (none / 0) (#78)
    by Darby on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:25:21 PM EST
    How well did she know him?

    she met him when one of them (none / 0) (#188)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:44:33 PM EST
    was in kindergarten supposedly. He and a little friend came to her house. They didn't reconnect until 2 weeks before he died.

    Christian so she won't comment (none / 0) (#60)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 08:11:31 PM EST
    on Mr. West. That was funny. She said no one bullies her. That wasn't in connection to West, but the speech problem she has and he asked if she gets made fun of for it.

    She needs surgery to correct it but it takes a year to recover so she doesn't want to right now. I can understand her fine, though.

    Who Was the Obnoxious Poster (none / 0) (#61)
    by RickyJim on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 08:18:02 PM EST
    who kept on denouncing the jury instructions, here, during the deliberations?  Well this juror said the reason it took them so long was that the jury instructions were so complicated.

    They are all in NY (none / 0) (#62)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 08:18:04 PM EST
    She actually ran into Mr. West before Piers' show. Didn't say anything to him because her parents taught her better.

    I wonder if AC has planned a longer interview with attorneys and juror bumped them at the last moment. It seemed that way.

    Here comes Piers (none / 0) (#64)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 08:26:06 PM EST
    Going to discuss the ice cream which was proven to be NOT about Rachel and done before she even testified. Why is he doing this?

    You are now a "live" blogger! (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 08:31:47 PM EST
    If only I could type faster, lol. (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 08:40:18 PM EST
    Piers... (none / 0) (#90)
    by unitron on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 10:09:37 PM EST
    ...as he made painfully obvious with almost every word he uttered this evening, is on a fact-free diet.

    More #B37 (none / 0) (#66)
    by PM on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 08:29:06 PM EST
    Part 2 of #B37's interview coming up at 10:00 Eastern.

    Dilemma oculus (none / 0) (#71)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 08:48:53 PM EST
    AC has more on juror 37, but prosecutors are on HLN at 10 (7 your time). I'm going to watch HLN and dvr AC, so I can't live blog it until later. :)

    I just listened to the voir (none / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 08:49:10 PM EST
    dire for this juror.  The words spoke matter. But you miss a lot if you don't listen to her speak, her tone of voice, cadence etc.

    Her tone of voice when talking to Bernie was clipped--her voice was much softer when she was talking to O'Mara.  Zimmerman smiled at her more than I have ever seen him smile.

    How the Prosecution let her stay is beyond me.  She clearly preferred O'Mara to Bernie de la Rionda....

    Change channel TV watchers (none / 0) (#74)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 08:59:43 PM EST
    Corey and Bernie on HLN. I had to look up where HLN is on my TV

    #B37 (none / 0) (#75)
    by PM on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:11:13 PM EST
    Part 2 is not on. Guess CNN is doing a 2 day Part 1 and Part 2 for #Ratings.

    And now, in the 11pm hour... (none / 0) (#92)
    by unitron on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 10:12:11 PM EST
    ...the Erin B. rerun is dumped for more AC, which is apparently 8pm all over again again.

    The agent (none / 0) (#104)
    by PM on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:09:00 AM EST
    I forgot to add the statement was released by her literary agent: Sharlene Martin on Twitter.

    For the sake of the other five, I'm glad. (none / 0) (#107)
    by Teresa on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:24:55 AM EST
    I wonder why she changed her mind?

    My thought before I even read this (none / 0) (#119)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:18:04 AM EST
    'No book deal' was that this interview was the  'proffer' to see what might be in the book, and there were no takers. Might just be my own projection however.

    And I wondered if there might not be (none / 0) (#129)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:53:55 AM EST
    a can of worms getting ready to be opened, as people began to question whether her focus was on the trial or a book, or some other way to cash in on the experience, and whether there was any outside communication there wasn't supposed to have been.

    I mean, would it be possible for the state to ask for some kind of hearing to dig into these questions, and depending on what came out of it, ask that the verdict be thrown out and a mistrial declared?

    I know that sounds like a bad Lifetime movie (I think that might be redundant - "bad Lifetime movie"), but this case has had everything else, so why not this, too?


    boy, with all the negative feedback they have (none / 0) (#186)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:22:20 PM EST
    gotten it is hard to believe they would want to re-try this thing, but I guess anything can happen.

    you forgot to put your link it html format (none / 0) (#199)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:59:59 AM EST
    long urls skew the site -- we have narrow margins, i have to delete the comment since I can't edit it.

    Threats (none / 0) (#108)
    by PM on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:37:22 AM EST
    I don't know that #B37 actually changed her mind. Her agent was identified and the threats via Twitter started..

    A really (none / 0) (#127)
    by lentinel on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:51:14 AM EST
    disgusting post, Frank.

    More BS from CNN (none / 0) (#131)
    by Mr Mark Martinson on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 07:27:39 AM EST
    Zimmerman told detectives Martin began pummeling him when he approached him, against the advice of a police dispatcher, and that he had to shoot to save his own life. He didn't testify during the trial, however -- and Jeantel said his defense was "acting like a punk" by attempting to paint Martin as a mortal threat.

    B37 backs off (none / 0) (#135)
    by rage of on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:27:35 AM EST
    Seems like no book after all

    Did you miss the point (none / 0) (#149)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:09:57 AM EST
    Perhaps also the lack of any shred of evidence regarding Zimmerman's intentions had something to do with the fact that Trayvon is dead? Just a thought.

    Where Zimmerman did not have to present "any shred of evidence"?

    I was under the impression (none / 0) (#167)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 02:49:02 PM EST
    one claiming an affirmative defense has to prove the facts supporting the claim.

    Low Threshold (none / 0) (#169)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 03:09:23 PM EST
    self-defense has a low bar for the defendant to prove, once it is established then the burden of proof shifts to the State.

    In a civil case, yes (none / 0) (#170)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 03:21:44 PM EST
    Not in a criminal case where the burden is on the state....

    you are wrong (none / 0) (#187)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:40:20 PM EST
    the state has to disprove it. If you are new to following the case, please do some research before posting here as comments with false facts are deleted. I'm not going have TalkLeft be a source of misinformation and comments may show up in search engines

    And here (none / 0) (#150)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:28:45 AM EST
    is a good response

    Okay, let me attempt that conversation, Mr. Robinson. Here's my response to what you just said. I think our society demonstrated great care toward Trayvon Martin, even to the point of putting Zimmerman through a trial that should not have happened. That is, it was an excess of care for Martin, a bending-over-backwards to show that we care about Martin and all the young men he was seen to represent. And now, after an extensive, careful trial, and a jury verdict that clearly hewed to well-honed instructions about evidence and burden of proof, you still want to use it to assert that we don't care. If that's the kind of conversation we get when we try to respond to the invitation to have a conversation, can you see why it's something we avoid?

    Now, just there, I did not avoid. I tried to be game about conversation, and I said what I truly think, which is probably what other conversation-about-race avoiders think. If you really mean "conversation," then let's continue, with a fair response to that. If what you really mean by "conversation" is let me lecture you until you humbly accede then could you please stop calling it a conversation?

    Seriously, you are citing Ann (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 02:18:00 PM EST

    why not? (none / 0) (#198)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:58:12 AM EST
    I do when I agree with her and she frequently quotes me. Our politics may differ but she's a law professor and on legal issues we sometimes agree.