Posted on 07/26/2013 9:43:46 AM PDT by kimtom
Two weeks after George Zimmerman was acquitted in the death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin, the only person on the jury who is a member of an ethnic minority said in an ABC News interview that Zimmerman “got away with murder.’
Juror B29, identified only by her first name Maddy, sat down with ABC’s Robin Roberts, to discuss the trial for “Good Morning America.” As the first juror to show her face on camera, Maddy expressed both conviction and regret. “You can’t put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty,” Maddy said of Zimmerman.
A nursing assistant and mother of eight children, Maddy, 36, who is Puerto Rican, said she believed she owed Trayvon .......
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
How do you like she says the case never should have gone to trial, it was for show, yet in the same breath she says Zimmerman is guilty of murder, yet she voted to acquit him of murder.
Just like you said, she is a COMPLETE idiot! An utter scatter brain!
Scary stuff isn’t it? That they would allow utter imbeciles like this on a jury where an innocent man could have been sent up the river for 20 years.
Sorry, no.
The jury is there to base a case on the facts, or nullify the Law. There should be no ‘instructions’ from the judge.
When the Law become erroneous that juries nullify, your ‘solution’ of professional juries would negate that pressure valve of The People.
“What a confused woman.”
True, but she was smart enough to realize this was a “show trial” saying that the case should never have gotten to a jury.
Yet, she believes Zimmerman got away with murder. In a case that should never have gone to trial.
How does one explain that kind of tortured logic?
Thanks to Robion Roberts, who put those wrods in her mouth.
Now those words are shown as an origial thought and quote from the juror.
Every sound bite since this interview has lead with “got away with murder”....
Amazingly, this stupid ditz got the right verdict despite her insane comments afterwards. Some people ought to just keep their mouths shut and not prove what idiots they are.
Leftists are going to have to go after this whole presumption of innocence thing I guess
Family and friends of Juror B29 probably mercilessly raged at her when she returned home from the trial for violating "the code." And she may well have received death threats.
She certainly illustrates that some of we, the people are short on logic, and relying on feelings. In prehistoric times, that might get the clueless thinker dragged off by a bear for dinner, or captured by an enemy. Now, we actually give the clueless a public forum for foolishness instead- Darwin may have been right...
Juror B29. Is the “29” her IQ or dress size???
Leftists embrace the presumption of innocence when its a democrat politician caught in the act. They wouldn’t be able to make a cohesive argument to abolish it, but, hey....when has that ever stopped them.
Leftists are always hypocrites. A Republican is caught flirting with an aide and its a huge scandal and he is run out of town.... Weiner is their hero
Wees know he was guilty because hees white. But there ain’t no law to put him in jail yet. Anyone listening to these ignorant freaks other than the LEFTIST MSM
I have no idea, but it certainly isn’t the number of times she gave serious thought to what the purpose of a jury actually is...
I’m not familiar with large dress sizes, but I don’t think she’s quite that big.
So she's got personal feelings gnawing at her based purely upon emotion. That's fine, and also irrelevant. She did the right thing. No need for anyone to call her an idiot when she followed instructions correctly.
So she's got personal feelings gnawing at her based purely upon emotion. That's fine, and also irrelevant. She did the right thing. No need for anyone to call her an idiot when she followed instructions correctly.
She acceded to the pressure of the other jurors who wanted to do the right thing. Well and good, the right verdict came out. But then instead of remaining silent and being thought a fool, she spoke:“he got away with murder”and removed all doubt.She thinks she is upset at the “Not guilty” verdict; she doesn’t know what being upset over what you have done is, until she finds someone guilty unnecessarily - and realizes what she has done to the defendant and his family. Trayvon is dead, and would still be dead if they had sent Zimmerman up on Murder 2. But the defendant who’s convicted is in jail, his wife has no life, and his mother’s and father’s lives are wrecked as well. Then juror B29 really would find herself staring at the ceiling at night, instead of sleeping.
The real problem this scatterbrain manifests is the fact that in this high-profile a case, intelligent and alert members of the public have been disqualified in droves by the propaganda directed against the defendant. We are told that the defendant is entitled to the presumption of innocence - but anyone who understood what was being done to Zimmerman, and believed that he was entitled to that presumption would have donated to his legal defense - or at least, seriously considered it. Now, the question is, “Can someone who has contributed to the defense sit on the jury?” If you say, “Obviously not,” what you have just done is to cull the fair-minded out of the jury pool.The jury has brought back a “Not guilty on all counts” verdict. Zimmerman is officially no more guilty than you or I. Can we not say, even in retrospect, that anyone who accorded Zimmerman the presumption of innocence enough to have taken a position against his attempted railroading and was excused from the jury on that account, was excused wrongly?
Read Zimmerman's defense attorney Mark O'Mara's website explaining why she's the model juror.
Yeah, I know that B29 acceded to the majority, and the majority was right. But publicly announcing that the person you acquitted was guilty of murder . . .
Not buying it, politic as it is for O’Mara to say it. The ideal juror would be outraged to be expected by the prosecution to accept, beyond a reasonable doubt, much of anything it put forward - never mind all of it. When most of "your own” witnesses are hostile, and the rest are irrelevant or misinformed/incompetent, you should not bring the case to trial. That the prosecution got so much as a nibble on that bait from B29 is (as Patton said of defensive fortresses) “a monument to human stupidity."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.