See other National News Articles
Title: Zimmerman juror from Chicago speaks out: He 'got away with murder'
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ ... icago-20130725,0,4361149.story
Published: Jul 25, 2013
Author: staff
Post Date: 2013-07-25 15:38:33 by Horse
Keywords: None
Views: 2846
Comments: 284
A juror in the George Zimmerman trial who had recently moved to Florida from Chicago said today that Zimmerman "got away with murder" for killing Trayvon Martin and feels she owes an apology to Martin's parents. "You can't put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty," the woman, identified only as Juror B29 during the trial, told ABC's "Good Morning America. "We had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence." She said the evidence, under Florida law, did not prove murder. The court has sealed the jurors' identities. While she allowed her face to be shown during the interview, she used only a first name of Maddy. The woman is a nursing assistant and mother of eight children. She was living in Chicago when Martin was killed and was selected as a juror five months after moving to Seminole County, Fla. She is 36 and Puerto Rican, the only minority among the five women on the jury. Zimmerman, 29, is Hispanic and Martin, 17, was black. But Maddy insisted that the case was never about race, at least to her. "George Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can't get away from God. And at the end of the day, he's going to have a lot of questions and answers he has to deal with," Maddy told the show. When the jury began deliberations, Maddy said she favored convicting Zimmerman of second-degree murder, which could have put him in prison for the rest of his life. The jury was also allowed to consider manslaughter, a lesser charge. "I was the juror that was going to give them the hung jury. I fought to the end," she said. But on the second day of deliberations, Maddy said she realized there wasn't enough proof to convict Zimmerman of murder or manslaughter under Florida law. Zimmerman admitted he shot and killed Martin on Feb. 26, 2012, but maintained he fired in self-defense. "That's where I felt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it," Maddy said. "But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty." The juror said she has had trouble adjusting to life after the verdict, and has wrestled with whether she made the right decision. "I felt like I let a lot of people down, and I'm thinking to myself, 'Did I go the right way? Did I go the wrong way?'" she said. "As much as we were trying to find this man guilty. . .they give you a booklet that basically tells you the truth. And the truth is that there was nothing that we could do about it," she said. "I feel the verdict was already told." She said she believes she owes Trayvon Martin's parents an apology because she feels "like I let them down." "It's hard for me to sleep, it's hard for me to eat because I feel I was forcefully included in Trayvon Martin's death. And as I carry him on my back, I'm hurting as much Trayvon's Martin's mother because there's no way that any mother should feel that pain," she said. Maddy is the second juror to speak in a televised interview, and the first to show her face. Juror B37, whose face and body were hidden, appeared last week on Anderson Cooper's CNN show, and said she believes Zimmerman's "heart was in the right place" when he became suspicious of Martin and that the teenager probably threw the first punch. Since then, four other jurors distanced themselves from B37's remarks and released a statement saying B37's opinions were "not in any way representative" of their own. Poster Comment: Zimmerman is not white. He could not be convicted because there was no evidence. But I wonder why they had an all woman jury. Maybe they were looking for people like this woman.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 110.
#11. To: Horse (#0)
Since then, four other jurors distanced themselves from B37's remarks and released a statement saying B37's opinions were "not in any way representative" of their own. I guess George Zimmerman should have time his beat-down to shoot Saint Trayvon during the last second he was conscious and then passed out, that's the only way he could have got any sympathy from the rabble-rousers who want his head served on a platter.
Seems to me that the juror who talked all that stupid $#it, about how he "got away with murder" really doesn't understand that people kill (not murder) other people when it's a matter of self defense every day. Trayvon Martin would have killed Zimmerman if Zimmerman hadn't killed him. I don't blame Zimmerman one iota for defending himself.
Now you know why some cops carry a "throw-down": they don't want ANY doubts when they have to shoot somebody under less-than-ideal circumstances. Zimmerman was right in defending himself, but he had no way of knowing that it would blow up in his face like it did.
I imagine that he has wished every day since then that he had not gotten out of his truck. That being said, he did nothing illegal. Trayvon sucker punched him and from the looks of things was trying to injure him very seriously and, in my opinion, would not care if he had killed him. I can't even imagine how someone as double minded as this juror seems to be ever makes it through the day.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Trayvon sucker punched anyone. You are blindly accepting Zimmerman's version of how the fight started as an article of faith.
Actually there is evidence, circumstantial, but evidence. The one good eyewitness gave a description that best fit St. Trayvon as being on top of Zimmerman beating his head into the concrete. The wounds, the back of his skull, broken nose, and the witness testimony clearly indicate that Zimmerman was telling the truth. The Jury, which appears to have been predisposed to convict, acquitted him, and are now running for cover because of all of the hatreds inflamed by the stilted, biased, Perception Management Press coverage. Combined of course with the blather emanating from the orifice of the Usurper-In-Chief who clearly demonstrated his "objectivity" or lack thereof. It has been clear from almost the beginning that this regrettable incident was the result of poor judgement, and racial animosity, on the part of St. Trayvon the immaculate.
There is circumstantial evidence that based on very minor cuts to the back of the head of Zimmerman, thatTrayvon was on top for at least some part of the fight. There is no proof, other than taking Zimmerman's word for it that anyone was having their head bashed in. The injuries are not severe enough to prove that. Zimmerman's story makes it sound like he was in imminent danger of skull fracture. There is simply no proof for that.
There is nothing "circumstantial" about it. The photographs taken clearly show that Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of his head. As well you ignore the fact that his nose was also broken. Both of those are consistent with BOTH Zimmerman's account and that of the one eyewitness close enough to observe what was going on. The eyewitness's account most clearly indicts St. Trayvon as being on top while he beat the shit out of Zimmerman. It seems to me that you are trying to excuse St. Trayvon's behavior in any way you can by trying to assert Zimmerman as having been guilty of aggressive behavior toward Trayvon. And again you would like to rearrange the stipulated, witnessed facts, that Zimmerman was not injured and that it was he, not Trayvon, that was on top DESPITE the eyewitness testimony which indicates that St. Trayvon was on top. A man who is fighting for his life against an aggressor threatening to kill him and who is beating his head into the ground at the time can be reasonably be expected to be in fear for his life. As well St. Trayvon was carrying on him 2 of the 3 ingredients required for making the street drug lean. One of the side effects observed of lean users is their inclination toward irrational rages. So, are you arguing that the photograph showing the cuts and bleeding on the back of Zimmerman's head are false, or that a man on the receiving end of the kind of force necessary to create them, while having his nose broken, cannot have a reasonable fear for the safety of his life?
I have to take issue with your definition of circumstantial evidence both in this post and a later post. Here is the wikipedia definition of circumstantial evidence: Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact— like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference. On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out. Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to deduce a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of facts in order to support the truth of assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt). Testimony can be direct evidence or it can be circumstantial. If the witness claims they saw the crime take place, this is considered direct evidence. For instance, a witness saying that the defendant stabbed the victim is direct evidence. By contrast, a witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence. It is the necessity for inference, and not the obviousness of a conclusion, that determines whether or not evidence is circumstantial. Forensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually circumstantial evidence. A forensic scientist who testifies that ballistics proves the defendant’s firearm killed the victim provides circumstantial evidence from which the defendant’s guilt can be inferred. (Note that an inference of guilt could be incorrect if the person who actually fired the weapon was somebody else.) On the other hand, the additional circumstantial evidence of the defendant's fingerprint on the trigger would dovetail with this piece to provide corroborating evidence. Circumstantial evidence is especially important in civil and criminal cases where direct evidence is lacking. Zimmerman's injuries are circumstantial evidence, not direct evidence, because more than one explanation is possible. Physical evidence can be circumstantial and in this case is. The witness testimony is direct evidence, but it is very weak direct evidence because the witnesses did not have a clear view and chose to stay indoors talking to the cops on the phone rather than stepping outside and clearly observing what was going on. Zimmerman's cuts to the back of his head do not prove that he was having his skull beaten into the concrete. They could be interpretted to support the claim that Zimmerman was on the bottom during some part of the fight but even that is an inference based on circumstantial evidence. There is no medical evidence of Zimmerman having a broken nose. The picture of Zimmerman with a bloody nose is circumstantial physical evidence. Zimmerman could have gotten a bloody nose any number of ways and a bloody nose does not prove a broken nose or a sucker punch or even a punch at all.
Trayvon has this to say to all of you "creepy ass crackas" out there...
It is possible that he didn't mean to kill Zimmerman, just beat him up, but Zimmerman had no way of knowing that at the time. Civilized people don't go around attacking other people like that when they have not done anything to them.
When you have someone with the IQ of a grape on top of you their intent doesn't matter,as you said Civilized people don't go around attacking other people like that when they have not done anything to them.
lololol ;P
#113. To: christine (#110)
I'm almost sorry I missed the dumbshit on this thread, but I finally had to use the Bozo filter. What I missed in discussion and collaboration I made up for in peace of mind.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestJuror B37, whose face and body were hidden, appeared last week on Anderson Cooper's CNN show, and said she believes Zimmerman's "heart was in the right place" when he became suspicious of Martin and that the teenager probably threw the first punch.
#12. To: X-15 (#11)
I guess George Zimmerman should have time his beat-down to shoot Saint Trayvon during the last second he was conscious and then passed out, that's the only way he could have got any sympathy from the rabble-rousers who want his head served on a platter.
#13. To: James Deffenbach (#12)
#14. To: X-15 (#13)
#15. To: James Deffenbach (#14)
#18. To: strepsiptera (#15)
#24. To: Original_Intent (#18)
#32. To: strepsiptera (#24)
here is circumstantial evidence that based on very minor cuts to the back of the head of Zimmerman, ...
Zimmerman's story makes it sound like he was in imminent danger of skull fracture. There is simply no proof for that.
#75. To: Original_Intent (#32)
there is nothing circumstantial about it
#78. To: strepsiptera (#75)
#99. To: FormerLurker (#78)
#100. To: RickyJ (#99)
It is possible that he didn't mean to kill Zimmerman, just beat him up,
#110. To: Hmmmmm (#100)
When you have someone with the IQ of a grape on top of you
Replies to Comment # 110.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 110.