Juror B29 on Zimmerman Trial Says She Believed Zimmerman was Guilty

Last week one of the jurors on the George Zimmerman trial, Juror B29 who identified herself as Maddy, told Robin Roberts on ABC’s Good Morning America that she believed Zimmerman got away with murder. The first vote she cast during deliberations was “guilty of second degree murder”. 

“A lot of us wanted to find something bad, something that we could connect to the law. For myself,” she paused then continued with absolute conviction, “he’s guilty. The evidence shows he’s guilty.” She spoke of her deep sadness for Trayvon and his family and said she felt immense pain for having had to vote the way she did, but she believed that the law gave her no other option.

Her interview was moving, and markedly different to that of Juror B37 who kept her identity a secret and was the first to speak out after the trial. Anderson Cooper interviewed her. He clearly had little respect for her and she clearly didn’t see that. She identified with Zimmerman and showed no empathy for Trayvon Martin or sadness at the loss of his life. She intimated that it was his fault that he was killed, as he should have walked away from Zimmerman. 

She firmly believed Zimmerman had the right to kill Trayvon. It was quite horrifying to listen to her. Stupefying to realize that this was one of the people who served up ‘justice’.

At the same time as the interview, she released a video of her voir dire as part of a PR campaign for a book she’d written. She said later that she had changed her mind about the book – possibly because of all the negative reactions she got to the interview.  

The voir dire exposed a lot about her personality. She showed herself to be unsocialized and kind of proud of it, obsessed beyond balance with her many pets. She clearly enjoyed being in the spotlight and obviously desperately wanted to be on that jury. She said at one point that she didn’t know anything about national news – trying to prove that she wouldn’t be influenced as a juror by media – yet a couple of sentences later admitted that she watched national news on the TV.

It’s hard to say why the prosecution didn’t eliminate a woman inclined to manipulate fact to paint herself in a good light, prone to ludicrous contradictions with no awareness of them, and most interested in being center stage. Perhaps they just didn’t see her as a threat. 

What’s clear now is that the Zimmerman case was never about justice for her. It was an opportunity. Well illustrated by the fact that she was the first juror to speak out. Four of the other jurors, B51, B76, E6 and E40, immediately released a statement to the press saying “The opinions of Juror B37, expressed on the Anderson Cooper show were her own, and not in any way representative of the jurors listed below." Maddy wasn’t part of that group, but her interview with Robin Roberts clearly shows which side of the fence she was on.

What happened behind those closed doors? Juror B37 was the only juror who positively believed and had absolutely no doubt from the start that Zimmerman was guilt free.  

Maddy wasn't alone in initially believing him to be guilty. But she said that in reviewing the law, they all came to realize that there wasn’t any hard evidence to prove Zimmerman acted unlawfully. She added that it was incredibly hard for her to let Zimmerman off but she believed she was doing what a juror is supposed to do – assess a case according to the law.

I suspect that two things happened: one, there was an alpha dog, a bully, in deliberations – Juror B37 – and the jurors didn’t understand that evidence didn’t need to be hard evidence to be acceptable. Maddy said “…as the law was read to me, if you have no proof he killed him intentionally, you can’t say he’s guilty.” But how did she and the others who believed he was guilty, interpret that word proof? And did Juror B37 have anything to do with them changing their minds?

There was plenty of proof that Zimmerman lied, that he had it in for African Americans; that he profiled Trayvon and picked an unnecessary fight. It just wasn’t CSI-type evidence and the prosecution didn’t present it in such a way that the jurors could understand its importance. 

I wonder if in the coming weeks any of the jurors will speak out and say they were misled about the law, or just didn't really understand it, or were bullied during deliberations. I wonder if that would be grounds for a re-trial. I think it’s time for Christianne Amanpour to interview Maddy; to present the evidence and ask her why she didn’t think it was valid. And what really happened during the deliberations.  

George Zimmerman on Trial in Florida for Shooting Trayvon Martin in 2012

The Trayvon Martin case is currently being tried. I listened to the recording of accused George Zimmerman being interviewed by the police after he shot Trayvon. The officer read him his Miranda rights, asked him if he understood everything. He did, and said he wanted to speak without a lawyer. It sounded as if he truly didn’t think he’d done anything wrong, that his shooting of Trayvon was totally justified. He wasn’t arrogant about it, though. In fact he sounded quite naïve.

The officer said she had not seen the crime scene yet and asked him to tell her what happened from his perspective, including everything that led up to the shooting. He said the neighbourhood had had a lot of crimes. His wife saw the neighbours getting broken into and was afraid so he started a neighbourhood watch.  

“There’s been a few times when I’ve seen a suspicious person. We call the police and our emergency line and these guys always get away—“

“What made them suspicious?” 

“This gentleman in particular, I had never seen him in the neighbourhood, nor all the residents. [Presumably he meant none of the other residents had seen him. Which he couldn't possibly have known if this was the first time he'd ever seen Trayvon.] 

"It was raining out and he was leisurely walking [sic], taking a stroll, staring into the houses, taking his time. When I drove by he stopped and looked at me.”

“Had you seen him before?”

“Never.” [His voice suddenly became assertive and self-justifying.] “I know all the kids in the neighbourhood,” he continued, “I know all the adults. Like I said he was just walking casually, it’s not like he was trying to get out of the rain.”

At that point a crime scene officer interrupted by radio to ask if there were video cameras in the neighbourhood. Zimmerman replied that there were but to his knowledge they weren’t working. When asked if he knew who was responsible for the cameras he did. He knew the contact’s name and had their cell number in his own cell, which had been taken from him at the crime scene. I wondered why, if he was so concerned about crime and obsessed with criminals getting away, he hadn’t made sure the cameras were in good order.

The officer left the room. She returned with his cell, retrieved the number and continued with the questioning. She backtracked a little and asked Zimmerman again if he had ever seen Trayvon before. This time he said “probably about half a dozen times”. 

By now he was clearly confident that not only had he done nothing wrong, but he was actually some kind of neighbourhood hero. And there was an element of self-pity that grated.

Trayvon was walking past a house whose owner doesn’t lock his doors when Zimmerman by his own account drove by and called the non-emergency line. He lost visual of Trayvon while he was on the phone with the police. Then suddenly Trayvon was circling his car. He disappeared again. 

Zimmerman got out of his car and walked around a bit trying to find him. The police dispatch said they didn’t need him to do that because the police were on their way. He said he was walking back to his car when Trayvon jumped out at him from the bushes and said “what’s your problem homey?” It was later revealed that there are no bushes. And minutes before the incident Trayvon had been in conversation with a friend and allegedly told her that this creepy guy had been following him. 

The rest of Zimmerman’s story is that Trayvon punched him in the nose and he fell onto the grass. Then Trayvon slammed his head into the sidewalk violently, got on top of him and repeatedly hit him in the head. Terrified, fearing for his life and unable to defend himself he screamed for help. 

None came. He pulled out his gun and shot. Trayvon fell to the side and Zimmerman pinned him down. The police arrived and he willingly gave up his gun, saying he shot in self defense.

First of all, that was a pretty seamless segue from ‘these guys’ to ‘this gentleman in particular’. Secondly, Zimmerman either had never seen Trayvon before or he’d seen him half a dozen times. And there are so many reasons why a person could be walking in the rain in an area he doesn’t live in. I sometimes walk around neighbourhoods I don’t live in and I look at the houses. I don’t usually do it when it’s raining, because it rains in winter here and it’s cold, but some people like walking in the rain. If I’m taking a stroll and somebody drives slowly past, I’m going to look at them also, and wonder what they’re up to.

By the end of the interview Zimmerman's self pity, the contradictions, the total lack of remorse that he had killed a kid in his late teens had eroded away any empathy I initially felt for him. 

Three witnesses for the prosecution have since stated that, judging by what the two were wearing, they saw Zimmerman on top of Trayvon. Zimmerman’s neighbour testified the opposite. Dr. Rao,  Jacksonville medical examiner, testified that Zimmerman’s injuries were insignificant and the head injuries resulted from one blow. The photographs show a few tiny scrapes on his face, his nose unbroken, and a couple of marks on the back of his head with trickles of blood running down. Under cross examination Dr. Rao had to admit that the injuries on the back of the head could have resulted from multiple blows.

This is going to be difficult for the prosecution to win because they have to convince the 6 jurors that Zimmerman acted with ill will or hatred and an indifference to human life. Otherwise, he gets off, the laws in Florida stating that a person can use deadly force when they feel threatened, even if they could escape.