Great: Zimmerman Juror Says He ‘Got Away With Murder’

Posted by on Jul 25, 2013 at 3:01 pm

Of course he didn’t get away with murder because he didn’t murder Trayvon Martin. But this genius was upended by a pesky little thing called evidence and just couldn’t convict him. But now that the hubbub has died down a bit, this woman comes forward to re-stir the racial animosity.

The only minority on the all-female jury that voted to acquit George Zimmerman said today that Zimmerman “got away with murder” for killing Trayvon Martin and feels she owes an apology Martin’s parents.

“You can’t put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty,” said the woman who was identified only as Juror B29 during the trial. “But we had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence.”

She said the jury was following Florida law and the evidence, she said, did not prove murder.

So the evidence didn’t prove murder, but he got away with murder. Thanks for clearing that up.

The court had sealed the jurors’ identities during the trial and still hasn’t lifted the order, but Juror B29 edged out of the shadows in an exclusive interview with “Good Morning America” anchor Robin Roberts. She allowed her face to be shown, but — concerned for her safety — used only a first name of Maddy.

The nursing assistant and mother of eight children was selected as a juror five months after she had moved to Seminole County, Fla., from Chicago.

She’s so concerned for her safety she appearing on TV. OK.


14 Responses to “Great: Zimmerman Juror Says He ‘Got Away With Murder’”

  1. Tuerqas on 25/25/13 at 4:18 pm

    That damn pesky evidence. I know, let’s change the meaning of evidence so that we can put away anyone who does not conform to our beliefs. Y’know, like we did with the word ‘marriage’. A 25 year old dictionary has quite different definitions than one today. We can change the word evidence to mean: ‘Guilty, if a card carrying lib feels bad about it.’

  2. BobJustBob on 25/25/13 at 4:27 pm

    Like the family Zimmerman saved who are afraid for their safety I think this women is afraid for her safety and is covering her bases.


  3. chaz on 25/25/13 at 4:42 pm

    Another reason for people who believe in the rule of law and freedom to leave blue states.

    The police won’t help you, and the jurors won’t save you.

  4. Mooch has a fat ass on 25/25/13 at 4:57 pm

    She’s not afraid of her safety. She set out to hang the jury, but proved to be too dense for even that.

  5. MT Geoff on 25/25/13 at 5:28 pm

    I read some of this juror’s comments. Cognitive dissonance. As I understood her remarks, she really wanted to do something for Martin’s parents — but even she could see that the case should never have been tried. Her statements are so contradictory that I can’t decide what to think of her.
    I mentioned on another site the range between “not convinced it was a crime” and “convinced it was not a crime.” The first juror and the first alternate to give opinions were close to “convinced it was not a crime.” This juror is at “not convinced it was a crime.” Justice prevailed but it seems to have turned on a hair. That’s why the case should have been dismissed in the early going or Nelson should have directed an acquittal.

  6. Trapperguy on 25/25/13 at 7:11 pm

    Makes perfect sense. What better way to assure your safety than to splash your face on national tv and tell the angry mobs ” Hey, don’t blame me…..blame the white jurors. “

  7. Joe Student on 25/25/13 at 9:35 pm

    Seems to me she did the right thing. She put away her own personal beliefs and let the facts as presented in the trial dictate the verdict.

    All trials should have jurors that do the same.

  8. Beverly on 25/25/13 at 11:24 pm

    Makes perfect sense. What better way to assure your safety than to splash your face on national tv and tell the angry mobs ”Hey, don’t blame me…..blame the white jurors!“

    ding ding ding ding ding!

    And the boy gets a cigar!

    Yep, that’s exactly what this bint is doing: and she’s looking for a Book/Movie deal, too — watch and see.

  9. Lightwave on 26/26/13 at 6:03 am

    Every non-white, non-male non-heterosexual minority is a divisive, identity politics hustler in the Age of Obamee. Just blame straight white men for all your problems and you too can make money off that mean ol’ racist bigoted patriarchy!

    It’s the one thing liberals all have in common. It’s always somebody else’s fault, and “somebody else” is always the nearest straight white man.

  10. MT Geoff on 26/26/13 at 10:51 am

    @10: Howdy Lightwave
    To go by the MSM, your statement would be right. To go by the real world, it’s an exageration but it’s easy to understand.

  11. Tuerqas on 26/26/13 at 10:55 am

    “Seems to me she did the right thing. She put away her own personal beliefs and let the facts as presented in the trial dictate the verdict.

    All trials should have jurors that do the same.”

    If that were true, wouldn’t part of it be that she agree with the facts? I know this is absolutely untrue for libs, but shouldn’t your personal beliefs follow facts where they are available? Another ding ding ding ding ding! This opinion perfectly illustrates lib thought. Even after their personal beliefs have been disproven with fact, don’t change their belief. The best thing a sensible person should expect from a lib is that they follow the facts for one specific case and do the ‘right’ thing and then immediately disavow it. She implied she was wrong and threw everyone else under the racist bus as soon as the trial was over. That was the right thing to do?

  12. Hal A Luya on 26/26/13 at 11:54 am

    There was no evidence for murder, but since she knows she will inevitably be identified as one of the jurors, she goes on tv and says it was murder to save her own skin from the animals.

  13. Joe student on 26/26/13 at 12:04 pm

    That is where you are incorrect.
    The prosecution must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
    You can and should find a defendant not guilty if that is the case.

    The defense never proved, and never had to prove anything, except that the prosecution did not have an adequate case.

    You can still think what you want of the character and motives of George Zimmerman, or what may or may not have occurred, but when presented the facts as presented, Florida law and the Jury’s instructions, you would still have to acquit.

    She thought he was guilty, but the prosecution did not have the evidence to prove it. Would you rather have a juror say that the facts should be damned and convict?