Anderson Cooper | News | Trayvon Martin

Zimmerman Juror Speaks to Anderson Cooper: VIDEOS

Ac360

Last night Anderson Cooper sat down for an interview with Zimmerman Juror B37.

In part 1 they cover opening statements, which witnesses she thought were 'credible' (the defense medical examiner), and which  she found not credible (Rachel Jeantel, Trayvon Martin's friend), what it was like day-to-day on the jury, the 911 tapes (she insists it was Zimmerman's voice on the call).

In part 2 he asks what she thought of George Zimmerman, whether she thinks he should have been carrying a gun, and the videotapes in which Zimmerman walked through a reenactment. The juror says she believes Zimmerman thought his life was in danger, and believes Trayvon Martin threw the first punch. She says she felt that both sets of parents said anything a parent would say. She also says she doesn't think race played a role in the case, and it wasn't part of the discussion in the jury room.

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

The juror had announced she was writing a book about the case, but after hours of outrage on social media for Sharlene Martin of Martin Literary Management LLC to drop the juror, it was announced that a book deal was no longer in the works, via a statement published by Buzzfeed:

“I realize it was necessary for our jury to be sequestered in order to protest our verdict from unfair outside influence, but that isolation shielded me from the depth of pain that exists among the general public over every aspect of this case. The potential book was always intended to be a respectful observation of the trial from my and my husband’s perspectives solely and it was to be an observation that our ‘system’ of justice can get so complicated that it creates a conflict with our ‘spirit’ of justice.

Now that I am returned to my family and to society in general, I have realized that the best direction for me to go is away from writing any sort of book and return instead to my life as it was before I was called to sit on this jury.”

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. People just can't handle not wanting their 15 minutes of fame. A book, Anderson Cooper, Sean Hannity next I suppose. Look at me, yep, it's me! (but let's play the silhouette game). I read she's an attorney's wife, as if people can't spend a couple hours and have her photo, cell # and Facebook page up on Reddit by noon today, assuming she doesn't get on her Facebook and boast about who she is first.

    No matter what you thought of the verdict, a juror's right to truly remain anonymous has to be respected and the public would be on their side, but this B37 is begging for it.....

    Posted by: MIke | Jul 16, 2013 8:30:44 AM


  2. Why did this juror believe that Zimmerman's life was in danger? She's basically placing her faith in the killer's belief. It's a dangerous thing to do because it lacks the counter-balance of the dead victim's point of view.

    She made a flawed decision and needs to STFU.

    Posted by: Adam | Jul 16, 2013 8:37:19 AM


  3. kept thinking AC would say "hey, lady, let's turn up the lights, you need to be exposed." When she says "George," sick.

    Posted by: Cd in Dc | Jul 16, 2013 8:38:59 AM


  4. Right, I believe that she had no clue what a big media event the trial was. That idiotic statement alone makes me question anything this moron says.

    Posted by: LiamB | Jul 16, 2013 8:40:17 AM


  5. "When she says "George," sick."

    Yeah, I've seen people complain about that. "Trayvon" apparently is allowed, but not "George".

    Posted by: MIke | Jul 16, 2013 9:04:58 AM


  6. Oh the crying....just stop crying.

    Dumb.

    Posted by: AllBeefPatty | Jul 16, 2013 9:12:00 AM


  7. Yeah mike, one is some kid the other is a murderer. Lets show the murderer LESS respect ok?

    Posted by: Fenrox | Jul 16, 2013 9:40:43 AM


  8. @fenrox he was acquitted so no he is not a murderer. Don't like our laws which give everyone a rigt to a fair trial then leave for some ace like Iran where you'll be happy

    Posted by: Lee | Jul 16, 2013 9:47:39 AM


  9. @Adam: First, B37 didn't say Z.'s life was in danger. What she said was this: Z. THOUGHT his life was in danger. The legal question is whether or not Z. truly BELIEVED Martin was about to kill him. The jury decided that a reasonable man might decide that this was so. Z.'s thought process was heavily influenced by the fact that an athletic 17-year-old was on top of him, hollering "You're gonna die!" and beating his head against the ground. In the jury's eyes, that seemed like a good enough reason to fear for your life.

    Second, let us consider your remark that the witness "put her faith in the killer's" version of events. You say that "this is a dangerous thing to do." You do not, however, propose an alternative. As things fell-out, there were no substantial witnesses. Z. was the only living person to see what happened. All the physical and secondary evidence either agreed with Z.'s story or at least did not contradict it. Remember, our legal system says a man is innocent unless proven guilty. There simply wasn't enough evidence to convict Z. Indeed, he was probably telling the truth.

    Posted by: ernstroehm's ghost | Jul 16, 2013 9:52:03 AM


  10. "She also says she doesn't think race played a role in the case, and it wasn't part of the discussion in the jury room."

    Well, that pretty much says it all. Of course you didn't think race played a role, privileged white woman.

    Posted by: ripper | Jul 16, 2013 9:54:00 AM


  11. @ "@fenrox he was acquitted so no he is not a murderer. Don't like our laws which give everyone a rigt to a fair trial then leave for some ace like Iran where you'll be happy"

    OJ Simpson was aquitted also, Lee. How ya' feel about that?

    Posted by: Derrick form Philly | Jul 16, 2013 9:54:32 AM


  12. Sorry Ripper, the investigators, jury, AND FBI all said race wasn't part of it. Thank goodness you know better than EVERYONE ELSE with your magical insight. Please, lead us to the light!

    Posted by: JY | Jul 16, 2013 10:06:51 AM


  13. Let me take a wild guess, JY. You're white?

    Posted by: ripper | Jul 16, 2013 10:11:23 AM


  14. @derrick I'm fine with it as the law was followed the state in both the Zimmerman and OJ cases failed to meet the burden does that mean they are morally innocent? No. But without absolute certainty of guilt their guilt the juries in both cases did what the LAW required them to do.

    Posted by: Lee | Jul 16, 2013 10:24:33 AM


  15. @ripper unless you have proof race was involved in their deliberations you can just shut the hell up with your race baiting bull crap.

    Posted by: Lee | Jul 16, 2013 10:25:37 AM


  16. Glad she dropped the book deal, even though it was only under pressure, because I'm tired of jurors and high-profile trial participants seeking fame and fortune like this. I didn't like it when it happened after the OJ trial and I don't like it now.

    Interesting interview, about what I expected.

    Posted by: JohnAGJ | Jul 16, 2013 10:29:39 AM


  17. Well, that pretty much says it all. Of course you didn't think race played a role, privileged white woman.

    POSTED BY: RIPPER

    Nutshell. After reading the biographies of all the jurors, it's a wonder how they got the lone non-connected black hispanic woman with eight children on there -- like loading up a jury with degreed weasels and including one chicken for insurance purposes.

    I completely agree with those who had said that this deal was in the works long before the end of the trial, especially with this woman's husband being an attorney. Dig deeper, and wonder what family friend type things we'll find out about the other jurors.

    It may be off for now, but trust that that book deal is still in the works in another form. Screw all of them.

    Posted by: Zeta | Jul 16, 2013 10:38:26 AM


  18. I thought the juror was completely reasonable with what she said.

    Anyone with a 2nd grade education would understand that Zimmerman could not be convicted. Don't like it? Blame the prosecutors.

    I'm so over this story.

    Posted by: fervently8885 | Jul 16, 2013 10:38:48 AM


  19. OJ Simpson was aquitted also, Lee. How ya' feel about that?

    POSTED BY: DERRICK FORM PHILLY | JUL 16, 2013 9:54:32 AM


    I think the OJ trial is the only time in my lifetime where whites didn't pull the 'the law has spoken and the system has worked' card to try to shut anyone up.

    Posted by: Zeta | Jul 16, 2013 10:39:53 AM


  20. MEANWHILE IN CHICAGO...

    17 black teens were killed in the last week.

    But they were killed by other black guys, so Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Derrick from Philly don't care. They're just obsessed because a black kid was killed by a BI-RACIAL dude.

    H

    Y

    P

    O

    C

    R

    I

    S

    Y

    Posted by: SamIam | Jul 16, 2013 10:41:11 AM


  21. "@ripper unless you have proof race was involved in their deliberations you can just shut the hell up with your race baiting bull crap."

    You're not very bright, are you? The fact that race WASN'T included in their deliberations is the problem.

    Posted by: ripper | Jul 16, 2013 10:43:50 AM


  22. A jury in a murder trial is supposed to consider mens rea (guilty mind), whether the accused is culpable because his “mind is guilty”. So, if they didn’t consider race is a motive, they didn’t do their job properly.


    Posted by: Carlie | Jul 16, 2013 10:50:43 AM


  23. And, by the way, the decision to not consider race when it was part of their job to do so, is, in fact, a race-based consideration privileging the accused.

    Posted by: Carlie | Jul 16, 2013 10:51:07 AM


  24. @ "But they were killed by other black guys, so Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Derrick from Philly don't care"

    Neither do you, Samian.

    Did those Blacks who killed Blacks do it because of the color of their skin, or was it drug wars? It's still awful, but, yes, racial murders touch off great emotion in our country.

    Over the last 15 months the media has helped me to know Trayvon Martin. He was not a thug. He was a good kid. I hate to see a good kid die because some paranoid fool (with a gun) thought he was a bad kid.

    Posted by: Derrick form Philly | Jul 16, 2013 10:52:48 AM


  25. "Over the last 15 months the media has helped me to know Trayvon Martin. He was not a thug. He was a good kid. I hate to see a good kid die because some paranoid fool (with a gun) thought he was a bad kid."

    Really, Derrick? He was a good kid? Then why did he beat up a neighborhood watchman who approached him? We all know who attacked who here. He had a phone. If he felt he was being harrassed, why didn't he call 911 instead of becoming physically violent?

    Posted by: Donny | Jul 16, 2013 11:04:00 AM


  26. 1 2 3 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Man Wants Ryan/Romney Tattoo Removed: VIDEO« «