Juror B37, one of the six female jurors on the George Zimmerman trial — and a woman who purportedly hates the media – appeared on “Anderson Cooper Live” last night to discuss the case and the “not guilty” verdict the jury reached.
But before we get to that, let’s start with the things Juror B37 said to get herself put on the trial. From Gawker:
- She dislikes the media in general and considers it worthless. “You never get all the information … it’s skewed one way or the other.”
- “I don’t listen to the radio” or read the internet, she said. Her only news about the case came from “The Today Show.” ”Newspapers are used in the parrot’s cage. Not even read,” she said. “It’s been so long since I even read one. The only time I see ‘em is when I’m putting them down on the floor.”
- During questioning, she referred multiple times to “riots” in Sanford after Trayvon Martin was killed. “I knew there was rioting, but I guess [the authorities] had it pretty well organized,” she says at one point. In fact, despite a great deal of salivating anticipation by the media both before and after the trial, there were no riots in Sanford, Florida.
- She referred to the killing of Trayvon Martin as “an unfortunate incident that happened.”
- Asked by George Zimmerman’s attorney to describe Trayvon Martin, she said, “He was a boy of color.”
But hating the media didn’t prevent her from trying to become a part of it: Mere hours after the verdict was read, she signed with literary agent Sharlene Martin. For context, Martin is also the lit agent responsible for O.J. Simpson’s If I Did It, and Joey Buttafuocco’s story. After her book deal was announced, there was a public outcry led by a Twitter user named Cocky McSwagsalot, who found Martin’s contact information and urged people to write and call her to drop B37 as a client. It worked, and Martin Literary Management canceled their deal with the juror.
Perhaps to save face, the juror released a statement claiming it was she who decided not to write the book: “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,” she said. Uh huh.
Now, let’s get to last night’s CNN appearance. On “Anderson Cooper 360,” she told The Coop that she believed George Zimmerman meant well, and that the jury was initially split 3-3, but eventually the “not guilty” group was able to sway the “guilty” voters.
“I think George Zimmerman is a man whose heart was in the right place, but just got displaced by the vandalism in the neighborhoods, and wanting to catch these people [emphasis mine] so badly that he went above and beyond what he really should have done,” she told Cooper.
And, because the woman is a prognosticator and a mind-reader or something, she noted that Trayvon Martin was the one who started the confrontation. Not, you know, the guy who tacitly refused to leave Martin alone and followed him even after the police told him to stand down. “I think George got in a little bit too deep, which he shouldn’t have been there. But Trayvon decided that he wasn’t going to let him scare him … and I think Trayvon got mad and attacked him,” she said. Oh, you think? It’s too bad Trayvon Martin is, you know, dead, and can’t tell you his side of the story.
As for Zimmerman, it appears that he absolutely had a right to defend himself. Trayvon Martin, not so much. “He had a right to defend himself,” she said of Zimmerman. “If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him, or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.” Need I remind you again that George Zimmerman had a gun, and Trayvon Martin did not.
If anything, said the juror, Zimmerman was guilty not of murder but of not using “good judgement.” But it’s okay because, “Anybody would think anybody walking down the road, stopping and turning and looking — if that’s exactly what happened — is suspicious,” she said. O RLY? So now walking down a road and stopping to look at the guy following you in his car is considered suspicious?
Look, we understand that being on a criminal case jury is difficult — a number of us have served on them — and it must be hard to know that so much is riding on the decisions you’re making, especially in a case where one of the only people who knows what happened is dead. Juror B37 at one point broke down crying at the responsibility she felt. But it’s also pretty clear that B37 came to the table with her own prejudices intact, and it’s callous and self-serving to pretend otherwise.
You can watch more of the interview––including her breakdown––in the video below.