DreamHost
Published On: Thu, Jul 25th, 2013

What Is Juror B29 Saying About The Zimmerman Verdict?

Zimmerman Juror B29 is the second juror to break her silence, after Juror B37. What she says directly contradicts the first juror’s interpretation of the verdict. It is shocking and perplexing.

Juror B29 is breaking her silence in a major way. Not only is she distancing herself from Juror B37′s assertion that Zimmerman was within his rights to defend himself, she is making the ZimJurorclaim that Zimmerman “got away with murder.” In an interview with ABC’s Good Morning America’s Robin Roberts, Juror B29, also known as “Maddy,” was very vocal in her opinion that Zimmerman is a guilty man. She maintains that she was the one hold out through most of the deliberations, but eventually determined that the law demanded an acquittal.

Why is Juror B29 speaking out now and in such adamant opposition to what Juror B37 said in her interviews? Juror B29, or “Maddy,” makes reference to the fact that she is from Puerto Rico and was the only woman of color on the jury. She says that she didn’t think race was an issue in the case. While there is no reason to not believe what she says, there is a reason to question it given the racially charged dynamics of the case.

Is it possible that Juror B29 is trying to protect herself in case people turn on her for acquitting George Zimmerman? Given her strong statements and the fact that she went on camera showing her face, it is possible that she wants to try to distance herself as much as possible from Juror B37′s statements.

What seems odd about the whole thing is her assertion that the case should have never gone to trial to begin with. She says, “I felt like this was a publicity stunt,” she tells Roberts. “This whole court service thing to me was publicity.” So, she thought the case should have never gone to trial, but then in an about-face, she says she was the only juror who wanted to convict Zimmerman of second-degree murder. This doesn’t make sense at all. It sounds suspicious, like she’s trying to put herself on the progressive side of the race war to save herself.

As the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can’t say he’s guilty,” 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. I feel the verdict was already told.”

Under the law, they could not find Zimmerman guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter. She does acknowledge this. These jurors did follow the rule of law, which is more than other juries have done in the past. But Juror B29′s statements are all over the place. What it does seem to show is that she is trying to make a statement. She’s trying to completely distance herself from Juror B37′s assertion that Zimmerman merely was trying to defend himself.

This case, which Juror B29 is correct about, should have never gone to trial. But once the race-baiters got involved, it went to trial. When President Obama insert himself into it, it became solely about race. And given Juror B29′s move, it’s hard not to wonder if she is trying to get on the “right” side of the race war, just in case the Al Sharpton’s and Eric Holder’s of the world come after her.

And given the fact that she is a minority, this will only help her. She can boldly proclaim that she thought Zimmerman was guilty of murder, even thought she clearly contradicts herself, and that she was the lone hold out. That she was the lone voice of reason in a jury of white women who wanted to convict this man. The only blessing is that she followed the law. Other than that, this looks like self-protection.

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,” she said. “[But] the law couldn’t prove it.”

Just in case the progressives come after her, she can say she tried to do the right thing. And given the ferocity of this case and the absurd and overt racist overtones, they probably will. But Juror B29 has covered her tracks.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
Listen to internet radio with The Brenner Brief on BlogTalkRadio

About the Author

Janna Brock

- Pop Culture Page Editor. I am a Christian and a staunch conservative. I am very interested in civil liberties and also arts and entertainment from a conservative point of view. I am interested in a wide variety of topics that have to do with the liberal war against conservatives on all fronts. I love entertainment and pop culture, especially television. But I'm always watching as a conservative and continually follow the trends of entertainment culture, as they stray away from traditional values.

Displaying 2 Comments
Have Your Say
  1. brettluc says:

    This is a chilling statement; “As much as we were trying to find this man guilty” because it is not the jury’s duty to try to find a man guilty. It is their duty to presume the man is not guilty until that presumption is overcome by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. B29 is not rational and her comments are really stupid.

    • Janna Brock Janna Brock says:

      Thanks for the comment. I agree, this is very chilling. She contradicts herself from the get go. To say the case shouldn’t have gone to trial and then to say he should be convicted of 2nd degree murder? Come on. Sounds like she’s playing to the race baiters. Or just trying to cash in.

Leave a comment

You must be Logged in to post comment.

Get To Know This Author

Janna Brock

Twitter
Janna Brock
Pop Culture Page Editor. I am a Christian and a staunch conservative. I am very interested in civil liberties and also arts and entertainment from a conservative point of view. I am interested in a wide variety of topics that have to do with the ... Read the full profile...