Part 1 – The Why’s
It happened after the Columbine High School murders. It happened after the Sandy Hook Elementary School murders. It happened after the Virginia Tech massacre. Questions. In those cases, people did not get an opportunity to see the killers stand trial. No one heard the killers’ version. Why the questions? Because as responsible human beings, we want to prevent senseless death. We want to protect our citizens.
When there is a killing, and the killer lives to give their version of the when, where, how and why, it can raise many questions when their version contains actions that are humanely impossible. When the killer’s version is in disagreement with evidence, and the killer goes on trial, people have hope that the seated jury will be impartial and based on evidence, mete out justice with a proper verdict of guilty.
The Jodi Arias trial, broadcast to the nation, demonstrated the ability of a killer to claim abuse and fear leading to the use of self-defense. No matter what the jury believed about Arias’ claims of abuse, they turned their focus on how Travis Alexander was killed. Arias’ story of her actions is impossible. and what she understood to be impossible, she claimed forgetfulness to avoid explaining. The physical and forensic evidence stood as her accuser, evidenced her as a liar, and convicted her.
It was just the opposite in the George Zimmerman case.
The jury excused murder, forsaking all physical and forensic evidence on the basis that Zimmerman had been previously abused; i.e., crime in his community justified his killing an unarmed 17-year old human being who was committing no crime.
Juror B37 has given an interview to CNN’s Anderson Cooper. Four other jurors have issued a statement saying that they did their job according to the law. Please do not insult our intelligence. They did not understand the law in order to perform their duty accordingly. They submitted a question to Judge Nelson to clarify manslaughter. Judge Nelson asked them to provide a more specific question. Not one of the six jurors could do that, so they defaulted to finding a verdict of not guilty. The jury could not perform their job according to law since they failed to understand it.
Some might say that the George Zimmerman jury owes America no explanations of how it reached its decision. Some might say that if asked, a vague response, such as there was no evidence, should put questions to rest. No. Not in this case. Due to the State of Florida’s Sunshine Law, the public had availability of discovery material related to the case.
Those interested in the case went through discovery material, the first of which was Zimmerman’s video walk-through of how he came to take the life of unarmed 17 year-old Trayvon Martin. Recordings of two statements that George Zimmerman gave to investigators were released, followed by his written statement and those of witnesses. It took the average person more than 16 hours to watch, listen, and read that discovery material. The Zimmerman jury would have the public believe that they went through 12 days of evidence and testimony in 16 hours and reached a just verdict.
Before we continue to questions for the jury, please allow me to ask the jurors to do us a favor. Please contact juror B37 and tell her that “Spanish” is a language and not a race. Thank you in advance.
A. The Why’s
1. Why didn’t they give Judge Nelson a more specific question so they could understand manslaughter?
2. Why ask to have manslaughter clarified if they had already decided that Zimmerman killed in self-defense?
3. Why did they ignore the DNA and blood evidence? If rain washed DNA and blood off Trayvon, why didn’t it wash blood off Zimmerman’s face and nose that was more exposed to the rain? Or, was it raining?
4. Why did they use a double standard, wanting the victim to have his hands bagged to preserve evidence, but not the killer?
5. Did they examine the weather report and crime scene photos? Jonathan did not have on a rain jacket and there were no raindrops on the lens of his cell phone. Did any of the witnesses say that they put on a jacket or got an umbrella before going outside after the shot was fired? No. Why did the jury assume it was raining and that rain discriminates, washing blood off the victim, but not the killer?
6. Who in their right mind would pay membership in a fight gym for over a year and not advance?
7. Why would the jury not consider that Zimmerman was apparently doing something more in Koppelli’s gym than just dieting, since he gained over 100 lbs after leaving that gym? If just dieting, he could have maintained his diet.
We await answers.