Juror B37, Mark O’Mara and Jury Tampering

When Sharlene Martin announced that Juror B37 and her husband intended to write a book of her experience on the jury in the George Zimmerman case, it caused me to revisit Juror B37’s voir dire.  Sharlene Martin, now former literary agent for Juror B37, wrote that the jury in the George Zimmerman case decided he was not guilty “…due to the manner in which he was charged…”  Immediately, I remembered that Juror B37 referred to rallies and peaceful protests as “riots.”

Listening to Juror B37 during voir dire reminded me of Robert Zimmerman Jr.’s anti-media diatribes, blaming rallies and Black activists for the arrest of George Zimmerman.   Certainly, if Juror B37 believes that Zimmerman should not have been charged, and if she could convince the other five jurors of the same, then Zimmerman was never in jeopardy of being tried for murdering Trayvon Martin.   She could serve on the jury with lodging, meals, and social events at the State’s expense, then write a book about it reaping a financial benefit.

If not but for the fact that George Zimmerman got out of his car to follow Trayvon, and did follow him, the two would not have come into physical contact.  Juror B37 however, believes that Trayvon was responsible for his own death.  Juror B37’s interview on AC360 is filled with revelations of her mindset.  According to Juror B37, after running from Zimmerman, and Zimmerman getting out of his vehicle and following him, once Trayvon saw Zimmerman following him again, Trayvon was suppose to again, run away.  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that Juror B37 describes that George Zimmerman was on a “coon hunt” and Trayvon Martin simply did not know he was a coon and thus, deserved to be killed.

Based on Sharlene Martin’s revealing that the jury decided Zimmerman was not guilty due to the manner in which he was charged, I conducted an analysis of Mark O’Mara’s and Don West’s voir dire of potential jurors, moving from theory and then finding evidence to support the theory through analysis.

The Theory

The theory is simple; Juror B37 was not only a stealth juror for the defense, but she was assigned the duty of convincing the other five jurors that as the wife of an attorney, if she could not understand the jury instructions and the law, then the other five jurors were not capable of understanding either.   If it was not against the law for Zimmerman to carry a gun, profile Trayvon, and follow him, then murdering Trayvon was neither against the law IF Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. The defense promoted that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman for no other reason than looking creepy and following him.

Damn the DNA evidence.  Damn the straddling demonstration.  Damn the fact that the last cry for help was cut short by the gunshot.  Dame Rachel Jeantel’s testimony.  Damn the trial.  Juror B37, along with Mark O’Mara, Don West, Frank Taaffe, and the Zimmerman family, were out to make a social statement.  That social statement is that since Blacks organized rallies, and the outcry led to an investigation resulting in George Zimmerman being charged with second-degree murder, that Blacks have too much power.  Only a verdict of not guilty would teach Blacks to stay in their place.  Only a verdict of not guilty would discourage Black parents in the future from seeking justice when their unarmed sons are profiled, stalked, and murdered.   Only a verdict of not guilty would help Whites armed with guns kill Blacks, claim self-defense, and avoid justice.

Juror B37 was assigned the responsibility of convincing the jury that the law and jury instructions are to blame for a not guilty verdict, covering up that she was of the opinion that Zimmerman should have never been charged before she was summoned to appear for jury duty.

The Scheme

Someone approached Mark O’Mara about a person they know who was summoned to appear for jury duty.  I suspect that someone was the husband of Juror B37.  It could not be via phone neither through electronic media.  It had to be in person.   O’Mara was provided with her physical description, and information on her personal life.  He did not know, neither had he met her previously.

With 500 people summoned for jury duty, O’Mara would need more information about her in order to identify her.  This meant she would volunteer information, such as her career; volunteering for animal rescue; and the city where she resides.  The stealth juror would know to communicate to O’Mara that her husband was involved.

They needed a plan to make sure she was interviewed within the first three days of voir dire. There was no way of actually guaranteeing this unless jurors were placed in categories.  Categories established based on answers in the questionnaires would increase the possibility of her being among the first twenty (20) potential jurors.    Judge Nelson approved the separating of questionnaires and establishing categories.  The stealth juror would say that she didn’t trust the media and knew very little about the case.  That would get her into the first category of potential jurors.

O’Mara could not tell Don West about the stealth juror.  Since O’Mara and Don West took turns questioning potential jurors, O’Mara would require that both of them needed to confer with each other before finalizing their questioning of each potential juror.  While the goal was to get her on the jury and vote not guilty, there was no guarantee that she could convince the other five jurors.  They needed a plan to guide her and that plan was associated with how they planned to proceed in presenting their case.

The Analysis

This analysis is based the voir dire, accompanied by the below video, to support the analysis.   I watched the first three days of voir dire from beginning to end, and scanned the other days.

A clear pattern is evidenced by the defense when asking potential jurors about remembering things they heard or read in the media once they reached the jury room for deliberations.  Each potential juror was asked how they would handle that; whether they would bring it up during deliberations, or decide based solely on what they heard in the courtroom.  They were asked what they would do if another juror introduced things they heard in the media that was not presented in the “courtroom.”  I emphasize the word “courtroom.”  That is important because there is an additional term used by O’Mara when he questioned Juror B37.

Making Sure O’Mara Identified Her And Understood What He Wanted Her To Do.

When questioned by Bernie de la Rionda, Juror B37 volunteered that she worked for a chiropractor.   As Mark O’Mara questioned her, she volunteered the city where she resides.   She volunteered her activity as a volunteer for animal rescue groups.  Answering that she had not discussed the case with her husband, Juror B37 volunteered information including that after she received summons for jury duty, her husband told her she could not watch the news.   Without knowing whether she would be selected to serve on the jury, nor that the jury was being sequestered, Juror B37 stated (under the subject of taking care of her many animals), that her husband had already told her that “he will do it all.”

O’Mara has now identified her as his stealth juror.  He simply needed to give her instructions on what to do in the jury room.  It was not enough that he had a juror who would vote not guilty.  She had to also convince other jurors to do the same.  Subtlety, he had to accomplish that by incorporating instructions into his questions.

The following is how Mark O’Mara gave instructions to Juror B37.

Mark O’Mara: “You know how the process works?  Take evidence.  You listen to the judge and find out what the law is then you’ll go back and decide what happens.  Oh, I’m sorry.  Decide the verdict.  Uh, in that context, what if another juror talks to you and says well, I heard about something else that I didn’t hear in the courtroom.  I remember I saw this on TV, or read it on the radio, read on the newspaper or heard it on the radio and I think this happened, even though it never came from a witness here.  How would you react to that?”

Juror B37:   “I would say its media hype.  You can’t prove anything that you heard prior to this case …”

O’Mara interrupts her and continues (emphasis added);

Mark O’Mara: “One of the instructions that you’re going to be told by the judge is that you have to decide only on the facts that you hear, competent evidence from this courtroom …we can’t let you bring outside evidence or knowledge or information inside.  So will you be able to advise her that if it doesn’t come from the witness stand it doesn’t get considered?

Other potential jurors were asked if they would only rely on what they hear in the “courtroom.”  With Juror B37, O’Mara’s questions went beyond asking her if she could leave what she heard in the media or through friends outside of the jury room.  It also went beyond asking Juror B37 how she would respond to other jurors who mentioned what they heard or read outside of the courtroom.   O’Mara subtlety included instructions for Juror B37 to “advise” other jurors to disregard all evidence presented in the courtroom, limiting it to what was presented from the “witness stand.”   That played into O’Mara’s defense strategy.

O’Mara knew that he was not going to allow Zimmerman to take the witness stand.  (As a side note: Zimmerman stated under oath that not testifying was a decision he made of his own free will.  In a press conference, O’Mara stated that Zimmerman wanted to take the stand.)  O’Mara knew certain evidence that the prosecution was entering, but their witnesses were there to authenticate the evidence rather that testify to it, such as Zimmerman’s recorded and video statements;  the Sean Hannity interview,  clubhouse videos; phone records.  O’Mara’s instructions to Juror B37 was to convince the rest of the jury that unless it came from the witness stand, it should not be considered.

O’Mara instructed Juror B37 to “take evidence,” listen to the judge then go into the jury room and decide what happens.  He did not say consider evidence and I suspect that his use of the word “take” was the same as saying “remove” or make it impotent, of little to no effect, in order to decide how to make a not guilty verdict happen.

We hear that is exactly what Juror B37 conveys in her AC360 interview.  Anderson Cooper asked Juror B37 how important were the video tapes to her and she answered that she didn’t really know.  The video tapes did not come from the witness stand. When asked about Zimmerman’s claim that Trayvon reached for his gun, Juror B37 gave no consideration to the straddling demonstration – it didn’t come from the witness stand.  In fact, Juror B37 stated that whether or not Trayvon reached for the gun made no difference.  That means she also disregarded Zimmerman’s statements that he pinned Trayvon’s arm and held it while unholstering his gun, aiming, and firing the hollow point bullet into the unarmed teenager’s heart.  Zimmerman’s admittance of having Trayvon pinned when shooting him came by video – not the witness stand.

During her voir dire, Juror B37 also stated that her husband controls how she gets news.  (Possibly a code that whatever evidence was presented that O’Mara wanted her to convince the rest of the jury to disregard could be communicated to her through her husband.)  Her husband could not take the chance of being discovered communicating to O’Mara, so they needed a third party.   Her husband would only communicate with her and the third party.  Frank Taaffe would communicate Juror B37’s success or lack thereof to O’Mara through his media appearances.   For instance, after the question to clarify manslaughter was presented to the judge, Taaffe said to Nancy Grace and on Fox News that he had “insight” that there would be an acquittal because there was only one hold-out juror.   In her AC360 interview, Juror B37 confirmed that when that question was presented to the judge, five jurors had voted not guilty with one holding out.

I would like to point out that Juror E40 was another person whom Mark O’Mara asked how she would handle that juror who tried to bring in something “that was not talked about from the witness box.”    Juror E40’s answer to that question was that they should ask for transcripts.  Since we didn’t see the potential jurors, it could be that Juror E40 and Juror B37 might have similar physical appearance.  Nevertheless, Juror E40’s answer to the question was not what O’Mara anticipated from the stealth juror.

When it was announced that a verdict was reached, O’Mara was still nervous, not knowing if it was a hung jury or verdict of not guilty, but he could be sure that it was either.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

109 Responses to Juror B37, Mark O’Mara and Jury Tampering

  1. Juror B-37: Opportunity, Means, Motive in the Zimmerman Trial


    The strange saga of Juror B37 could become even stranger, now that the Department of Justice has set up an email Tip Line for the events in Sanford, Florida. The email address is: Sanford.Florida@usdoj.gov.

    New questions are surfacing about her in the aftermath of the George Zimmerman murder trial. Did Juror B37 or her husband, an attorney, have the motive, means and opportunity to tamper with the jury?

    There is no doubt that Juror B37 was anxious to get on to the jury. “In watching her jury interview, one finds a very concerning pattern. As discussed by legal expert Gail Brashers-Krug, a former federal prosecutor and law professor and who is currently a criminal defense attorney in Iowa:

    She really wants to be a juror. She seems to be going out of her way to minimize the disruptive effect of a multiweek trial on her life. Jurors rarely do that. She is also taking pains to avoid saying anything particularly sympathetic to either side. Both sides tend to be very skeptical of jurors who are particularly eager to serve on high-profile cases. Often they have their own agendas, or are attention-seekers.”

    Opportunity. Juror B37 was making the opportunity for herself.

  2. Xena says:

    While watching Mark O’Mara’s press conference on July 10, 2013, I caught were he spoke of the jury’s verdict in past tense.


  3. Lolypop says:

    I’m Lolypop. : )
    Xena told me about this site. Thanks for staying on the jury story. I agree that there should be a FULL investigation on it.
    Most of the time when you have the trial, you can’t have a second one,
    I think it’s called double jeopardy, BUT if lies and corruption are found as it has been that’s different story. This certainly calls for it.
    I don’t know what will happen but, we can wait.
    Justice may take a while but it’s worth waiting and fighting for!

  4. dianetrotter says:

    Wow Xena! First time I’ve read you putting it down! I hope the DOJ is able to investigate the jury and their families.

    • Ametia says:

      @diane Welcome! Xena’s been on this jury tampering from jump. She’s thorough, and brings the BACKUP. She’s a GEM, and has been so helpful in assisting us to piece it all together and stay SANE!

    • Xena says:


      First time I’ve read you putting it down!

      I appreciate 3Chics for allowing me the opportunity to guest blog here. They are very supportive.

      Not to boast, but I’ve been “putting it down” on my own blog, blackbutterfly7.wordpress.com. There appears to be a concerted effort by some (who I won’t name) to take what I analyze and post on my own blog and bring it to another blog (that I won’t name) as though it is their original idea. Since it’s all been in the name of justice for Trayvon, I have humbly sat by because it matters not where the info starts, as long as it gets out and informs.

  5. kansaschick says:

    I am so happy that I found this blog. I felt there was something wrong with this whole trial but couldn’t nail it since I don’t have a legal background. Thank you Xena for your research and time breaking this down. All the other blog sites seem to just be people viciously lashing out at anyone who said anything negative about Zimmerman or the jurors.

    • Xena says:

      @kansaschick. Thank you, and thanks to Juror B37’s literary agent and the AC 360 interview without which, I would not have re-visited voir dire, discovering how O’Mara identified and gave instructions to the juror tamperer.

  6. George Zimmerman: Juror B-29 talks to ABC

    Juror B29


    Juror B-29, the only minority juror from the George Zimmerman trial, has talked to ABC’s Robin Roberts.

    Roberts conducted the interview Thursday morning after “Good Morning America.” The juror, who is identified as Maddy, is shown.

    The first portions of the interview will air on “World News With Diane Sawyer” at 6:30 p.m. Thursday on WFTV-Channel 9.

    More of the exclusive interview will be seen this evening on “Nightline.” The full interview will air Friday on “Good Morning America,” which starts at 7 a.m.
    The first juror to talk to the press, B-37, was photographed in shadows when she spoke to CNN’s Anderson Cooper.

    • Xena says:

      Rev. Sharpton on Politics Nation is talking about Juror B29 now. They debated over how the jury was instructed. I have a problem blaming that on jury instructions because if they all understood it the same way, they would not have gone into deliberations with 3 wanting to convict him.

      It appears that they spent more time during the 16 hours discussing how to interpret jury instructions and the law more than examining evidence.

      • Ametia says:

        Yes; and B-37 assumed the role of fake law interpreter.

        • Xena says:

          @Ametia. I hope that Robin Roberts asks juror B29 the right questions.

        • Xena says:

          @Ametia. Unless and until there is evidence otherwise, I totally agree that Juror B37 was the juror working mind control in that jury room. She intended to financially benefit by the verdict and introduced that lame-brain excuse that there is no law to convict Zimmerman. BULL! Juror B37 admitted that Zimmerman “confronted” Trayvon. The law does not allow the aggressor self-defense because he was losing the fight he initiated. However, DNA evidence provides that Zimmerman was never in a fight with Trayvon fighting back.

          Don’t know — but I suspect someone at Koppelli’s gym beat Zimmerman’s behind that Friday or Saturday. Those facial scratches had already scalped when the cops photographed him that night. Any videos of Zimmerman entering and leaving that gym in Feb. 2012 are probably gone by now. I wish the feds would luminol the inside of Zimmerman’s vehicle if he still has it.

  7. B 37, plus husband and O’Mara bingo. You are spot on! Notice the AC360 interview. She says
    some of the girls wanted to find George guilty, but I told them the law said we couldn’t start until the end. In other words, no phone call those fuxxing coons or punks, no following “suspect ” with gun pulled – no way he pulled it out with Trayvon on top of him, no way he forgot he had it. No, disappearing bushes, forgotten street name that he remembers a minute later, no way a former bouncer who was fired for throwing a woman out of a door and breaking her ankle can’t throw one punch at a kid who weighs 50 pounds less. His first act of self defense is to shoot through the heart. What does the foreman B37 (guess that was part of the deal, get that job!) tell her jury? The law says forget the prosecution’s case and start when George Zimmerman claims he was punched in the nose. Assume he is telling the truth. Forget about anything that happened before that. Like he probably was running after Trayvon pointing a loaded gun saying, ” your the one who is going to die tonight.” But, believe George was attacked first (her poor boy, 2 bandaids. There was a neighbor who saw Zimmerman by a trash dumpster hitting his head with an object.) She was the plant. She told them they had to believe Zimmerman was attacked first. She also told them that Zimmerman only had to be in fear of bodily injury. Not true for either. He had to be in fear of death and they could figure out who attacked first. Who got out of the car? Who was running? Who was following? Who had a gun? B37 perjured herself at the least. She knew a lot more about this case before trial. Enough to have consulted with a morning news producer and a literary agent. Friends of O’Mara? Was that the pay off? I pray Eric Holder goes over this with a magnifying glass.

    • roderick2012 says:

      Maybe they decided that it wasn’t worth going on tv and lying to help rehabilitate George’s image.

      They saw what happened to B37 and the want no part of that nonsense.

      • I’m reading on Twitter the officer who responded to the accident scene is a huge Zimmerman fan and contacted him about the accident. There is no mention of GZ anywhere on the accident report. What sleazy ass liars!

        • roderick2012 says:

          SG2, I am not surprised that the entire George to the Rescue story is a hoax because I live in West Palm Beach and I haven’t seen or heard anything on the local news.

          I guess that officer wants to do what George did—kill an unarmed black male and get away with it.

        • roderick2012 says:

          SG2, I am not surprised that the entire George to the Rescue story is a hoax because I live in West Palm Beach and I haven’t seen or heard anything on the local news.

          I guess that officer wants to do what George did—kill an unarmed black male and get away with it.

    • Xena says:

      ‘They don’t want to be associated with George.”

      Thank God for common sense.

  8. Ametia says:

    THE AQUITTAL-9357091726_9bfd02397a_h

    Got that B-37 & O’Mara?

  9. Roland Martin Reacts To Juror B-37’s Comments: Zimmerman’s Heart Was Not In The Right Place.

  10. roderick2012 says:

    First of all Xena, thanks for all of the hard work and long hours you invested in this article.

    Second, it seems as if you’ve gotten a bit to close to the truth if you’ve attracted alleged O’Mara supporters who are threatening you with legal action.

    Keep speaking truth to power.

    • Morning, Roderick!

      I concur! Princess Warrior rocks!

      • roderick2012 says:

        Good, morning, SG2 and everyone else @ 3CP.

        It’s interesting that in the end even Carol had to agree with some of the points that Xena made.

    • Xena says:


      Second, it seems as if you’ve gotten a bit to close to the truth if you’ve attracted alleged O’Mara supporters who are threatening you with legal action.

      You could be absolutely correct. First she tried using fear, then promoting herself as an attorney to be condescending. Funny — one would almost think that she has some personal involvement in what happened in that jury room.

  11. blkheavyweight says:

    At first I thought it a bit vain to approach the justice department to continue their investigation after the verdict and if it’s a do over by the state we are certain to see the same result. However, the fact that the justice dept didn’t find race as a lone factor “yet” how quickly the investigation was reopened after the verdict means only one thing…a biiiig series of indictments like in the Mississippi burning case. Remember the feds not only know everything but let’s not forget the state seeking to unvestigsate son west about the ice cream…”that” may have opened doors that cannot be shut. We may see Sanford police officers, the defense attorneys, George and his wife, witness 18, witness 6, juror B37 “and” her husband
    all arrested at once on the same day. This would cause major distractions

    • Xena says:


      However, the fact that the justice dept didn’t find race as a lone factor “yet” how quickly the investigation was reopened after the verdict means only one thing…a biiiig series of indictments like in the Mississippi burning case.

      I think you’re on to something. It’s unusual for the feds to file just one count of a crime. They do pile it on.

    • blkheavyweight says:

      Cont…because the Fed only bring a case….if they’ve got one. I’m curious though if the money schemes while claiming to be indigent could be considered money laundering which could invoke the Rico act? I know it sounds far fetched but… you never know. All I’m saying is that “if” this becomes a federal case by “whatever” means…the conviction rate for federal crimes in 2012 was 99%……period.

    • roderick2012 says:

      blkheavyweight: However, the fact that the justice dept didn’t find race as a lone

      I still don’t understand this.

      Remember we were promised that George’s text messages, emails and journal entries were sealed until the trial because if they were released before then it would have jeapordized George’s right to a fair trial?

      Some described those documents as ‘Incendiary’ which translates racist so why in the hell is Justice Department saying that they have no evidence of George being a racist?

      The only other option is that Papa Zimmerman is the Great Oz, but I guess after working at the Pentagon he may have a lot of blackmail material on a lot of important persons.

      • I’ve never heard of papaz working at the pentagon. he was a magistrate in VA, not a judge and VA doesn’t require a law degree for that job- who knows why?? but as far as I know working as a magistrate up north doesn’t exactly afford this clown any special power in the south. but he’s retired and has lived in that small town for awhile. I can see him dealing w.law enforcement and/or other military ppl, maybe that was the commonality he found *friends*? idk, but I can’t imagine he’s of any importance, I can imagine though, z having his nose in other LE’s business, maybe he knew some shit about bill lee and wolfinger? z was all up in the business that’s for sure!

  12. Marine Watching Zimmerman Trial, Catches Officer Wearing Ribbon Reserved For WWII Vets


    Several fans brought this to our attention, seems the Sanford Police Department decided to use DOD medals and ribbons because they did not have any of their own.

    According to the article, Jeremiah Workman, a Marine who received the nations second highest honor, the Navy Cross was watching the Zimmerman trial when, Doris Singleton, a Sanford Police Officer took the stand.

    He noticed the ribbon rack she was wearing, and posted it to his facebook page.

    “Am I going blind or is this police officer in the Zimmerman -Martin trial wearing ribbons that she doesn’t rate?” he wrote alongside the photo he posted to Facebook.”

    Doris Singleton

    Doris Singleton medals

  13. Caroline Goldman says:

    Xena, Either you purposely misstate your legal experience ( legal “research” is invariably referred to as shepardizing in the field)or weren’t successful at it as your obtuse failure to understand that the libeled party I referred to is Mark O’Mara underscores .And, indeed I will take your challenge and forward this blog, with your comments, to his office. Especially as you claim, dubiously, to have had some legal experience, you should have learned that making unfounded accusations designed to defame people has dire legal consequences.
    I will not lower myself to further comment on this blog or the ignorant comments of your “fans” who wouldn’t recognize a cogent argument if they fell on one.

    • Please tell Mark O’Mara….

    • Xena says:

      @Caroline Goldman. Like I said earlier, if you find where O’Mara asked any potential juror, other than B37, if they would “advise” other jurors that if it didn’t come from the “witness stand” that it cannot be considered, I’ll write a retraction.

      If not but for the fact that Juror B37 and her literary agent opened their mouths, I would not have looked at her voir dire. Please be sure while you’re forwarding this to O’Mara to include the video that supports the article. I mean, you wouldn’t want to play dirty and leave out the support for the analysis, would you?

      Why not just visit Florida. Maybe you have some rescued birds to pass along to Juror B37, who thinks more of animals than a 17 year-old unarmed Black child who Zimmerman confronted and killed on that dark night and left with his face down in the wet grass as he put his big ass on the kid’s back to increase the kid’s pain and hasten his death.

      Now you want to leave? What? Is the challenge of finding any potential juror, other than B37, who O’Mara asked to “advise” other jurors that if it didn’t come from the “witness stand” too much work for you? Or, do you already know that didn’t happen?

      By the way, you do know that in order to prevail in a suit of defamation or libel, the plaintiff has to prove injury??? If anything, some other murderers in Florida will hire him based on the idea that he can and will tamper with the jury to get them off.

    • Xena says:

      @Caroline Goldman. While you’re forwarding things to O’Mara, forward the following too;


    • carol is almost as much a legal scholar as I am!! LMFAO!!! but not quite!!
      I happen to know a thing or two about civil suits in florida. and in this case omara would have ZERO standing to be heard because there’s no laws that say Xena or me or anyone else cannot make accusations against mark omara for misconduct, jury tampering or for really bad character for that matter! lolo

      i’d also bet a buck that ol carol has far less formal education than she likes to portray in her longwinded *opinioned* posts.
      she knows mr.big words but never met mr.substance.
      she says Xena is breaking a law but doesn’t state which one nor site a single statue to support these UNFOUNDED, DUBIOUS, INVARIABLY OBTUSE allegations against Ms.Xena!
      and just for that, I suggest you hire a better lawyer than the one you play online because

      • Xena says:

        A real attorney would have questioned O’Mara’s ethics. The video does not lie. He gave instructions to Juror B37 under the guise of voir dire. When watching her AC360 interview, she followed those instructions well — disregarded everything not said from the witness stand. That includes Zimmerman’s recorded interviews, the prosecutions’ straddling demonstration, and Judge Nelson’s instructions to disregard a portion of Serino’s testimony.

        • she sure did, she followed every instruction perfectly. too perfect. hmm, maybe she’s a submissive (if ya know what I mean:) and has practice!

          but Xena your theory is more probable than I can even stand! if true it’s SOOO subtle it’s practically undetectable! of course it had to be designed that way or someone at trial would’ve figured it out. but nobody could know, not even west. do you think Z knew? at least he’d most likely keep his stupid mouth shut, even to wife, but why would taffee be informed? you think it’s because taffee could be the only scumbag racist POS on earth who’d be nasty enough to actually go along with it? he was pretty quiet through out the trial wasn’t he? he didn’t come back until during deliberations. but to trust taffee idk, he would concern me too much! he couldn’t keep his mouth shut on TV. looking back it was like he was dying to tell everyone what he knew.

          I guess if I were in Z’s place i’d be willing to take the chance if he was my only choice, but omara? why would he think he could get away with it, all it took was taffee to say the slightest thing omara would be cold busted too! it’s frustrating to imagine how many ppl were involved in the acquittal of a child killer. unreal.

          • Xena says:


            but Xena your theory is more probable than I can even stand! if true it’s SOOO subtle it’s practically undetectable! of course it had to be designed that way or someone at trial would’ve figured it out. but nobody could know, not even west. do you think Z knew?

            Had Juror B37 and her former literary agent not opened their mouths, I would not have suspected outright jury tampering. Maybe persuasion, but not tampering.

            Watching body language and reactions, I don’t think that Z knew. O’Mara couldn’t chance telling him and having him appear in court with a look of confidence. The nervousness and disgust we saw in GZ (as well as West) during trial was real.

            There’s someone who claims to be a sheriff or former sheriff saying he communicates with O’Mara and Junior, so I suspect that was his way to connect with Taaffe. That is what could have made communications possible with Taaffe as to what was happening in the jury room. I do not know if the claims are true and actually, don’t believe the person’s boasting, but someone was communicating with Taaffe during deliberations.

            There is no way a jury foreperson submits a question to the court, is told to be more specific, but fails to be more specific yet come back with a verdict. And, we have Juror B29 saying that the law was “read to her.” That was in the jury room about manslaughter, and the way it was read to her agreed with Juror B37’s opinion on George’s intentions.

            O’Mara could not settle for a hung jury. Under oath, GZ said that it was his own decision not to testify. At the press conference afterwards that same day, O’Mara said that GZ wanted to testify. A hung jury and re-trial could lead to GZ claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. Nope — had to read the law to Maddy and convince her that there is no law for murder.

  14. Caroline Goldman says:

    This blog piece is dangerously bordering on libel. With no proof at all, the author has accused the head of the Florida Bar Association of risking his career and a potential prison term in aid of securing a not guilty verdict for his client. It is patently ludicrous and there isn’t an iota of proof to support the reckless allegations.
    Rather, the author relies and exploits the wide spread public anger at the verdict which most of us feel to set forth a convoluted conspiracy theory which defies logic and is entirely dependent on emotion. There simply is no there there.
    Juror B37 may well have been a stealth juror, determined to sway a verdict and profit off it later, but to state that the defense colluded to place her there is absurd. Sadly, there are stealth jurors on most high profile trials in this country and that will be the case until legislation is enacted outlawing post verdict profiting by jurors.
    The fact is that Florida has a unique and reprehensible definition of self defense which allows for an aggressor to become the victim in the moment and respond with deadly force. It is geared, as is Stand Your Ground, to the favor of gun nuts and psychopaths and defies common sense. Zimmerman didn’t stand a chance of losing unless the State had managed to nullify the jurors, which seems to have been its’ intent in placing 6 women on the jury and relying on their motherly emotions to see past the law. That they didn’t is regrettable. That Zimmerman is free is horrific. That Trayvon Martin was stalked and murdered is not justice, but to turn the rage and sadness we all feel about this into a baseless slander of the system and individual lawyers is not the answer. Working to change the statutes which allow this type of thing to happen daily is.

    • Is that you, Juror B37?

      • Caroline Goldman says:

        No; I’m not Juror B37. I believe what I stated was clear: I believe Zimmerman targeted, stalked and killed Trayvon and is morally guilty. However it’s a leap to state categorically that defense attys were guilty of jury tampering, etc. There are legitimate questions that deserve answers, but to slander and libel anyone without facts to back up one’s theories is reckless.Anyone who cannot see this has sunk to a low previously occupied by right wing nut jobs and racists.

        • violations of sequestration, a decision based on info not presented at trial, a book deal in a matter of hours? I smell fish and it ain’t Friday.

          • Xena says:

            @SG2. Add to that list that Zimmerman wanted to testify, but O’Mara insisted he not take the witness stand. (The jury tampering was rooted on “if it doesn’t come from the witness stand it can’t be considered.”)

            Had Zimmerman been convicted while wanting to testify, O’Mara and Don West would be knee deep in ca-ca.

        • Xena says:

          @Caroline Goldman.

          I believe what I stated was clear: I believe Zimmerman targeted, stalked and killed Trayvon and is morally guilty.

          Juror B37 said the same on AC360. She even said that Zimmerman “confronted” Trayvon.

          However it’s a leap to state categorically that defense attys were guilty of jury tampering, etc.

          To be fair, I only said one defense attorney, Mark O’Mara. From listening to West’s questioning of potential jurors, I didn’t detect any stealth language.

          There are legitimate questions that deserve answers, but to slander and libel anyone without facts to back up one’s theories is reckless.

          If you can find where Mark O’Mara asked any potential juror, other than Juror B37, if they would “advise” other jurors that they cannot consider what doesn’t come from the “witness stand,” then I will write a retraction.

    • churchlady320 says:

      Discerning possible illegalities from what you see in reviewing the process is an important part of directing “sunshine” on that process. There is nothing here that is libelous, but it is raising a LOT of questions among us all about whether B37 was really who she claims. The degree of corruption that can occur in trials is breathtaking, and frankly raising these possibilities is important because if we can attribute that corruption to specific people and not to the system, we can being to fix it far more readily than if we don’t even look.

      • Xena says:

        @churchlady320. I totally agree. The system was not designed to be corrupt but rather, those using evil to win in the system are the ones at fault.

      • Caroline Goldman says:

        I agree that she was in all probability a stealth juror. Where we diverge is your many statements as fact that O’Mara tampered with the jury, colluded to place her on it in anticipation of securing a not guilty verdict.As an attorney, I can absolutely tell you that this is libel, slander, tortuous interference and defamation. You haven’t raised the question; rather you’ve stated it as fact and it is that which is reckless and irresponsible.
        I prefer to spend my time attempting to change the laws and their interpretations which lead to these awful verdicts. You and your followers are certainly free to make unsubstantiated accusations.I hope as you continue to do so, you are aware what the costs of defending libel suits are and that the courts don’t provide PDs to defend civil suits.

        • Take your threats and hit the door.

        • Xena says:

          @Caroline Goldman

          As an attorney, I can absolutely tell you that this is libel, slander, tortuous interference and defamation.

          As a retired legal researcher for attorneys and judges, I can absolutely tell you that unless you have standing to sue me, your attempt to instill fear here is in bad faith. Juror B37 made herself a public figure. She’s a bigoted racist liar who believes that Trayvon had no rights. She made “coon hunts” legal. Yeah, I said it. Now, contact her and tell her to sue me. See you in court.

        • Xena says:

          @Caroline Goldman.

          you are aware what the costs of defending libel suits are and that the courts don’t provide PDs to defend civil suits.

          I have attorney friends and judges in the 9th federal circuit although I reside elsewhere. If your client, who I suspect is Juror B37, wants to sue me, she will have to do so in the federal system due to diversity. I hope you have money for travel expenses.

    • Xena says:

      @Caroline Goldman.

      This blog piece is dangerously bordering on libel. With no proof at all, the author has accused the head of the Florida Bar Association of risking his career and a potential prison term in aid of securing a not guilty verdict for his client.

      I wonder if Juror B37 used title dropping to imply fear of retaliation upon other jurors to convince them to go along with her reasoning and vote?

      It is patently ludicrous and there isn’t an iota of proof to support the reckless allegations.

      Had you watched the video, then maybe you could offer suggestions or support your view. A statement that is unsupported alleging “reckless allegations” is mere opinion. You’re entitled to it, but you get no respect for it.

      Rather, the author relies and exploits the wide spread public anger at the verdict which most of us feel to set forth a convoluted conspiracy theory which defies logic and is entirely dependent on emotion.

      No, I relied on what Juror B37 and her literary agent said.

      The fact is that Florida has a unique and reprehensible definition of self defense which allows for an aggressor to become the victim in the moment and respond with deadly force

      Caroline, if what you say is true, then Trevor Dooley should be a free man. The jury in the Dooley case started at the beginning with Dooley leaving his garage with a concealed gun when he approached David James for mouthing off to him. Witnesses, including James’ own daughter, testified that Dooley turned his back to James and was walking back in the direction of his house when James ran behind Dooley, knocking him to the ground.

      The Dooley jury decided that if not but for the fact that Dooley left his garage with a concealed gun and approached James, that the two would not have come into physical contact. They said it was a senseless killing. The Dooley jury also decided that although Dooley was walking away, James felt threatened and had the right to attack Dooley.

      By the same standard of the law, if not but for the fact that Zimmerman got out of his car to follow Trayvon Martin, and admitted that he was following, the two would not have come into physical contact. If Trayvon raised a hand to Zimmerman, he had the right to do so because he felt threatened by him.

      Same law. Two different results from the same mindset, which is, Blacks in Florida have no justification to run or walk away when either is contrary to subjecting themselves to the obedience and/or desires of White men.

      … but to turn the rage and sadness we all feel about this into a baseless slander of the system and individual lawyers is not the answer.

      And, if your opinion was that it’s not baseless slander, what then? Personally, I come from a belief where we speak to the mountain and say be thou removed and cast into the sea. Your mileage may vary.

    • Caroline,
      Omara is NOT the Head of the Florida Bar association!
      Eugene K. Pettis, President of The Florida Bar, 2013-2014, http://www.floridabar.org/names.nsf/MESearchDK?OpenForm#topofpage
      FYI, Mr.Pettis is the first African American to be Florida’s president.

      when you couldn’t get past the first paragraph w/o making a verifiable false statement as fact, I wasn’t surprised about other factual ‘mistakes’ in your post. and as we all make mistakes they’re usually harmless minor distractions. but, in this case they undermine your credibility. because all the bullshit, distortions and hyperbole made by too many fake, ignorant and attention seeking ‘experts’ have made it their job to do the same thing you are.

      as for omara, and you should check for yourself since you seem to think so highly of him, his resume is quite UN-impressive. his entire career is now and always has been less than mediocre, And the only thing he did head was the defense team in unprofessional, unethical and unbelievable attorney misconduct.

      another tip, check definitions of words like slander, libel and nullify. you may be surprised what you find.

  15. If Juror B37 was a black female she’d be investigated in 3-2-1-

    • Xena says:


      If Juror B37 was a black female she’d be investigated in 3-2-1-

      HA!! You got that right, but only had Zimmerman been convicted.

  16. Ametia says:

    SMGDH This takes jury TAMPERING to a whole new sleazy level.

  17. No doubt much went wrong, terribly wrong. Another murderer of an innocence child walks free, and the disgusting pigs on the defense team continue to talk their racist talk, and walk their racist walk. This country is on a fast track to Hell. Thank you for the analysis. I see what your saying, and I think their was even more conspiratorial misconduct happening in that courtroom in order to allow the murderer to go free.

    • Hey 3CP, Che Wua is one of our Twitter pals.

      Welcome to our neck of the woods, Che Wua! Glad to have you here.

    • Ametia says:

      Hi Che Wua. Welcome to 3 Chics. We’re NOt going to let up on the injustice. Zimmerman murdered Trayvon, and the jury let him roam free.

    • I drop in all the time and read the new posts. I felt particularly compelled to comment on this one, no slight to any other topic posts. I am still fuming and shaking my head at what we witnessed in Sanford. I tried to stay positive throughout the jury selection and trial, but I could never shake the feeling things weren’t happening the way they should. I’ll continue the fight, prompting the DOJ at every opportunity and signing every petition to bring some kind of justice out of this horror show. I don’t know if you folks know this, but I’m also papapi of Justice Quest and Crime Watchers. Justice for Trayvon, the Dream is Still Alive! I will not be silenced!

      • Che Wua,

        I was trying to stay positive during the trial too but I knew things weren’t going right. Bernie didn’t object enough, Judge Nelson cutting the prosecution off at the knees. The handwriting was on the wall. When the State announced they were going to rest, my jaw dropped to the floor. I was like wtff?

    • Xena says:

      I would like for investigators to subpoena O’Mara’s bank and credit card statements going back to when jury summons were sent out. They should do the same for B37’s husband. For all the places he ate, investigators should see if they have video and/or ask staff if anyone was seen talking to O’Mara. If Juror B37’s husband was at the same place at the same time as O’Mara, there is reason to continue investigation.

      • blkheavyweight says:

        Damn, I think that would shake things up quite a bit. Omer as phone records and his emails and who exactly was sending him messages in court!??! After the jury was selected Son west received a text in the courtroom that made him grin from ear to ear like the Grinch that stole Christmas!! Keep it up girls, knock e’m out!!
        Sincerely, blkheavyweight

        • Xena says:

          Hellooooo blkheavyweight. I was just watching one of your latest vids. Thanks so much for the comment. Hmmm. Think I’ll take a look for that Grinch grin.

  18. Ametia says:

    *SIPS TEA* Reading… Thanks, Xena!

    • Xena says:

      You are welcomed, and again, thank you and 3Chics for allowing me the opportunity.

      While you’re sipping tea, I have to go rattle the pots and pans. :-)

      • trayvonstruth says:

        Xena – absolutely wonderful. You have done such a great job of putting all of this stuff together. It really clicks when you see it all laid out like this. Thank you so much for being on our the right side in this case. You are definitely an asset and blessing to us all!

        • Ametia says:

          Hi trayvonstruth. Xena’s been knocking it outta the park. If a lay person canput forth a cogent breakdown like this, what does this tell us about the PROSECUTION? Just ASKING…

        • Xena says:

          @trayvonstruth. Good to see your fonts. Thank you for appreciating how things do come together and click. I must thank the literary agent and juror B37 for opening their mouths.

    • Xena is all up in it! :)

      • Ametia says:

        Bringing the TRUTH. What does this tell us about the prosecution?

        • You’re in my head. If the prosecution was serious about justice for Trayvon, they’d have jump on top of this as soon as it known jurors violated sequestration rules with unsupervised visits and considered info not presented at trial. So there you go..

        • Xena says:

          @Ametia. The prosecution was too trusting of the defense attorneys. Their careers have their common sense tied to the apron strings of the court and trusting that the judicial system works. They did not bring their common sense into the courtroom to consider that the defense did not play fair. And, I don’t know how Judge Nelson let them get away with violating witness sequestration.

      • Yahtc says:

        I cannot believe all the hours you would have had to spend preparing this analysis, Xena…….listening to the TV interview, all of the jury selection, parts of the trial……and then time spent on transcribing sections.

        You must have had lots of windows open on your computer as you put all this together.

        Great research with facts to support your theory. Congratulations!

        • Xena is a hard worker. It takes a considerable amount of time to go through all of the information and she did it.

          Big Up, Xena!

        • Xena says:

          @Yahtc. Thanks so much for seeing how much time went into this. Hours? No, days — days well worth it. Next project — to combine all the interviews of those who were seated on the jury. Out of 5 jurors, 3 went in believing in a not guilty verdict. I want to know why and maybe their voir dire will tell us.

      • Yahtc says:

        I just received this poem by email from a lady that I met Saturday. Her son followed the case and has given me permission to post it to all of you.
        I just received an email from a lady who attended the rally last Saturday.

        Tribute, legal brief and rally cry, wrapped in rhyme


        Trayvon is gone, while his killer walks free
        Shot thru the heart by a vigilan-te

        The boy didn’t seek the man with the gun
        The man followed him and he tried to run

        No need to follow, dispatcher said
        Killer heeded only ugly thoughts instead:

        ‘That guy’s a punk and that guy’s a crook
        His crime is I hate the way that he looks’

        ‘So I’ll track him down — not say who I am
        What trouble that brings, I don’t give a damn’

        ‘Cause whether we argue; whether we fight
        I’ve got my gun, so I’ll be all-right’

        Oh what a spot, he put the teen in
        Confronted that night, Trayvon couldn’t win

        ‘I reached for my cell’, the gunman has said
        What thoughts would run through anyone’s head?

        Here’s a man reaching, who just tracked you down
        Trust he is harmless or knock him to ground?

        Turns out the phone was not where says reaching
        Did he seek gun, before any screeching?

        The killer blames Trayvon, claims self-defense
        With varying tales that just don’t make sense

        Thin unarmed teen, no friends at his back
        Why, without cause, a grown man attack?

        Gunman leaves truck despite alleged fears?
        To get name of street, he’s lived near for years?

        If skirting, not causing, trouble his goal
        Why not tell Trayvon his watchman role?

        No matter how the fight did unfold
        Killer made it happen, didn’t do as told

        And once conflict started, does it ring true
        That shooting was all the killer could do?

        Two hundred pounds and mixed martial arts
        Why so helpless once the fight starts?

        No punching or grabbing, no poke in the eye
        Could the killer not fight, or did he not try?

        Thick arms so useless, it seems all wrong
        Unless they were going for gun all along

        One bloody nose, two scrapes on the head
        Bigger man really feared soon to be dead?

        So battered he had to seal a boy’s fate
        But an ER that night not worth the wait?

        If truly the gunman too soft to fight
        How reckless of he to stalk teens at night!

        Where likely for strangers to come to blows
        So likely he’ll shoot if that’s all he knows

        This man had no badge, back-up or baton
        Ventured with nothing but gun to count on

        Trouble didn’t start with a grab or a punch
        But armed amateur pursuing a hunch

        For those who question: where was the crime?
        A dead unarmed youth might pose this rhyme:

        “No right to bring trouble, if once trouble starts
        Your only move is a gun to my heart”

        Trayvon is gone; he committed the sin
        Of wearing a hood and wearing dark skin

        An innocent profiled — cruel iron-y
        Profiler acting more criminal than he

        Just walking home, the youth not the one
        Stalking, disobeying, hiding a gun

        If black man with gun chased white unarmed teen
        And chose not to wait ‘til cops on the scene

        Would same bloody nose, two scrapes on the head
        Arouse such support for shooting teen dead?

        No right to bring trouble, if once trouble starts
        Your only move is a gun to the heart

        Trayvon is gone and parents mourn son
        Who lost next from wannabe with gun?

        Trayvon is gone and his killer is free
        Justice, like Trayvon, a sad casualty

        Don’t excuse as “God’s plan” that Trayvon is gone
        His death speaks a cause, we must carry on

        CJ (July 2013)
        Posted with the permission of the poet

      • Yahtc says:

        Yes, Xena.
        It was SO moving when CJ’s mom read it to us at the rally! So emotional for me to hear it and think of the care he put into the rhymes and the number of facts he was able to squeeze in. She said her son had followed the case closely and email it to her from NY.

        I will copy your quote and send it to her as feedback.

        • Xena says:

          @Yahtc. Thank you. I’m holding on to it and as soon as the opportunity presents itself, will post it on my blog.

      • Yahtc says:

        I also see so much more in your work.

        I see your prayful love for Trayvon and his family; the depth of your own heart as the verdict affects the children in your immediate and extended family; your awareness of the verdict’s effect upon all Black children; and your grasp of the verdict’s impact on our society.

        Your days and days of work also reflect your steadfast dedication to this sacred cause.

        May you always be blessed!

      • Yahtc says:

        I will pass your words along to his mom!

      • Yahtc says:

        Dreams Lost

      • Yahtc says:

        Trayvon died alone without knowing why he was being followed and who the stranger following him was.

      • Yahtc says:

      • Yahtc says:


        Until the killing of Black men, Black mother’s sons,
        Is as important as
        The killing of white men, white mother’s son,
        We who believe in freedom cannot rest.

      • Yahtc says:

    • Hi, @ TT

      Nice to see you!

Leave a Reply