[gomoho]

She wanted to find George Zimmerman guilty, but there wasn't enough evidence to convict him. Is she now being irresponsible coming on tv and saying George Zimmerman got away with murder and stirring the pot??? If there is no evidence proving this how can you say he committed murder?

[ilovetv]

So what she is saying is that she lied during jury selection questioning, if they asked if she could look fairly and impartially a the cases and evidence presented? Did she lie when the verdict was read and jurors were asked individually in open court if they freely made their decision/vote that became unanimous?

[mickey100]

Originally Posted by gomoho

She wanted to find George Zimmerman guilty, but there wasn't enough evidence to convict him. Is she now being irresponsible coming on tv and saying George Zimmerman got away with murder and stirring the pot??? If there is no evidence proving this how can you say he committed murder?

There is a difference between "no" evidence and "not enough" evidence to convict. She is not being irresponsible, she is being honest..

[ugotme]

Do we see a book in her future ????

[Patty55]

What is her point? IMO she's just another attention seeking bored housewife missing the excitement.

[gocubsgo]

Originally Posted by ugotme

Do we see a book in her future ????

I see ALOT of books in ALOT of futures! ***sigh***

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by ugotme

Do we see a book in her future ????

Aha!

[golf2140]

Originally Posted by Patty55

What is her point? IMO she's just another attention seeking bored housewife missing the excitement.

[ilovetv]

Originally Posted by mickey100

There is a difference between "no" evidence and "not enough" evidence to convict. She is not being irresponsible, she is being honest..

There is also a big difference between saying (as the juror), "There was not enough evidence to convict him" or "there was reasonable doubt as to whether he was guilty".......and "He got away with murder".

By saying "he got away with murder", she is making herself the prosecution, judge and jury.

I don't think she honors the high calling of a juror, and the need to leave the "convictions" to the justice system in the court room.

And I think she is looking for gigs on TV talk shows and for book deals, with Sharpton, Jackson and all the others peddling this tabloid version of courtroom justice and making a living off the increasing racial tensions this throws fuel on.

[Monkei]

Originally Posted by golf2140

I think she is merely a person who has been hounded by the press and finally made her statement. Maybe it's not agreeable with you but she made it.

[MikeV]

She's looking for attention. Period!

[ilovetv]

Originally Posted by MikeV

She's looking for attention. Period!

She's also sucking up, big time, to the Martin-Sharpton-Jackson camp that generates income.

Somehow, they make a living by going around the country stirring up protests, rallies and t.v. interviews with pandering media hosts, while honest, hardworking Americans go to work at a job and pay their taxes, mortgage and their own kids' college costs.

I don't know a single person--employee or employer--who can take weeks and months off work as these people do, going around the country to protest and do interviews, and still keep their job or keep their business intact, solvent and producing.

[mickey100]

I think some members of the public have a short memory. If you recall, after the Casey Anthony trial, juror Jennifer Ford said that she and the other jurors cried and were "sick to our stomachs" after voting to acquit Casey Anthony of charges that she killed her 2-year-old daughter Caylee.

"I did not say she was innocent," said Ford, who had previously only been identified as juror No. 3. "I just said there was not enough evidence.

I suspect the same is true in this case. The jurors feel emotional about the verdict - they know, or they think they know Zimmerman was not innocent when he murdered Martin, yet there was not evidence enough to convict.

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by ilovetv

She's also sucking up, big time, to the Martin-Sharpton-Jackson camp that generates income.

Somehow, they make a living by going around the country stirring up protests, rallies and t.v. interviews with pandering media hosts, while honest, hardworking Americans go to work at a job and pay their taxes, mortgage and their own kids' college costs.

I don't know a single person--employee or employer--who can take weeks and months off work as these people do, going around the country to protest and do interviews, and still keep their job or keep their business intact, solvent and producing.

I can't speak for how Rev Jesse Jackson makes his living, but I know that Rev Al Sharpton has a daily one hour show on MSNBC that I personally watch everyday at 6:00pm. He never misses a show. Even the day of his mother's funeral, he broadcast live from somewhere in Alabama.

Plenty of people seem to live quite well while working for a cable network and having their own daily shows, for example Bill O'Reilly, Greta Van Susteren, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, etc etc.

[PaPaLarry]

Sure looks like a book deal to me, but apparently she has every right, to have her 15 minutes of fame. I think she has 8 children, so probably taking advantage of the money issue. Oh well, on to the next juror.