PROSECUTION RAILROAD

by **Admin** Sat Jul 13, 2013 1:10 pm

First topic message reminder :

This George Zimmerman trial has been a shameful display of political railroading. The state of Florida is doing the same thing to GZ with this TM case as Sneddon did to MJ - IMO.

I purposely had chosen not to post anything about the George Zimmerman trial. Last year so much was not known except for the outcry from some in the public screaming and protesting “Justice for Trayvon". However now that I have watched the entire trial and some important things have happened, I decided to post this thread.

It is without a shadow of a doubt to me and most that are weighing just the FACTS and the testimony and evidence that the state of Florida has NOT proven that GZ is guilty of murder 2 OR the lesser included charge of manslaughter. The aggravated assault charge was taken off the charging list and ALMOST replaced with a ‘last minute’ sneak it in charge of Murder 3 child abuse! WHAT!? The judge denied the motion and this left the other 2 charges. The almost crazed state (prosecution) was outrageous doing that and have consistently been shady. The defense made many motions stating the state was withholding key evidence which in answer to this, the judge denied those defense motions saying to them to “Play nice” – wth? huh???

Hidden Evidence: Today the I.T. (information technology) employee for the state was FIRED! Why? Because he was brought into court and testified the truth that the prosecution hid withheld important info! He didn’t say what exactly it was but said it was found on the cell phone but it was not anything the state was going to use so the judge ruled against defense objections to probe as to what that info was and why this was not turned over.

Remember I just wrote, this IT guy was fired TODAY! The day after the jury has been handed the case and are deliberating. The state prosecutors fired him and included a damning note to the effect that he was being let go for doing that testimony. Guess what? The jury will not be told about this, meaning they will deliberate without knowing the FAIR facts!

Trayvon Martin’s cell phone contained pictures of him smoking weed and blowing huge puffs of smoke in the air and taking pictures of himself doing it. There was also texts in which TM was telling about several fights he was in and that he was trying to find a gun to buy.

The toxicologist report found THC (active ingredient in marijuana) in TM’s blood at autopsy. The state fought to keep that out of court and filed motions to stop it. The judge ruled against the defense again. Then the defense said to this contentious judge – who IMO rushed the defense all the time and was downright rude at times overstepping her jurisdiction too with inappropriate demands, that they will let that go and not demand the THC toxicologist report contained be introduced. They did this IMO to be respectful to TM’s family and not to add that info in which would be painful for them. IMO-big mistake.

I saw during the trial, that there was a lighter laying next to the skittles and Arizona drink can (TM had on him when this all happened) and thought to myself –OH OK the guy was about to watch the All Star game on TV, wanted to get a buzz before and went in the pouring rain at night to 7-11 to smoke pot, and to buy the candy and drink. He was stoned which is why he was acting strange and loitering around instead of going home. He was talking to that friend on his cell phone who he only knew 2 weeks from Miami (the last time he saw her was in 2nd grade). This girl was IMO inciting him. This 19 year old high school junior who said he TM told her that “there is someone looking at me.” She said “who” and he said “creepy *** cracker” so she said “he is probably a rapist.” Who says that? They go on talking as he left the loitering area and started walking and he said he saw that creepy cracker again. So she testified that she said to run and he said “No I’m right by my daddy’s house." So if that were true, how did he get so far from his daddy’s house and get in a fight? Again, GZ’s injuries didn’t make themselves. This was a terrible tragedy that should never have happened but it is clear that TM was beating the hell out of GZ and this is a self defense case PERIOD!

BTW: They (prosecutors) NEVER disclosed the text message info.

In the beginning the public uproar was racially charged. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton revved this up along with even OBAMA! The US Department of Justice got involved too! WTH?? There was a HUGE protest and political pressure because it was ELECTION season! This case was blown way out of proportion because of these things.

Now DO NOT get me wrong. My heart literally breaks for the Martin family. They lost a son, a brother, a cousin and many of his friends lost their friend. BUT the legal system is being manipulated to RAILROAD Zimmerman. They were not going to charge him because he didn’t lie, went to the cops without a lawyer 4 times! He was 100% forthcoming all while he had just been beaten badly by TM. His nose was broken and he had his head smacked on the concrete several times causing several cuts and bad swollen lumps all over his head! BUT these people screaming Justice for Trayvon NOW after this trial concluded and is at the verdict watch stage, meaning they have the trial evidence etc.. (all the testimony from over 50 people) which shows the state had no case are still screaming this same thing! The damage to GZ didn’t happen out of the clear blue. This is crazy thinking. If they had someone in their family beaten like that and self defended I can tell you NOW this would be a lot different!

The State of Florida did other shady things. The judge was brought in to Sanford from Jacksonville. The judge knew NONE of the lawyers and never sat on a case before them. She was put in by the government to race this trial through to get GZ convicted fast. She (Debra Nelson) has been biased against the defense and ruled favorably for the state in her rulings all through this trial. That “Play nice” statement is PURE BS!!!! I hope she is brought up on judicial misconduct charges IF this case goes south for GZ! I also hope the prosecutors are charged with withholding key evidence to fool the jury with omissions and lies. The Florida bar association should disbar them for it!

If this jury convicts on Manslaughter charge it makes no sense. M2 or that charge should be found to be injustice as GZ was defending himself. This jury might think that not to go with M2 and choose Manslaughter is a compromise. Get this: The jury is not told what the mandatory sentencing guidelines are for these charges.

M2=25 years to life
Manslaughter’10 year minimum to 30 years
Guess who does the sentencing in Florida courts? The judges

Self defense is self defense-no charges should have been filed in the 1st place. This jury has had 1.5 years in the public arena to have heard all the public outcry from the communities that as it shows now just want to convict (public opinion judge jury executioners) without the facts of this case! Manslaughter IS NOT a compromise!

If GZ is convicted it is a MAJOR TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE!! What about throwing GZ in prison for the rest of his life? This jury cannot convict him on these charges and if they do it is because they don’t know the manslaughter sentencing mandatory guidelines. AND maybe afraid not to because of the public fury about this case.

The jury has been deliberating for 7.5 hours now. A surprise: The fact that they were told they could stay yesterday afternoon when they were handed the case to deliberate that they could stay late as they wanted. They left at 6pm! (Ater only 3.5 hours) They are sequestered so why leave so early? They have not been home for weeks. Many think they have a verdict but because of the outrage in the public that happened when other high profile cases juries came back fast with acquittals those juries were lambasted for it. These juries were threatened and feared for their safety. This could be the case BUT now today they have been back deliberating for another 4 hours. So are they waiting it out to prevent that accusation? Or are they fighting it out?

Since they are not back yet with a verdict, I think they will hang. If they hang then the state has the decision as to whether to retry the whole case all over again. They had no case this time, so maybe the jury will decide if they hang then the chances are the case will not be brought back for another trial. I disagree and that is a coward’s way out. They need to find him not guilty and be able to sleep at night knowing they followed the law-decided on the facts of the case and did what was right. To convict Zimmerman considering the facts of this case is also a coward’s way out! To convict him and send him to prison for the rest of his life should haunt them for the rest of THEIR lives!

The jury is out to lunch right now. Let’s hope they are not out to lunch completely and decide to convict with a guilty verdict!

by ijustcan'tstoplovinguMJ Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:17 pm

i just read the thread. i'm all caught up now. thank you

by **Admin** Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:57 pm

SMH: Twitter Account Of Star Witness In George Zimmerman Murder Trial Cleared Of Embarrassing Tweets That Referenced Getting Drunk And High

June 27th, 2013 - By Bossip Staff

Rachel Jeantel’s Twitter Account Cleared Of Embarrassing Tweets

So they’re just now are deciding to coach this girl properly????? SMH! According to Smoking Gun

In a late-night scrubbing spree, dozens of embarrassing and incriminating posts were deleted Tuesday evening from the Twitter account of a Florida woman who has been described as a star government witness in the George Zimmerman murder case, The Smoking Gun has learned. The sanitizing of Rachel Jeantel’s Twitter account came as the 19-year-old Miami resident prepared to take the stand and testify about a phone call she had with Trayvon Martin immediately before the unarmed 17-year-old was shot to death by Zimmerman in February 2012.

As TSG reported yesterday, Jeantel, pictured above, maintains a Twitter account (@MsRachel_94) to which she has made more than 200 posts over the past five months. Many of the teenager’s tweets referred to drinking, smoking, and getting high. She also made references to Martin’s death, referred to acquaintances as “b*tch” and “n**ga,” and wrote about having “jackazz lawyers on my azz.”

Yesterday afternoon, after TSG sought to contact several of Jeantel’s Twitter followers and Facebook friends, 14 tweets–and 13 linked Twitpic photos–were deleted from her Twitter account (which carries the personal motto “My Character And Action Describe Who I Am”). The removed tweets included references to drinking and a link to a sexually suggestive set of photos. Another killed tweet, from June 23, read “Court nails” and linked to a photo of fingernails (presumably Jeantel’s) with fresh orange polish. Additionally, several Twitpic images of assorted liquor bottles were deleted.

The scrubbing of Jeantel’s Twitter account, however, did not end there. After 10 PM (Eastern) last night, 43 other tweets were deleted. The postings disappeared about two hours after TSG published a story about Jeantel’s social media musings. A TSG comparison of Jeantel’s sanitized Twitter account with the version from early Tuesday afternoon showed that the number of published tweets plummeted from 202 to 146.
A quartet of consecutive February 24 tweets was also killed. “Party time let get high,” read the first tweet, which included beer glass emoticons.

The messages “Omg everybody high” and “Lol we going to hell for smoke on Sunday I need some more drink” then followed. Jeantel’s final tweet that day was “I hope I dnt hit no one tonight lord plz watch my driving.” Her first February 25 tweet, also deleted, read, “Just got home thank u lord good night.”

Several tweets from February 26–the one-year anniversary of Martin’s death–were also deleted, including one that read, “Omg people calling n praying n sh*t lol I need a drink smoke and a pray my head killing me right now cannot wait when this day end.” A February 26 message reading “#rip Tray” remains on Jeantel’s Twitter page

Here is the prosecutions “STAR” witness tweets:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **Admin** Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:18 pm

Wow-It is evident that this person Rachel was prepped and knew the questions before this PM interview. Her freaking lawyer is right there on the set too-typical Piers M BS - there is laughter (inappropriate) and the interview is BOGUS IMO!

This is CNN so why not Anderson Cooper doing this interview?

by ijustcan'tstoplovinguMJ Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:38 pm

"This is CNN so why not Anderson Cooper doing this interview?"
idk admin i personally like AC interviews

by **Admin** Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:49 pm

George Zimmerman Civil Rights Suit Should Target Prosecutors, Claims Harvard Prof

July 15, 2013

Zimmerman prosecutors violated the civil rights of George Zimmerman himself and committed “criminal actions” according to famed Harvard law professor Alan M. Dershowitz.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, Al Sharpton says George Zimmerman will face a civil rights lawsuit. Eric Holder of the Department of Justice is apparently willing to pick up that gauntlet, calling Trayvon Martin’s death an “unnecessary shooting,” and is working with the NAACP.

But Dershowitz says the George Zimmerman civil rights lawsuit should be targeting the Florida State Attorney’s Office run by Angela Corey:

“I think there were violations of civil rights and civil liberties — by the prosecutor. The prosecutor sent this case to a judge, and willfully, deliberately, and in my view criminally withheld exculpatory evidence. The prosecution should be investigated for civil rights violations, and civil liberty violations.”

In reference to the George Zimmerman trial’s whistleblower who lost his job at the State Attorney’s Office, Dershowitz says Angela Corey should face “disciplinary action” for “deliberately withholding and suppressing” evidence submitted to George Zimmerman’s defense and the judge. He claims Corey “withheld other evidence in the course of the pretrial and trial proceedings.” The last minute action of requesting additional charges of third-degree murder for “child abuse” is considered by Dershowitz to be “so professionally irresponsible as to warrant sanctions and investigations.”

Angela Corey, for her part, requested of the Harvard Law School that they discipline Dershowitz for his outspoken criticism of her actions. Dershowitz claims Harvard “laughed at” her complaint. Even though George Zimmerman has been cleared of all charges, Corey insists the “case was about boundaries and George Zimmerman exceeded those boundaries.”

Commenting on possible George Zimmerman civil rights lawsuits, Dershowitz says “I don’t think it would succeed” since the evidence shows George Zimmerman helped blacks for years before the Trayvon Martin shooting. Even though George Zimmerman’s defense used regular self defense laws and not Stand Your Ground, Dershowitz also believes the controversial Stand Your Ground laws should be changed cause they “elevates macho over the need to preserve life. I think these vigilante community groups have to be disarmed. I don’t think Zimmerman should have been allowed to have a gun.”

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **Admin** Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:55 pm

a tweet

"@theinquisitr: George Zimmerman Parents Receiving 'Enormous' Death Threats [Video] - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] " like it's their fault?

by **Admin** Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:15 am

Why Florida prosecutor Angela Corey NEEDS TO BE DISBARRED:
1. Florida State Law ALLOWS people to defend themselves with deadly force.

2. Angela Corey IGNORES the law by charging Zimmerman after the prosecutor who had jurisdiction refused to file any charges because, according to the evidence, Zimmerman had broken no laws. If "convicted," Zimmerman could face decades in prison.

3. Angela Corey IGNORES the law by charging Marissa Alexander for defending herself against her violently abusive husband, and now Marissa faces 20 years in prison.

What's Angela Corey's problem? For one, as an elected official, she's grandstanding, using this as a campaign platform. For another, she has a GROSS anti-gun history. As our Constitution confirms our right to keep and bear arms, her history is grossly anti-Constitutional.

Oh, and get this!!! The New Black Panther Party named Corey, along with Eric Holder, as the best public figures in office today, since neither has charged anyone for the bounty offered by the NBPP on Zimmermann's head, a clear violation of criminal law as well as Zimmermann's civil rights. This decision was entirely politically motivated. Praising Angela Corey makes a mockery or our justice system.

As a veteran, I did NOT risk life and limb serving our nation to protect and defend our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic to sit idly by while a domestic enemy like Angela Corey DESTROYS our Constitution with her illegal and un-Constitutional hatred for our Second Amendment Rights.

She claims it's "all about the victims" while refusing to acknowledge Marissa's husband is NOT a victim. Martin was NOT a victim. Both of these CRIMINALS engaged in violent assault against the real victims: Marissa Alexander and Zimmerman.

Angela Corey calls criminals "victims" while punishing the real victims by means which should have been reserved for the criminals! Talk about "calling good evil, and evil good" as foretold in the Bible. This woman is the epitome of evil in our justice system today.

Angela Corey is a DISGRACE to the rights and freedoms upon which our country was founded, and should be removed from office FOR CAUSE without delay.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **Admin** Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:28 am

Why the Zimmerman Prosecutors Should Be Disbarred
By Jack Cashill

July 12, 2013

Toward the end of his closing statement on Thursday, Florida Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda posted a slide on a screen in a fifth-floor Seminole County courtroom.

"Which Owner would be more inclined to yell for help?" read the banner on the top of the slide. The slide was divided in two. On the left was a photo of George Zimmerman's Kel-Tec PF-9 9mm handgun, and on the right was a can of Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail. Beneath the photo of the gun was the question, "Who followed?" Under the can was the question, "Who ran?"

So absurd was de la Rionda's presentation, and the whole case for that matter, that the can was turned sideways so the label could not be read. Throughout the trial, prosecutors have called the drink "iced tea" lest the word "watermelon" be said in court. "F***ing" was okay. De la Rionda said it more times than the average rapper, but "watermelon," apparently because of its racial connotations, was not.

Hiding the word "watermelon" was the least of de la Rionda's dishonesties. This one slide had several built in. As to who ran, Martin had four minutes to run the 100 or so yards to the house he was visiting. When he attacked Zimmerman, he was still 70 or so yards from that townhouse. Do the math.

Then, too, from the day the State took over the case, prosecutors knew that Zimmerman was the one screaming for help. All evidence supported that save for the dubious identification by Martin's mother. If the State's jobs were to sow the seeds of reasonable doubt, one could forgive them this deception, but that's not the State's job. That's the defense's.

The State's job is to make the case for the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Fifty years ago, in Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court established that a prosecutor's responsibility was "to seek justice fairly, not merely win convictions by any means." In the case at hand, this meant that the State of Florida had the responsibility to share promptly all exculpatory evidence with the defense. It did not.

One substantial block of evidence that it kept to itself until a whistleblower alerted the defense was the content of Martin's cell phone. On Tuesday night of this week, phone expert Richard Connor made a detailed presentation. Although the jury was not present, the respective attorneys were, as were the media.

For dubious and probably reversible reasons, Judge Debra Nelson disallowed Connor's testimony, but prosecutors have known for many months about the downward spiral of Martin's life. In the course of his close, de la Rionda called Martin an "innocent young boy" and made several other allusions to that effect. He was intentionally deceiving the jury. Martin was neither little nor innocent.

Consider the following exchange from November 2011, three months before the shooting. After Martin told a female friend he was "tired and sore" from a fight, she asked him why he fought. "Bae" is shorthand for "babe."

MARTIN: Cause man dat nigga snitched on me

FRIEND: Bae y you always fightinqq man, you got suspended?

MARTIN: Naw we thumped afta skool in a duckd off spot

FRIEND: Ohh, Well Damee

MARTIN: I lost da 1st round :(but won da 2nd nd 3rd . . . .

FRIEND: Ohhh So It Wass 3 Rounds? Damn well at least yu wonn lol but yuu needa stop fighting bae Forreal

MARTIN: Nay im not done with fool..... he gone hav 2 see me again

FRIEND: Nooo... Stop, yuu waint gonn bee satisified till yuh suspended again, huh?

MARTIN: Naw but he aint breed nuff 4 me, only his nose

The fight followed the mixed martial arts (MMA) format. A day later, Martin would tell a friend that his opponent "got mo hits cause in da 1st round he had me on da ground nd I couldn't do ntn."

As the girl complained, Martin was "always" fighting. He was also something of a sadist. His opponent, after all, did not bleed enough. Why might this be relevant?

Jonathan Good, the closest of the eyewitnesses to the shooting, confirmed last week the testimony he gave on the night of the shooting, specifically that there was a "black man in a black hoodie on top of either a white guy ... or an Hispanic guy in a red sweater on the ground yelling out help," and that black man on top was "throwing down blows on the guy MMA [mixed martial arts] style." That is right: "yelling out help."

On January 6, 2012, Martin got into trouble at school again. When asked why, he told a friend, "Caus I was watcn a fight nd a teacher say I hit em." Said the friend, "Idk how u be getting in trouble an sh**." By this time, Martin's mother had thrown him out of the house for "fightn," and he had moved in with his aunt and uncle.

Martin's younger half-brother, Demetrius Martin, sent one of the more indicative messages. Last seen in the media crying as he remembered his brother during a "March for Peace," Demetrius asked Martin when he was "going to teach me to fight."

"This defendant didn't give Trayvon Martin a chance," said de la Rionda. No, it was the State of Florida, the Department of Justice, and even the president that didn't give Zimmerman a chance. Someone should pay.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **Admin** Tue Jul 16, 2013 1:07 am

Live streams of South L.A. protests: @NBCLA: t.co/poguL1mH0a and @CBSLA: t.co/KsyCFmWBce #TrayvonMartin #Zimmerman
less than a minute ago

RT @LANow: BREAKING via @lajourno: LAPD declares citywide tactical alert amid #Zimmerman protests

by **Admin** Tue Jul 16, 2013 1:24 am

Facebook Refuses to Remove ‘Kill Zimmerman’ Page
Threats to murder Zimmerman continue to flood Twitter

Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com

July 15, 2013

Facebook refused to remove a page entitled ‘Kill Zimmerman’ – arguing that it didn’t represent a “credible threat of violence,” as threats to murder George Zimmerman following his acquittal continue to flood Twitter.

According to Facebook, the ‘Kill Zimmerman’ page “doesn’t violate our community standard on credible threat of violence.”

After media attention, Facebook appeared to remove the page but an identical clone popped up soon after and is still online.

Earlier this month, Facebook also refused to remove a Facebook page entitled “Riot For Trayvon” for the same reasons before being forced to do so after the story went viral.

Meanwhile, innumerable tweets from people threatening to kill George Zimmerman as well as others that advocate his murder continue to flood Twitter in unprecedented numbers.

The irony of threatening to carry out murder as a protest against the fact that someone was not convicted of murder was obviously not a factor when these threats were made.

The page (warning trash language in the tweets posted in article: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **Admin** Tue Jul 16, 2013 1:33 am

Judge In Zimmerman Case Pressured by Obama Administration?

Bizarre outburst against Zimmerman suggests prejudice
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones Infowars.com

July 11, 2013

Speculation is raging that the judge in the George Zimmerman case could have been put under pressure by the Obama administration after she staged a bizarre outburst during which she interrogated Zimmerman while repeatedly silencing his lawyers.

The hostile exchange began when Judge Debra Nelson asked Zimmerman if he planned to testify.

Essentially, Judge Nelson told Zimmerman he had the “absolute right to remain silent” but then proceeded to demand he answer her questions interrogation-style while silencing his lawyers.

Defense attorney Don West twice objected to Nelson’s interrogation, prompting the judge to raised her voice and exclaim, “Your objection is overruled!” in a manner more befitting of an angry parent lecturing a child than a legal professional.

Both of Zimmerman’s lawyers appeared shocked as attorney Mark O’Mara asked under his breath, “what is going on?”

Several legal experts and observers said the outburst was unprecedented.

“I have never seen that in more than 30 years of court reporting,” tweeted journalist Kathi Belich.

Former Senatorial candidate Richard Rivette also expressed his shock at the judge’s behavior.

“This judge is an idiot. I spent five years investigating high profile capital cases defending people from the death penalty, and worked for the Federal judiciary as an independent investigator on other cases. No judge ever inquires as to whether a defendant will testify until the entire defense case is presented. If the defense rests and does not call the defendant then the judge knows there will be no testimony. If the defense calls the defendant then that’s when the judge finds out. They have to get through the entire case first. To see if it is valid after prosecution cross-examines their witnesses and experts as to whether a defendant SHOULD testify, which is decided in private not in public, and NOT on the record. By doing this, the judge has undermined a portion of Zimmerman’s credibility. He looks like he is waffling and this is normal judge/defendant questioning, which it is NOT,” said Rivette.

Respondents to the story at the National Review Online also expressed their view that Zimmerman was being railroaded.

“A fix is in from the administration to find Zimmerman guilty regardless of what it takes,” commented one.

“By demanding that Zimmerman respond to a question, after she has assured him that he has the right to remain silent, she is undermining his right to remain silent and making it appear as though he and his attorneys are not firm in their convictions. This judge is shameless,” added another.

Judge Nelson also ruled this week that Trayvon Martin’s text messages, which showed that Martin had been involved in fights before and was trying to buy or sell a gun, cannot be shown to the jury, which some suggested was another indication of an anti-Zimmerman bias.

Nelson also granted a request by prosecutors to block the defense’s attempt to show the jury a computer-animated depiction of the fight between Martin and Zimmerman.

She is also likely to allow the jury to consider lesser charges against Zimmerman in light of the prosecution’s probable failure to prove its case for second-degree murder, another indication that the state is desperate to avoid him walking free.

Judge Nelson has been very careful at every stage of the trial to dismiss evidence or testimony that could convince the jury in favor of acquitting Zimmerman.

Now some are asking the question – did Nelson’s aggressive outburst represent an attempt to prejudice the jury against Zimmerman?

Given the likelihood that Zimmerman will be acquitted, has Judge Nelson been put under pressure by the federal government to aggressively advocate for the prosecution, just as Supreme Court Justice John Roberts was apparently pressured to vote to uphold Obamacare?

Ever since President Barack Obama personally inserted himself into the controversy by declaring Trayvon Martin to be akin to the son he never had, higher-ups have constantly meddled in the case in an effort to secure a murder charge for a scenario that Zimmerman would not normally have even been arrested for under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.

Indeed, ex-Sanford police chief Bill Lee told CNN yesterday that “he felt pressure from city officials to arrest Zimmerman to placate the public rather than as a matter of justice,” and that his investigation “provided no probable cause to arrest Zimmerman at the scene.”

It also emerged this week that the federal government encouraged and funded last year’s protests demanding the arrest of Zimmerman via the Community Relations Service, a division of the Department of Justice. Documents obtained by Judicial Watch show that the CRS was “deployed to Sanford, FL, following the Trayvon Martin shooting to help organize and manage rallies and protests against George Zimmerman,” spending millions of dollars in the process.

Given the plethora of threats by Trayvon supporters to stage violent riots if Zimmerman is acquitted, could Nelson be under pressure to secure a charge of at least manslaughter in order to avoid nationwide civil disorder?

If that’s the case, her apparent effort to prejudice the jury clearly suggests that a mistrial has taken place.

YT of the judge stepping WAY out from her legal role as judge: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **Admin** Tue Jul 16, 2013 1:40 am

Twitter Flooded With New Wave of Riot Threats

Trayvon Martin supporters take to social network in greater numbers than ever before to promise unrest if Zimmerman acquitted

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
July 12, 2013

As the jury retires to consider its verdict, threats to stage riots, looting and racial violence if George Zimmerman is acquitted continue to flood Twitter in greater numbers than ever before despite efforts by authorities to discourage unrest.

Having tracked such threats for the last two weeks, it is clear that the volume of vows to stage violent disorder is now clearly at its peak as police prepare to counter flash mob violence in both Sanford and Miami.

The defense for George Zimmerman presented its closing argument this morning with the jury expected to deliver its verdict by the middle of next week. However, the rights and wrongs of the case have to a great extent been overshadowed by sustained threats by Trayvon Martin supporters to spark Rodney King-style riots if Zimmerman is found not guilty.

Extremist groups like the New Black Panthers have also promised to oversee a “rebellion” if Zimmerman is acquitted, warning that “If Zimmerman is acquitted there is likely to be unrest all over America, It will be way beyond the capacity of the NBPP.”

Some are even asking if the judge in the case, lifelong Democrat Debra Nelson, was pressured by the Obama administration to introduce the lesser charge of 3rd degree murder at the last minute in order to secure a conviction when it looked more than likely that Zimmerman would walk free. Given Nelson’s unprecedented outburst against Zimmerman and his lawyers, such claims are gaining traction.

A week ago most legal analysts were confident in predicting that the state had failed to prove its case of murder in the second degree. Was the lesser charge introduced so late in the game in order to ensure Zimmerman would not walk, thus preventing widespread disorder?

It is important to emphasize that the tweets below were collected from a single 45 minute time period before this article was written and published. As soon as I had embedded the tweets below, 30 minutes later another 150 had appeared. You can check for yourself by searching “zimmerman riot” on Twitter and selecting “all”.

For people like Time Magazine, who are claiming that it is racist to even discuss the potential of or prepare for riots, go and actually check the sheer volume of people who are making these threats. Even if 99% of them turn out to be bluffing, the potential for significant disorder cannot be ignored no matter how many times the race card is played.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by WeAreTheWorld. Tue Jul 16, 2013 1:47 am

ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES

Exclusive Interview With Juror B-37; Defense Team Reacts to Juror Interview

Aired July 15, 2013 - 20:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Thanks, good evening, everyone. Breaking news, a 360 exclusive, you'll not see this anywhere else.

One of only six individuals who knows what it's like to decide George Zimmerman's fate, one of the six members of the jury that acquitted him, Juror B-37; at her request, we're concealing her identity. For the first time anywhere, she's speaking out.

She's the first juror to do so, to speak out publicly, the first to talk about how she saw the powerful testimony that all of us saw, which testimony resonated with her and the other jurors, which evidence persuaded her and the other five women on the panel.

What happened inside that jury room, what does she think really happened the night George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin?

There's that, whether she thinks race played a role and a lot more. Here's part one of our exclusive conversation.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: When you first sat down in the jury, when you first gathered together, what was it like?

Did you know how big this --

JUROR: It was unreal. It was unreal. It was like -- it was like something that -- why would they want to pick me? Why would I be picked over all these hundreds of people that they interviewed?

COOPER: And when the trial started, what was the first day like? There were the opening statements. Don West told a joke, what did you think of that?

JUROR: The joke was horrible. I just -- nobody got it. I didn't get it until later, and then I thought about it. And I'm like, I guess that could have been funny, but not in the context he told it.

COOPER: Going into the trial, did you have an idea in your mind about what happened?

JUROR: No, because I hadn't followed the trial at all. I mean, I'd heard bits and pieces of what had happened, and the names that were involved, but not any details.

COOPER: So take me back if you can to that first day, the opening statements, what do you remember about them? What stood out to you?

JUROR: Not a whole lot because it seems like it's been years ago that it happened. It does. It seems like it's been a very long time that we were there.

COOPER: Was there a particular witness that stands out to you?

Who did you find to be the most credible?

JUROR: The doctor -- and I don't know his name.

COOPER: The doctor for -- that the defense called?

JUROR: Yes.

COOPER: All right.

JUROR: Yes.

COOPER: What about him?

JUROR: I thought he was awe inspiring, the experiences that he had had over in the war, and I just never thought of anybody that could recognize somebody's voice yelling, in like a terrible terror voice when he was just previously a half hour ago playing cards with him.

COOPER: This was the witness that -- the friend of George Zimmerman's who had had military experience?

JUROR: No, that was -- this was the defense --

COOPER: The defense medical examiner?

JUROR: Yes.

COOPER: OK.

What was it like day by day just being on that jury?

JUROR: Day by day was interesting. There were more interesting things than others; when they got into the evidence it was a lot more interesting than just testimony. Some of the witnesses -- some of the witnesses were good, some of them not so good.

COOPER: Did you feel -- a lot of the analysts who were watching the trial, felt that the defense attorneys -- Mark O'Mara, Don West -- were able to turn prosecution witnesses to their advantage -- Chris Serino (ph), for instance, the lead investigator.

Did he make an impression on you?

JUROR: Chris Serino (ph) did. He -- but he -- to me, he just was doing his job. He was doing his job the way he was doing his job and he was going to tell the truth regardless of who asked him the questions.

COOPER: So you found him to be credible?

JUROR: I did, very credible.

COOPER: So when he testified that he found George Zimmerman to be more or less and overall truthful, did that make an impression on you?

JUROR: It did. It did. It made a big impression on me.

COOPER: Why?

JUROR: Because he deals with this all the time. He deals with, you know, murder, robberies; he's in it all the time. And I think he has a knack to pick out who's lying and who's not lying.

COOPER: The prosecution started off by saying that George Zimmerman was on top in the struggle. And then later on, they seemed to concede, well, perhaps Trayvon Martin was on top, maybe he was pulling away.

Do you feel that the prosecution really had a firm idea of what actually happened?

JUROR: I think they wanted to happen what they wanted to happen to go to their side for the prosecution and the state. There was a lot -- the witnesses that the defense had on, plus some of the prosecution witnesses, there was no doubt that they had seen what had happened. Some of it was taped, so they couldn't rebut any of that.

COOPER: It was on the 9-1-1 tape.

JUROR: Yes, the 9-1-1 tapes and the John Good calling and all of that.

COOPER: How significant were those 9-1-1 tapes to you?

JUROR: The Lauer tape was the most significant because it went through before the struggle, during the struggle, the gunshot and then after.

COOPER: You had the parents of Trayvon Martin testifying; you had the family of George Zimmerman, friends of George Zimmerman, testifying about whose voice it was on the 9-1-1 call.

Whose voice do you think it was in the 9-1-1 call?

JUROR: I think it was George Zimmerman's.

COOPER: Did everybody on the jury agree with that?

JUROR: All but probably one.

COOPER: And what made you think it was George Zimmerman's voice? JUROR: Because of the evidence that he was the one that had gotten beaten.

COOPER: So you think because he was the one who had had cuts, had abrasions, he was the one getting hit; he was the one calling for help?

JUROR: Well, because of the witnesses of John Good, saw Trayvon on top of George, not necessarily hitting him, because it was so dark, he couldn't see. But he saw blows down towards George. And he could tell that it was George Zimmerman on the bottom. He didn't know who it was, but he knew what they were wearing.

COOPER: The one -- the juror who didn't think it was George Zimmerman's voice, who thought it was Trayvon Martin's voice on that call.

Do you know why they thought that way?

JUROR: Well, she didn't think it was Trayvon's, she just said she -- it could have been Trayvon's.

COOPER: So she wasn't even sure?

JUROR: No. She wanted to give everybody absolute out of being guilty.

COOPER: But you were sure it was George Zimmerman's voice?

JUROR: I was sure it was George Zimmerman (inaudible)--

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: And everybody else on the jury was? Except for that one person?

JUROR: I think so. I think they were. I don't think there was a doubt that everybody else thought it was George's voice.

COOPER: I want to ask you a bunch of the -- I want to ask you about some of the different witnesses. Rachel Jeantel, the woman who was on the phone with Trayvon Martin at the start of the incident.

What did you make of her testimony?

JUROR: I didn't think it was very credible, but I felt very sorry for her. She didn't ask to be in this place. She didn't ask -- she wanted to go. She wanted to leave. She didn't want to be any part of this jury. I think she felt inadequate toward everyone because of her education and her communication skills. I just felt sadness for her.

COOPER: You felt like, what, she was in over her head?

JUROR: Well, not over her head, she just didn't want to be there, and she was embarrassed by being there, because of her education and her communication skills, that she just wasn't a good witness. COOPER: Did you find it hard at times to understand what she was saying?

JUROR: A lot of the times because a lot of the time she was using phrases I have never heard before, and what they meant.

COOPER: When she used the phrase, "creepy *** cracker," what did you think of that?

JUROR: I thought it was probably the truth. I think Trayvon probably said that.

COOPER: And did you see that as a negative statement or a racial statement as the defense suggested?

JUROR: I don't think it's really racial. I think it's just everyday life, the type of life that they live, and how they're living, in the environment that they're living in.

COOPER: So you didn't find her credible as a witness?

JUROR: No.

COOPER: So did you find her testimony important in terms of what she actually said?

JUROR: Well, I think the most important thing is the time that she was on the phone with Trayvon. So you basically, hopefully if she heard anything, she would say she did, but the time coincides with George's statements and testimony of time limits and what had happened during that time.

COOPER: Explain that?

JUROR: Well, because there was a -- George was on the 9-1-1 call while she was on the call with Trayvon, and the times coincide, and I think there was two minutes between when George hung up from his 9-1-1 call, to the time Trayvon and Rachel had hung up.

So really nothing could have happened because the 9-1-1 call would have heard the nonemergency call that George had called, heard something happening before that.

COOPER: She said at one point that she heard the sound of wet grass.

Did that seem believable to you?

JUROR: Well, everything was wet at that point. It was pouring down rain.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: We're going to have a lot more tonight, just ahead, much more from Juror B-37; again, you'll only see it here. Literally just completed this interview right before we went on air.

Coming up next, defense attorneys Mark O'Mara and Don West react to this juror, what she is saying.

You'll also hear from the prosecution, let us know what you think. Follow me on Twitter right now @AndersonCooper. I'm tweeting about some of the things this juror is saying. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: We've been hearing as Juror B-37 takes us exclusively inside the Zimmerman trial, into the jury room, talking about what ultimately persuaded her and the rest of the jury to acquit George Zimmerman on all counts.

In just a few moments you'll hear more of our 360 exclusive interview. We're joined right now tonight by the defense team Mark O'Mara and Don West. And before I bring them in to react to what we've just heard, though, I want to quickly tell you in the specially electric moment with the prosecutors and Florida State Attorney Angela Corey and Bernie de la Rionda sitting down today with HLN's Vinnie Politan. Let's watch. Play that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VINNIE POLITAN, HLN HOST: One word to describe George Zimmerman?

ANGELA COREY, FLORIDA STATE ATTORNEY: Murderer.

POLITAN: George Zimmerman?

BERNIE DE LA RIONDA, ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY: Lucky.

POLITAN: Trayvon Benjamin Martin.

DE LA RIONDA: I don't know if there's one word that can describe -- victim. A victim.

POLITAN: Trayvon Benjamin Martin.

COREY: Prey. P-R-E-Y.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: The jury believed otherwise that George Zimmerman was a murderer. And again more insights just ahead on why from our exclusively interview with Juror B-37. We're joined now by Zimmerman defense attorneys Mark O'Mara and Don West.

First of all, what did you think of them describing George Zimmerman as a murderer.

MARK O'MARA, GEORGE ZIMMERMAN'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I think they denegrade the jury's decision. They denigrade the whole process of having a jury trial. How dare they not accept a jury verdict? They can be upset if they want to be. But they put on their best case, better than they should have, the way they tried the case, and the jury still said innocent. Still said self-defense, they should accept it like adults and with some sense of grace. COOPER: Don, one of the things you were vocal about during the trial was, what you felt were misstatements or lies or -- and evidence that the prosecution had held back from you. How difficult was it to try this case?

DON WEST, ZIMMERMAN DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Extraordinarily challenging because of just that. It took us probably hundreds of hours to get what we should have gotten by a simple request. So we spent so much time, so much resources, limited resources trying to get what was obvious, that we've asked for repeatedly, continuing to be withheld until we caught them over and over and over again.

COOPER: Some of the analysts I've talked to said well, they're used to dealing with public defenders who, you know, not experienced guys like you who are going to call them on this. And sort of public defenders are kind of overworked and unsung heroes in the process. And they're used to kind of dealing with them in that way. Do you think that's true?

O'MARA: I guess maybe in their fight some -- they have a better opportunity to get away with that type of behavior. But -- and maybe they have stronger cases. They had a very weak case that was based -- I think the prosecution is based on the facts of the case and the political pressure that were placed upon them and their reaction to it.

COOPER: You have no doubt that politics were at play. And did this case come in --

(CROSSTALK)

O'MARA: When the state -- when the Sanford Police Department doesn't decide to file charges and moves it over to the state attorney's office who was competent to make that decision, who then gets ready to give to a grand jury, and Miss Corey comes into town, disbands the grand jury and files a charge, which as it turns out she cannot prove as the jury tells us, then yes, I think some external pressure like politics has something to do with it.

COOPER: You we're hearing this exclusive interview that we just did with a juror. She's the first juror to speak. She says that when they first went into that jury room, there were three who wanted not guilty, there were two who wanted manslaughter, and there was one juror who wanted second-degree murder. Obviously they all finally came to the not guilty decision.

She says race did not play a role and none of the jurors believed that race played a role in this trial. That's something you believed all along?

O'MARA: Absolutely. And I kept saying it had nothing to do with race, and that race was put on top of this case by certain people who wanted it to be a racial event. And who actually created the racial intones of this case, but it just wasn't appropriate. And I'm so happy that the jury's able to see through that or at least ignore it. And look at the law, the facts and apply them properly. COOPER: One of the things also this jury said was very important to her was the testimony of Chris Serino, the lead investigator who you guys really did a masterful job of talking to on the witness stand. Some of the analysts, Jeff Toobin said he had never seen a police officer give such favorable testimony to a defense witness.

O'MARA: I think that Chris Serino was frustrated that he was put in a position where he didn't believe that there was probable cause to move forward with this case. And the supervisors, again because of the political and social pressures on the Sanford Police Department, demanded that it be forward over to the State Attorney's Office where their suggestion to put charge. After nine edits of his report, it was forwarded over to the state.

Then they were going to look at it and present it to the grand jury. So I think that Chris Serino was looking at this case and saying, it's not a crime, why are we moving this thing forward?

COOPER: The -- at the end, you know, in the last couple of days, there have been demonstrations across the country. And people say that this is yet another example of the justice system not dealing with African-American males legitimately in the same way that deals with Caucasian males.

You actually work a lot on this issue, you just feel -- you believe there are inequities in the system, you just don't believe this is a case where this applies?

O'MARA: Well, Don and I have -- the entirety of our career have worked defending defendants in criminal cases. And a large percentage of those are -- young black males. So we know how the system treats blacks in the system, and we know how there are some inequities. So we know it better than most people.

It's just that in this particular case, it's not one of those. It's not a racial event. And it's not a case that suggests that Trayvon Martin was treated any differently than he should have been treated because of the color of his skin. What happened that night was that there were two people who misinterpreted each other's actions, that looks as though the evidence supports conclusively that Trayvon Martin reacted to that misunderstanding with violence, because George was violently attacked and he was the only one violently attacked but for the gunshot.

So that was a misunderstanding that had tragic consequences but it doesn't make it a racial event.

COOPER: We got to leave it there. Gentlemen, thank you very much for being on the program tonight. Appreciate it.

Coming up, more of my exclusive interview with one of the jurors in the Zimmerman trial. The first juror to speak publicly. I'll ask Juror B-37 what she thought of George Zimmerman, and whether she thinks he should have gotten out of his car that night.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COOPER: Welcome back. More now of our "360" exclusive interview with juror B-37 in the George Zimmerman trial. She's the first juror to speak publicly about what went on in the jury room, and what made up her mind that George Zimmerman was not guilty. You've already heard her take on prosecution witness, Rachel Jeantel. We pick up the conversation talking about her impression of the defendant.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: What did you think of George Zimmerman?

JUROR: 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 so badly, that he went above and beyond what he really should have done. But I think his heart was in the right place. It just went terribly wrong.

COOPER: Do you think he's guilty of something?

JUROR: I think he's guilty of not using good judgment. When he was in the car and he called 911, he shouldn't have gotten out of that car. But the 911 operator also, when he was talking to him, kind of egged him on. I don't know if it's their policy to tell them what to do, not to get out of the car, to stay in their car. But I think he should have said, stay in your car, not can you see where he's gone.

COOPER: Do you feel George Zimmerman should have been carrying a gun?

JUROR: I think he has every right to carry a gun. I think it's everyone's right to carry a gun. As long as they use it the way it's supposed to be used and be responsible in using it.

COOPER: George Zimmerman obviously did not testify, but his testimony essentially was brought into the trial through those videotapes, a number of videotapes. He walked police through a re-enactment of what he said happened. How important were those videotapes to you?

JUROR: I don't really know, because I mean, watching the tapes, there's always something in the back saying, is it right? Is it consistent? But with all the evidence of the phone calls, and all the witnesses that he saw, I think George was pretty consistent and told the truth, basically. I'm sure there were some fabrications, enhancements, but I think pretty much it happened the way George said it happened.

COOPER: When George Zimmerman said that Trayvon Marten reached for his gun, there was no DNA evidence. The defense said, well, had testimony in, well, it could have gotten washed off in the rain or the like. Do you believe that Trayvon Martin reached for George Zimmerman's gun?

JUROR: I think he might have. I think George probably thought that he did, because George was the one who knew that George was carrying a gun. And he was aware of that.

COOPER: You can't say for sure whether or not Trayvon Martin knew that George Zimmerman was carrying a gun?

JUROR: No.

COOPER: So you can't say for sure whether or not Trayvon Martin reached for that gun?

JUROR: Right. But that doesn't make it right. I mean, it doesn't make it -- there's not a right or a wrong. Even if he did reach for the gun, it doesn't make any difference.

COOPER: How so?

JUROR: Well, because George had a right to protect himself at that point.

COOPER: So you believe that George Zimmerman really felt his life was in danger?

JUROR: I do. I really do.

COOPER: Do you think Trayvon Martin threw the first punch?

JUROR: I think he did.

COOPER: What makes you think that?

JUROR: Because of the evidence of on the T, on the sidewalk, where George says he was punched, there was evidence of his flashlight and keys there, and then a little bit further down, there was a flashlight that he was carrying. And I think that's where Trayvon hit him.

COOPER: So you think, based on the testimony you heard, you believe that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor?

JUROR: I think the roles changed. I think, 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 get the one- over, up on him, or something. And I think Trayvon got mad and attacked him.

COOPER: Do you feel like you know for sure what happened in the altercation? And did the other jurors feel for sure that they knew what happened?

JUROR: Nobody knew exactly what happened. I mean, it started at one point and ended on another point. Witnesses said they heard left to right movement. Other witnesses said they heard right to left movement. But the credible witnesses said they heard left to right movement. So whatever happened, I think the punch came, and then they ended up in front of the -- in back of the house. I don't think anybody knows.

COOPER: When the defense in their closing argument played that animation of what they believe happened, did you find that credible?

JUROR: I found it credible. I did. COOPER: What did you think of the testimony of Trayvon Martin's mother and father? Did you find them credible?

JUROR: I think they said anything a mother and a father would say. Just like George Zimmerman's mom and father. I think -- they're your kids. You want to believe that they're innocent and that was their voice. Because hearing that voice would make it credible that they were the victim, not the aggressor.

COOPER: So in a way, both sets of parents kind of canceled each other out in your mind?

JUROR: They did, definitely. Because if I was a mother, I would want to believe so hard that it was not my son that did that, or was responsible for any of that, that I would convince myself probably that it was his voice.

COOPER: How critical, though, was it for you in your mind to have an idea of whose voice it was yelling for help? How important was that yell for help?

JUROR: I think it was pretty important. Because it was a long cry and scream for help, that whoever was calling for help was in fear of their life.

COOPER: The prosecution didn't use the word racial profiling during the case. They used the word profiling. And that was something that was worked out between the judge and the lawyers when the jury wasn't in the room.

JUROR: Right.

COOPER: Do you feel that George Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon Martin? Do you think race played a role in his decision, his view of Trayvon Martin as suspicious?

JUROR: I don't think he did. I think just circumstances caused George to think that he might be a robber, or trying to do something bad in the neighborhood because of all that had gone on previously. There were unbelievable, a number of robberies in the neighborhood.

COOPER: So you don't believe race played a role in this case?

JUROR: I don't think it did. I think if there was another person, Spanish, white, Asian, if they came in the same situation where Trayvon was, I think George would have reacted the exact same way.

COOPER: Why do you think George Zimmerman found Trayvon Martin suspicious then?

JUROR: Because he was cutting through the back, it was raining. He said he was looking in houses as he was walking down the road. Kind of just not having a purpose to where he was going. He was stopping and starting. But I mean, that's George's rendition of it, but I think the situation where Trayvon got into him being late at night, dark at night, raining, and anybody would think anybody walking down the road stopping and turning and looking, if that's exactly what happened, is suspicious. And George said that he didn't recognize who he was.

COOPER: Well, was that a common belief on the jury that race was not -- that race did not play a role in this?

JUROR: I think all of us thought that race did not play a role.

COOPER: So nobody thought race played a role?

JUROR: I don't think so.

COOPER: None of the jurors?

JUROR: I can't speak for them. I'm not their voice--

COOPER: That wasn't part of the discussion in the jury room?

JUROR: No, no, we never had that discussion.

COOPER: It didn't come up, the question of, did George Zimmerman profile Trayvon Martin because he was African-American?

JUROR: No, I think he just profiled him because he was the neighborhood watch, and he profiled anyone who came in acting strange. I think it was just circumstances happened that he saw Trayvon at the exact time that he thought he was suspicious.

COOPER: The prosecution tried to paint George Zimmerman as a wannabe cop, overeager. Did you buy that?

JUROR: I think he's overeager to help people. Like the lady who got broken in and robbed, while her baby and her were upstairs, he came over and he offered her a lock for her backsliding glass door. He offered her his phone number, his wife's phone number. He told her that she could come over if she felt stressed or she needed anybody, come over to their house, sit down, have dinner. Not anybody -- I mean, you have to have a heart to do that and care and help people.

COOPER: So you didn't find it creepy that -- you didn't find it a negative? You didn't buy the prosecution when they kind of said he was a wannabe cop?

JUROR: No, I didn't at all.

COOPER: Is George Zimmerman somebody you would like to have on a neighborhood watch in your community?

JUROR: If he didn't go too far. I mean, you can always go too far. He just didn't stop at the limitations that he should have stopped at.

COOPER: So is that a yes or -- if he didn't go too far. Is he somebody prone, you think, to going too far? Is he somebody you would feel comfortable --

JUROR: I think he was frustrated. I think he was frustrated with the whole situation in the neighborhood, with the break-ins and the robberies. And they actually arrested somebody not that long ago. I -- I mean, I would feel comfortable having George, but I think he's learned a good lesson.

COOPER: So you would feel comfortable having him now, because you think he's learned a lesson from all of this?

JUROR: Exactly. I think he just didn't know when to stop. He was frustrated, and things just got out of hand.

COOPER: People have now remarked subsequently that he gets his gun back. And there are some people that said that the idea that he gets -- is -- can have a gun, worries them. Does that worry you?

JUROR: It doesn't worry me. I think he would be more responsible than anybody else on this planet right now.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Well, that's the juror. She's speaking exclusively for the first time, the first juror to speak out publicly. Coming up, more of my interview. Our first look inside the jury room. What happened? Juror B-37 saying that when they first went in to deliberate, half the jurors thought that Zimmerman was not guilty. The other three voted for second-degree murder or manslaughter. She tells me how their minds were changed. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Back with more of our 360 exclusive interview with Zimmerman trial Juror B-37. She takes us inside the jury room, as deliberations begin and ultimately as jurors change their minds.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: OK. Let's talk about how you reached the verdict. When the closing arguments were done, the rebuttal was done, you go into that jury room, what happened?

JUROR: Well, the first day we went in, we were trying to get ourselves organized, because there's no instructions on what you do, how you do it and when you do it.

So we all decided. We nominated a foreman so she could have the voice and kind of run the show if anybody gets, you know, so everybody's not talking over everybody, if somebody starts talking, somebody else starts talking. And then she would say, you know, stop, we got to -- one person at a time, we got to do this.

And so the first day we got all the evidence on the tables and on the walls, then we asked for an inventory, because it was just too time- consuming looking for evidence, when it was in no order whatsoever.

COOPER: Did you take an initial vote to see where everybody was?

JUROR: We did. COOPER: So where was everybody? How was that first vote?

JUROR: We had three not guilties, one second degree murder and two manslaughters.

COOPER: So half the jury felt he was not guilty, two manslaughters and one second degree?

JUROR: Exactly.

COOPER: Can you say where -- do you want to say where you were on that?

JUROR: I was not guilty.

COOPER: So going into it at -- once the evidence -- all the evidence had been presented, you felt he was not guilty?

JUROR: I did. I think that the medical examiner could have done a better job at presenting Trayvon's -- preserving Trayvon's evidence on them --

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: The state medical --

JUROR: -- I mean the state. They should have bagged his hands, they should have dried his clothes, they should have done a lot of things they didn't do.

COOPER: Do you feel you know truly what happened?

JUROR: I have a rendition of what I believe happened. And I think it's probably as close as anybody could come to what happened. But nobody's not going to know what exactly happened except for George.

COOPER: So you took that first vote, you saw basically the jury split, half the jurors, including yourself, thought not guilty, two people thought manslaughter, one person thought second degree murder had been proven.

How do you then go about deciding things?

JUROR: We started looking at the evidence. We listened to all the tapes, two, three, four, five times.

COOPER: The 9-1-1 recordings?

JUROR: The 9-1-1 recordings, and then there's the re-enactment tape, there were some tapes from previous 9-1-1 calls that George had made.

COOPER: The re-enactment tape, that's the tape of George Zimmerman walking police through what he says happened?

JUROR: Exactly, exactly. We looked through pretty much everything. That's why it took us so long. We're looking through the evidence, and then at the end we just -- we got done, and then we just started looking at the law. What exactly we could find, and how we should vote for this case. And the law became very confusing.

COOPER: Tell me about that.

JUROR: It became very confusing. We had stuff thrown at us. We had the second-degree murder charge, the manslaughter charge, then we had self-defense, stand your ground, and I think there was one other one. But the manslaughter case -- we actually had gotten it down to manslaughter, because the second degree, it wasn't at second degree anymore.

COOPER: So the person who felt it was second degree going into it, you had convinced them, OK, it's manslaughter?

JUROR: Through going through the law. And then we had sent a question to the judge, and it was not a question that they could answer yes or no. So they sent it back saying that if we could narrow it down to a question asking us if -- what exactly -- not what about the law and how to handle it, but if they could just have -- I guess -- I don't know.

COOPER: You sent a question out to the judge about manslaughter?

JUROR: Yes.

COOPER: And about --

JUROR: What could be applied to the manslaughter. We were looking at the self-defense. One of the girls said that -- asked if you can put all the leading things into that one moment where he feels it's a matter of life or death to shoot this boy, or if it was just at the heat of passion at that moment.

COOPER: So that juror wanted to know whether the things that had brought George Zimmerman to that place, not just in the minute or two before the shot actually went off.

JUROR: Exactly.

COOPER: But earlier that day, even prior crime?

JUROR: Not prior crimes, just the situation leading to it, all the steps -- as the ball got rolling, if all that --

COOPER: From him getting -- spotting Trayvon Martin, to getting out of his vehicle to follow him, whether all of that could play a role in --

JUROR: Determining the self-defense or not.

COOPER: Did you feel like you understood the instructions from the judge? Because they were very complex. I mean, reading them, they were tough to follow.

JUROR: Right. And that was our problem. I mean, it was just so confusing what -- with what and what we could apply to what. Because I mean, there was a couple of them in there that wanted to find him guilty of something. And after hours and hours and hours of deliberating over the law and reading it over and over and over again, we decided there's just no way -- other place to go.

COOPER: Because of the only, the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?

JUROR: Right. Well, because of the heat of the moment and the stand your ground. He had a right to defend himself. 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.

COOPER: Even though it's he who had gotten out of the car, followed Trayvon Martin, that didn't matter in the deliberations. What mattered was those final seconds, minutes, when there was an altercation, and whether or not in your mind the most important thing was whether or not George Zimmerman felt his life was in danger?

JUROR: That's how we read the law. That's how we got to the point of everybody being not guilty.

COOPER: So that was the belief of the jury, that you had to zero in on those final minutes/seconds, about the threat that George Zimmerman believed he faced?

JUROR: That's exactly what had happened.

COOPER: So whether it was George Zimmerman getting out of the vehicle, whether he was right to get out of the vehicle, whether he was a wannabe cop, whether he was overeager, none of that in the final analysis, mattered. What mattered was those seconds before the shot went off, did George Zimmerman fear for his life?

JUROR: Exactly. That's exactly what happened.

COOPER: And you have no -- do you have any doubt that George Zimmerman feared for his life?

JUROR: I had no doubt George feared for his life in the situation he was in at the time.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: She said she had no doubt at all. Coming up, more of our exclusive interview. Juror B-37, talking about whether she feels sorry for Trayvon Martin and her overall take on the confrontation that ended his life.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUROR: It's a tragedy this happened, but it happened. I think both were responsible for the situation they had gotten themselves into. I think both of them could have walked away.

(END VIDEO CLIP) (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: More of my exclusive interview now with juror B-37 in the George Zimmerman trial and how it's affected her.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: How has this been for you? I mean, how was making that decision, when you all realized, OK, the last holdout juror has decided, OK, manslaughter does not -- we can't hold George Zimmerman to manslaughter. There's nothing we can really hold him to, not guilty. In that jury room, emotionally, what was that like?

JUROR: It was emotional to a point, but after we had put our vote in and the bailiff had taken our vote, that's when everybody started to cry.

COOPER: Tell me about that.

JUROR: It was just hard, thinking that somebody lost their life, and there's nothing else that could be done about it. I mean, it's what happened. It's sad. It's a tragedy this happened, but it happened. And I think both were responsible for the situation they had gotten themselves into. I think both of them could have walked away. It just didn't happen.

COOPER: It's still emotional for you?

JUROR: It is, it's very emotional.

COOPER: Can you explain the emotion?

JUROR: It's just sad that we all had to come together and figure out what is going to happen to this man's life afterwards. You find him not guilty, but you're responsible for that not guilty. And all the people that want him guilty aren't going to have any closure.

COOPER: Do you feel sorry for Trayvon Martin?

JUROR: I feel sorry for both of them. I feel sorry for Trayvon, in the situation he was in. And I feel sorry for George because of the situation he got himself in.

COOPER: Did you realize how big this trial had become?

JUROR: I had no clue, no clue whatsoever.

COOPER: Did it make sense to you that it had -- that there was this much attention on it?

JUROR: It didn't to me, because I didn't see it as a racial thing. I saw it as a murder case, as a second degree murder case. It just -- it was just unbelievable that it had gotten so big and so political -- not really political; I don't want to say that, but so emotional for everybody involved. And I never would have thought when we went over to the hotel to get all our stuff from the hotel, we got to the hotel and the parking lot was just a regular parking lot; by the time we came out, it looked like Disney World, there was media, there were police, there were -- and it really kind of started to sink in, when we went to get our stuff, and then the state police showed up, because they were going to be our escorts home.

COOPER: Are you scared now?

JUROR: I'm not scared. I don't know how to say it.

COOPER: You clearly don't want people to see your face?

JUROR: No. But I don't want anybody else around me to be affected by anyone else. I mean, I'm not really scared, but I want to be cautious, if that makes any sense.

COOPER: It's understandable.

JUROR: Yes.

COOPER: But you want people to know. Why did you want to speak?

JUROR: I want people to know that we put everything into everything to get this verdict. We didn't just go in there and say, we're going to come in here and just do guilty/not guilty. We thought about it for hours and cried over it afterwards. I don't think any of us could ever do anything like that ever again.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: In fact, she says she never wants to serve on a jury again. Our legal panel has listening to everything Juror B-37 has to say. Veteran prosecutor Paul Henderson and senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin join me now.

Jeff, let me start with you. What are your thoughts on her?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I mean, it was breathtaking. It was just so interesting because here we are. We've been speaking for weeks about what did the jury think? What did the jury thing? Now we know what the jury think -- thought.

How about when they went in for deliberations, it was three for acquittal, two for manslaughter, one for second degree murder? It just -- I don't know if that's surprising or not, it's just very interesting.

She was -- a very pro-prosecution (sic) juror. I think the thing that surprised me most about that interview was how sympathetic she was to George Zimmerman. You asked at the end, do you feel sorry for Trayvon Martin? She said, I feel sorry for both of them.

COOPER: You meant pro-defense by the way, didn't you? TOOBIN: Pro-defense, I'm sorry, yes. Pro-defense. She said, I feel sorry for both of them. I mean, only one of them's dead. I mean, that was a pretty breathtaking comment. But she took her job seriously, she obviously knew the evidence well, and I can't say she was wrong on the verdict.

COOPER: Paul, what do you think? As a prosecutor, what stood out to you?

PAUL HENDERSON, PROSECUTOR: You always want to talk to jurors after a trial, and this really reveals a lot of insight. We've all been talking about this and watching this for weeks. What I think, and what stood out to me was that basically Zimmerman was telling the truth, and they believed his version of the story.

And I think that's really answers a lot of those questions. They believe it was his voice on the tape. They believe that Trayvon Martin threw the first punch. One of the things that stood out to me that she said was that she believed that when he pulled the trigger of that gun, he believed he was in fear of his life. And that was the linchpin to analyzing all of the legal issues and the standards that they had been given that they had brought back into the room to deliberate. Really just fascinating to hear that, and interesting to hear her perspective and her approach.

And one of the first things I noted as well was how sympathetic she was to Zimmerman's presentation. And obviously that's who she believed and who the rest of the jury believed as they heard the story. So - and the evidence.

COOPER: Clearly -- by the way, I should point out because at the end of the interview, which we didn't have time to put on, she said she doesn't want to do any more interviews. She doesn't want to speak again. She's hoping this will kind of burst the bubble of pressure on the jurors to speak. And she kind of just wants to be left alone.

TOOBIN: You know, she didn't ask to be a public figure, she didn't want to be a public figure. She's not selling a book deal. She's not --

COOPER: That was another thing. There is a book that she and her husband have talked about writing.

TOOBIN: Oh, she's the one?

COOPER: Yes, she's the one -- that emerged today. She said part of the reason they would like to -- they don't want to profit off it. They would like the story told, she thinks they have an interesting story of her husband, who's an attorney being on the outside, her being on the inside. What it was like to be on the jury. But she made a big deal of wanting me to stress that she's not trying to profit off this. We obviously didn't pay for any of this interview. And she just wanted to get her story across and kind of explain the results of this verdict.

Paul Henderson, appreciate you being on. Jeff Toobin as well. We're going to be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: We'll have more of my interview with the juror speaking out for the first time, some things you haven't heard during that part of the interview that we played. One hour from now at 10:00 p.m. Eastern, a special edition of 360. As I said, more of that exclusive interview with Juror B-37.

Source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by WeAreTheWorld. Tue Jul 16, 2013 1:52 am

Facebook removes 'Kill Zimmerman' page after saying it does not violate rules

By: Joe Newby
July 15, 2013

On Monday, Facebook told Examiner that a community page called "Kill Zimmerman" did not violate the site's standards for violence. By Monday afternoon, the page had been removed, along with another page entitled "Let's Kill Zimmerman" that was started on Sunday, apparently in response to the not guilty verdict handed down Saturday.

Facebook's response came within seconds of filing the report, something many other Facebook users reported to Examiner.

The page appeared to be a replacement for another "Kill Zimmerman" page that garnered over 6,300 likes before being pulled.

A search of Facebook found that two pages named "George Zimmerman must die" continue to exist. The only difference between the pages is the word "die," which is spelled "DIE" on one page.

The search also revealed a closed group named "Kill Zimmerman" with 95 members and a closed group named "Kill george zimmerman ***** a*z" continues to exist with 13 members.

The incident is the latest in a long string of reports that have many wondering if Facebook is employing a double standard in its enforcement.

Questions were raised after Facebook unpublished the popular "Uncle Sam's Misguided Children" after republishing it for about 24 hours.

Administrators of other pro-veteran pages recently contacted Examiner after their pages were removed under questionable circumstances.

"If Facebook had an open policy where they barely deleted anything, this might not be a problem," Willie Deutsch wrote at Net Right Daily. "However, stories regularly pop up of conservatives who were banned permanently or temporarily from Facebook."

Diane Sori, a conservative blogger from Florida, was banned earlier this year for a link she never posted, and a Texas man was punished for likening a friend to a liberal.

Facebook recently ruled that a page calling for infidels to be beheaded did not violate their standards.

Facebook ultimately pulled the "Behead Those Who Disrespect Our Prophet P.B.U.H" page and admitted it made a mistake by banning Fox News' Todd Starnes over a politically incorrect post.

"If political incorrectness can violate Facebook’s 'Community Standards' but advocating someone’s death does not, then it has become a social media site that engages in viewpoint discrimination while allowing itself to be used as a platform to advocate murder," Deutsch added.

Source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **Admin** Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:16 am

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **Admin** Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:38 am

Al Sharpton plans George Zimmerman protests
By: Tal Kopan
July 15, 2013 08:30 AM EDT

The Rev. Al Sharpton is calling for a “Justice for Trayvon National Day of Action” on Saturday and say demonstrations are planned in more than 100 cities nationwide.

Saying there would not have been a trial in Florida without pressure from activists, Sharpton was confident that continued pressure would result in a federal civil rights case.

“When they’re telling you today, ‘I don’t know if they’re going to get a civil rights trial:’ We will. And we will get a civil trial,” Sharpton said on the “Tom Joyner Morning Show” on Monday morning. “What we’ve watched the last several weeks was not the system correcting itself, it was the people correcting the system. Now we’ve got to finish the job.”

National Action Network is organizing the protests at federal court buildings to press the Justice Department to bring a civil rights case against George Zimmerman, who was found not guilty in the death of teenager Trayvon Martin by a Florida jury on Saturday.

Sharpton said his National Action Network intends to keep the pressure on until a civil rights case is brought, insisting the protests will show the national anger over the verdict is not a “two- or three-day” thing.

“It’s not over. And we are going to make sure it’s not over, that’s why we’re calling people to … organize in your city. I don’t care if it’s 20 people, we want to show the nation that over 100 cities a week later is still demanding justice. We’re not having a fit, we’re having a movement,” Sharpton said.

The event will also help begin a four-week countdown to the 50th anniversary event for the March on Washington on August 24, which will include Martin Luther King III, and which Sharpton said will be centered on Trayvon Martin and the Voting Rights Act.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by midangerous Tue Jul 16, 2013 4:10 am

thxs for the transcripts WATW, I never got to see the interview yet.

by Capricious Anomaly Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:06 am

Just heard on the news that GZ is not even able to talk on the phone to his family for fear of being tracked on the phone by the feds! He texts his brother and little sister but because of the death threats and the gov he can't be safe. This is outrageous in this country to be found not guilty then have haters attacking and the gov scared that they will lose their votes if they don't (fake like) they are going to go after GZ for hate crimes.

Both the FBI and the DOJ investigated GZ before and found NOT 1 race related problem with anything GZ ever did or racial profiling of TM either! The 1st word out of John Guy's (state prosecutor) mouth during the summation was "THIS IS NOT A RACE CASE" because he KNEW that was proven it wasn't and tried to paint GZ as a hunter of prey which is what the effing DA Angela Corey called TM after being asked yesterday to say 1 word to describe TM. She couldn't give a crap about TM and should be stripped of her job! To call TM PREY is nauseating and insulting to his memory and his parents and family. She is a monster with a terrible well known rep to be a freak in the role she has. She just allowed a conviction of a black woman in FL for firing a warning shot in the garage wall (nobody harmed) to keep her brutal abusive husband from killing her. SHE GOT 20YEARS IN PRISON FOR THAT-she has little kids that now have no mommy. This DA does NOT care about AA's in this country-this case was ALL political! She is a total soulless monster!

I can't believe AL S and Jesse J are drumming all this up when they made so much trouble before and screamed for an arrest and trial - then said they wanted a verdict from a jury. They all said they would respect a verdict no matter what it is (obviously expecting guilty) but the facts did not pan out to it being criminal-it was self defense-so now they change the "goal posts" and are trying to get GZ through the feds! They will never get that but it is so political and always has been so now they diss Trayvon's memory and lead the poor parents down this road of fake seeking of THEIR justice and a man that was let free from the courts has to fear for his life because of this evil political BS! GZ's poor parents getting death threats!? This is the USA-what they are doing is disgusting and scary. If these people in gov are this messed up wanting to be in gov power that they would LIE and try to take a citizen's liberty (throw in prison for the rest of his life) then what else are they capable of?

There is already the NSA monitoring us at will, the IRS scandal, running the social media their way (ie Facebook and Twitter) and this ridiculous ObamaCare which today the govs "In the bag" unions are screaming about now that they HATE it. This pres and his (now I believe this) henchman and liars he has with him are getting really out of control and very freaking scary.

They need to let this verdict stand, stop the FAKE BS they are telling these certain groups screaming racism, and PROTECT the GZ family from the death threats rather than ignoring that! IMO it is terrible that they let this protesting and violent threats keep going on and on. People burning our US flag! Attacking people driving in their cars, busting up businesses and its getting WORSE everyday since the verdict because they are ALLOWING it and perpetuating it more than anyone else.

We must get rid of this hate!!

by Capricious Anomaly Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:23 am

Just heard the juror B37(married to an attorney) who gave the AC360 interview yesterday has dropped the book deal that was in the beginning stages, wanting to walk away from this because she needs to remain anonymous. She was not going to profit from the book, just tell the story about being on this jury and how that impacted all their lives.

The jurors are in fear of being ID'd because the haters and racists are threatening to kill them if they find out who they are! What the hell!

by Capricious Anomaly Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:52 pm

In Baltimore today, a mob of AA males beat the ish out of a Hispanic man yelling, "This is for Trayvon"
This is BS! WTH is wrong with this country? NOW THAT IS A HATE CRIME!

And Jasmine Rand that robot that works for the Martin Family (one of the attorney's) said the verdict is racist and WRONG and said she is not only an attorney but she is NOW A SOCIAL ENGINEER! You want to be a social engineer B? Go to HELL! It's where she will be going for that communist crap!

by Capricious Anomaly Tue Jul 16, 2013 11:03 pm

A Mississippi man was pulled in a car at gunpoint and beaten badly by AA males and they said to him it was for Trayvon!

by **Admin** Wed Jul 17, 2013 9:40 am

July 20th, 2013 - 12:00 PM
"Justice for Trayvon" National Day of Action Vigils in 100Cities Federal Court Buildings Nationwide http://nationalactionnetwork.net/

(To see if Al Sharpton incites beforehand)
Saturday 9am NAN stream before scheduled noon protests:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Personal note: I would stay as far away from these rallies as possible for personal safety reasons.

Politicizing and grandstanding for their own agendas and inciting unrest which leads to increased violence at this volatile time is irresponsible and frankly so transparent as to what the purpose really is all about. This IMO is using TM and his tragic death - to rile up the base and also this is disrespectful to TM's parents.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We Lost the Battle, But the War's Far From Over

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Another note: Eric Holder is pandering and IMO full of BS using the GZ trial to spew out his agenda about "Stand Your Ground" laws. First of all the trial did not invoke that law. It was a 'self defense' case period. He is USING the case to go against SELF DEFENSE LAWS TOO! So what? Now this so called attorney general (aka activist) is putting out there we cannot self defend? Are you kidding me? Holder did not say anything about TM either yesterday. He is riding this unrest wave to jam this socialistic idea down our throats again using TM furor to do so. AND the feds already looked at this case so there is NO FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION AND NO HATE CRIME HERE! So do not fall for this crap coming out of Washington! They are fake and this whole thing is just despicable! Again - way to set back race relations in this country. SHAMEFUL! These people DO NOT CARE ABOUT TRAYVON or they would not be doing this. Let Trayvon rest in peace and his loved ones heal.

RIP Trayvon witness - PROSECUTION RAILROAD - Page 2 1801508365

witness - PROSECUTION RAILROAD - Page 2 1801508365

by **Admin** Wed Jul 17, 2013 1:51 pm

2012 Map of US States with 'Stand your ground' laws:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Sources: Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, FBI. By Laura Stanton/The Washington Post. April 7, 2012

Looks like Stevie Wonder will be getting bored now, (who I love and saw recently at a SF OutsideLands 3 day festival in Golden Gate Park 2 blocks from my flat)
This is since he announced he will not perform in Florida or any other state with the law. More uninformed celebs joining the 'Hater' parade. I am shocked he is doing this and hope he educates about the facts of the case-then knows this was not a SYG case and gets back in his lane on the road of his musical mastery.

by WeAreTheWorld. Wed Jul 17, 2013 3:31 pm

Rachel Jeantel has been offered a full ride to college. Sorry kind of annoying lol. She's a freaking 19 year old junior who cannot use proper manners or grammar, and she's being offered full rides. Meanwhile I'm a 16 year old going into junior year, am very articulate and have over a 4.0 GPA and no one has offered me full ride scholarships Sad

lol. I swear, she better take advantage of this opportunity, go into law enforcement like she said and turn her life around!

by **Admin** Thu Jul 25, 2013 8:11 pm

OK so now the "unknown juror" B39 has gone on cam on GMA. Says she believes GZ is guilty and wants to apologize to TM's people. She went on to say-she HAD to go along with the LAW and the jury instructions which had the charges and what elements MUST be met to find him guilty and it just WAS NOT there. The law is the law here! She can't talk out of both sides of her mouth. So her doing this GMA is INCITING the race card AGAIN! To say he is guilty on national TV after he was acquitted is BS!

So if this juror who says she is PR and did not think race was an issue thought he was guilty she should have HUNG the jury! So to me (IMO only) she is taking advantage of this TV time and trying to get on the side of all the people screaming GZ is guilty for her own agenda and selfish reasons. I am pissed all over again now about this! WTH!

by Sponsored content

PROSECUTION RAILROAD

PROSECUTION RAILROAD

Re: PROSECUTION RAILROAD

Here is the prosecutions STAR witness showing her true colors-watch her now on CNN

Re: PROSECUTION RAILROAD

Re: PROSECUTION RAILROAD

Re: PROSECUTION RAILROAD

Re: PROSECUTION RAILROAD

Re: PROSECUTION RAILROAD

Re: PROSECUTION RAILROAD

Re: PROSECUTION RAILROAD

Facebook Refuses to Remove ‘Kill Zimmerman’ Page

Judge In Zimmerman Case Pressured by Obama Administration?

Twitter Flooded With New Wave of Riot Threats

Anderson Cooper interview with juror B-37 ~ 7/15/13.

Facebook removes 'Kill Zimmerman' page after saying it does not violate rules

Re: PROSECUTION RAILROAD

Al Sharpton plans George Zimmerman protests this Saturday 7/20/13

Re: PROSECUTION RAILROAD

Re: PROSECUTION RAILROAD

Re: PROSECUTION RAILROAD

Re: PROSECUTION RAILROAD

Re: PROSECUTION RAILROAD

Re: PROSECUTION RAILROAD

Re: PROSECUTION RAILROAD

Re: PROSECUTION RAILROAD

Re: PROSECUTION RAILROAD

Re: PROSECUTION RAILROAD