Good freaking grief!

gave their position but then they let her influence them too much. either because they are stupid or just wanted to leave.

there is one more juror though. wonder why they didn't join in this .

...and apparently 2 others wanted manslaughter

What changed their minds?

Maybe not to you ....

any way. I wrote in rage, nothing else.

Disregard common sense?

They owe Trayvon's parents that explanation.

I do understand what they are saying, I suspect they take offense at juror B37 deciding to speak on their behalf. I'd probably be pissed too. I truly wished this jury spent more time debating what happened. I really do.

B37 made it sound so simple. I wish the other jurors would have been willing to stay for the weekend to really dissect what happened. The prosecution can be accused of not dong a great job, ad I would put forward that the defense was not that great either.


The jury had a job to do. Not the people watching the trial, we are allowed an opinion -- not the pundits om TV -- it was the jury that needed to go over ALL of the evidence that was presented to them.

This trial was for THEM. That they are issuing a joint statement makes me believe that they never really had a unanimous verdict.

the desire to get along and avoid conflict. And to do what they all knew their own local (white) community wanted. Then this unhinged juror started talking in public and exposed the pathetic reality of their non-rational non-deliberation, and now they're getting embarrassed.

Actions have consequences. This is a terrible mess.

Imagine how Trayvon's parents must feel reading all of this information online.

What I am seeing is a lot of backtracking. This is only the beginning. B37 opened a door for people to look into.

One juror can have huge influence, especially with a jury of 6.

And this happens a lot.

They've seen the shitstorm she raised.

The one who didn't sign on to the statement of "That's her opinion, not ours. Please respect our privacy"

I see two realistic reasons for the last juror to not have signed it.

1) She agrees with what B37 has been saying or doesn't feel the desire to distance herself from her.

Or

2) She's particularly disturbed by B37's comments or conduct and plans to go public with her own take.

She could just not have felt like signing on to any public statement at this point, but that seems less likely to me.

Sometimes it just something as simple as that. They obviously wanted to get this out quickly after the moron's CNN interview, and it's entirely possible that just weren't able to reach the last juror.

I kinda thought they would have waited until they'd all been contacted, but it could absolutely be that simple.

They couldn't get in touch with her.

is the one who hasn't commented so far.

rightfully so.

As pissed as I am about the verdict, I felt that it seemed really shitty that one juror decided she needed to speak.

The jury listen, talked it over between themselves and came to a verdict. We may not like it, may not agree, but it is their verdict. The criminal trial is over!

Can't quite tell..

Or perhaps she threw her weight around as the wife of an attorney. It's a small town.

That she could see into Zimmerman's heart. What special powers she seemed to have.

According to another poster, B-37 said it wasn't her in the interview. Wonder why she didn't say who it was?