Slate: The media are reporting that a juror says Zimmerman is guilty of murder. That’s not true.

[dkf]

By William Saletan|Posted Friday, July 26, 2013, at 1:27 PM

Did George Zimmerman get away with murder? That’s what one of his jurors says, according to headlines in the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, and dozens of other newspapers. Trayvon Martin’s mother and the Martin family’s attorney are trumpeting this “new information” as proof that “George Zimmerman literally got away with murder.”

The reports are based on an ABC News interview with Juror B29, the sole nonwhite juror. She has identified herself only by her first name, Maddy. She’s been framed as the woman who was bullied out of voting to convict Zimmerman. But that’s not true. She stands by the verdict. She yielded to the evidence and the law, not to bullying. She thinks Zimmerman was morally culpable but not legally guilty. And she wants us to distinguish between this trial and larger questions of race and justice.

ABC News hasn’t posted a full unedited video or transcript of the interview. The video that has been broadcast—on World News Tonight, Nightline, and Good Morning America—has been cut and spliced in different ways, often so artfully that the transitions appear continuous. So beware what you’re seeing. But the video that’s available already shows, on closer inspection, that Maddy has been manipulated and misrepresented. Here are the key points.

1. The phrase “got away with murder” was put in her mouth.

2. She stands by the verdict

3. She thinks the case should never have gone to trial.

4. The jury was not ethnically divided on Zimmerman’s culpability

5. Race wasn’t discussed, and she didn’t focus on it

6. She was no pushover in the jury room

7. To the extent she feels racial or ethnic pressure, it’s against Zimmerman

8. Acquittal is not personal—or national—exoneration

More on how the video was spliced and diced at the link.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/did_george_zimmerman_get_away_with_murder_no_juror_b29_is_being_framed.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/did_george_zimmerman_get_away_with_murder_no_juror_b29_is_being_framed.2.html

[Bjorn Against]

1. She did say he got away with murder

“George Zimmerman got away with murder. But you can’t get away from God.”

Those words came out of the jurors mouth they were not put in it, Slate is trying to put words in her mouth by telling us what "she really meant".

[dkf]

2. That was what Robin Roberts said...Maddy repeated with a caveat.

The high probability is that those are not the words Maddy would have used on her own.

Saletan goes deeper into the edits that elicited the response that Robin Roberts wanted:

1. The phrase “got away with murder” was put in her mouth. Nightline shows ABC interviewer Robin Roberts asking Maddy: “Some people have said, ‘George Zimmerman got away with murder. How do you respond to those people who say that?’ ” Maddy appears to reply promptly and confidently: “George Zimmerman got away with murder. But you can’t get away from God.” But that’s not quite how the exchange happened. In the unedited video, Roberts’ question is longer, with words that have been trimmed from the Nightline version, and Maddy pauses twice, for several seconds, as she struggles to answer it. “… George Zimmerman … That’s—George Zimmerman got away with murder. But you can’t get away from God.”

You have to watch her, not just read her words, to pick up her meaning. As she struggles to answer, she looks as though she’s trying to reconcile the sentiment that’s been quoted to her—that Zimmerman “got away with murder”—with her own perspective. So she repeats the quote and adds words of her own, to convey what she thinks: that there’s a justice higher than the law, which Zimmerman will have to face. She thinks he’s morally culpable, not legally guilty.

[Bjorn Against]

7. Those were the jurors words not Robin Roberts words

Robin Roberts words were “Some people have said, ‘George Zimmerman got away with murder. How do you respond to those people who say that?’ ”, to which the juror responded “George Zimmerman got away with murder. But you can’t get away from God.”

Robin Roberts asked a question and the juror responded by saying that Zimmerman got away with murder, Slate is trying to twist her words and claim she did not really mean that but it is Slate that is trying to put words in her mouth by claiming she meant something different than what came out of her mouth. For them to claim it was the media that put those words in her mouth is ridiculous, Slate obviously is desperate to stand up for the child murderer.

[dkf]

11. Saletan says that is not the question Robin Roberts asked...it was cut and spliced to give that

Appearance.

Just like how NBC spliced Zimmerman to make it look like he offered up that Trayvon was black.

The media manipulation goes on.

I hope they release the entire uncut interview so we can judge for ourselves how much convenient editing ABC used.

[Bjorn Against]

17. Here is the full quote that you are trying to claim was "spliced"

“… George Zimmerman … That’s—George Zimmerman got away with murder. But you can’t get away from God.”

I don't think anyone besides idiotic child murder defenders would claim that the words "“… George Zimmerman … That’s..." alter the meaning of her words in any way.

[elehhhhna]

16. correct. interviewers nowadays do all the talking and

can't ask open ended questions (journalism 101). And our msm/Pravda NEVER reports context...it might mess up their sensationalism.

Oprah's the worst, imo - she cannot shut up. She will actually interrupt the interviewee and finish their sentences!

[99Forever]

3. Still defending that murdering scumbag, I see.

Despicable.

[dkf]

4. Actually now exposing media manipulation which has been going on since the beginning.

[99Forever]

5. You are what you are.

And everyone knows it.

[dkf]

8. Ad hominem...typical.

[99Forever]

12. Same shit, different day.

Typical.

[noiretextatique]

35. pathetic isn't it?

The intellectual contortions of people who defend someone who murdered an unarmed teenager. Even more pathetic: the oft-repeated lie that it has nothing to do with race.

[99Forever]

40. Yep.

Beyond pathetic, it's evil. As are all that do it.

[brush]

6. Someone's trying too hard

This is a non-story. She agreed and repeated the phrase, "he got away with murder . . .", then added the God caveat.

And if she was no pushover how was it not a hung jury?

[dkf]

9. She agrees with the verdict, she doesn't believe it should have gone to trial.

Emotionally she would have loved to send Zimmerman to jail, but reading the law, she realized that would be wrong. Hanging the jury would have been emotionally satisfying but wrong. Thus it was her rational decision to acquit.

[brush]

28. If you say so

Tens of thousands of people would have hung that jury in a heartbeat — to let that killer be tried again — and not be bound by a bad law.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

10. wow. still going strong on this, I see

[dkf]

13. Media manipulation still rampant.

They won't rest til someone takes Zimmerman out.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

14. really. So you are saying their intereview of this juror was to provoke a hit job

on Zimmerman? Interesting worldview.

[dkf]

21. I dislike this mob mentality, and dislike that the media is egging people on.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

23. I dislike hopolophiles and vigilantes carrying guns

Deal with it. It's a free country and apparently people still want to hear about this case.

[noiretextatique]

33. you mean the mob mentality of zimmerman supporters?

Like yourself, who were so worried about whether the murderer would get a fair trial? He got a jury of his peers, that's for sure.

[dkf]

41. This is a matter of the law, not of supporting a person.

Given the right evidence I would deem Zimmerman guilty in a second. I have no loyalty to him, just the desire to see the law executed properly.

[spanone]

15. she's correct. he got away with murder. 2nd degree. period.

[CatWoman]

20. and I don't understand the problem?

is this???

[noiretextatique]

37. the problem is pro-zimmerman folks

Are morons.

[Kingofalldems]

18. Your little punk ass pal got off,

give it a rest. This is trolling.

[dkf]

22. Not really. I am pretty sure one of your pals will do something eventually.

[Kingofalldems]

24. One of my pals? What do you mean?

Think I know but please do tell me.

[alcibiades_mystery]

38. It's high time people of good conscience use the ignore feature

[Kingofalldems]

43. Friends close, enemies closer.

[alcibiades_mystery]

46. There's no purpose

Nobody needs to keep tabs on the utterly predictable.

At some point, when somebody behaves detestably over and over again, you shun them.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

19. except that she said that. interesting how you can't quite deal with that

[dkf]

25. That's kind of a "but" at the end.

Don't you know it's whatever comes after the "but" that is really the point?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

26. what are you talking about? she said he got away with murder and she wants to apologize to Trayvon's

parents that there wasn't enough evidence to do the moral thing and find this shit bag guilty....BUT at least she feels God will judge him.

If she thought he was truly innocent and railroaded, why would she think God would judge him?

[dkf]

42. "But the law couldn't prove it".

[Igel]

32. I keep saying that people lose their native speaker intuitions when it's convenient.

This is one of those circumstances. Without hearing the complete tape, the bit with those words coming ouf of her mouth is meaningless.

Hm... 'Interesting how you can't quite deal with that.' But he did.

So that wasn't a pointless paragraph. I typed the words that you said--and I disagreed with them. How is that possible? I produced the words--and if I didn't agree with them it must mean I'm lying, right? But then I say I disagree with them, so it's silly to lie and then a second later "unlie."

Unless you notice the quotes. Often when we speak and need a moment to think we echo what we heard. It's a space filler.

However, we don't speak with quotes and punctuation, we don't speak with ellipses and m-dashes. We speak with a variety of intonations and pause lengths, we alter syllable length to indicate doubt or echo. The words can come out of her mouth, but it doesn't mean that she agrees with them fully.

Obama's often paraphrased what his political opponents say or what he thinks they say; during debates he echos what others have said, and even questions or parts of them. It would pose no technical problem to edit his words to just say those. Then we'd have Obama saying all kinds of things that he'd never intend.

Is dfk right? No idea. But at least I know my native language well enough to know how I use it and how hundreds of millions of other people use it. And what dfk's saying is precisely one of the ways that those hundreds of millions of English speakers use English. It's plausible, but not proven. Which seems to be happening at lot with this general topic.

[tblue]

27. I saw the interview.

I don't need Slate to tell me what I saw.

[CatWoman]

29. some here love to go dumpster diving

[LittleBlue]

30. The media really screwed up badly on this

Between the edited video that got NBC employee fired, to the bad trial coverage, to this, it's been a train wreck.

[Boom Sound 416]

31. Next is Zimmerman v NBC defamation trial

Unless NBC's settles.

[tallahasseedem]

34. Oh,

it's you.

[pacalo]

36. I saw the trial &, according to my common sense, he got away with murder.

I also saw the jury selection process. I was not impressed at all with those who were questioned. They seemed small-minded & lacked the depth needed to judge this case. I was proven correct.

[Cali_Democrat]

39. You got what you wanted with the verdict

Why kick the body around?

[dkf]

44. It was what was the correct verdict, not what I wanted or did not want.

But people still can't come to terms with it and are still in denial, pretending that the law doesn't say what it obviously says.

Its like trying to explain why 2 + 2 = 4 and someone wants it to = 17. Argh.

[Kingofalldems]

47. I don't believe a word of that.

[davidn3600]

45. Every one of those jurors were asked if that was their verdict...

Each one was asked if it was their correct verdict...each one answered "yes."

End of story. Any of this stuff now is irrelevant. Sure a few of them may be second guessing themselves now that the media and everyone is trashing them. That is reason they were sequestered so the outside world cannot influence their decision.

If any juror had a problem with that verdict, they should have made it clear in that jury room. The verdict was not guilty and all six jurors affirmed in open court that it was their verdict and the verdict of the jury as a whole. Period! Its over.