The Zimmerman Trial Follies

Trayvon Martin was murdered and the reader is taken on a roller-coaster ride through a dark maze which could explain why the man who shot the gun is not locked up. With serious ramifications for those caught usurping the rights of jurors and three remedies suggesting how to right this wrong, the public reaction could change history. Had prosecutors presented even half of the twenty insights the six women jurors admit they needed, there might have been a different verdict. Watch the tale about when the gun came out, fall apart. Discover how the lack of adrenaline could have established there was no stand-your-ground issue. Put yourself in the shoes of the 6 women jurors and see if you would have asked about the ‘Gumby arm’ needed to reach into the back waistband. Then do the math and realize the motive behind keeping evidence from the jurors. Next, take a step into a haunted house and become terrified at how subtly jurors have been led to believe they can’t ask questions of witnesses without directly being told they can’t, and decide, if you are called for duty, to stand up to that falsehood because it cannot be a law. Why not? A juror who is prevented from questioning witnesses is forced to judge on an incomplete record and an incomplete record is an inaccurate record. Data integrity board charts show that is true. Prosecutors received a chance continuum proving the gun came out when Zimmerman said he reached for his cell phone that wasn’t in the pocket in which he normally kept it. Evidence shows that Trayvon didn’t say “you’re going to die tonight,” because that’s posturing talk males do BEFORE a fight. Yet no crime scene analyst was commissioned to create an animation showing that to the jurors. No one posed the possibility that the shot was at a 45-degree angle because Trayvon stopped fighting when they were caught by Mr. Good, and he stood up thinking the fight was over because the police were on their way, not realizing George now had to kill the only living witness. This is the only plausible explanation as to why the killer never once shouted out he was from Neighborhood Watch. Jurors could have been taken to the crime scene to HEAR how those words would have been heard by residents, yet prosecutors were silent. The use of ‘follies’ becomes clear for this ‘show’: “Folly: lack of foresight; Follies - costly undertaking having an absurd or ruinous outcome; an elaborate theatrical revue consisting of music, dance, and skits; perilously or criminally foolish actions. Take your pick; they all fit, so you can’t acquit! If, as the medical examiner is now alleging in his lawsuit, the goal was to not win the case, but save the county from civil rights lawsuits, this book could cost them a lot more. And all it will take is for one Rosa Parks to step forward and insist on asking a question BEFORE deliberations begin. It is not double jeopardy if the person wasn’t really tried because the jury was left out of finding the facts. Or, new charges, like first-degree murder could be brought. And this time the jurors will be a checks and balance in the courtroom to prevent incompetence or game-playing by either side, to get a just verdict. Jurors in three States have always questioned witnesses, so it cannot be unconstitutional. It is NOT a question of being allowed. It is a question of who will now dare to say jurors cannot ask questions without producing a written law to that effect. Will the next Rosa Parks please stand up? Man or woman. A sample declaratory judgment action is included to take the matter to the Supreme Court. Who has the courage and the passion, because, even if you live in another State, you have a right to have a murderer locked up to prevent him from moving to your area? The book is a step-by-step how-to guide for all Americans who want to know WHY, not WHAT happened, since most of us were glued to the news. That’s closure.