Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Insurance company took a gamble to reduce their risk. It really is all about the money.
The Martins could have gambled and waited till after the trial but they got what they could when they had a sure thing.
I'd bet they were disappointed on what they had leftover after taxes and attorney fees.
I don't blame her. I would too, if given the opportunity.
If she waited a couple of years.......hell, sweet widdle Tray Tray will be forgotten in a couple of months. In a couple of years, people will be asking, "Tray What?"
Errrr, what's with the baby talk?
Some people would sell their mother from the trunk of their car of they thought they could get a few bucks for her.
Of course its for the money.. Why else do people write books
Ahhh poor baby upset because someone else got offered a book deal..
I was unaware that there was a time limit on writing books. My book distribution company would be interested to read about these newly discovered standards. Can you point them out to me somewhere?
Yeah...Seems there is alot of that in George's camp. His Dad and his best friend, "witness" had books out even before the trial. Hmmm...
The judge polled the jury after the verdict to ensure they all agreed to it. None spoke up and said they disagreed with the verdict.
They may, however, disagree with some of B-37's characterizations of their deliberations. Or maybe they just want to ensure B-37 is the focus of the sh!tstorm that will erupt when their names, addresses, phone numbers, etc. are inevitably leaked across the internet.
Disagreeing with a jury does not automatically make one a race baiter. Disagreement Happens all the time from the right winged camp as well. Liberals have no rights of exclusivity in the matter.
It's fine to disagree with them, but it's even better if you state your reasons as to Why you disagree, according to what laws they ruled on, and how you think he broke them.
"The opinions of Juror B37, expressed on the Anderson Cooper show were her own, and not in any way representative of the jurors listed below," said the statement, signed by Jurors B51, B76, E6 and E40.
"Serving on this jury has been a highly emotional and physically draining experience for each of us," the statement said. "The death of a teenager weighed heavily on our hearts but in the end we did what the law required us to do."
B37 talked too much, did in her own book deal, made too many assumptions, and completely took GZ's side and testimony. Basically called TM a punk who deserved it. Sounds like she's the one who brought the other jurors around. Any evidence on the claim that her husband the lawyer went to school with and/or knows O'Mara?
Incredible leaps in logic and hatred (and the desperate look for scapegoats) like this is why jurors don't want to ever serve again and they wish to remain anonymous.
No, just B37. Claimed she doesn't listen to news because it's biased and only uses newspapers to line the bird cage, but jumped on the first plane to get interviewed (paid?) by Anderson Cooper and had a book deal announced shortly after the trial. I've dealt with literary agents and it's a long drawn out process to get an agreement. She's too eager to monetize the opportunity and too quick to blame the victim. The other jurors said it was a tough decision based on the law.
Incredible leaps in logic and hatred (and the desperate look for scapegoats) like this is why jurors don't want to ever serve again and they wish to remain anonymous.
Hmmm. Personally, I'm thinking the other jurors weren't too crazy about that interview and how the one juror came off. They were mighty quick to say . . HEY ~ SHE DOESN'T SPEAK FOR ME.
My feeling - Juror B37 wasn't all that popular with the other jurors. They wish to disassociate themselves from her diastrous interview. Juror B37 opened HERSELF up to criticism when she agreed to the interview. Anytime, one goes on National television to state their opinion - they open themselves up to criticism. This is not unique to B37.
Again - the fact that I don't agree with the verdict doesn't mean anything - other than I don't agree with the verdict. It doesn't mean that I hate the jurors; it doesn't mean that I'm a race baiter; it doesn't mean I hate the American judicial system. I'm allowed to have an opinion - same as those who DO agree w/the verdict.
Quit making it more than it is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
