Greta Van Susteren got upset!


But then, she made a good point: On July 15, Jasmine Rand discussed the Zimmerman verdict with Greta Van Susteren.

In our view, Van Susteren would have done a better job if she hadn’t gotten so upset with two things Rand said. For starters, when Rand criticized the jury, Van Susteren got a bit hot:
VAN SUSTEREN (&/15/13): Are you saying it was a bad jury?

RAND: I do not believe that Trayvon got equal justice in this instance.

VAN SUSTEREN: Specifically how? Tell me the evidence—tell me the evidence that the jury didn't hear.

RAND: The evidence that the jury didn't hear?


RAND: I don't think that they properly considered the evidence. If they had listened to the evidence and if they had followed the law, then George Zimmerman would have been convicted of murder.


RAND: I mean, he got out of the car—he got out of the car—

VAN SUSTEREN: Are you—you're a lawyer!

RAND: —with a loaded gun. He followed—
Rand is certainly free to think that the jury wrongly considered the evidence. Presumably, some juries do that. Or at least, it’s reasonable to think so.

Van Susteren offered a shaky reaction. This doesn’t make much sense:
VAN SUSTEREN (continuing directly): You're a lawyer, right?

RAND: Yes.

VAN SUSTEREN: And the whole point of the jury is that we assign the job to weigh the facts. We draft them. We make them sit there. Lot of times, they don't want to be there. We then present the evidence, and the judge then says, Here's the evidence, here's the law, instructs them on the law, and it's their duty—it's not mine, it's not yours, it's not anybody else's in the community, but it's the jury's duty to weigh them. And all of a sudden, suddenly, afterwards, that you say they can't do their job?
That doesn’t really make sense. Of course, the verdict is the jury’s job. That doesn’t necessarily mean that their verdict was correct.

At this point, it was Rand’s turn to make a weak point. Especially in this case, Van Susteren’s rebuttal was important:
RAND (continuing directly): I have a greater duty beyond being an attorney, and that's to be a social engineer. And when the law doesn't get it right, I believe that we have the right to peacefully and morally, conscientiously object to the decision of the jury.

That doesn't mean that we believe that it's going to be overturned or that it will or that we don't respect the decision that those six people made. But there are millions of people out there who don't agree with that decision. So it's not just the legal team.

VAN SUSTEREN: You know what the problem is, though? You know, that—

RAND: It's millions of people from all over the world.

VAN SUSTEREN: That's deeply disturbing that you say millions are out there who didn't see it! You know and I know that millions of people who may not like a verdict, whether it's for it or against this case or another, didn't watch the case, didn't sit in the courtroom, didn't weigh the evidence, didn't listen to jury instructions. That's just noise. That's why we have court systems is so that people—so that both sides have an opportunity to be heard.
Especially in this horrible case, Van Susteren's highlighted point is strong. Millions of people have been misinformed about the basic facts of this case, largely by a stream of fake facts which trace back to Rand and the other lawyers.

Millions of people are very upset with the jury’s verdict. Whether the verdict was right or wrong, many of those people may be unclear about the basic evidence, let alone about the law.

Today, the jurors are in hiding. Almost surely, they know the facts of the case much better than many of the millions of citizens who are upset with their verdict.

A person can judge that a verdict is wrong. But first, he or she has to know all the facts. He has to know which facts are false and which facts have been disappeared.


  1. If you're right that the jury is in hiding, that tells you that we have not progressed as far as we would like from bad old days of the south. Only now it's liberals and blacks who are the ignorant mob, not classic southern racists.

    1. Anyone can be part of a mob. We have jury procedures and rule of law to protect people from a mob mentality. Just like we institute fair hiring procedures to protect ourselves from prejudice and hire lawyers to protect ourselves from emotions or faulty thinking when making business deals and so on. Racism is held at bay when we recognize it as something to avoid and institute procedures to eliminate its influence. Our progress is not in changing how people think but in recognizing that we need procedures to prevent such thinking from influencing important decisions.

    2. But we have had some success at changing the way people think. That's what The Enlightenment was all about, no? When we say that someone has "gone Medieval" that implies that they have reverted to a more primitive way of thinking--at least that's how I understand it.

      We appear to be slipping back to a time where facts don't matter, only emotional conviction does.

      Oh, well. It probably won't be that many more years til I finally turn into coffin bait. Then the world can go on its merry a-hole way. Bah.

    3. Hope you're around these parts for a long time Brain!

    4. Yeah, me too.

    5. Hey, brother Braintree, you write:

      "If you're right that the jury is in hiding,"

      Unfortunately there is no evidence that they are in hiding despite Mr. Someby's assertion of this as a fact. Use a search engine and look for "Zimmerman Jurors in Hiding." We all know, since two real jurors and one alternate have appeared on network news shows, that the media is certainly seeking them out. We know they must know how to contact each othr, since four signed a statement distancing themselves from what the first televised juror said to Anderson Cooper from her hidey hole in front of a CNN camera.

      Yes indeed, this is proof liberals and blacks are today's lynch mob. Glad you've learned that from Brother Bob.

    6. As far as I have heard, most of the jurors remain anonymous. That's certainly a form of hiding.

      In any event, is that your best response to this post: "NONONO! Liberals aren't awful! Jurors have spoken to the press and each other! So, HA!"

      If that's your best, you are a sad sad little man.

    7. Actually, I agree with Anonymous 12:17, but only as to his or her second-last sentence. The rest is shake-your-fist hogwash.

      I would add that the Zimmerman railroading may be just the tipping-point event we need to restore our country's cultural heritage now that the left and their constituents are now exposed to mainstream America as the frauds and hypocrites that they are.

    8. " restore our country's cultural heritage..." -- and what, pray tell, do you assume that to be?

      "now that the left and their constituents are now exposed to mainstream America as the frauds and hypocrites that they are" -- have you ever watched Jon Stewart? He has made a career out of mocking "the frauds and hypocrites" on the Right.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. I didn't watch Greta Van Susteren's show so maybe she did ask but sounds like she didn't and so I am still wondering when someone on TV is going to ask a black lawyer why George Zimmerman was obligated to allow Trayvon Martin to beat his head on the hard ground/concrete as long as Martin felt like it?

    Where is that obligation in the law? The law on manslaughter is very clear that its a justified homicide if the immediate environment is perceived as endangering life or great bodily harm. The only thing that matters is the moment Zimmerman shot Martin so: Why should he not have shot Martin?

    I think the trial testimony was that Zimmerman screamed for help for 45 seconds, a long time. Not one of the people on TV attacking Zimmerman would have waited that long. - Karen

    1. What it comes down to, as absurd as it sounds, is they are trying to define "following a person for a few yards after you've lost sight of them, while on the phone with a police dispatcher" as a crime that warrants a legal response of doubling back when you had 4 minutes to retreat and beating the hell out of the person who committed said "crime." It's insanity.

    2. Anonymous 1:08:
      Don't give in to these bastards. We will win in the end.

  4. Good article Bob.

    Let me say this as a onetime Trayvon supporter who thinks the jury got it right. In fact, I began to pivot as soon as the photos of GZ's injuries were made public.

    While Ms. Rand could have done a better job, I also think Greta (a longtime GZ supporter) was biased as well.

    My view is her line of questioning and the legal arguments she put forward would have done a 180 if it was the 1990s and her guest was an attorney arguing the OJ jury got it wrong.

    Just sayin'.

    1. Hard to compare anything to the OJ trial. It was more than 9 months long. A 9+ month sequestered jury.

      I watched quite a bit of it and it was very strange. Strange that the prosecution didn't begin with their strongest evidence, the trail of blood. Strange that they instead paraded on well coiffed, well dressed, attractive women like Steve Garvey's wife, Ron Goldman's stepmother and Nicole Brown's sister to give testimony that didn't tell the jury anything about the murders. Ron Goldman's stepmother was put on the stand early in the trial to tell the jury that a shopping list found in a bag at the scene was her shopping list.


    2. File this under, "Things that make you go hmm."

      In a set of 271 cases from four areas, juries gave wrong verdicts in at least one out of eight cases, according to "Estimating the Accuracy of Jury Verdicts," a paper by a Northwestern University statistician that is being published in the July issue of Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.

    3. Wrong based on what? The law, the facts of the case, some a priori external knowledge about the guilt of the person being tried?

    4. The OJ trial is a huge anomaly in that the trial testimony may have actually proved that he did it (I'd have to go back and read the trail of blood evidence to feel confident so I use "may") and yet the prosecution had by then so utterly lost the confidence of the jury that they were not able to credit the trail of blood evidence.

      So, did the jury render the wrong verdict?

      Some of those atractive women witnesses, especially Denise Brown, were intended as witnesses to OJ Simpson being a bad character and that tactic obviously failed. The prosecution in the Zimmerman case tried to make Zimmerman out to be a bad character (repeating "assholes" and "f**king punks" over and over). What kinds of prospective jurors are likely to take character attacks as evidence and what kind are likely to say, "that doesn't prove anything?" Both juries had a lot of women. -Karen

    5. I thought OJ got of largely because Mark Fuhrmann was exposed as a bad cop--racist and willing to frame accordingly. He had access and motivation to tamper with the evidence.

      The relevance to the Zimmerman trial for me is that the evidence against Fuhrmann's character was a tape recorded, unpublished interview with an author from years prior. This strikes me as a precedence for the use of Martin's internet history in Zimmerman's defense.

    6. OJ got off at jury selection. Racial tensions were very high.

    7. M Carpenter,

      So many odd things strike you that it's a wonder you've got a bone in your body left unbroken.

      Martin's prior history would not be admissible to prove events, but only to impeach him as a witness or as a defendant. And, of course, Martin was neither.

  5. There is only one correct verdict in the Zimmerman case given its facts and the law, and the jury rendered it.

    "Reasonable" means something other than what a mob decides to say it means at any given moment, regardless of the fact that if the same mobsters are on the jury they temporarily have the power to define "reasonable" in the most insane terms.

    Some cases are close calls. Not this one.

  6. "And the whole point of the jury is that we assign the job to weigh the facts. We draft them. We make them sit there. Lot of times, they don't want to be there. We then present the evidence, and the judge then says, Here's the evidence, here's the law, instructs them on the law, and it's their duty—it's not mine, it's not yours, it's not anybody else's in the community, but it's the jury's duty to weigh them. And all of a sudden, suddenly, afterwards, that you say they can't do their job?"

    Ridiculous. It is absolutely the job of "everybody else in the community" to look at the case, if they so choose, and develop and/or state an opinion. The case is captioned Florida v Zimmerman. It isn't Martin v Zimmerman. "Florida" in this case means, 'the people". "The people" have a vital interest in the case. All of them.

    Oh, and also, does this idiot get angry when jury verdicts are appealed by the defendant? THAT IS AN OUTRAGE! How DARE we question the jury!

    1. We the people delegate that responsibility to the jury. Just as we don't all get to go down to Washington and vote on laws, we don't get to do every job done on behalf of us by those we have elected or chosen to perform. No, you don't get to second-guess the jury, just because you are a member of the public.

      When a defendant appeals a verdict, it isn't challenging the jury's decision. There are various reasons why an appeal can be brought, and disagreeing with the jury's decision is not one of them.

  7. Sadly, if one is to believe the narrative created by a press corps more interested in writing novels than unbiased news stories, the jury did get it wrong. Unfortunately, that narrative does not comport with the facts of the case, facts in evidence that the jury accepted as the basis for its deliberations. If Trayvon Martin had not chosen to attack George Zimmerman with physical force, he would have survived that tragic evening in Florida. A secondary tragedy is how millions of well-meaning people have been misinformed and misled.

    1. "If Trayvon Martin had not chosen to attack George Zimmerman with physical force, he would have survived that tragic evening in Florida. "

      Oh, baloney. You have no earthly idea if Martin moved first, and either did that jury. There's nothing about a courtroom that says one has to abandon all reason in order to show respect for process. They did the best they could with what they had, which wasn't much. The one and only person who knows whether Martin moved first to "attack" Zimmerman unprovoked is Zimmerman. Obviously, there are a lot of other way this could have happened, including Zimmerman confronting Martin with a weapon, or Zimmerman moving first in some other fashion.
      I am not, actually, called to believe every word uttered by George Zimmerman. I don't have to do that, and that's nice, because I don't, actually, buy his story.

    2. You might not buy it but you have strong reasons to buy it and weak reasons not to. Buying the counternarrative over his story requires wanting to buy it with less supporting evidence.

    3. Hey anon @3:45, the only thing "weak" is the mind which fails to recognize there are no "reasons" to buy Zimmerman's story other than a desire to do so. The facts never proved anything you claim. They also failed to prove, to the satisfaction of this jury, that Zimmerman was guilty of either second degree murder or mandslaughter as they understood Florida law based on judicial instruction. The only evidence offered that Martin attacked Zimmerman is the self serving statement of the man who shot dead a teen he had been following with a loaded handgun.

    4. And 4 long, conspicuous minutes

    5. ...and Zimmermans broken nose...and the bruises on the back of his head...and the eye-witness testimony of John Good, the best eye-witness...and the bruises on Trayvon Martin's fists...and the lack of any injury to Trayvon Martin consistent with Zimmerman having beaten him...and Zimmerman's relief when the police told him (falsely) that there was a video of the fight...and Officer Serrino's comment that he believed Zimmerman.

      OTOH there is virtually no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin.

    6. ...unless you include the bullet hole in his body.

    7. jammni can't understand that we're talking of the unknowable "initial attack" and that jammni's comment is therefore irrelevant and makes jammni look like an idiot.

      The bullet hole, jammni, is conceded.

      Do you understand now, jammni?

  8. The gotcha! finder got sloppy today

    "That doesn’t really make sense. Of course, the verdict is the jury’s job. That doesn’t necessarily mean that their verdict was correct."

    Many days back he wrote (using the royal we) "we think its a correct verdict" or words to that effect.

    So which is it, word champion obsessive compulsive nitpicker?

    1. Are you this dumb?

    2. One can't help it if one doesn't understand elementary logic -- and if one can't learn it.

      That a person can "think it's correct" and simultaneously be aware that it isn't "necessarily correct" is the hallmark of someone able to reason properly.

      It's a little much to expect the same from random internet commenters such as Anonymous of 3:06.

    3. Shorter Anon@3:43: are you this dumb?

  9. Now I'M saying it: Groundhog Day.