Interview with Victoria-Joy Godwin

May I start off by asking the obvious - why the word ‘follies’ to describe what happened in the Zimmerman courtroom?
Have you seen all of the definitions for that word? Try this on for size. ‘Follies - lack of foresight; costly undertaking, having an absurd or ruinous outcome; an elaborate theatrical review consisting of music, dance, and skits,’ among others. By the time you finish this book, you’ll see where the remaining definitions also fit like a glove.
That’s intriguing right there. Now to the second most obvious question, or, actually, statement - you’re not what I expected at all. A partially blind little old lady telling the government how to run a case? Wow.
Partially blind, fully-sighted, old, young, average intelligence or genius, all Americans have a duty to run the government. It’s theirs, isn’t it?
As in ‘We The People?’
And as in “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
OK, got it. So what you’re saying is that those holding office aren’t listening to us?
Actually what I’m saying is that we aren’t saying anything of value that would make them WANT to listen to us.
Explain. I know lots of people who complain every day.
And therein lies the rub. Complaining reminds me of a sign my neighbor has on his front door, which reads ‘After all is said and done, more is said, than done.’ Criticism is hot air unless it is accompanied by constructive remedies. Haven’t you heard that you get what you ask for? If you complain, you’re not asking for anything, so you get nothing. Without constructive criticism, complaints fall on deaf ears because you’re not asking for a specific. Aren’t we supposed to be specific in our prayers, even?
Makes sense. So why did you pick this trial against Zimmerman?
Heck. If you know me, you’ll know I spread my constructive criticism everywhere something needs fixing. Especially if it puts the power back into the hands of the people. This case just gave me the opening.
And this Zimmerman trial did that?
That, and more. It exposed a raw spot that has apparently been overlooked, or swept under the rug, for over 5 decades.
So you have a remedy for that for future trials?
For those and this one, too. You prove he wasn’t tried the first time around. The Constitution guarantees the accused AND the States, who have equal rights, a fair trial and that is a trial by jury unless it is waived because it is a jury trial, which is NOT a right. As far as I know, neither party waived it even without knowing the difference between a jury trial and a trial by jury, and I doubt the people of the State of Florida, in whose name the prosecution brought the charges, would have waived it either way. No one wants a murderer wandering the streets in any State.
So Zimmerman wasn’t tried?
Couldn’t have been. The jurors were muzzled. Reviewing evidence someone else puts in front of you is hardly ‘trying’ the case. Do it again. Let Zimmerman and his attorneys cry foul and take it all the way up to the Supreme Court to see if ‘trial by prosecution’ is intended in the Bill of Rights. Or ‘trial by the State.’ No. It’s trial by jury, and the jurors are the people and the people are placed in that courtroom to serve as a check and balance on everyone else there. And if you know a way to ‘try’ someone without questioning them, let me know
Why do the jurors in 3 States question witnesses and not others?
As I’ve said, that’s for some curious student to research for a thesis. But it cannot be a law in any of those 47 States, Florida included, because jurors are summoned there. That means they MUST appear for jury duty or face contempt of court charges. Isn’t that proof our Founding Forefathers wanted the ‘people’ represented in every trial against an accused American, to ensure that neither the defense nor the prosecution attorneys got out of line? And, on top of that, the jurors take an oath to fulfill their duty to find the facts. Doesn’t it seem that muzzling them obstructs them from fulfilling their oath of office? It isn’t a question of ‘being allowed’ to question witnesses. It’s a question of being deceived into believing they can’t, and that’s a serious problem the American people need to take care of right now. Make them show you a written law that says you have to wait until deliberations to ask questions, but don’t hold your breath for a response.
And reading THE ZIMMERMAN TRIAL FOLLIES asks for help from all Americans to right this wrong?
It asks for the ‘next Rosa Parks’ to ‘have the courage to please stand up.’ People with courage enjoy their rights. Those easily frightened sold those rights right along with Esau when he sold his birthright for a bowl of porridge. I am planning to write a ‘Jurors’ Manual - for all people.’ that will spell out everything I raise in the Zimmerman Trial Follies, and then some. I might call it A Juror’s Handbook - A Guide For All Peoople, or something like that. It will be an eye-opener, exposing the best kept secrets of the legal profession to those who still believe the myth that attorneys are smarter than the rest of us.
Will those who forbid jurors from doing their job of collecting evidence from each witness, go to jail?
The penalty for treason, as far as I know, is still hanging. But, politicians are clever. Remember, most of them ARE attorneys, until we change that pattern. It is highly unlikely that any judge or attorney or bailiff TOLD jurors directly they couldn’t ask questions. They just didn’t correct the misconception.
Do you think one of those six women asked how to get her questions answered and was told to hold it until the deliberations?
If any juror tried to ask a question and was told to wait until the time to send it in to the judge from the jury room, I say God help that man or woman, then, because they’ll be at the short end of a black robe. They not only sat back and watched unconstitutional trials go on, but they undermined the entire justice system, and the only other thing that destroys a country as quickly, is to undermine it’s currency.
Have you heard about the lawsuit the Medical Examiner in this case is filing, alleging the prosecutor threw the case?
And . . . ? What do you think? Will it help this book?
Vice versa. This book will give him the most powerful circumstantial evidence he could ever hope to present, short of finding a secretary in that office who overheard a plot to throw the case.
How do you think the book will do given that you are an unknown while recognized journalists and attorneys are writing their own book on the trial?
At the least, better than a re-hash of a trial transcript by a known publicity seeker. The American public isn’t fooled by reading an opinion of someone who has access to the transcript because he or she has the money to pay for it and believes, or thinks, there’s no one else who has standing to write a book on the subject. People want something that could give them closure, not a re-hash of what happened in front of their own eyes.
Wow. Your book gives them more than closure.
And that is the point. No sense complaining unless you come up with a better suggestion. And The Zimmerman Trial Follies has three major ones.
Ask the legislature to put a law on the books that deters anyone in government from stealing jurors’ rights, have jurors shore up their courage and ask questions of witnesses, and, re-try Zimmerman, either on the grounds he hasn’t truly been tried so both sides had their rights protected, or try him for first degree murder, which is a new charge.
That’s your second ‘wow.’
Published 2013-10-07.
Smashwords Interviews are created by the profiled author, publisher or reader.

Books by This Author

The Zimmerman Trial Follies
Price: $9.99 USD. Words: 80,450. Language: English. Published: October 2, 2013. Categories: Nonfiction » Law » Courts & trial practice
The first book on the Zimmerman trial and the last one you’ll need on the subject, this work proves Zimmerman was never lawfully tried. Based on 20 insights sent to the prosecutors by the author, every fact that was ignored is exposed, beginning with the confession to first-degree murder in his only sworn statement. Now another invalid jury verdict mandates we find the next Rosa Parks to stand up