For those who didn't have the time to watch the juror interview, I'll summarize. The transcript (not video) is here.

On the prior calls to non-emergency, Juror B37 said there had been an "unbelievable" number of burglaries. Olivia Bertalan, one of the burglary victims, particularly struck a chord with her, as did the information that the perpetrator ran away but was later caught and charged. That would be Emmanuel Burgess.

When the defense called Olivia Bertalan, whose house had been robbed, I wrote a long post about it because a reporter from CNN had such a uninformed take. She thought the defense got hoodwinked by her testimony, that the jurors would think O'Mara was playing a race card and it would backfire. Just the opposite, as I've been saying since April, 2012 when I realized the state was spinning Zimmerman's prior calls to non-emergency. In five of the six instances, they didn't hurt him, they helped him. Clearly, the jury saw it the same way.

As to ill-will, hatred, spite etc., which the State was required to prove for Murder 2, Juror B-37 said:

I think he's overeager to help people. Like the lady who got broken in and robbed, while her baby and her were upstairs, he came over and he offered her a lock for her backsliding glass door. He offered her his phone number, his wife's phone number. He told her that she could come over if she felt stressed or she needed anybody, come over to their house, sit down, have dinner. Not anybody -- I mean, you have to have a heart to do that and care and help people.

Unlike the pundits and others who either had blinders on during the trial due to their accepting the meme promulgated by the media and Martin family lawyers, or were watching a different trial, these jurors watched the same trial I did.

As to profiling, B-37 says GZ profiled anyone coming in who acted strange. She believes GZ found Martin suspicious because of his actions. She said anyone's suspicion's would be aroused by Martin's actions that night. When asked why, she answers:

COOPER: Why do you think George Zimmerman found Trayvon Martin suspicious then?

Juror: Because he was cutting through the back, it was raining. He said he was looking in houses as he was walking down the road. Kind of just not having a purpose to where he was going. He was stopping and starting. But I mean, that's George's rendition of it, but I think the situation where Trayvon got into him being late at night, dark at night, raining, and anybody would think anybody walking down the road stopping and turning and looking, if that's exactly what happened, is suspicious. And George said that he didn't recognize who he was.

While it wasn't late at night, but 7:00 pm, and whether you or I might disagree, it's still a stunning rejection of the state's most basic theory of the case.

On the credibility of witnesses B37 opined: Rachel Jeanteal was not very credible. She feels sorry for her because she didn't want to be there, but she didn't add anything to the story, particularly given the timing of her calls and GZ's call to non-emergency.(I doubt these jurors would be swayed by Rachel's appearance last night on Piers Morgan's show. She came across to me as being loyal to Martin, and although less petulant than she was at trial, not someone who was steeped in the facts.) I've said before, she's not stupid, she's manipulative. After watching her interview on Piers, I'd add calculating to the description.

The witnesses B-37 found credible: Neighbors Jenna Lauer and John Good. Another neighbor, Selene Bahadoor, who thought she heard figures going left to right, was believed to be less credible. (For good reason: She's the neighbor who posted her support for the Martin Change.Org petition on her Facebook page back on March 20, 2012, just before she was interviewed by FDLE.)

One of the most persuasive witnesses: George John Donnelly, Zimmerman's friend who served as a medic in Vietnam and described screams.

B-37 has no doubt at all GZ feared for his life in the situation he was in at the time.

B-37 said the dispatcher egged GZ on. He should have told him to stay in his car, not ask which way Martin had gone.

She said GZ had every right to carry a gun.

On Zimmerman's statements, the state did not convince her Zimmerman's overall version of events was false. She said the videotapes, phone calls, witnesses and prior calls to non-emergency show he told the truth during his reenactment. She thought there may have been some fabrications or enhancements in the re-enactment, but overall he was consistent. She noted Serino thought so too (which means the state made another miscalculation regarding Serino by not objecting to him giving his opinion on Zimmerman's credibility until after the jury heard it. You can't put toothpaste back in the tube.

B-37 even thinks TM may have reached for GZ's gun but isn't sure. However, she believes GZ thought he was reaching for his gun and that's what counts according to the jury instructions. She said it doesn't really make a difference because George had a right to protect himself.

B-37 thinks Martin turned the encounter physical by punching Zimmerman. She says the evidence at the scene supports this, such as the placement of the flashlight and keys and his larger flashlight. She thinks TM attacked GZ where the larger flashlight was found.

She stops short of saying Martin was the aggressor. She thinks the roles changed. GZ got in a little too deep but she thinks TM decided he wasn't going to let GZ get the better of him, and got mad and attacked him.

On the DNA evidence: The state failed to bag his hands and dry his clothes. It didn't do a lot of things they should have done.

She thought the defense animation was credible, and the parents' testimony on voice canceled each other out.

On how the deliberations began and progressed:

When they first got into the jury room, they elected a foreperson and took a straw vote. Three thought not guilty, two manslaughter and one murder 2. But they hadn't read the jury instructions at that time. Once they read the instructions, and all six ruled out murder 2 without reaching self-defense. Then they got to manslaughter and sent out the question on manslaughter.

So it's pretty clear these jurors proceeded in the literal order of the jury instructions: First decide murder 2. If you don't accept it, go on to manslaughter. And then decide whether self-defense applies. If it does, he did not commit a crime and cannot be convicted of manslaughter.

The jury went through every piece of evidence before getting to the law. When it got to the law, Murder 2 was rejected before reaching self-defense, which means it rejected murder 2 on the state of mind element.

Manslaughter only requires proof that GZ intended to shoot Zimmerman, and Martin died as a result of the shooting. Thus, unless self-defense or excusable homicide applied, they would have had to return a guilty verdict on manslaughter. But since they accepted he acted in self-defense (or at least that the state failed to disprove it, they had to find him not guilty of manslaughter.

A few jurors had questions about whether they could consider what led up to the shooting in deciding self-defense and that's when they sent out the question. But they figured out on their own, correctly, that the only moment that mattered for self- defense was the moment he shot Martin: Did he reasonably believe he needed to use deadly force to prevent great harm to himself at the time he shot Martin. The act/series of act language applies only to whether Zimmerman had ill will hatred, etc. for Murder 2.

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used.

The state would have lost on murder 2 even if the jury found the events leading up to the shooting were evidence of ill-will, hatred etc, if the jury believed GZ acted in self-defense, or the state failed to disprove it, which there is now no question they did. Since neither the manslaughter nor self-defense instructions use the words "series of acts", it's not hard to see how the jury figured it out on their own so that even the two jurors who had a question about events leading up to the shooting could be satisfied.

Angela Corey and Bernie de la Rionda missed by miles. In their interview last night, they said they had been sure the jury would find hatred, ill-will and malice, based on the "series of acts" language; that the prior calls to non-emergency would work against GZ; that TM was "prey"; that Zimmerman stalked TM and was a murderer; and that GZ incited TM's punch. They missed on every point.

While she's only one juror and she's careful not to say what individual pieces of evidence or testimony were most important to other jurors, she makes clear they all agreed on the basics: Murder 2 was rejected without having to reach self-defense; Manslaughter could not result in a guilty verdict because they agreed GZ acted in self-defense (or the state failed to disprove self-defense). Juror B-37 says her belief is "I had no doubt George feared for his life in the situation he was in at the time."

The instructions dictate:

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used.

The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

As for her seeking a book deal, she's already dropped that idea. They just wanted to tell the story.

The biggest slap to the prosecution: Juror 37 would feel comfortable now having Zimmerman be on her Neighborhood Watch. As to him getting his gun back, she says he'd be more responsible with a gun than anyone on this planet right now, having undergone this ordeal.

As I listened to this juror, all I could think of was what an incredible job jury consultant Robert Hirschhorn did for the defense.

Did anyone even catch what Angela Corey said in the HLN interview about how she thinks peremptory challenges should return to being solely the choice of the party tossing the juror, and the parties shouldn't be required to provide explanations, race-neutral or otherwise? The whole point of Batson challenges is to protect prospective jurors from challenges based on race. In this case, the state excused five female Caucasians in a row. Angela Corey doesn't think an explanation should be necessary? If Batson wasn't settled law, what's to prevent her from excusing minority jurors in her next trial? Answer: Nothing.