Yea I just watched this video of the interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LWiA9KfT4k
My thoughts remain largely unchanged from last time this issue was in the news.
As Matt Lauer pointed out, there is usually his story, her story, and the truth.
For whatever reason, she's decided it is advantageous to her to feed the already intense hatred for her husband which exists in the media and in the public. Is this for catharsis because he's apparently involved with an ex of his now? Is it payback for that and for not being sufficiently supportive to her (according to her?) is it to lay the groundwork for an upcoming book? Is it to jockey for a more advantageous bargaining position during the divorce proceedings?
Is it all of the above?
I don't know.
I don't dismiss that she may legitimately feel some doubts about him as a person now, but I personally don't put a lot of weight behind that.
To me, someone losing their cool during a contentious divorce situation, after just experiencing one of the more stressful 1.5 year spans anyone will ever go through, and busting an iPad which apparently he owned... doesn't say a lot. It says he doesn't have as good of control over his temper in stressful situations as I myself do, but it doesn't tell me much more than that. It doesn't make him a monster. It doesn't budge the evidence about what went down with Trayvon. The evidence spoke clearly, even Shellie pointed that out in this interview.
Earlier interviews she had before the incident with the iPad were somewhat different. She was still very clear on his innocence at that time, even if she seemed disgusted with him in the context of their personal relationship. Now she's singing a bit different of a tune... now she's saying she has doubts, but that he definitely didn't profile Trayvon, and that she trusts the evidence. Well, dear, the evidence was ALL in his favor. The prosecution literally presented no case of guilt, at all, whatsoever. At all.
I think she's wearing divorce goggles. I wouldn't be too surprised if next time we hear from her (and btw, there really doesn't need to be a next time, and there didn't need to be this time) - she's even more harsh on him.
She talks about how she was sticking by her story that he was threatening them with a gun... a gun we now know was in the truck the whole time. She says he reached into his shirt, but on the video we see the moment she's referring to. He isn't reaching into his shirt... he's tucking the iPad under his left arm, presumably to guard it against her or her father snatching it back from him.
We can know that's what he's doing because when watching the video, you see that the iPad is in his right hand, and he doesn't drop it or anything before he puts his arm into his left armpit area. You can see the iPad go there with the hand. It is not really physically possible for him to have been grabbing at a gun (which what, was in a side holster under a buttoned shirt against his bare skin? Really?)
She either misinterpreted him stuffing the iPad under his arm as him reaching into his shirt, or she's claiming to have done so to make him seem more menacing.
She admits she saw no gun. We know now it was in the truck. She provoked him by stringing him along on the schedule that weekend about when she'd be there picking up belongings, and then she may have been taking some stuff which was in dispute. He is initially taking pictures with his phone of what they've loaded up into the truck, presumably because he felt some of those items were of disputed ownership.
It is only after she follows him around, filming him with the iPad (and in all likelihood, saying things to him as she did it which were calculated to push his buttons) that he snapped and grabbed the iPad. If he punched his father in law, that is inappropriate, but the father in law not pressing charges is telling... he may have taken the first swing. We don't know what went on between them.
As for what his personal trainer guy said? That's not exactly invalidated by him (possibly) successfully socking an old man in the nose.
In the end, we really just don't know what the exact truth is about what has gone on during this divorce, and specifically that day. There's no denying George acted poorly that day, but without context and an understanding of how people can be passive aggressive and deliberately push someone else toward a reaction... you can't just take one little snapshot in a divorce context, and somehow think you understand all the dynamics.
He may very well be a big douche, jerk, and bully with women he is in relationships with. That's possible.
I supported his exoneration because he hadn't broken the law according to both the law itself, and the overwhelming evidence in the case with Trayvon.
Any revelation that he's a shitty husband or a douche bag, matters not one iota to that determination, or to me.
