Greta Van Susteren, in Sanford, Florida for the George Zimmerman trial, spent more than nine minutes last night throwing softballs at Zimmerman attorney Mark O’Mara. Some of her questions included “asking” for “the best thing that happened for the defense.” The segment not only contrasted sharply with her interview with a Martin-family attorney but it lasted almost twice as long. Oh, and Van Susteren’s main concern seemed to be that the Martin family would not properly accept an acquittal. Almost as if the acquittal is a given.

Attorney Daryl Parks, representing the Martin family, got about five minutes of screen time in a 5:33 total segment out of which the first 30 seconds or so included video from the trial testimony. After asking how the Martin family is holding up and dealing with what must be difficult-to-stomach testimony, Van Susteren began hammering her concern that the family would make (racial) trouble in the even of an acquittal.

Van Susteren said she has “no idea” how the verdict will come out, although she said the prosecution is having “some troubles in the case.”

She asked Parks, “But if the verdict goes against what they want, can they accept it from this jury?”

You have to wonder why she thought that was an issue. But after Parks argued why he thinks the evidence is on the side of conviction, Van Susteren asked, “Will you accept the jury verdict, then? I take it, that from what you said, no matter what the jury verdict is either way, that you’ll respect it?”

Later, after Parks said that if the races were reversed, Trayvon Martin would have been arrested quickly, Van Susteren asked,

Are we not beyond that? …Isn’t that, sort of, battle over? He’s been arrested and now the issue really is, you know, a fair trial to both the family and to the defendant as the Constitution requires. Isn’t that where we are and so we shouldn’t, we shouldn’t fight old battles?”

…To tell you the truth, what I’m worried about is the jury verdict, either way. I’m going to accept it either way and I just hope that everybody else you know also realizes that you know, we’ve assigned it to these six people, whichever way the cards fall.”

Van Susteren reiterated her concerns to Zimmerman attorney Mark O’Mara. His segment was nearly twice as long, 9:10, with almost none of that time devoted to trial testimony. She asked for his “suggestions” about how people might react to the racial implications if Zimmerman is acquitted. “How do you explain that to the community, then, if you win?” She called race the “elephant in the room.” She had no such concerns about how the right-wing might react if he is convicted.

Instead, Van Susteren moved on to her softballs. “What’s he like to work with?” she asked about Zimmerman, obviously fishing for accolades. Sure enough, O’Mara worked in, “Now we all know (Zimmerman’s) not a racist and he’s probably not a murderer, according to the evidence and according to me, of course he’s not a murderer.”

Some of her questions and comments:

“What was the highlight today for you? The best thing that happened for the defense?”

“The other police officer today, though, was also particularly helpful to you.”  Then she elaborated as to how.”

“I mean, the visual (of Zimmerman’s video reenactment of the shooting) was bad for the prosecution. …(The two police officers who testified) didn’t lay a glove on your client and actually helped him. …What in the world could you do more in the case?”

Fox News fairness and balance. Just like the rest of their fairness and balance in this case.