One of the most damaging moments for the prosecution in the trial of George Zimmerman trial was the inexplicable decision to lead with Rachel Jeantel, a friend of Trayvon Martin’s. Jeantel proceeded to admit to previously lying and then gave conflicted and at points unintelligible testimony. Her statement that Martin called Zimmerman a “cracker” further helped the defense in balancing the derogatory statements of Zimmerman. After the verdict, Jeantel has made statements that seem unhinged and again raise the question on why the prosecutors would place her so prominently in their case in chief. The latest controversy is a new allegation from Jeantel that she warned Trayvon that Zimmerman might be a gay rapist. She is not the only person associated with the trial who seems to be courting the press in the case with disastrous results.
In an interview with Piers Morgan, she said “People need to understand, he didn’t want that creepy ass cracka going to his father or girlfriend’s house to go get — mind you, his little brother is there. Mind you I told you, I told Trayvon, [Zimmerman] might have been a rapist.”
In a truly bizarre interview, Morgan asks Jeantel to school him on the correct spelling and meaning of such terms as “cracka” and “nigga.”
Jeantel called the verdict “BS” and said “Well, the jury, they see their facts. My thoughts of the jury, they old, that’s old school people. We in a new school, our generation, my generation. So –”
Morgan then appears to turn into a cultural anthropologist and asked clinically:
“Let’s talk about ‘creepy ass cracka.’ People have said that that is a phrase used by black people, cracka, to describe a white person. Is that true?
JEANTEL: No! Like I said —
MORGAN: How do you spell it, first of all?
JEANTEL: Cracka.
MORGAN: There’s no ‘e-r,’ right?
JEANTEL: No, it’s an ‘a’ at the end.
MORGAN: C-r-a-c-k-a.
JEANTEL: Yeah. And that’s a person who act like they’re a police [officer], who, like a security guard who acting like — that’s what I said to them. Trayvon said creepy ass cracka.
MORGAN: It means he thought it was a police or a security guard?
JEANTEL: Yeah, he acting like the police. And then he keep telling me that the man is still watching him. So, if it was a security guard or a policeman, they would come up to Trayvon and say, ‘Do you have a problem? Do you need help?’ You know, like normal people.
Once again, it is unclear why Jeantel did not emphasize the concern over a male rape on the stand. One could almost feel the prosecutor cringing at the interview with so many questioning their judgment in relying so heavily on Jeantel.
While on the subject of people behaving badly from the case (a rather long list), there is juror B-37 who announced in an interview that she was going to write a book and had enlisted an agent. She even named her agent as Sharlene Martin. After an outcry over the effort to profit from the case (not to mention a pretty limited foundation for a book). Martin tweeted that juror B37 had regained her sanity and dropped the plans for a book (that was going to be co-written by her attorney husband). She explained that the isolation of being sequestered “shielded me from the depth of pain that exists among the general public over every aspect of this case.”
Really? It took this long to figure out that there was pain over the verdict. What tipped you off after you arranged for an interview, went to the interview, and announced your book? Was it the mass protests in various cities or continuing coverage on television. Ironically, she actually proved the accuracy of West’s disastrous joke in his opening statement: “Knock, knock. Who’s there? George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman who? Congratulations, you’re on the jury.” The joke was bizarre first because you should never cut jokes in a murder trial opening statement with a dead teenage boy. Second, if the jury got the joke, they would realize they were the punch line. The point is that only morons or cave-dwelling recluses would not know anything about the case. Well then walked in juror B-37.
Source: Real Clear Politics
nick, Blouise is an independent thinker, and that is why I respect her so much. Bette kath is a fully committed progressive who sincerely displays an attitude of cultural sensitivity..If she thinks she sees something, I would not care to dispute it. And as to the Ron Paul forum, there have been rantings about race riots for years….
I am totally fascinated by the way the “Trayvon’s a Thug” brigade deal with anything coming from Jeantel.
Their BIG messages is that she is a liar and a tool of Crump and the Scheme Team.
She might not even be the person who wa talking to Martin on the night. “DeeDee might even be two people – a young one and an older one, with the eventual one being the one that Crump managed to coach best.
In any case she committed perjury fergawdsakes. In her sworn statement to BDLR she said that she answered “Yeah” to BDLR’s “Did you got to the hospital or somewhere?” – which question was absolutely crucial to the whole case.
If by comparison she had sworn in one statement to seeing a rain of MMA-style punching and head-pounding, and then in the next statment sworn she didn’t actually see that – then that#s just being a bit confused about something entirely periperal to the case.
No. She crossed a line with that going ‘or somewhere’ jazz.
Evereything she says is a lie….
Except…… for….. anything that can be interpreted as damaging to Martin.
She said that Martin reported being “right by” his father’s house.
She spoke gospel truth there. All the rest was perjury, but she spoke the truth there.
Not alone dd she speak the truth, but we know precisely what she means by “right by”. We havn’t a clue what she is saying 99% of the time but she absolutely means “On the back porch”. This proves that Martin went there so stash the blunts and stuff he stole from houses on the way back from the 7-11. He than doubled back to attack Zimmerman – whoe by the way would have been completely invisible to him as he ad onlt been visible for 20 seconds or 30 max as he crossed past the T-junction on his way to RVC, where he stood in the rain and cold for 3 minutes before turning back for his truck and being spotted and attacked by Martin “less than 30 seconds” later. He stashed all illicit stuff but return to attack Zimmerman while carrying heavy akward drinks can as he thought he might need a drink after killing Zimmerman.
But I digress…….
.
Jeantel is speaking the truth again… because it sounds like something bad for Martin.
.
Actually it’s bad for Zimmerman.
.
DId she say ….
1) You better run cuz he might be a plainclothes cop who’s gonna bust you for burgulary/drugs
2) You better run cuz he might be some sort of security seeing you casing the houses
3) You up to no good or something so this guy is out to stop you from doing no good
She didn’t because the best interpretation that Martin had of Zimmerman’s bizzarre actions was that he was a pervert on the prowl.
That’s what Zimmerman looked like to Martin.
So Martin should have run home right?
Jeantel: “People need to understand, he didn’t want that creepy ass cracka going to his father or girlfriend’s house to go get — mind you, his little brother is there.”
Right…. well that sounds like a reason for Martin not to be heading straight home…. so therfore it logically follows that Jeantel is lying about that bit.
She is not, however, lying about the phrases “creepy ass-cracka” or “right by” ( the meaning of which is unambiguous).
.
So eventually the two come together.
Faced with the two-minute gap after the NEN, MOM offered a theory that Zimmerman might have been “looking around” during that time.
This is only a theory of course because Zimmerman has no testimony on record explaining what he was doing in those minutes. To quote MOM talking about Martin’s minutes. “Nobody knows”. All we know is that Zimmerman has always denied that he delayed at all.
But it has to be accepted that there was a gap of minutes during which nobody knows what Zimmerman was doing. MOM suggests that he might have been “looking around”. I suppose he must have been.
At the end of Zimmerman’s unknown minutes, during which according to MOM, he might have been “looking around”, he is face to face with Martin.
Martin’s perception of this weirdo who has been following him is that he is a pervert on the prowl.
He asks “Why you following me?” or alternatively “You got a problem?”.
The pervert doesn’t answer the question.
He responds with “What are you doing around here” (pretty boy)? or alternatively “No. I don’t have a problem” (I’m being all cute and flirting with you pretty boy).
The pervert later tells the cops that the next thing he does is to reach for his waistband.
Martin sees the pervert reaching for his waistband and comes to the same conclusion that Hannity would come to under the same circumstances. The pervert is pulling a gun.
Apparently the next thing that happens is that Martin punches this pervert who is pulling a gun.
.
Had the pervert explained back at the truck that he was NW this would not have happened.
Had the pervert answered the question sensibly and explained what he was at, this probably would not have happened.
Yes, nick. And commenters here vowing to never visit again because of a difference of opinion? Sad. Some need to take a deep breath and a step (or 2 or 3… or 10) back.
Hopefully, normalcy will return soon.
nick,
I could never get into the hero worship thing
Juris,
😉
Juris, You’re correct on so many levels. The people who always jump on prosecutorial misconduct avoided that topic in this case like the plaque. The way Mr. Turley has called this case has been spot on, but there is a kill the messenger tenor from people who are normally quite reasonable. Calling him a racist is beyond the pale and disgraceful. Is this the open dialogue???
Thanks, nick. I am amazed at how this case has clouded the rationality of so many, on both sides.
Blouise: “Part of the “invisibility” factor in white privilege is that one literally can’t see it and has no idea what we’re talking about.”
Oh, the irony.
SwM,
Yeah, well we aren’t going anywhere. Part of the “invisibility” factor in white privilege is that one literally can’t see it and has no idea what we’re talking about.
The big difference between the two ladies referenced in the post is that one was actually talking to Martin as Zimmerman was killing him and the other only knew Martin as “a boy of color”.
Juris, Good research. The LA Times is not a Ron Paul website as some have snickered. When an LA Times piece doesn’t come up in “due diligence,” we may need to redefine “diligent!”
Blouise, whatever you were doing wasn’t due diligence. It’s beyond obvious that your (and many others’) gross obsession with the Zimmermann case/verdict has exhausted your objectivity…. 🙂
What constitutes rioting in your eyes?
Formula taught in Prosecution 101 at the nation’s best law schools.
BF + GW + n(PM) = A
Where:
BF are bad facts.
GW is a goofy witness.
PM are major prosecutorial mistakes.
n is any number large enough to be noticeable to the general public.
A is acquittal.
The odd thing about this formula (and the thing that the Zimmerman prosecutors apparently did not understand) is that one can add S (succumbing to political pressure) to the formula and the result will be the same.
Blouise, Yep……. Marv and the prison planet guy. I thought this post pushed the envelope and agree with bettykath.
SwM,
And this is what we get in place of Marisha and bettykath …:(
SwM,
Haven’t visited any of those sites but I know many Stand Your White Ground folk who were disappointed that the predicted rioting didn’t take place.
Excerpt from the article:
“But the demonstrations in Oakland and Los Angeles morphed into more aggressive outbursts, with marauders running through city streets — smashing windows, lighting garbage fires, assaulting news crews and, in one case, attacking a waiter trying to protect a restaurant damaged two nights prior.
At least nine people, including a juvenile, were arrested in Oakland on Monday night for alleged offenses including assault with a deadly weapon, resisting arrest and vandalism, police said. Los Angeles police reported 14 arrests from Monday, including six juveniles. Most of the L.A. arrests were for what police said was failure to disperse, though one was for allegedly inciting a riot.”
Also:
“What began as a peaceful protest in South L.A.’s Leimert Park escalated Monday after officials said a group of about 150 people splintered off and headed down Crenshaw Boulevard and neighboring streets, smashing windows, lighting fireworks and surrounding cars.
Cuauhtemoc Negrete, 22, who was at the rally in Leimert Park, said he later was robbed and threatened by one of the rogue groups. He said he also saw people assaulted as they waited for a bus at Vernon Avenue and Crenshaw Boulevard.
He broke down in tears Monday as he expressed frustration over the protests. “Why does it always have to go down this road?” he said.
Other witnesses recalled chaos after vandals made their way inside a Wal-Mart in Crenshaw Plaza, storming the store before security guards were able to close the gates. A short time later, Los Angeles Police Department officers wearing helmets and carrying batons arrived.
Lali Castillo, 21, of Glendale said she saw people come inside the store and begin throwing merchandise — mostly clothing — onto the ground. Some tried to break open the glass jewelry displays on the first floor, she said.”
Wait … wait … I did find one:
Juror B-37’s voir dire:
She characterized the protests wanting Zimmerman’s arrest as “riots”.
Blouise, Maybe you could find something about rioting at Prisonplanet, WND or the Ron Paul forum.
I beg to differ raff:
Riot:
1. A wild or turbulent disturbance created by a large number of people.
2. A violent disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons
assembled for a common purpose.
I think this qualifies: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-zimmerman-protests-oakland-la-20130716,0,3377984.story
Also, JT stated …”rioting OR MASS PROTESTS in various cities…”
Just got done doing due diligence … couldn’t find a single riot.
bettykath,
you are right that there were no riots after the decision was announced. Demonstrations and vigils are not riots. secondly, please reconsider your decision to leave the blog. Your voice like everyone else’s is valued by all who spend time here. I understand your concern, but by staying here and expressing your opinion, we may be able to make a difference on many issues.