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
my emails have been reinstated.
I read the comments, I couldn’t help it.
Last points,
My analysis and comments are logically based, not emotionally based. My intuition tends to pick up on things but I then do the analysis to figure out why.
A lot of where I’m coming from:
There are many people with privilege don’t recognize that privilege. Those with privilege assume entitlement, but they don’t recognize that their sense of entitlement is undeserved. That privilege and sense of entitlement may be based on their being white, or male, or financial well off, or socially/politically well connected.
I tend to have a fair amount of tolerance until it can no longer be denied that unwarranted privilege and entitlement are the forces at play. I then become quite intolerant of those who so assume it.
———————-
I’m not sure which is the godfather of the other’s child, but that’s the relationship between Zimmerman Sr and Wolfinger, military buddies for many years.
——————
Do nuts fall far from the tree? From Robert Zimmerman’s book:
Zimmerman on the Congressional Black Caucus:
“[A] pathetic, self-serving group of racists… advancing their purely racist agenda.” He later adds that “all members of Congress should be ashamed of the Congressional Black Caucus, as should be their constituents.” And finally: “They are truly a disgrace to all Americans.”
Zimmerman on the NAACP:
“[S]imply promotes racism and hatred for their own, primarily finical [sic], interests” and “without prejudice and racial divide, the NAACP would simply cease to exist.”
[that latter is actually a true statement. w/o prejudice and racial divide, the NAACP would cease to exist. unfortunately, there is a lot of prejudice and racial divide. bk]
Zimmerman on NAACP President Benjamin Jealous:
“[W]hat I would expect of a racist.”
Zimmerman on Trayvon Martin’s funeral director:
A “racial activist and former head of the local NAACP.”
Zimmerman on Benjamin Crump, Natalie Jackson and Darly Parks, attorneys for Travyon Martin’s family:
“The scheme team.”
Yeah, but I did. You don’t get to change my postulate when it’s simply convenient and not get called on it. Despite being handicapped by being both a male and white, there is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, focus or ability to analyze. Agreement is not required, but straw men are not good form.
Gene,
I was responding to your last comment. I made no reference to preferential treatment or political connections.
And I never said he couldn’t be a racist, Elaine.
I said his initial preferential treatment had more to do with political connections and that such elitism was a danger to society.
Gene,
You described him as a wannabe cop. I showed how some real cops profile Blacks. A lone, non-state actor can be a racist and act on his biases and perceptions/mis-perceptions of people.
Systemic racism practiced by actual cops is a different social, legal and psychological problem than Z presents, Elaine. He was a lone, non-state actor.
Gene H. 1, July 17, 2013 at 11:11 am
Blouise,
Let me put it this way: I really doubt that Martin might not have been attacked if he was white because the salient psychology here is Zimmerman being a vigilante cop wannabe.
*****
Haven’t we seen Black men and teens profiled and stopped–and in NYC frisked–by real cops? I’m sure you’ve heard of DWB–Driving While Black.
*****
Driving While Black: Racial Profiling On Our Nation’s Highways
http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/driving-while-black-racial-profiling-our-nations-highways
Excerpt:
DRUG TRAFFICKERS ARE NOT “MOSTLY MINORITIES”
Racial profiling is based on the premise that most drug offenses are committed by minorities. The premise is factually untrue, but it has nonetheless become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because police look for drugs primarily among African Americans and Latinos, they find a disproportionate number of them with contraband. Therefore, more minorities are arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and jailed, thus reinforcing the perception that drug trafficking is primarily a minority activity. This perception creates the profile that results in more stops of minority drivers. At the same time, white drivers receive far less police attention, many of the drug dealers and possessors among them go unapprehended, and the perception that whites commit fewer drug offenses than minorities is perpetuated. And so the cycle continues.
This vicious cycle carries with it profound personal and societal costs. It is both symptomatic and symbolic of larger problems at the intersection of race and the criminal justice system. It results in the persecution of innocent people based on their skin color. It has a corrosive effect on the legitimacy of the entire justice system. It deters people of color from cooperating with the police in criminal investigations. And in the courtroom, it causes jurors of all races and ethnicities to doubt the testimony of police officers when they serve as witnesses, making criminal cases more difficult to win.
*****
White People Stopped By New York Police Are More Likely To Have Guns Or Drugs Than Minorities
By Aviva Shen on May 22, 2013
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/22/2046451/white-people-stopped-by-new-york-police-are-more-likely-to-have-guns-or-drugs-than-minorities/
Excerpt:
During the just-concluded trial on the New York Police Department’s stop-and-frisk program, the city argued that officers’ disproportionate targeting of black and Latino New Yorkers was not due to racial profiling but because each stopped individual was doing something suspicious at the time. The data, however, tells a different story: weapons and drugs were more often found on white New Yorkers during stops than on minorities, according to the Public Advocate’s analysis of the NYPD’s 2012 statistics.
White New Yorkers make up a small minority of stop-and-frisks, which were 84 percent black and Latino residents. Despite this much higher number of minorities deemed suspicious by police, the likelihood that stopping an African American would find a weapon was half the likelihood of finding one on a white person.
• The likelihood a stop of an African American New Yorker yielded a weapon was half that of white New Yorkers stopped. The NYPD uncovered a weapon in one out every 49 stops of white New Yorkers. By contrast, it took the Department 71 stops of Latinos and 93 stops of African Americans to find a weapon.
• The likelihood a stop of an African American New Yorker yielded contraband was one-third less than that of white New Yorkers stopped. The NYPD uncovered contraband in one out every 43 stops of white New Yorkers. By contrast, it took the Department 57 stops of Latinos and 61 stops of African Americans to find contraband.
Blouise,
Let me put it this way: I really doubt that Martin might not have been attacked if he was white because the salient psychology here is Zimmerman being a vigilante cop wannabe. Martin being young, alone and out at night I think would have been sufficient to set Z off. The guy was (and probably still is) an “accident waiting to happen”. Batman is only a hero in comic books. In real life, he’d simply be another dangerous psychopathic psychotic driven by revenge fantasies to take the law into his own hands. Sound familiar?
John Kane:
Interesting post.
But if I were Zimmerman’s lawyers, I would have told him to be emotionless when the verdict was read.
It’s a joke — only women are barred.
Tiger Woods barred from the British Open because of what:
(Tiger Woods Barred From British Open; U.S. Players Stay Silent). I suppose lots of folks, from the reasoning expressed in comments on this and other threads, will say it is not racism because the other Americans are not speaking out against it.
“What racism, we just don’t let blacks in.”
Op-ed from an African American journalist:
Vigilantes’ license to kill
By Derrick Z. Jackson
Globe Columnist
July 17, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/07/16/zimmerman-verdict-exonerates-vigilantes/IrOA3TI7DBD3CIoh98glZI/story.html
Excerpt:
THE EXONERATION of George Zimmerman cemented America as the land of the free and the home of the paranoid. Vigilantism was not merely vetted by a six-woman jury in Sanford, Fla. It was lifted to an exalted status where the overzealous can put themselves above the police with fatal consequences — and no consequence.
What should never be forgotten is the fateful dialogue when Zimmerman, the untrained volunteer neighborhood watchman, called 911 and got out of his car to trail a person he thought was “up to no good or on drugs” in his gated community on the rainy night of Feb. 26, 2012.
“Are you following him?” the dispatcher asked Zimmerman, after telling him that police were on the way.
“Yeah,” Zimmerman responded.
“OK, we don’t need you to do that,” the dispatcher said.
The rest is tragic history, ending in Zimmerman shooting to death 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, who possessed only a bag of Skittles candy and iced tea. What is particularly haunting is that one of the jurors who set Zimmerman free told CNN that Zimmerman’s zealotry lit the powder keg of confrontation.
“He went above and beyond what he really should have done,” the juror said Monday. “. . . I think he’s guilty of not using good judgment. When he was in the car and he called 911, he shouldn’t have gotten out of that car.”
No matter, the jury focused only on the actual confrontation, and Zimmerman became the most stark symbol yet of a United States where gun possession is nine-tenths of the law, since the dead can bear no witness. It was the perfect storm of stereotypes colliding into the most insane gun laws in the developed world. Zimmerman, a light-skinned man of Hispanic background, got a nearly all-white jury, and his defense team convinced it to look past his initial bad judgment and obvious racial profiling that night. Before the trial, local police and state prosecutors botched the case. Florida’s “stand your ground” self-defense laws, which give gun owners great leeway to use lethal force against threats, delayed Zimmerman’s arrest and the gathering of evidence.
Zimmerman so believed in his story that he said in an interview that the events of Feb. 26 were “God’s plan.”
Surely God did not plan this for the United States. How many more perfect storms do we want to invite, with guns striking like lightning in school massacres and in the daily murders in big cities?…
The greatest irony was that in the aftermath of the Zimmerman verdict, law enforcement and the media were on the watch for violence from black communities.
The daily violence continues in all communities. It’s fueled by paranoia, and the new feeling of entitlement among gun owners, who seem to have stretched the meaning of “stand your ground” into “stalk your prey.”
There will be another George Zimmerman. The only question is when.
Gene,
You’re a white male….. How could you understand…. That’s what I’m hearing…. You’re elistst because you’re a white male…..
Zimmerman may or may not have gotten off because of race….. But, it sound like you’re being baited…..
This commentary from Martin Bashir is reminiscent of the some of the opinions presented on this blog. Some of which, unfortunately, they’ve decided to call it quits.
This blog is appropriately named as every time Prof. Turley posts about the Trayvon Martin murder I agree: the thing speaks for itself.
For example, the reference to Piers Morgan as “a cultural anthropologist” is comical. Piers Morgan is clearly an upper crust Brit. (Hint: you can tell from his accent. Does this now make me too a ‘cultural anthropologist?’) As an upper crust Brit, he’s probably not all that familiar with the blend of English that Rachel Jeantel spoke. And to deride his line of questioning about the topic of language in the way Turley does is sad. Piers was definitely asking in a gentle and respectful tone, simply to learn something and maybe educate a few of his viewers. But for Turley it now becomes a point to mock Piers Morgan on.
Turley is also way behind the curve on juror B37, and his analysis clearly does not go far enough. For starters, even my 20 year old college-student nephew pointed out the obvious about juror B37. How is it she got a book deal and had the idea of a book deal within 48 hours of the verdict being announced? It’s highly probable she had the idea for the book during voir dire or even before. If you watch this woman’s voir dire, she’s EAGER to get on the jury. She talks in very neutral ways that are unbelievable for most people. She even volunteers information about her husband, that he’s ready to take care of her animals and her 2 daughters so there will be no worries if she’s sequestered for a long period of time. She also points out her job will pay her for the time off so there will be no financial burden. Her answers were nondescript to the point of being ridiculous. The guess of many is that as soon as she and her husband learned that she was being questioned to be a potential juror for the Trayvon Martin case that she and her husband had dollar signs in their eyes from the get go.
Read more here. There’s also a link inside to her voir dire: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/07/zimmerman_trial_juror_b37_why_did_prosecutors_let_her_on_the_trayvon_martin.html
Also worth noting is that B37’s husband is a lawyer in the Sanford community. Does he know the defense team? Does he know Frank Taaffe, Zimmerman’s naighbor and friend and media whore? Is B37’s husband connected with the people in this case other than his wife who sat on the jury? How is it Frank Taaffe knew that it was 5 to 1 in negotiations at one point? Was B37 leaking information to her husband who in turn leaked it to the defense team? Is anyone else surprised by the way George Zimmerman DIDN’T react when he was announced as not guilty? he was facing 30 years in jail and he just looked blankly after the announcement. Did he know before the announcement?
This blog is appropriately named as every time Prof. Turley posts about the Trayvon Martin murder I agree: the thing speaks for itself.
For example, the reference to Piers Morgan as “a cultural anthropologist” is comical. Piers Morgan is clearly an upper crust Brit. (Hint: you can tell from his accent. Does this now make me too a ‘cultural anthropologist?’) As an upper crust Brit, he’s probably not all that familiar with the blend of English that Rachel Jeantel spoke. And to deride his line of questioning about the topic of language in the way Turley does is sad. Piers was definitely asking in a gentle and respectful tone, simply to learn something and maybe educate a few of his viewers. But for Turley it now becomes a point to mock Piers Morgan on.
Turley is also way behind the curve on juror B37, and his analysis clearly does not go far enough. For starters, even my 20 year old college-student nephew pointed out the obvious about juror B37. How is it she got a book deal and had the idea of a book deal within 48 hours of the verdict being announced? It’s highly probable she had the idea for the book during voir dire or even before. If you watch this woman’s voir dire, she’s EAGER to get on the jury. She talks in very neutral ways that are unbelievable for most people. She even volunteers information about her husband, that he’s ready to take care of her animals and her 2 daughters so there will be no worries if she’s sequestered for a long period of time. She also points out her job will pay her for the time off so there will be no financial burden. Her answers were nondescript to the point of being ridiculous. The guess of many is that as soon as she and her husband learned that she was being questioned to be a potential juror for the Trayvon Martin case that she and her husband had dollar signs in their eyes from the get go.
Read more here. There’s also a link inside to her voir dire: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/07/zimmerman_trial_juror_b37_why_did_prosecutors_let_her_on_the_trayvon_martin.html
Also worth noting is that B37’s husband is a lawyer in the Sanford community. Does he know the defense team? Does he know Frank Taaffe, Zimmerman’s naighbor and friend and media whore? Is B37’s husband connected with the people in this case other than his wife who sat on the jury? How is it Frank Taaffe knew that it was 5 to 1 in negotiations at one point? Was B37 leaking information to her husband who in turn leaked it to the defense team? Is anyone else surprised by the way George Zimmerman DIDN’T react when he was announced as not guilty? he was facing 30 years in jail and he just looked blankly after the announcement. Did he know before the announcement?
Elaine,
You know … after reading that article … juror B37’s coming out party may just have given the Prosecution a really big problem.
Good night dear
Gene,
The hypotheticals originated with you as a justification for elitism -v- racism. I simply suggested that if your hypothetical Matin were white, my hypothetical Zimmerman wouldn’t have followed him racism-v-elitism.
And speaking of regression, I hear a pillow calling me to regress into unconsciousness.
Good night, Blouise.