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
Gene,
What’s the point in my responding to you? You’ll just read things into my comments that I never said.
Elaine,
Sure … that way when I’m asked to think like an idiot, I’ll know how to do it.
(Oh man, I’m going to get in trouble for that one!!)
Gene,
“only” was not a strawman as your own words prove
Blouise,
Let’s face it–you and I can’t exhibit the same degree of logical skill as others here who have been trained in the art of logic. I just found a book on Amazon.com. that I think will help us. Would you like me to order one for you, too?
http://www.amazon.com/Logic-For-Dummies-Mark-Zegarelli/dp/0471799416/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
Gene,
And yet another adjustment to refine the hypothetical: “that is not unreasonable and goes to the point that initial preferential treatment was not based on the race of the victim, but rather on the connections of the perp’s father. Elitism, not racism.”
Or maybe you were implying something you hadn’t intended.
Gene,
I wasn’t suggesting that my comments should not be subject to scrutiny. You’re inferring something from my comment that I never implied.
Straw man, Blouise.
I never used the word “only”.
And I don’t expect someone without training to exhibit the same degree of logical skill as someone with training. If that presents a problem, it’s not my problem.
Gene,
Reasonable or unreasonable isn’t the point … it isn’t real … it’s your hypothetical.
Martin’s race is inconvenient to the stance that only elitism was at play here so the hypothetical was introduced to remove the inconvenience. But once statistics were offered to suggest that Zimmerman would have acted differently were Martin white, those statistics become, like Martin’s actual race, inconvenient.
Next you’ll be telling us that your hypothetical would be more easily understood by us if we were trained logicians.
And they, like everyone’s opinion in this forum, are subject to scrutiny. If such scrutiny offends, the offense is yours to take, but it indicates to me the marketplace of ideas is functioning as it is supposed to if someone is offended.
There are no guidelines other than those laid out by our host.
Gene,
As you know, I’m not a lawyer. I’m not an expert on the law. I express my opinion as I see fit…and not according to some guidelines set down by someone else for me.
Really, Gene? Is this going to be like to the Paula Deen thread…as Blouise just said?
Really, Elaine? Because it sounds to me like you are since you are discussing a homicide case in Florida and the context of intent as it relates to motive.
Blouise,
“You then invite us to accept your hypothetical that the wannabe would have followed and confronted the white guy.”
Given the vigilante psyche, that is not unreasonable and goes to the point that initial preferential treatment was not based on the race of the victim, but rather on the connections of the perp’s father. Elitism, not racism. That is far more troubling to my eye than any racial component played up in this case (none of which was relevant as Z wasn’t charged with capital murder) as it was elitism – not racism – that almost got Z a walk on all charges.
Gene,
I haven’t been talking about criminal charges and Florida law.
Elaine,
Saying race doesn’t factor into the this case from a legal perspective and saying Z is definitively racist in his motivation are not the same thing and as I pointed out to Blouise, motive only factors into homicide charges in deciding if the charge should be capital murder or in the 2nd degree. The straw man comes in with this statement – “A lone, non-state actor can be a racist and act on his biases and perceptions/mis-perceptions of people.” – when I never said Z wasn’t racist. You are refuting a point I never made. That makes it a straw man, even if inadvertently so (which I will fully accept as stipulation, not all fallacies – and especially straw men – are intentional). My point was very narrow and to the actions around Z’s initial preferential treatment being as salient (if not more so) than any matter of race. Race will factor in to any forthcoming DOJ civil rights violation(s) case, but to the homicide charge unless it is shown to be motive for charging with capital murder, it is irrelevant to a homicide charge of any other degree. Only capital murder has a mens rea component. All other homicide charges rest on actus reus. For example, true motive need not be known to prove depraved indifference manslaughter (2nd degree under Florida laws) as depraved indifference can be proven by the facts of the action independent of knowing actual motive. The same goes for the lesser charge of negligent homicides such as vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. The intoxication is considered prime facie evidence of negligence, no evidence of mens rea is required. That’s the primary dividing line in how murder is charged in this country: intent (motive) and planning versus every other situation merits the maximum charge and penalty (which may include death).
Gene,
By your own definition Zimmerman is a wannabe. By your own hypothetical Martin is white. You then invite us to accept your hypothetical that the wannabe would have followed and confronted the white guy.
When confronted with some actual statistics and facts that whites make up a small minority of stop-and-frisks which are 84% non-white and that the cops contend this disparity is not due to racial profiling but because each stopped individual was doing something suspicious at the time (similar to what the non-hypothetical wannabe claimed), your response is … perhaps, but my wannabe isn’t part of the systemic racism practised by actual cops.
It’s your hypothetical to adjust as you see fit and it is within that framework that the Paula Deen thread becomes relative.
bettykath,
Glad you’re still with us.
Dredd,
You have to read the whole article to find out that only women are barred….. Which is still an atrocity…..
Gene,
What has preferential treatment and political connections got to do with what I said? I wasn’t attempting to do what you have accused me of doing. I was confused by your response to my comment. What is my straw man?
I thought that you had said earlier on this thread that you believed that race didn’t factor into this case. (Did I get that wrong? If so, please correct me.) I have to wonder how anyone can be sure that race was not a factor if Zimmerman could, in fact, be a racist. If Zimmerman is a racist…then racism could have factored into his actions that night.