Rachel Jeantel: Court Antics and How Martin Profiled Zimmerman

Rachel Jeantel was a train wreck as a witness. She did not help the state's case. She exposed the manipulations of Team Crump. She was impeached on a few significant matters (see below the fold.) And she admitted multiple lies. It was cringe-worthy but you couldn't take your eyes off it.

Most strikingly, she made Trayvon Martin out to be the profiler of Zimmerman. She said (on direct exam no less by the prosecutor) that shortly after first spotting Zimmerman, Martin described Zimmerman to her as a "Creepy-A*s Cracker" and later, described Zimmerman a few times as "this ni*ga" (as in this ni*ga following him.) The two minute clip above is of Rachel and the prosecutor repeating creepy a*s cracker over and over as the court reporter struggles to make out what she's saying; Rachel explaining that creepy as* cracker means a white person; and then expressing concern the creepy guy might be a rapist.

At her deposition, she couldn't identify Trayvon as the person crying out for help. Today, she tried to deny it, but when impeached with the transcript, admitted she told the defense, "It could be, like I said, I don't know. He has a baby voice some days, you know it's not." (Added: This friend of Trayvon Martin says he had a deep voice. " I remember those nights where I use to wait for him to call. I loved his deep voice."

Her answer to why she didn't tell the police about her being the last one to speak with Trayvon was laugh-out loud funny: "They said they got the guy, I thought they were supposed to call me." [More...]

She doesn't watch the news, she had no idea Trayvon really died until Tuesday, when a friend sent her a text of an article mentioning his name. Until then, she thought the rumors at school were just rumors. She didn't know as of March 18 when Tracy Martin first called her that GZ had not been arrested. She didn't know about any protests or media coverage because she doesn't watch the news (only occasionally the weather.)

She admitted lying about the hospital and said she didn't go to the wake or funeral because she doesn't like bodies. Instead, she had her friends text her from it and they "texted her like crazy." But no one mentioned Zimmerman had not been arrested.

She admitted lying to Sybrina Fulton, Benjamin Crump and the prosecutor (under oath) about her age, telling them she was 16 and a minor because she thought she'd have more privacy.

She had little interest in helping the Martins. When Sybrina Fulton first asked her to speak to Crump, Fulton asked to speak to her mother. Her mother was out of the country, so Rachel called her on her cell phone and asked her to say no to the interview. But when she got Sybrina on a three-way call, her mother said yes. So she felt she had to do it.

Her recitation of events during the shooting was almost identical to her version to the prosecutor. It seemed memorized, she even used the same word choices in multiple places. While she denied listening to her taped interviews with Crump or the prosecutor (at least not the whole thing), her story on direct was almost a total match.

As to Crump's interview of her, she said she didn't take it seriously. She agreed with West that she was told to repeat things to get things the way they wanted them. She was in shock when she heard he released her statements publicly at a press conference. He had told her only the parents and Crump would be there. (No wonder Crump switched the interview at the last moment from in-person to phone: he didn't have to tell her the national media was there recording her.)

She said another reason for trying to rush the Crump interview was because she had been closed off in a closet at her house during the call, and she'd had enough of the closet.

She never dated Trayvon Martin and said he had another girlfriend. She and Trayvon didn't go to the same school. The "Romeo and Juliet" affair described by Crump never happened: She had been telephone friends with him for about 3 weeks before the shooting. (Although she first met him in second grade (not kindergarten like she told the prosecutor) they had only recently reconnected.

She seemed to take offense at the suggestion that Sybrina Fulton might know her mother. No one suggested that, she misunderstood, but her response was an angry "She don't know that. She doesn't know my mother."

She didn't want to talk much to Tracy Martin because she didn't know him around that time.

She's belligerent, she thinks she's "the boss" and can run the show. I don't know how Don West kept a straight face when, after denying something a few times and then agreeing West was right and she was wrong, she started yelling at him, "You can go, you can go, you can go" as if giving him permission to continue asking questions. West was dumfounded by her behavior, which made her keep yelling "you can go, you can go now.) Tracy Martin put his head in his hands at that. (At one point later, Mr. Martin was laughing as if in disbelief of her antics.)West patiently explained to her that sometimes his brain requires a few moments to formulate a question.

Then there were her loud and impatient "Yes"'s when Don West was reading the times of the phone calls between her and Martin as if she couldn't be more bored.

She has quite a sense of self-entitlement. In a very funny segment, she castigates West for rescheduling her second deposition so that he could take Martin's brother's deposition instead. Both had been scheduled for a Friday. She pointed out that each took four hours and the Friday hours should have been her hours, not Trayvon's brother's hours.

At the end, there was her petulant insistence that she wasn't coming back for more. When Don West suggested coming back tomorrow and he might have a few hours of questions left, she yelled out "What?" and said "No. "I'm leaving today." She'll be back tomorrow, she didn't say a word when the judge ordered her to return.

The Judge ordered her not to discuss the case with lawyers tonight, including lawyers for the state.

She's now impeached on several areas, especially GZ's response to TM after TM confronted GZ and asked him, "What are you following me for?" I'm so glad West brought this out, see my post here. Her first answer to Crump was that GZ responded with "What are you talking about" not "What are you doing around here." (Audio clip here.)Crump, immediately realizing that this was different than what she had told Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton, stopped her and told her she had said something different to the Martins, and asked her to start over. She began again, and told it the Crump and Martin way.

She is 19 and in the 12th grade. Last year, she tweeted she failed the f-Cats. Why does her FB page say she graduated from Norland High School and is studying criminal justice at Miami Univ. (in Ohio, no less)? She is not a recent immigrant. Her family originally emigrated from Haiti and the Dominican Republic, but she's known Trayvon since the second grade (she told the prosecutor in her April interview, she knew him since kindergarten.)

As for what some may take as feisty response to West, "You listening to me?" that's absurd. She was continuing to deny having changed her version of GZ's response to Tryavon initially confronting Zimmerman and asking him "What are are you following me for?" She kept up the denial, claiming he wasn't listening to her, until confronted with the transcript and the tape was about to be played. (The state objected to the playing of the tape, possibly arguing it wasn't listed as evidence). After reading the transcript, she finally admitted she had changed her version at the urging of Crump, but said she had just been mixed up because she rushed through Crump's interview and didn't think carefully about what she was saying. She said she didn't treat Crump's interview seriously and didn't care about it.

She had every excuse on the book for not coming forward after Feb. 26. She said she didn't think anything other than a fight had taken place and figured someone in the complex would come help him. At another point, she mentions that during one of her phone calls with Trayvon the night he was shot, she put her phone in her pocket and went in the bathroom to start fixing her hair for school the next day. She had the bathroom door closed and was using bluetooth. She's quite a fan of bluetooth and three-way phone calls. She claimed some of her calls with Martin the last day were three-way calls with another person, and that her mother to allow her interview during a three-way call with Sybrina and her mother during which she put down the phone for a few minutes, and when she picked it up again, her mother had already agreed.

She also said some of her hundreds and hundreds of texts to Martin were not made by her, but someone pretending to be her while using her phone. In the next sentence, she said maybe there were two or three such texts.)

She showed little sympathy for the Martins. It was all about what she finds uncomfortable, not them. She doesn't like to see people cry, so she didn't want to be around her at the wake or funeral. She said a few times she's not an emotional person. Yet at one point, she used a tissue to dab her eyes. What had she been discussing at that point? How she doesn't like dead bodies.

She also contradicted herself in places. She said during her last phone call with Martin, a fight had broken out. Other times she said she heard nothing but wet grass moving and Martin's earpiece falling out after Trayvon confronted Zimmerman and he responded. She never "heard" a fight or even fighting words.

She describes how Martin was "right by his father's house" after he lost Zimmerman, and refused to run home. I think he had plenty of time to go home, he obviously chose not to, and as the defense says, he either walked back up to the T or hid near the T.

I watched it all live, and recorded almost all of it. I may try to make some short clips of her most petulant and ridiculous antics and post them, but I have trouble with "trimming" videos and usually end up trimming the part I'm trying to save.

< Zimmerman Trial: Rachael Jeantel Testifies | Senate to Vote on Immigration Reform Bill >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Ouch (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by chaking on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 09:52:51 PM EST
    As to Crump's interview of her, she didn't take it seriously. She agreed with West that she was told to repeat things to get things the way they wanted them.

    It seems like her credibility is a bit shot to say the least.  I'm not seeing where there's really any credible witness for the prosecution as of yet.  It seems it's all about seeing things in the dark, making inferences, changing stories, forgetting things and being influenced by outside pressure.

    I watched every minute of her (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by Teresa on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 10:05:01 PM EST
    testimony and I have no memory of hearing that! I'd make a terrible juror. I wonder if the jury would even notice since reporters say the jurors were saying they couldn't hear and/or understand her.

    Here (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by chaking on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 10:13:56 PM EST
    I think this is the part being referenced

    She was continuing to deny having changed her version of GZ's response to Tryavon initially confronting Zimmerman and asking him "What are are you following me for?" She kept up the denial, claiming he wasn't listening to her, until confronted with the transcript and the tape was about to be played. (The state objected to the playing of the tape, possibly arguing it wasn't listed as evidence). After reading the transcript, she finally admitted she had changed her version at the urging of Crump, but said she had just been mixed up because she rushed through Crump's interview and didn't think carefully about what she was saying. She said she didn't treat Crump's interview seriously and didn't care about it.

    Thank you chaking. (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by Teresa on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 10:46:02 PM EST
    I still don't remember it. I think witnesses should get transcripts. I know they can ask to have something read back, but they don't get transcripts, do they?

    That would give a jury a better chance of getting things right, I'd think.


    Jury may request a "read-back": (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 11:00:13 PM EST
    May request but doesn't (none / 0) (#22)
    by Teresa on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 11:12:24 PM EST
    have to be read back?? What's the reasoning for not allowing transcripts? It seems to me it would improve our justice system.

    I don't like allowing judges to have leeway in whether or not they allow read backs. I'd hate for someone's life to depend on my memory!


    The reason the judge gave us jurors (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 06:23:33 AM EST
    in a recent trial I was on is that they need to make sure we are all hearing the same testimony at the same time, which would not happen if we had a transcript in the jury room.

    I didn't hear this either (none / 0) (#8)
    by SuzieTampa on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 10:06:54 PM EST
    She agreed with West that she was told to repeat things to get things the way they wanted them.

    he made the statement and she (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 10:27:59 PM EST
    agreed with it.

    Not doubting you at all J (none / 0) (#14)
    by Teresa on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 10:38:33 PM EST
    I'm just referencing my memory and I'm sure Suzie is, too. It must be frustrating for attorneys to know "jurors" like us don't even hear something important. And I swear I was paying close attention.

    Summation/closing (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by f2000 on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 02:39:13 AM EST
    presents them a grand opportunity to point those possibly missed issues out.

    those are the same problems with (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 10:26:21 PM EST
    eye-witness evidence and why faulty eyewitness identification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions in this country. The witnesses aren't lying (usually) but they are mistaken.

    Reasons: Pooling memories (sharing a recollection of something you witnessed or experienced with someone else who was there),  merging memories (where the witness blends memories of two different experiences into one, or mentally borrows from a different experience); malleability of a witness' memory (when the interviewer, by some word or act, reinforces the memory of the  witness, boosting his  confidence in it, which jurors often take as a sign the memory is accurate ); false certainty(where, for example, the media caused the identification and the witness is certain because he keeps getting feedback reinforcement in memory);

    Post-event information is information that is learned after an event takes place that is then integrated into the memory of the event. After integration takes place, it generally is not possible  to disentangle information which came from the event itself and information which was learned and became integrated later on.  To the degree that the post-event information is false, this would cause the ultimate memory to become more inaccurate.  

    Examples of post-event information include media reports, leading questions, overhearing other witnesses talking about or having conversation with other witnesses, etc


    DNA evidence has proved conclusively (none / 0) (#18)
    by Payaso on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 10:53:48 PM EST
    that eyewitness testimony is unreliable.

    It is at its least reliable when the witness is asked to identify strangers or when they are asked to recount details of sudden stressful incidents like fights and robberies.


    Maleability (none / 0) (#19)
    by Cylinder on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 10:58:10 PM EST
    Malleability was front-and-center today if you watched Ms. Manalo struggle in her own mind to separate what she adopted as helpful from what she actually saw. O'Mara drew her genuine uncertainty out so well - not by confusing her but by informing her memory. I truly felt bad for her and that's an unlikely reaction for me for anyone I suspect of juicing testimony in a life felony.

    Her testimony really struck me. She really was struggling with herself to do the right thing and she did it.

    All in my layperson opinion, of course.


    She struck me (none / 0) (#23)
    by Redbrow on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 11:17:41 PM EST
    as someone who bought the media disinformation campaign hook, line and sinker. She seems to have truly felt Zimmerman was this evil monster who brutally hunted down a liitle boy like a dog and was able to justify a less than honest testimony in order to serve what she honestly believed to be the greater good IMHO. When presented with actual facts her whole world view seemed to be shaken.

    At least she seemed able to reasses her viewpoint unlike a lot of people who stick to their original viewpoint and continue on in willful ignorance of the truth when presented with conflicting facts.


    zimmerman height (none / 0) (#35)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 05:05:27 AM EST
    well, gz is 5'7" and Tm is/was 5'11".  TM was significantly and obviously taller . . .  manalo could well be correct that the larger individual was on top.  I am puzzled as to why West did not bring up the 2 heights of these people to her attention, and ask, in light of the 4 inches that TM was taller than Z, why would you not say that it was him who was on top?

    height... (none / 0) (#62)
    by CuriousInAz on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 09:35:48 AM EST
    While the ME has TM at 5'11" on the slab,  the 7/11 clerk is 5'10"....in the 7-11 video does TM look to be JUST ONE inch taller than the 5'10" clerk?

    TM and clerk height (none / 0) (#163)
    by Char Char Binks on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 11:24:35 PM EST
    The soles of their shoes could have been of different thicknesses, and the hoodie probably made TM seem taller.  TM was also measured during rigor mortis, so and bend of his knee or twist of his spine could have shortened him a bit.

    bend of knee (none / 0) (#165)
    by Char Char Binks on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 11:38:06 PM EST
    "any", not "and".

    Thoroughly vetted "witnesses" would... (none / 0) (#34)
    by heidelja on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 04:46:12 AM EST
    ...prevent what is going on in Florida from happening. However, it DOES happen!

    How should the state prosecutors (Or just a family lawyer?) be disciplined, as they rightly should be for facilitating this to happen? It seems as they go protected to always live another day. Lester's view in Court RE: Shelly Zimmerman's "lying" comes to my mind here.


    repeat things to get things the way they wanted (4.00 / 3) (#24)
    by lily on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 11:25:29 PM EST
    ahh the Crump coaching thing. I recall taking a lot of grief here for pointing this out after hearing the interview.

    Excellent post Jeralyn, I was hanging on my seat laughing out loud and SMH with amazement. I have to wonder if she is just a pawn in the Scheme.
    Tracy tweeted from the courtroom during the time he was laughing at her bossing West around.

    She is clearly a troubled kid, and there is evidence that will come out soon about why she and Trayvon reconnected Feb 1.

    Tomorrow we will likely learn more of the conflicts in her interview with Crump and the deposition with West.

    The list of misinformation, fabrications, lies and distortions in this case grows day by day.

    Twitter is alive with Trayvon supporters heaping hate on Rachel, kinda worrisome. I think she was fed a script, did not want any part of it, is a kid with behavior issues and speech problems.

    At this point all the state's witness have been boon for the defense, as O'Mara told Anderson Cooper the other night "If he has to make a case".

    This is going from bad to worse and suspect tomorrow will be another disaster for the prosecution, hopefully Corey will see Rachel as her escape hatch, and end this injustice against an innocent man who defended his life when no one would come to his aid despite the intensity of his screams.

    I thought it masterful when West got the crime scene tech to identify all the lumps and knots on GZ head in addition to the broken nose and laceration caused from blunt force trauma. But what did we see in the headlines, defense starts trial off with a bad joke.  

    I thought the joke was brilliant, as was his summation in the Fyre hearing.

    It is unclear how much of the back story in this case will continue to drip out but I suspect West and O'Mara will be able to write one of hell of a good read.


    Where did rapist come from? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Redbrow on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 10:05:41 PM EST
    She never mentioned this before. I have seen this mentioned on some extremist pro-Trayvon sites as a hypothetical justification for Trayvon's attack and it makes me wonder if this is where she got the inspiration to add it to her tale.

    On an unrelated note, where is Trayvon's brother? He was always in the media with his mother and Tracy on their publicity and money raising campaign, even going to England together. I have not seen or heard from him in a while and I am surprised to see him absent from the main event.

    Rapist (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Char Char Binks on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 11:37:07 PM EST
    Does anyone seriously think that TM could have been afraid that GZ was going to rape him?  If he did say that GZ was possibly a rapist, it seems more likely that it was said to justify the beat down TM was about to deliver as punishment, rather than self defense.  It was completely in line with the other dehumanizing terms used to describe the "creepy-azz cracker", with "creepy" being more offensive than "cracker' to my mind, because it implies criminal sexual deviancy, and paints him as someone not deserving full human dignity, someone it would justified to assault.

    she says it right after the (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 12:16:32 AM EST
    creepy As* cracker comment. I just uploaded a 2 minute clip with both here.

    Trayvon's Brother (none / 0) (#153)
    by RickyJim on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 07:19:35 AM EST
    Jhavieras(?) Fulton has been in court sitting behind Tracey and Sybrina, perhaps not everyday.  

    The prosecution's credibility might suffer (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Babel 17 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 11:04:46 PM EST
    I'm thinking that the prosecution might have felt compelled to call Ms. Jeantel but if the jury views her testimony with a lot of suspicion it might not be such a leap for them to wonder how big a hand in her testimony the prosecution had.

    From there they might start considering other evidence as being suspect if it was filtered through the prosecution.

    I'm really wondering at the decision to have her testify.

    Nooooooooooo!!!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by cazinger on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 12:47:54 AM EST
    Why does her FB page say she graduated from Norland High School and is studying criminal justice at Miami Univ. (in Ohio, no less)?

    She can NOT be going to Miami University (in Ohio).  That is MY alma mater.  They are supposed to be selective!!! >:(

    Still in high school (none / 0) (#41)
    by rickroberts on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 06:15:33 AM EST
     She testified that she will be a senior in the fall.

    All Star Game (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by trock1975 on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 07:17:52 AM EST
    They've always mentioned the All Star game, and framed the events around it. The All Star game wouldn't have started until after Martin had been pronounced dead. The other activities for the All Star game (dunk contest, 3 point shooting contest, rookie vs sophomore game) took place the day before. So I've never understood why it's been mentioned and I've always found that odd. It started at 8:00 on the east coast

    zimmerman (none / 0) (#70)
    by morphic on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:37:00 AM EST
      From today's testimony, Trayvon would have had to have been near the mail thing for 18 minutes to make the timeline and phone call work. Now, why would he spend 18 minutes at the mail thing, since it was so near his home?

    but what you think (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 11:35:10 AM EST
    doesn't matter.  What GZ thought at the time is what matters.  He thought his life was in danger and that is what the law is based on.
    He carries his gun because he carries his gun and he calls 911 because he take his neighborhood watch duties very seriously. Those would not be my choices.  However they don't mean he deserves a beating.  If I ever meet you and decide you are a jerk perhaps you won't mind if I kick your ass?


    It wasn't (none / 0) (#116)
    by John Shaft on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 04:00:31 PM EST
    G.Zimmerman's fear of being beaten to death that made him shoot T.Martin. It was his fear of being
    shot. He said so when he apologized to the Martins:

    "I am sorry for the loss of your son. I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. I did not know if he was armed or not," Zimmerman said addressing Martin's family directly.

    So, in his own words the fear of being shot is what prompted his SYG defense - well that fear was unfounded because T.Martin was unarmed.
    Now, the defense is saying T.Martin was armed w/ the concrete sidewalk. I find that a really big stretch.


    SYG had nothing... (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by unitron on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 08:36:34 PM EST
    ...repeat, nothing,


    to do with this case.

    Because the SYG clause and the immunity clause are both (entirely separate) parts of Fla. 776--Justifiable Use of Force law, people entirely other than Zimmerman conflated the two well before that February Sunday night.

    But it was the immunity portion, not the SYG portion, that initially left the police legally unable to arrest him because they didn't have enough right away to counter a self-defense claim.


    Do you think (none / 0) (#119)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 04:06:35 PM EST
    Zimmerman knew, at the time he was having his head beaten in, that Martin was unarmed?

    Aren't you playing Monday morning quarterback here?


    "At the time he was having his ... (none / 0) (#129)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 05:08:49 PM EST
    ... head beaten in"?!?  When was that?

    The same medical report that disproved your claim about GZ weighing "about 10 lbs. more" than TM also disproves the claim that he was "having his head beaten in".  His head was described as "Normocephalic (normal condition and without significant abnormalities), atraumatic (without injury or damage)" with two, shallow lacerations requiring no stitches - about 3/4 and 1/5 of an inch (2cm and .5 cm) each.


    I am in awe that you wade into this, this, (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 05:12:41 PM EST
    this....dog fight?  I'm just reading, in awe sometimes :)

    Then I guess (none / 0) (#133)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 05:17:20 PM EST
    the ET committed perjury about his injuries and the amount of blood that was on him.

    You might want to contact the court.  That's pretty serious.


    Contact the court? (none / 0) (#134)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 05:49:33 PM EST
    To rebut your claims?  Why bother?  He never said Zimmerman was "having his head beaten in."  That was all you.

    The EMT testified that there was blood on a good portion of his head (@ 45%), the bleeding had stopped by the time they got there, and they cleaned him up with hydrogen peroxide.  Head injuries bleed profusely because the head has many capillaries near the surface.  Even minor injuries (like cuts 3/4 and 1/5 of an inch that stop bleeding without stitches or even a bandaid) can bleed a lot.  His testimony seems entirely accurate (45% estimate aside) and truthful.


    Time to (none / 0) (#135)
    by John Shaft on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 05:55:51 PM EST
    end this because Jeralyn is going to get mad.
    What you are speaking of is a bond hearing for G.Zimmerman & a member of the ambulance crew that testified. This was months after the incident.

    And, I am saying read carefully, the first report filed by the EMT (Brandy) who attended to G.Zimmerman shortly after T.Martin was killed.
    And, I stand by the fact that G.Zimmerman did not require one band aid for his beaten head or body.


    And I say (none / 0) (#136)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 06:08:28 PM EST
    Let's have a stranger slam your head into concrete, and despite whatever injuries eventually result, let's see what frame of mind you are in and how you feel.

    My guess is, you won't be thinking, "Oh, I'm not hurt badly.  This guy won't hurt me further."


    Fear of being shot (none / 0) (#168)
    by Char Char Binks on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 12:15:11 AM EST
    GZ feared being shot because TM was reaching for his gun while threatening to kill him.

    I think Rachel is telling the truth. Don West is (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Angel on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 11:56:27 AM EST
    unable to get her to back down on her story, and she's sort of handling him.  I haven't seen any glaring inconsistencies and her explanations so far seem reasonable to me.  I think he's getting bogged down again in his cross and his impatience is showing, especially when he raised his voice.  I do think that her way of communicating and speaking has been a problem from the beginning and that it and has caused some frustrations.  She came out this morning with a pleasant attitude but now that she's been on the stand half a day she's getting tired and it's showing as she is getting that same attitude she did late yesterday afternoon.  I have to wonder if the jury is paying more attention to what she says or her demeanor.  And I wonder what they think about Don West because he seems to be badgering at times.

    The few (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by John Shaft on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 03:04:26 PM EST
    who find her a compelling witness may have more compassion for a person who is obviously, a slow learner - she is nineteen & still in high school. It has now been exposed on national television that she cannot read cursive writing. It is not hard to understand why she has been so resistant to this.
    Also, this idea that T.Martin was profiling G.Zimmerman by calling him a "cracker" is over the top. Listen to how teenagers talk & their metaphors are often laced w/ profanities & slang that older people do not understand.

    She's a young adult, but the teenagers ... (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by melamineinNY on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 04:20:10 PM EST
    I've come in contact with don't talk like that. If they did, and didn't know how or when not to, and no one teaches them it's not okay beyond their own little society, the social fabric will rend. She's a product of her environment and no school should allow anyone to reach 12th grade with her lack of social skills, including being able to read and write cursive. Her manners are atrocious and represent her attitude towards people who have done nothing to deserve it, and that IS a problem no matter how she chooses to act or speak among her friends. Practice makes perfect. I agree however that she's been used as a pawn, a position any witness can end up in through no fault of their own, but I for one cannot make excuses for her antisocial behavior in court and with regard to her responsibilities towards Trayvon's family and investigators, not to mention her seeming pride in DWI.

    Not being able to read or write cursive is common (none / 0) (#138)
    by Towanda on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 06:37:25 PM EST
    now, as non-teachers may not know, as many school districts stopped teaching it years ago.

    A common complaint among college teachers is having to now cut back on length expectations for ye olde "blue book" essays exams in the classroom, as many students simply cannot write swiftly, without cursive. And many also cannot read it, believe me.

    However, having dealt with many thousands of students for decades now, I can attest that there is no correlation between cursive writing and  attitude.  


    The main point (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 09:50:07 AM EST
    Was that she couldn't read the cursive writing of a letter she supposedly wrote, was it not?

    Now I'm confused. (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 10:01:18 AM EST
    I thought it was understood that RJ had a friend who physically write down the words RJ dictated in the letter to TM's mother.

    And the main point was that RJ did not include TM's "cracker" reference in the letter, and that the reason she did not is because the word would be offensive to TM's mother.

    It seemed to me West was laying the groundwork for future conclusions about racial aspects of the incident.



    You're probably right (none / 0) (#149)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 10:20:59 AM EST
    I'm just going off my memory of something I read in a hurry a couple of days ago that said she couldn't read her own letter (implying that she didn't even write it).

    West (none / 0) (#150)
    by Jack203 on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 01:14:30 PM EST
    "It seemed to me West was laying the groundwork for future conclusions about racial aspects of the incident."

    I am holding on to hope that was the reason for West's very long, but unusually nice cross of Rachel.  

    The leading questions mostly into territory that Rachel wanted to be in was even more strange from a novice's opinion.

    Hopefully there was a method to the madness.


    Yes. SIR. has taken on a whole new dimension (none / 0) (#104)
    by melamineinNY on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 12:27:03 PM EST
    of taunting disrespect (eye roles).

    Sir (none / 0) (#166)
    by Char Char Binks on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 11:45:03 PM EST
    In much the way that no one ever says "with all due respect" except ironically.

    I think that West (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 12:07:24 PM EST
    has done a fine job being patient and sympathetic with Rachel Jeantel.  I think his manner has been authentic. I also think he has let himself get bogged down at times and stumped.
     I think the media has been crap.  I can't believe how unrelentingly stupid they are, all jumping on the "me too" band wagon.  I swear 80 percent of them would have no idea what they think if they didn't take their opinion from the person next to them. The worst is the crew of women with

    Tracy was cracking up (3.00 / 2) (#30)
    by lily on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 02:09:30 AM EST
    during two different parts of Rachel's testimony. His was laughing so hard that Sybrina looked  distressed checking to see if anyone noticed. At one point she was shaking her head looking exasperated at him for not controlling himself. So between calling Zimmerman's friend a MoFo and laughing at the star witness for disrespecting Mr West, Tracy Martin reminds us the apple does not fall far from the tree.

    the guy's son is dead (none / 0) (#61)
    by ExcitableBoy on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 09:26:12 AM EST
    I'll cut him some slack on his behavior.

    I cut slack when the family are not (4.00 / 4) (#93)
    by melamineinNY on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 11:45:08 AM EST
    perpetrators of injustice themselves.

    Jeralyn, all of this was my reaction (none / 0) (#3)
    by Towanda on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 09:56:04 PM EST
    too, to the 'tude.

    I worried that I was turned off by her because I have seen all of this too often in the classroom -- so, as it is summer break at last, I wanted to turn off the tv. I'll see all of this again in fall.  

    Sadly, this is why students who are smart enough to succeed end up still in high school at the age of 19. Fortunately, some eventually get it and get back to get the GED.

    Mine too. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by melamineinNY on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 07:22:44 AM EST
    Jeralyn, I heard all the things you heard and saw in her also. Maybe it helps to take measure of her character. It seems too many people have been enabling her self-centeredness and making one excuse after another for what is plain old narcissistic self-absorption. Watching her I felt as though I was being sucked into a dark airless vortex. No, "everyone" her age is not like that, but socio-political enabling doesn't help. Even this judge failed to admonish her.

    immature (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by ExcitableBoy on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 09:40:05 AM EST
    She strikes me as typical of certain immature teenagers who lie easily in order to avoid unpleasant conversations or circumstances. She lied about going to the hospital in order to avoid the wake, she lied about her age to avoid talking to the police, and lied in the sworn interview because she didn't care about it.

    She said she had no idea for weeks, maybe even a month, that it was considered a racial killing and very controversial, which is just ridiculous. She knows she is the most important witness to get her friend's killer convicted; I think she's making a lot of this up and changing testimony to accomplish this.


    Ruffian (none / 0) (#4)
    by Teresa on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 10:02:50 PM EST
    In the last thread you said this witness didn't say anything that made it seem GZ started the fight (which she would if she was obviously going to lie) and I asked you if you see when you were watching the tape if she didn't when she said she heard a bump and then "get off get off". You posted:

    She said heard a bump like TM's headphone (none / 0) (#194)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 08:49:19 PM EST

    dropped against his shoulder. She did not even speculate on what made it happen. Yes, she said he heard Trayvon say 'get off', but she also thinks it was him screaming.  If they establish she thinks it is the same voice screaming that says 'get off', she might have just bolstered GZ's case.
    Seems to me a determined liar could have done better than that

    How would that bolster GZ's case? If Trayvon is saying "get off" wouldn't that mean GZ was on top and had no fear of harm? Plus she thinks the voice is TM, so I'm confused how anyone on the jury would think it helped GZ. I know this should be cleared up tomorrow, but I don't understand.

    Teresa (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by chaking on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 10:08:59 PM EST
    If she thought the screaming that is in contention was TM, but the defense can somehow show it was GZ, then because she said she thought the "get off" was the same as the screaming, it would bolster GZ's defense - I believe that's what was being said.

    Thx- that's exactly what I meant (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 05:52:45 AM EST
    Ok. Like if Witness 6, who had the best (none / 0) (#15)
    by Teresa on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 10:43:48 PM EST
    view and went outside still thinks it was GZ yelling, then it would be GZ saying "get off" IF it's the same voice.

    I guess the prosecution won't call Witness 6 since his version contradicts the others.


    "Get off" -- a closer look (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Blast Freezer on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 12:46:26 AM EST
    I don't know that Trayvon ever did say "get off."  Today, Rachel said "I kinda heard Trayvon say `get off, get off.'"  She "kinda" heard him say that?  Kinda???

    And then, in the deposition with De la Rionda, when asked what she heard, she replied "Like a little 'get off' some stuff."  What does that mean?  A "little" get off, and "some stuff?"  De la Rionda repeats the question three more times in order to get her to express it with more certainty.

    This sounds to me like she has either been coached, or she's trying to tell a story that she knows other people want her to tell.


    This is "kinda" why I think she didn't (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by melamineinNY on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 07:32:10 AM EST
    go to the police or Trayvon's parents in the first place, because what she really heard doesn't support the prosecution of GZ.

    All you have to do... (none / 0) (#25)
    by unitron on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 12:11:49 AM EST
    ...is lightly touch a teenager (male one, anyway) on the shoulder to have them launch into "Get off me, man" mode.

    So it could have been the result of physical contact that did not rise to the level of wrestling around on the ground.


    I think... (none / 0) (#38)
    by heidelja on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 05:37:59 AM EST
    ...the best listeners might have difficulty expressing "figures of speech" heard. In this case you add to it ethnic jargon/slang. Note that West had difficulty understanding her saying/meaning of "laugh about" with regard to her interaction with TM. All the while her voice dipping into incomprehensible tonal ranges which indicates a lose of words or a lose of concentration.

    We're sort of dealing with the differences versus inconsistency issues discussed long ago RE: GZ.

    My point of logic is that she likely heard something, maybe about even what she says she did. However, she lacks credibility for knowing too little about anything else  spoken earlier. Cell phone records show her conversations with TM were nonstop, why else would they have abruptly ended before he was shot other than by "confrontation"?


    Here's what I don't get (none / 0) (#40)
    by rickroberts on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 06:14:39 AM EST
    If Deedee's calls and texts with Tray were near non-stop on the 26th, why did they stop after the shooting (if they in fact did)? And what about the next day on the 27th? Nothing? No worry? No conversations to finish?

    And I still don't get how Tracy Martin could discover a crucial witness and not immediately report her presence to the police.


    Hasn't it previously been suggested... (none / 0) (#52)
    by heidelja on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 07:44:38 AM EST
    ...that the call possibly ended because the earbuds were disconnected? Those that know how this might happen using earbuds might further explain.

    When I think of this testimony and others, Serdyka's certainly, they attempt to explain fleeting observations just as GZ's call moments before has explicitly and unwaveringly captured. We certainly know even with it the difficulty GZ had explaining what happened. I question Serdyka's  testimony because how much could she have done in less than 30 secs after hearing noises outside her closed window from upstairs...she looked out after being disturbed, turned off her light, then opened window to look out again, dialed 911, saw person with flashlight, but since no gunshots are heard on her 911 audio it was connected after the one call that did AND we are further suppose to believe she offers a reliable observation of where GZ walked before the shooting by the state's leading question that ended her testimony.


    Profiling GZ (none / 0) (#6)
    by SuzieTampa on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 10:05:08 PM EST
    When TM saw GZ, he didn't know who GZ was talking to. Nor did he know why GZ was following him, if, indeed, GZ WAS following him. When people talk on the phone, they sometimes look into space, not noticing what or who they are looking at. Similarly, a person can be walking in the same direction as someone else without following them. Or, someone can follow another for a benign reason.

    So, both GZ and TM were suspicious of one another.

    A local TV station in Tampa is showing all the witness testimony live, and I've been watching.

    But GZ admits he was watching Trayvon (none / 0) (#45)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 06:28:27 AM EST
    and at least trying to follow him up to a point.  Why is it 'profiling' for TM to notice that?   I guess you could say GZ fit the profile of someone that is watching someone and reporting them to the police?

    The profile (none / 0) (#64)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 09:47:30 AM EST

    It seems that in TM's mind GZ fit the profile of a "crazy a$$ cracker."

    Perhaps it was racial profiling that prompted TM's behavior resulting in GZ's injuries.



    This has been my feeling too - (none / 0) (#53)
    by melamineinNY on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 07:45:06 AM EST
    mutual misunderstandings, but one person chose to initiate physical aggression and not necessarily out of fear.

    TM profiling (none / 0) (#167)
    by Char Char Binks on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 11:56:20 PM EST
    How do you know TM couldn't hear GZ on the phone?  It seems possible, even probable, that he heard him, and deduced that GZ was talking to the police about him.  We all know what snitches (sometimes) get (but didn't get this time).

    Cell phone call times read in for specific reason? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Raoul on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 10:21:14 PM EST
    Mark Geragos on CNN tonight hinted he was aware of some inside information that the call times are very problematic.  I think he used the word impossible.  

    My guess only... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Teresa on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 10:49:43 PM EST
    The last disconnect time is too close to the first 911 calls for it to be possible for TM to be right by his temporary home. Total wild guess, though.

    That panel gets fired up, don't they?


    As a newbie here... (none / 0) (#29)
    by HammerHead on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 12:56:39 AM EST
    What bothers me about her story is what has ALWAYS bothered me about her story.  It never made any sense.

    Why would Trayvon walk a mile through the rain and then stop and wait in the "mail thing" a few hundred yards from the house?  He's already walked this far.  Why not just go home?

    And, for awhile, when the story was that they were dating, it kind of made sense.  Maybe they wanted some privacy from Chad.


    But I guess they weren't dating now.  And even if they were, that's a perfectly reasonable, innocent explanation, so why not say it on the stand?

    She actually made it worse on the stand when she said Trayvon kept asking her about the status of the All-Star Game.  Well jeez, kid.  If you care so much, why not just go home and look for yourself?  You could be there in less than a minute.

    And that's just the beginning of her "missing time" problems.  Don West started to get into it.  Why did it take him so long to walk a mile?  Why didn't he make it home if he was trying to get there?

    I look forward to hearing him address this tomorrow.

    The Rain (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by rcade on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 08:54:14 AM EST
    You've never been outside during a rain and sought cover as it got worse? Presumably, Martin either stopped at the mailboxes for that reason or to concentrate on his phone conversation.

    Sure I have. (none / 0) (#117)
    by HammerHead on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 04:00:53 PM EST
    Just not when I'm about a minute or two from my house.

    Also (none / 0) (#118)
    by HammerHead on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 04:02:58 PM EST
    It's a lot easier to concentrate in my house than in a "mail thing" as well.  For one thing, it's a lot quieter in my house than a "mail thing" if it's raining outside.

    Do you also have a younger future step-brother (none / 0) (#127)
    by Angel on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 04:51:07 PM EST
    inside the house who might be listening to your phone call with a female friend?  That's probably why Trayvon stayed outside, especially if he thought he had lost the guy who was following him.

    Plenty of privacy (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by ding7777 on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 01:09:42 PM EST
    Chad was watching video games with a head-set on.

    Bathroom/bedroom/garage seems like a better place for privacy than walking in the dark heavy rain.


    We'll never know the answer to that because (none / 0) (#156)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 01:25:13 PM EST
    the only person who could tell us is dead.

    Niether (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by ding7777 on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 01:38:05 PM EST
    Chad (I was playing video games with the head-phones on that night) nor TM's  cousin(we hung out in the garage for phone privacy) is dead.

    It never made sense (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Jack203 on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 09:43:52 PM EST
    And she had weeks to concoct it with the family and scheme team looking to win millions of dollars in lawsuits.

    She is the very definition of a biased witness.  She should have zero credibility to anyone in this country that cares about justice.


    zimmerman (none / 0) (#56)
    by morphic on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 08:42:14 AM EST
       I don't know why West said the 7-11 is a mile away, more or less. It's seven tenths of  mile, and people in the area claim you can walk from there to the townhouse development in about ten minutes.

    Distance (none / 0) (#58)
    by rcade on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 08:57:01 AM EST
    The 7-11 at 1125 Rinehart Road is one mile in walking distance to 2631 Retreat View Circle, the house where Trayvon Martin was living, according to Google.


    If you do the math on that, you'd (none / 0) (#71)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:37:32 AM EST
    have to be walking at approx. 4.2 mph - that's a pretty fast clip, I think.

    Not saying it can't be done...

    At 3 mph, it would take 15 minutes - still a pretty good pace.

    I'm sure it's been walked at all rates of speed, with varying times for standing-around-trying-not-to-get-rained-on-too-hard.


    Believe it or not (none / 0) (#120)
    by HammerHead on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 04:07:29 PM EST
    When I first started thinking about this case, I started using the GPS on my phone for awhile to see how fast I walk.  It's usually right around 3-4 miles an hour.  And Martin was a bit taller than me, so probably faster.  And I imagine I probably move a bit faster when I'm trying to get out of the rain.

    Hello All! (First post) (none / 0) (#31)
    by Aimes on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 02:12:26 AM EST
    Just found this blog, have watched Jeralyn for, well, since Geraldo's old CNBC show, which was AWESOME. Anyway, could someone help clarify something for me? After the dispatcher told GZ to stand down, did he or did he not then ask GZ to go get him the street address? THANK YOU in advance for answers. I will check back and am now getting the posts delivered via email so as to not miss a thing. This is the first intelligent place I've found discussing this and I sure don't want to lose it, lol. ~Aimes~

    Slight nitpick... (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by unitron on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 09:32:47 PM EST
    ...the dispatcher does ask Zimmerman in front of what address his truck is parked, not as an aid to the police to locate Martin, but to nail down a location at which the police can meet up with Zimmerman when they get there.

    He does this after Zimmerman attempts to give directions of where to go and which way to turn--directions that one could not be faulted for finding more confusing than helpful.

    When Zimmerman indicates an inability to attach a nearby address to the truck, the dispatcher suggests the mailboxes, which may or may not have their own street address the way the clubhouse does, but he (the dispatcher) has already gathered that they are right near the entrance by the clubhouse, and therefore would be easy for the police to find.

    So the dispatcher was not irrevocably wedded to the need for a street address, although Zimmerman may have thought it a necessity.


    welcome Aines (none / 0) (#33)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 03:14:46 AM EST
    Welcome to TalkLeft and thanks for remembering Geraldo. Those were great shows.

    here is the transcript from shortly before Sean says we don't need you to do that.

    1:54:26 - Okay, it's on the left-hand side from the clubhouse?
    1:57:62 - No, you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left. Uh, yeah, you go straight in, don't turn and make a left - [2:06:89] sh*t, he's running. [in real time this is at 7:11:41 PM].
    2:08:82 - He's running? Which way is he running? [truck door opens, door open chime/alarm]
    2:10:24 - Uh [grunts while exiting truck] down towards the other entrance of the neighborhood [door closes].
    2:14:33 - Okay and which entrance is that he's heading towards?
    2:17:17 - The back entrance [splashes through puddled water in gutter/wind noise]. F*cking punks! [or 'pud'ls'].
    2:22:79 - Are you following him?
    2:24:98 - Yeah.
    2:25:20 - Okay, we don't need you to do that.
    2:27:75 - Okay. [wind noise continues / there is no heavy breathing / he is walking, not running]. [faint
    (distant?) tap at 2:33:01].
    2:33:88 - All right, sir, and what is your name?
    2:36:22 - George - he ran.
    2:39:93 - All right, George, what's your last name?
    2:41:98 - [two sharp metallic taps] Zimmerman. [wind noise disappears for remainder of call]
    2:44:10 - And George, what's the phone number you're calling from?
    2:45:92 - [three quick taps] Four-oh-seven, four-three-five, two-four-zero-zero [one tap].
    2:52:63 - Okay, George, we do have em on the way. Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?
    2:56:43 - Yeah.
    2:57:16 - All right, where are you going to meet with them at?
    2:59:35 - [one tap] Um, if they come in through the, uh, gate [four light taps] tell them to go straight past the clubhouse [four loud taps] and, uh, [sign or post being jostled by breeze] straight past the clubhouse and make a left. And then they go past the mailboxes, n' they'll see my truck.
    3:18:39 - [crosstalk: unintelligible] Okay, what-what address are you parked in front of?
    3:21:60 - [mild tap] Um, I don't know. It's a cut-through so I don't know the address.
    3:26:13 - Okay, do you live in the area?

    3:28:31 - Yeah, yeah, [cross talk: I've lived here--]
    3:29:34 - What's your apartment number?
    3:31:53 - It's a home. It's one-nine-five-zero, [two taps] aw crap, I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where this kid is.
    3:38:75 - Okay, do you want to just meet with them right by the mailboxes then?
    3:42:62 - Yeah, that's fine [tap or?]
    3:45:61 - All right, George, I'll let them know to meet you when they're out there.
    3:47:36 - Actually could you have him - could you have him call me and I'll tell him where I'm at?
    3:50:93 - Okay, yeah, that's no problem.
    3:53:48 - You need my number or you got it?
    3:54:73 - Yeah, I - I got it. It's four-oh-seven, four-three-five, two-four-zero-zero?
    3:58:74 - Yeah, you got it.
    3:59:47 - Okay, no problem. I'll let them know to call you when they're in the area.
    4:02:76 - Thanks.
    4:03:12 - You're welcome.
    4:04:65 - Call terminated. [real time approx. 7:13:39 PM]


    Welcome Aimes and Why Can't This Just Be a Tragedy (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Aimes on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 05:09:43 PM EST
    Thanks, Jeralyn. I continue to believe that this whole thing was a tragic accident, caused by in retrospect split-second decisions by both men. No premeditation, no "want to". I really cannot see ANY behavior on GZ's part clearly showing he was stalking TM to kill him (which you kinda have to believe to buy the "wanted to" prosecution allegation). I also think that TM may have felt he had to fight or attack GZ out of fear. And, riddle me this: if GZ wanted to kill TM, why'd he let himself be tackled and his head bashed? I always try to put myself in a person's shoes -- I'd have whipped out that gun much earlier if I'd "wanted to" use it.

    I agree. (none / 0) (#151)
    by melamineinNY on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 02:19:21 PM EST
    real time (none / 0) (#37)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 05:16:32 AM EST
    I thought the call ended at 7:15:24.  When did it begin?

    Zimmerman's call... (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by unitron on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 08:53:52 PM EST
    ...to the non-emergency number, shorthanded around here as the NEN call (which was not a call to 911) connected at 7:09:34 PM and ended 4 minutes and 5 seconds later, at 7:13:39 PM, although the connection stayed up after the audio disconnected between the two of them so you could add 5 seconds to that and argue that you were not strictly wrong.

    After a year and a half almost of only having vague, round up to the next minute, billing statement times for Trayvon's calls, we (out here in the public who can't just call up cell phone companies and demand someone else's detailed record) now know that Trayon's last call ended almost exactly 2 minutes after George's did, and supposedly this was a few seconds after the confrontation between them turned physical.

    A bit less than half a minute later Witness 11 gets through with the first 911 call of the night connected to this case, beginning at 7:16:11 PM, and it is on the recording of this call that the gunshot is heard at 7:16:56 PM.

    Unfortunately someone "official" putting together a timeline relied not on the actual phone records but the (slightly later) times at which the dispatcher notified the patrol cars of stuff, and inaccurate figures have been floating around out there ever since.


    It began... (none / 0) (#48)
    by heidelja on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 07:12:15 AM EST
    ...at 7:11 and change.

    Some NEN Call Issues for Newbies (none / 0) (#139)
    by RickyJim on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 06:49:27 PM EST
    Here are some points we argue about on TLForums which might help you understand some of the things coming up in the trial.

    1. Notice that Zimmerman twice tries to give directions to his car but fails because he can't remember the name of the street it is parked on, Twin Trees Lane.  One attempt is before and the other after he gets out of the car.  Why is he fixated at those points with having the cops meet him where the car was currently parked?  Nobody knows.  In the previous calls, which Mantei had played for the jury on Wednesday, he made no attempt to meet the cops except one where he told them to go to the back entrance where he would let them in.  

    2. As he exits the car he tells the dispatcher that Martin is heading towards the back entrance.  So why didn't he drive there instead as he had done previously?  Nobody knows.  What more did he expect to see on foot in the rainy darkness?  Again, nobody knows.

    3. In an interview Zimmerman claims that the dispatcher was right that he should get back to his car but he wanted first to get a street sign (replaced in later interviews by address) to give the dispatcher.  Today, during Jenna Lauer's testimony, BDLR pointed out that Zimmerman could have gotten the address of her townhouse by walking around Jeremy Weinberg's truck which was close to Zimmerman's own.  But it can be answered that Zimmerman didn't know which street it was on.  Notice that the dispatcher didn't ask for the address where Z's car was parked until over a minute after Zimmerman had left it.

    4.  In later interviews Zimmerman claimed to go to the Retreat View Circle end of the cut through to get an address.  He never gave the dispatcher that address.  Nobody knows why. RVC has a street light at the south end where Zimmerman may have hoped to see Martin leaving through the back entrance.

    5. After Zimmerman said OK to the dispatcher, he kept going forward towards Retreat View Circle.  His strong defenders claim he stopped following Martin at that point.  Accepting that depends on whether or not you believe, if his utility flashlight had been working, he would have turned south down the dogpath to continue following Martin.

    "Why does her FB page say she graduated... (none / 0) (#36)
    by heidelja on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 05:07:03 AM EST
    ... Norland High School and is studying criminal justice at Miami Univ. (in Ohio, no less)?"

    Likely for the same reason my son's girlfriend's Facebook page shows her graduating from Ocoee High School in Cleveland, TN and not Ocoee, Florida where she lived. In the past, there has been a technical cliche in Facebook of this sort for one's personal traits.

    Has not finished high school (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by rickroberts on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 06:19:48 AM EST
    She testified that she will be a senior in the fall. A 20yo senior.

    2 Phone Calls? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Mr Mark Martinson on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 06:35:39 AM EST
    I was only able to listen to part of it.

    In the BDLR interview she makes it sound that everything she heard took place during one call.  There doesn't seem to be any gap in her account of a mad chase to the house.

    I think here she said yesterday that the conversation took place during two calls.  Isn't this an attempt to make her testimony consistent with the fact that GZ obviously stopped following TM?

    I thought she said this part (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 06:40:50 AM EST
    as a memory aid as to what part of the conversation she was in with TM:
    At another point, she mentions that during one of her phone calls with Trayvon the night he was shot, she put her phone in her pocket and went in the bathroom to start fixing her hair for school the next day. She had the bathroom door closed and was using bluetooth

    Often if you are trying to remember what someone said, it helps to remember where you were when you heard it.  I really thought it made that part of her testimony more believable.

    I hope Jeralyn will forgive my contrarian compulsions on some of these points.

    Believable about what? (none / 0) (#55)
    by HammerHead on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 08:17:40 AM EST
    The fact that she was on the phone with him at the time?  Nobody really doubts that anymore, do they?

    The question is, what were they really talking about?  What was Trayvon actually doing?  She had an opportunity to tell us, but didn't.


    I'd have to go back and (none / 0) (#79)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:59:46 AM EST
    see what it was she said she was hearing at that time...probably not a huge point one way or another. I mainly wanted to point out that saying what you were doing at the time you heard something is not a purely extraneous thing.

    "get off" (none / 0) (#59)
    by ExcitableBoy on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 09:16:19 AM EST
    I don't believe this witness is credible at all, but even so I don't think she could have possibly heard Trayvon say "get off". the phone cut off within a second of the verbal confrontation; Chuck Norris couldn't have gotten Trayvon on the ground and gotten on top of him that quickly.

    total speculation, but I wonder if she could instead have heard "step off". This would make more sense at the beginning of a verbal altercation. It is also a much more aggressive statement.

    also total speculation... (none / 0) (#68)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:20:19 AM EST
    if she did hear 'get off', it did not have to mean literally 'get off of me' given the slang of these kids. could be 'get off my back' as in 'leave me alone'.

    So many possibilities, I don't see how the jury can find any value in it at all.


    listening to it now (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by ExcitableBoy on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:51:28 AM EST
    She's clearly not sure, on the recording. She mentions that Trayvon's headset sounds like it moved, and basically says she kinda sorta maybe heard "get off". But now in court she's sure what she heard. Her hearing in court is excellent, but that seems to be the only place.

    get off meaning (none / 0) (#78)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:58:05 AM EST
    Is it possible that she heard Trayvon get off . . . and that her original meaning was that she perceived TM get off the phone, and this was changed by dlr into her saying she heard tm saying get off?

    no (none / 0) (#162)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 07:41:34 PM EST
    review her 4/2 interview with the prosecutor. She didn't mention it to Crump, and she was equivocal with the prosecutor.

    BDLR: OK, and uh...when you heard that noise...something hitting somebody...you didn't...did
    you hear the man say anything, or did you hear Trayvon say anything?
    Dee Dee: I can hear a little bit...
    BDLR: OK, what could you hear?
    Dee Dee: I could just hear like...like, it's like...the headphone...cause the headphones, he might
    got off. But I can still hear a little bit...like....
    BDLR: OK, what could you hear?
    Dee Dee: Like a little `get off' some stuff...
    BDLR: You heard `get off'?
    Dee Dee: Like a little `Get off' [unintelligible]...
    BDLR: Could you tell who was saying that?
    Dee Dee: I couldn' know Trayvon.
    BDLR: I'm sorry.
    Dee Dee: I couldn't hear Trayvon...Trayvon.
    BDLR: OK, let me make sure I understand...you could hear Trayvon saying that?
    Dee Dee: Yeah. That's why I was calling his name.
    BDLR: And he was saying what now?
    Dee Dee: Like "get off."
    BDLR: "Get off?" Is that clear that you were hearing that, or you think you heard that?
    Dee Dee: Yeah, I could hear it a little bit..."get off...get off," then the phone just hung up.

    Man....trying to use her previous exact (none / 0) (#67)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:18:07 AM EST
    words when the transcripts are rather inaccurate due to her speech patterns...


    IMO, deceitful. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:49:07 AM EST
    I can understand trying to spin the information in a way that favors your client, but this seems closer to lying, IMO.

    It is complicated because half the time (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:56:17 AM EST
    whatever lawyer is talking to her is trying to repeat what she said, just to be sure they heard it right..sometimes they are right and sometimes wrong...and sometimes she adds more on to it. Ugh.

    And the judge... (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by unitron on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 09:37:02 PM EST
    ...doesn't seem to grasp that that is what they are trying to do, to create less confusion rather than more, and so does not grant the latitude necessary.

    And I think the transcript says one thing but the (none / 0) (#72)
    by Angel on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:41:17 AM EST
    recording indicates something else.  I guess we'll find out if they play it in court.  

    I don't think this part is helping GZ (none / 0) (#73)
    by magster on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:45:38 AM EST
    it establishes the "get off" testimony was said before.

    in the original recording (none / 0) (#82)
    by ExcitableBoy on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 11:05:15 AM EST
    She's clearly guessing about the 'get off', not sure. Even mentions his headset moving.  But now she's certain.

    Not in the full context of that snippet. (none / 0) (#84)
    by magster on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 11:10:39 AM EST
    Tell me how wet grass sounds. Ha! (none / 0) (#77)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:57:19 AM EST

    I was hoping she would just say (none / 0) (#85)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 11:13:53 AM EST
    "I can't describe it" and move past that.  Clearly she can't be trusted to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  I can't stand seeing the point get belabored over and over. I am feeling both sorry for her and annoyed at her.

    unfortunately (none / 0) (#80)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 11:02:45 AM EST
    people can't leave their fists at home (as illustrated in all the injuries to Zimmerman's face and head) and that is why people carry guns. It is too bad that Zimmerman didn't just stay far away from Martin, but he didn't and for that he did not deserve to get beaten.

    I don't think she is a racist (none / 0) (#86)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 11:19:39 AM EST
    I think she is as ignorant about what is an is not racist as many people are, even people here who think they know all about it.  I think some people are just too young to really understand what they are talking about.
    Is she a liar...mmm, yeah, but I think it is a case of situational ethics. I can't help but like her since she called the district attorney "the bald dude"

    She's an anti-baldist!! (none / 0) (#90)
    by magster on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 11:27:00 AM EST
    West has made his point, and he is doing more harm than good by giving her an opportunity to explain inconsistencies at this point. I think this last hour she's explained the "get off" thing OK and now West has gotten her to say if Trayvon was planning on doing anything violent, he'd have told her, weakening a little that theory of defense.

    Unless he's got her on another big inconsistency somewhere else, he should wrap it up.


    yes (none / 0) (#94)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 11:49:09 AM EST
    I think so too.  Maybe he has something up his sleeve.  Maybe he will come back from lunch with a fresh approach.  I hope otherwise he wraps it up. Get on to the next witness.

    Hurtful (none / 0) (#103)
    by Cylinder on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 12:18:57 PM EST
    That was hurtful. Now I have to go find my ball cap. :(

    that comment has been deleted for (none / 0) (#161)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 07:25:43 PM EST
    calling her names. It was the commenter's first comment on this site and he has been banned and his account zapped.

    Name-calling is not allowed here.


    One question I haven't seen asked (none / 0) (#87)
    by rjarnold on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 11:23:46 AM EST
    She said he was right by his father's house right as the second to last phone call ended. They reconnected about 20 seconds later and then the fight happens about 2 minutes after they reconnect. What did Trayvon do and where did he go in those 2 minutes?

    I think "right by" or "close" (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Angel on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 12:01:26 PM EST
    can be a relative term.  Sometimes Mr. Angel phones and says "I'm almost home, see you in a minute." and he doesn't show for 15 minutes.  I guess only Trayvon would know what he meant by "right by."

    Except that (none / 0) (#110)
    by cazinger on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 01:15:25 PM EST
    We actually have the exact times for when GZ actually lost sight of TM within about 70 yards of Brandi Green's townhome.  A full minute after that we heard Sean Noffke suggest to GZ that "We don't need you to [follow him]".  GZ was on the phone with Sean Noffke for another 2 minutes after that.  And we know the first 911 call was not placed until a couple of minutes after that.

    So we have TM within 70 yards of Brandi Green's townhome at least three full minutes (and likely closer to five) before the encounter.  Is anyone suggesting that an athletic 17 year old would e unable to simply walk the 70 yards back to Brandi Green's townhome in that amount of time?


    Ability to walk that distance isn't an issue. (none / 0) (#111)
    by Angel on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 01:26:35 PM EST
    It certainly is (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by cazinger on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 01:39:18 PM EST
    if we are talking about proximity to Brandi Green's townhome (where Trayvon was staying and presumably his destination when this all occurred).  

    If he had ample opportunity to actually reach his destination safely and enter those premises, then the natural question, if he was aware of being followed by some "Creepy A$$ Cracka" that he (presumably) wanted to get away from, is why didn't he simply go inside the townhome?

    That is going to be a central question for this jury.  Because if you cannot provide a reasonable answer, then the premise - that Trayvon was trying to get away from this "Creepy A$$ Cracka" - may be incorrect.  And if Trayvon was NOT trying to get away from this "Creepy A$$ Cracka", then what WAS he doing?



    I said ABILTY to walk that distance isn't an (none / 0) (#113)
    by Angel on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 01:50:44 PM EST
    issue.  Read what I said.  You're questioning WHY.  

    well, hopefully (none / 0) (#95)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 11:53:02 AM EST
    the defense will take note of that and try to clear that up.  Either he lied to Rachel or he left his father's girlfriends place and went after Zimmerman.  Or I am getting logistically confused.

    There's a number of possible (none / 0) (#105)
    by rjarnold on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 12:32:29 PM EST
    explanations. I'm just surprised that to my knowledge no one has asked her about this.

    I respect her opinion... (none / 0) (#102)
    by melamineinNY on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 12:12:18 PM EST
    and yours, but hers more.

    I don't know how accurate these are (none / 0) (#106)
    by melamineinNY on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 12:34:47 PM EST
    But these are things I heard her say this morning:
    "I coudn'nt hear Trayvon...def'nitely calling his name".
    "and someone calling his name, Trayvon, Trayvon"
    "I said I could hear it was Trayvon....the state attorney had trouble hearing ME."..

    What I understood her to mean was that (none / 0) (#107)
    by Angel on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 12:38:47 PM EST
    she heard the phone drop and she was calling Trayvon's name but he didn't hear her and she couldn't hear him at that point, I guess because the phone connection had ended.

    Ch 9 just played clear sound of it (none / 0) (#109)
    by Teresa on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 12:48:23 PM EST
    She either said "I couldn't" or "I coulda (as in could have"). So we're still at not knowing.

    I can't imagine the pressure she feels.


    Holy cow. Someone with everything (none / 0) (#108)
    by Teresa on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 12:40:48 PM EST
    just throwing their life away (if true)? Wow.

    As far as Rachel, I think the points about law enforcement interviewing her at Trayvon's Mama's house with the Crump lawyers there, too, was important to bring out. I think the Crump lawyers used her in a way & I feel sorry for her.

    The rest of her testimony to me is like he doesn't understand her and she doesn't understand him. The legal analyst on Ch 9, who is extremely fair, said that one of the Crump lawyers said last night they got Rachel one of the best criminal lawyers in Miami and he or she is with her and he has no doubt he/she went over testimony and attitude last night even though the judge said not to.

    He also thinks unless the "you want that, too?" matters, West shouldn't question her anymore and the DA shouldn't redirect or whatever the legal terminology is as that will take us right back to this circle of miscommunication.

    I still don't know that anything she said is helpful to either side. I don't think the fight started "right by" his dad's girlfriend's condo. Poor Rachel, just minding her on business talking on the phone and now it's come to this. If the jury is as confused as I am, I think they'll just use the other witnesses to make their decision.

    When she said if Trayvon was going to start a fight, he'd have told her, could West have asked her if he's ever started a fight and told her before? Or does that even matter?

    Does his past come in the trial at all? I honestly don't know if it matters or not, and if it does, I doubt this judge will allow it (if it's allowable).

    Why did (none / 0) (#115)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 03:12:33 PM EST
    Sybrina Fulton need Rachel's mom's permission to talk to her in the first place?  Did she think Rachel was a minor as well?

    When should a person (none / 0) (#124)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 04:25:33 PM EST
    Who IS having his head slammed against concrete, decide if the person allegedly doing that also has a gun?

    Amazing that YOU can tell exactly what GZ was feeling and when he was feeling it.

    Read very (none / 0) (#126)
    by John Shaft on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 04:36:39 PM EST
    carefully, the report filed by the EMT who attended to G.Zimmerman after the horrific beating that he had received.
    Within about a half hour of this incident his vitals were normal & he did not even need a band aid. He required no further medical attention & the next day or later G.Zimmerman went to see his personal doctor.
    Were those injuries really consistent w/ someone who thought they would be beaten to death?

    You are looking at the result (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 04:59:40 PM EST
    NOT the actions at the time. You are confusing the two.

    One of the EMT's who responded to the scene testified (under oath) at the preliminary exam:

    Earlier in the hearing, a member of a Sanford, Fla., ambulance crew told a court that Zimmerman's head, including his moustache and beard, were covered in blood after the shooting of Martin.

    EMT Kevin O'Rourke testified during Zimmerman's bond hearing this morning that "45 percent" of Zimmerman's head had blood on it and that the lacerations on Zimmerman's head "would probably need stitches."

    O'Rourke also testified that Zimmerman's nose was broken and urged him to see a doctor within 24 hours.

    (So you might want to check your facts that he "didn't even need a bandaid").

    Let's slam your head against concrete and see if you feel scared and thoughtful enough to determine if your attacker is armed or not.


    without (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by ding7777 on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 01:01:34 PM EST
    the shot, TM would have continued to "ground & pound" GZ causing more injuries.

    how many more times should GZ have let TM beat his head into the concrete while swallowing his own blood from a broken nose to satisfy your definition of being beaten to death?


    zimmerman (none / 0) (#146)
    by morphic on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:12:45 PM EST
      Keep beating someone's head on concrete and death results. I don't advice you to test it, but it's true.

    We are (none / 0) (#125)
    by John Shaft on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 04:29:33 PM EST
    talking about cultural relativity here. Many young people refer to their friends or others using the N-Word or the C-word, or the B-word & it is not profiling. It is the way teens talk. I have a niece who lives in Harlem & I often do not know if she or her friends are kidding around or being serious. There is both a cultural & generational gap in this situation.

    Calling him a "creepy-azz cracker" (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Char Char Binks on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 12:20:11 AM EST
    is evidence that TM profiled GZ.

    What Happened to Standards of Decency? (none / 0) (#152)
    by flcstud on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 04:56:37 PM EST
    What ever happened to parenting?  I'm not that old, but my language isn't laced with profanity and racial slurs because my parents taught me that such vocabulary is inappropriate.  I also am not white, so I don't buy that calling people the n-word or other derogatory terms is just something that we young minorities do.  When I see urban youth using that language, I think they are being crude and are not the types of people I want to be associated with.

    If TM (none / 0) (#160)
    by ding7777 on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 06:47:37 PM EST
    covered his hands  with his HOODIE sleeve, GZ's DNA would be on TM's hoodie. But TM's clothes were improperly stored degrading DNA.


    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 10, 2015 at 05:50:51 PM EST
    i think I enjoy doing that too much