Witness 8 Is Ready For Her Close-Up

Rachel Jeantel, identified by the State and defense in opening statements as the young woman who was on the phone with Trayvon Martin minutes before the shooting, is ready to take the stand. (She tweeted the photo above this weekend, with the caption "court nails.") Apparently, the state intends to call her as a witness after all.

So who is Rachel Jeantel? Smoking Gun reviews her twitter account, but only tells half the story. [More...]

Why this matters? Because Team Crump portrayed her to the media and America as a broken-hearted, traumatized minor, holding a press conference to play her unintelligible words while declaring she "blows Zimmerman's defense out of the water." He mentioned she was a minor 7 times in that press conference alone. Here is carefully worded affidavit filed in an attempt to avoid having his deposition taken.

A minor? She lists her birthday on Facebook as Feb. 1, 1994. As the defense has said, she is 19, and was 18 at the time of the shooting. Even the prosecutor mocked the defense in court for believing she was a minor.

In addition to what Smoking Gun reports, she tweets about:

Rachel doesn't appreciate suggestions she get a job. Why should she, her parents work. She gloats about her father backing down after suggesting she get a job to pay her phone bill.

Her language will be something these jurors, particularly the four women over fifty, are unlikely to comprehend.

While her Twitter feed is still active, over the past few days she's deleted quite a few or the more salacious ones. In one I didn't save, she bragged about Zimmerman's lawyers being no match for her lawyers.

As Rachel says, Bring it.. I say Shame on Team Crump and ABC News (Matt Gutman in particular) for selling America a false bill of goods on this woman. From their false statements about her age and relationship with Trayvon Martin, repeated on morning and evening news and cable shows to their broadcasting her lies about being so traumatized by the shooting she had to be hospitalized, they either refused to do even a modicum of due diligence or they did it and intentionally spread misinformation to further their agenda.

Is it possible Rachel's version of events on Feb. 26 is accurate despite the Crump/media misrepresentations of her and her less than flattering self-portrayal? Is it possible her twitter and facebook pages were hacked? Sure. But the test is reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is often described as one which would cause you to hesitate in matters of importance. Would you buy a home from this woman? Would you trust her to babysit your children? George Zimmerman's life is on the line. If she testifies, she'll be on her best church behavior. The jury will likely never hear about any of this. The judge will likely rule it's inadmissible. Can you imagine your fate, or the fate of a loved one, hanging on the word of a witness like Rachel Jeantel?

< George Zimmerman Trial: I Saw What She Saw | Wednesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    She's of Haitian and Dominican heritage. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 01:31:17 PM EST
    Maybe that can explain the dialect issues some have with understanding her spoken word.

    Do you know which nationality (none / 0) (#50)
    by fishcamp on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 04:59:11 PM EST
    she actually is?  On the Hatian side of the border they speak French and a version of Creole and on the DR side they speak Spanish.  The border area is a terrible zone where smuggling of everything goes on from gasoline and cigarette to children.  I worked on a documentary there years ago and it was not a good job.

    The only other testimony about that would be (none / 0) (#52)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 05:11:08 PM EST
    when she testified that her mother was in Haiti during the period she was trying to avoid meeting with Sabrina Fulton.  She said she called her mother in Haiti.  That's all I know.

    Born in Miami (none / 0) (#53)
    by SuzieTampa on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 07:13:18 PM EST
    She testified that she was born in Miami and met TM in the second grade in Miami. She said she lost touch with him, but so far, she hasn't mentioned living anywhere else.

    She differentiated that her mother was from Haiti and her father was from the Dominican Republic.


    Kreyol (none / 0) (#65)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:27:55 AM EST
    they speak Kreyol.  Almost no one speaks french on a regulator basis and it is not a first language.  Of course unlike Americans they do tend to be multi lingual and any one who is educated past kindergarten will speak kreyol,  some french, english and spanish.
    I spent some time in Haiti.  I am a great fan of the people.  But my heart breaks for them, there is so much to be done in Haiti.

    Her mother is Haitian (none / 0) (#64)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:20:40 AM EST
    but I do not hear that in her voice at all.  I was wondering if she has braces on her lower teeth actually. She seems to run her words together, but it sounds like more of a southern black dialect to me. I find her easier to understand when they just leave her alone and let her talk.  

    zimmerman (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by morphic on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 03:42:38 PM EST
       If I heard her right, Trayvon was a couple of houses from Brandi Green's, and she has no explanation why Trayvon was seen by George 40 minutes after leaving the 7-11, despite taking a short cut. This isn't adding up.

    I think she said he 'got caught up by the rain' (none / 0) (#44)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 03:45:26 PM EST
    which I took to mean that the rain held him up, and I'm guessing he didn't make much movement for some time, that he stayed where he was.  ???

    I thought (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 03:47:44 PM EST
    It wasn't raining that hard?

    I think the amount of rain varied over the time (none / 0) (#47)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 03:56:20 PM EST
    period which would be from around 6:23 (time leaving the store) to 7:09 (the time of the NEN call).  

    How long does it take to walk a mile? (none / 0) (#46)
    by magster on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 03:48:43 PM EST
    20 minutes? If he wasn't walking with a purpose, I don't think the timeline is that big a deal.

    Yeah, I don't see why it matters how long (none / 0) (#48)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 04:41:29 PM EST
    it took to get back to the condo complex.

    time matters (none / 0) (#63)
    by f2000 on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 02:36:16 AM EST
    because defense will argue that the extended amount of time indicates that Martin was wandering the neighborhood, not simply headed home, and that supports Zimmerman's perception of him as peering into windows/up to no good.

    She's coming off as credible to me. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 03:43:12 PM EST
    She said she didn't want to be a part of it and explained that is why she told her mother to say 'no' to any interview requests, why she said she was 16 instead of just turning 18, said she didn't want to do the Crump interview and rushed it (she was sitting inside a closet at her house) and didn't elaborate on the answers or pay that much attention to the questions.  Said she didn't take it seriously.  I have no idea how she's coming off to the jury but it seems to me that so far she has explained herself pretty well.

    I'm pretty sure that if Rachel was (4.50 / 6) (#10)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 12:33:55 PM EST
    one of your witnesses in a case involving a client you were representing, you'd be telling us the other side of the story you've laid out about her here.

    And there's always another side to the story, isn't there?

    I guess that's why we have juries, who can make up their own minds which side they believe, whether what she has to say is credible, and whether any of this other stuff matters to what she has to say.

    I get the impression this witness is the (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 12:56:02 PM EST
    "new" Sarah Palin.

    ready for her close-up.. (4.00 / 3) (#26)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 02:07:30 PM EST
    yes, she's obviously little more than another self-promoting narcissist hungry for the spotlight. A Kim Kardashian wannabe..

    Her young, unarmed friend was shot, but so what, she needs to get over it. Thousands of younng people are shot every year in this country.

    The real victims here are the thousands of disinterested supporters of our 2nd Amendment freedoms and Stand Your Ground laws and firearms industry shareholders. Who's going to shed a tear for them?  


    I was dumbfounded to read... (none / 0) (#1)
    by heidelja on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 06:05:01 AM EST
    "Apparently, the state intends to call her as a witness after all" because by all left unsaid for W8 in the local media, nothing of this sort gone shared here has ever been hinted...I presume because "she was a minor"!

    MOM has cleverly debunked two witnesses, the first more gently than the one to end yesterday's testimony.

    Bring it indeed (none / 0) (#2)
    by rickroberts on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 06:43:11 AM EST
    I can't wait.

    Can't Believe (none / 0) (#3)
    by Mr Mark Martinson on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 07:13:45 AM EST
    . . . that I've waited a year to hear this girl testify.


    I expect (none / 0) (#4)
    by f2000 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 07:17:52 AM EST
    it will be worth the wait, even if not the event you thought it would be.

    Why would the judge not let the (none / 0) (#5)
    by Teresa on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 11:19:27 AM EST
    jury hear any of that? Don't they need that information to decide if she's truthful? Maybe I don't understand which part of what you wrote about won't be admissible?

    Do you (or other lawyers) mean just her twitter stuff?

    She may not be a minor, but I am (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 11:41:50 AM EST
    surprised the whole world may read her tweets.  

    Surprised that social media (none / 0) (#7)
    by lily on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 11:46:00 AM EST
    is public??

    Facebook has "privacy" settings. (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 11:48:56 AM EST
    Doesn't Twitter?

    Yes, but not many use them. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Teresa on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 12:15:36 PM EST
    The more followers, the better is the way most see it. I have one, but I don't tweet anything I wouldn't want the world to know. Mine is mostly sports.

    She's taking the stand now...being sworn in. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 01:03:25 PM EST

    Oops, not her. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    She's a young girl, right? (none / 0) (#13)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 01:03:48 PM EST
    The nails aren't going to make a bit of difference if she gets up and tells her story in a way that the jury sees is genuine.  

    The bottom line is that she was on the phone when this happened and her words will be powerful.

    I want her to testify, flaws and all.  The defense knows she is not going to be so easily discredited.

    She's genuinely dishonest and inarticulate (3.00 / 2) (#15)
    by citizenjeff on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 01:08:25 PM EST
    In other words, she's a disaster.

    Which is what you wanted her to be, (4.25 / 4) (#31)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 02:19:38 PM EST
    isn't it?  

    I wonder if your perception would be any different if you hadn't already decided she was dishonest and inarticulate before she ever took the witness stand.  

    "Articulate" isn't a synonym for "honest," you know; you couldn't swing a dead cat in DC or Wall Street without hitting an articulate liar.


    I like "polished liar" better.. (none / 0) (#33)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 02:24:48 PM EST
    they sound articulate only because this country's so effing inarticulate..

    That's for the jury to decide. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 01:12:43 PM EST
    Jury listening to previous Zimmerman calls to (none / 0) (#16)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 01:09:36 PM EST

    That's not good... (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 02:18:37 PM EST
    for the defense, especially if they play the one where he dropped a dime on a suspicious black youth, aged 7-9.

    Drop the dime? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Redbrow on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 07:43:33 PM EST
    Distort facts much? He was concerned about the welfare and safety of an unattended small child playing in the street. Are you an advocate of kindergartners playing in traffic or something?

    kdog (none / 0) (#56)
    by me only on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 09:08:26 PM EST
    thinks that 911 connects you with the secret police.

    I've been fortunate enough... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 10:16:56 PM EST
    never to run into the CIA or anything, well there were those suckas in the DEA jackets this one time but that's another story...I speak of the regular police.  

    And those that call them at an abnormal rate to report such things as the disturbance of children playing in the street (adults once upon a time encouraged this), suspicious activity of a 7-9 year old (I didn't get suspicious until at least 13), several parties (f*ckin' punks like to party), drunk pedestrian walking (I thought when you drink don't drive, what's a boozehound supposed to do!), ex-roommate disputes, landlord dispute, suspicious person at the door, even automated motion sensor dimes. It's the dime-dropper pu pu platter!

    But I'm the f*ckin' weirdo, go figure.      


    Seriously (none / 0) (#60)
    by chaking on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 10:21:26 PM EST
    Is that what the 7-9 year old thing was about?  Seriously?  I didn't read up on it but kept seeing kdog post about it.  If it really was calling to say someone needs to ensure the safety of this kid, then ya, Kdog, man, come on... You need to stop peddling propaganda. Where did you get that he "dropped the dime" on the 7-9 year old??

    According to the Daily Beast link... (none / 0) (#61)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 10:28:09 PM EST
    kids in the street is a different call than the suspicious 2nd-4th grader, but there are so many who could keep it straight.

    Link (none / 0) (#62)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 10:40:18 PM EST
    Kind of interesting, isn't it, that the man (none / 0) (#71)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 11:01:32 AM EST
    who was brave enough to try to investigate where a "suspicious" teenager was going and what he was up to on a dark and stormy night wasn't apparently brave enough to approach - at roughly the same time of evening - a skinny 7-9 year old wearing a t-shirt and shorts, whose safety he was allegedly concerned about?

    Makes no sense to me.


    he wasn't as confident (none / 0) (#72)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 12:25:09 PM EST
    because he didnt have his gun with him.

    I considered that, but left it out of my (none / 0) (#73)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 12:34:04 PM EST
    comment because I am no longer entertained by the histrionics/accusations that would likely follow.

    well (none / 0) (#74)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 12:36:31 PM EST
    at least they can't shoot you online. Lucky for us.

    LOL... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 12:58:44 PM EST
    until the "smart" phone XL comes out with a built in pen gun that can be discharged via hack at least.

    They'll come up with that (none / 0) (#76)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 01:05:32 PM EST
    before they come up with one that shoots Ecstasy into you or, heavan forbid, gives you an orgasm..

    Well judging by some of our new TL... (none / 0) (#77)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 01:18:49 PM EST
    friends on these Zimmerman friends, I wouldn't doubt that discharging firearms can cause orgasmic discharges simultaneously;)

    Err... (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 01:21:11 PM EST
    s/b TL friends on these Zimmerman threads.

    lol you have a point.. (none / 0) (#80)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 01:22:50 PM EST
    Rachel is on the stand now. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 01:30:14 PM EST

    Oh boy (none / 0) (#20)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 01:40:45 PM EST
    I hear a new catch phrase developing...how many times do they need her to repeat 'creepy a** cracker'? If I can understand her fine via internet radio, I don't see why it is so hard right there int he room.

    Is that a serious question? (none / 0) (#37)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 02:44:38 PM EST
    Or are you living up to your moniker?

    is there something you do not understand (none / 0) (#67)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:39:53 AM EST
    about racism? Or do you still think we live in the 60s where only hatred of white people against black people matters?  It's all hate based on skin color bud. Yes, white guys still run the country (except the white house) but in a one to one situation, hating someone, being suspicious of them, attacking them or calling them race based names is racism. TM apparently had some racist issues of his own.

    I think you're confusing racism... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:50:57 AM EST
    with prejudice.  Racism requires power, prejudice does not.

    I agree everyone is prejudiced to some degree...I battle my one prejudice against police and authority figures, politicians, bueracrats, bankers, & CEOs daily.  Prejudice is human nature.


    When you're right you're right... (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 02:28:48 PM EST
    "Creepy arse cracker"...I couldn't have said it better myself.

    Excuse me, creepy arse cracker of Peruvian descent;)


    I know that "reverse racism" (none / 0) (#66)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:33:14 AM EST
    has not historically held the same power that white against black racism does/did.  However I don't see why you find it attractive.  Calling someone a cracker is elitist.  That's the worst of what the left has to offer.  If it is okay to hate people based on class, can't you just go join the republicans?

    Elitist? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:46:07 AM EST
    In some circles, particularly the youth, it's just part of the everyday vernacular.  Like n*gga.  Not saying you have to like it or use these words, but you shouldn't make it into something it ain't.  If George Zimemrman were a black man I'd bet Trayvon would have said "creepy arse n*gga"...it's just how the kids talk. The key word in the context of Trayvon's usage is "creepy".  Not "cracker".  

    There is a real generational gap when it comes to slang language...your meaning is different than mine, mine is different than the next guy, on and on.  It is foolish to attribute your meaning or usage (if any) to someone else.


    Oh Christ.. (none / 0) (#79)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 01:21:39 PM EST
    theres "hate", and then theres hate..

    Momentarily ranting about the crackers who voted Bush into office, while wishing them peace and enlightenment isn't the same as someone, say, stringing up and castrating TMs great grandfather for whistling at a white woman and then refusing to ever apologize for it.


    Defense tactic during her testimony (none / 0) (#21)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 01:40:45 PM EST
    objecting to try to frazzle the witness?

    Yep, and I don't like it one bit. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 02:00:19 PM EST
    They need a black person in the room to translate (none / 0) (#22)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 01:44:47 PM EST
    I can understand her fine via my TV in the living room.

    People are all confused about how black folks talk to each colloquially.

    I can understand her just fine and I don't have (none / 0) (#23)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 01:59:53 PM EST
    the best hearing.

    I thought some of that was theatrics to (none / 0) (#27)
    by magster on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 02:08:08 PM EST
    discredit her and make her look stupid to the jury.

    The defense is going to go after her *hard.* (none / 0) (#29)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 02:15:49 PM EST
    Yup (none / 0) (#32)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 02:20:13 PM EST
    He needs to be careful... (none / 0) (#35)
    by magster on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 02:29:29 PM EST
    ... if the jury thought her emotion discussing the aftermath of TM's death was genuine and had sympathy, West does not want to be the bad guy.

    Yes, so did I after it kept going on (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 03:18:32 PM EST
    I can understand her meaning (none / 0) (#54)
    by SuzieTampa on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 07:19:35 PM EST
    but she talks so softly that I miss some of her words. That seems to be the biggest problem. They keep asking her to talk into the microphone or try to talk louder.

    Of course, just because you're an African American doesn't mean that you can understand every other African American. Ben Crump had a hard time understanding her, too. I'm white and I'm sometimes mystified by the slang of young whites.


    I can understand her fine too (none / 0) (#69)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:46:20 AM EST
    she is speaking English.  Why would she need an interpreter? Borderline racism there kiddo.

    I think her inconsistencies.... (none / 0) (#25)
    by magster on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 02:06:18 PM EST
    are explained by her inarticulateness and Haitian background. Her discomfort tears and leg jiggling seemed genuine emotion. I think she came across credibly.

    Her testimony, though, could help defense in that she and TM thought guy might be "creepy" "rapist" that would make TM confront violently when approached, depending on when in the chain of events GZ is judged from.

    She seemed real to me. I actually cried when she (none / 0) (#28)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 02:15:07 PM EST
    wiped her eyes when talking about feeling guilty that she was the last person to talk to Trayvon.  

    scratch that.... (none / 0) (#38)
    by magster on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 03:14:11 PM EST
    some of her inconsistencies might be inarticulateness, but also might be because she's a self-admitted chronic liar. Sheez. I'm sure it's been chronicled here, but I had no idea.

    I don't think she is inarticulate (none / 0) (#40)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 03:22:05 PM EST
    I'm just listening to audio, not doing video stream, so I can't see her mannerisms. She gets her thoughts across - whether she is telling the truth is another matter.

    Just started watching (none / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 03:25:11 PM EST
    From the short time I've ben watching, I get the feeling she wants to tell the truth for her friend, but between the media frenzy that has been going on, and whatever "coaching" or "encouraging" was done, I think she wants to please too many people here and she is trying to overthink it.

    It's like to trying to outsmart a personality test to get hired for a job.  I think she is trying to give the "right" answers.


    Is the witness "just answering the (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 04:57:29 PM EST
    question" or is is she rambling?

    The little bit I watched (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 05:02:00 PM EST
    Was trying to answer the question.  She isn't talking much, but she doesn't seem to understand some of the questions - lots of clarification needed.

    zimmerman (none / 0) (#57)
    by morphic on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 09:16:10 PM EST
      Just before they quit for the evening, West had her read from the defense deposition. Apparently when asked, under oath, after playing the 911 tape, DD was asked if that was Trayvon's voice. She replied: "I don't know. It could be." She had told the prosecutors it wazs Trayvon's voice. I'm not a lawyer, but isn't that impeachable?

    See comment #151 in other Z thread, (none / 0) (#58)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 09:28:35 PM EST
    Rachel Jeantel Testifies.