Zimmerman: New Support for the Verdict

Former President Jimmy Carter:

JIMMY CARTER: "I think the jury made the right decision based in the evidence presented because the prosecution inadvertently set the standard so high that the jury had to be convinced that it was a deliberate act by Zimmerman and that he was not defending himself and so forth. It's not a moral question, it's a legal question and the American law requires that the jury listens to the evidence presented." (WXIA-TV)

Rachel Jeantel now says she thinks Trayvon threw the same punch. She also thinks, although there was no evidence presented to support it, that GZ tried to detain Martin.

Rachel now has a reason to extend her 15 minutes. A radio host has given her a full scholarship to college.

How many times is CNN going to replay juror B37's interview? Has anyone not heard it?

< Wednesday Night Open Thread | Zimmerman: Alternate Juror E-54 Would Have Voted to Acquit >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    More New Support Than That!! (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by bmaz on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:24:18 PM EST
    A male alternate juror, I think E57 is on FoxNews Greta getting debriefed. Short version: he would have voted not guilty and agreed completely with the verdict. Found no ill will, malice, nor any evidence of racial profiling and/or animus. Can't understand why people are talking about civil rights charges; thinks no basis. Had no problems with Zimmerman's actions on the whole. Note: I think this was a juror the prosecution wanted and worked to protect in voir dire. Wow.

    The Alternate (none / 0) (#4)
    by PM on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:02:01 PM EST
    that spoke on Fox 35 Orlando was #E54. "I followed the evidence that State presented closely. I would have voted 'not guilty'.

    Additionally, Rachel Jeantel had an hour interview on HLNTV during the Nancy Grace hour and 20 minutes on MSNBC with Al Sharpton. Her story continues to evolve.


    I thought she didn't want to be (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:03:16 PM EST
    involved, just go home, and be left alone?

    Fame (none / 0) (#7)
    by PM on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:10:12 PM EST
    I guess. I would like to read a transcript from the HLN interview she did where the prosecutor host tried to pin down those last few minutes. (Vinnie Politan?)

    You aren't going to get any (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:01:18 PM EST
    tough questions from anyone on HLN. They were 100% he's guilty from the start. From what I've seen, the defendant is always guilty in their minds.

    I just watched a video of her interview with Sharpton. They made a big deal out of the part where West was asking her if she understood English and could understand him. They thought he did it to just demean her.

    I guess they don't understand the prosecution made a big deal out of her inability to understand because English isn't her best language, which turned out not to be true. The jury needed to know if she could understand so they'd know if her answers fit the question.

    The inability of people to understand the reasons behind an attorney's question, and not just take them literally really makes me wonder.


    On her languages skills (none / 0) (#71)
    by Harold on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:25:23 AM EST
    Per this account of her cross examination:

    Jeantel ... explained she is of Haitian descent and grew up speaking Creole and Spanish.

    My Cajun mother, who didn't speak any English until she entered the public school system back in the '40s, could communicate fairly well with the locals when we visited Haiti, the initially 16th Century French Cajun dialect isn't verbally all that distant from Haitian Creole.

    But they're not English and I can't follow either of them; on its face it's not an unfair question.


    Just Watched E54 (none / 0) (#11)
    by RickyJim on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:52:22 PM EST
    at this link.  The questioner isn't Greta.  Can somebody identify her?

    Her name is (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by PM on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:58:19 PM EST
    Valerie Boey of local news in Orlando Fox 35.

    Here's Greta's interview (none / 0) (#12)
    by txantimedia on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:52:59 PM EST
    Rasmussen (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Cylinder on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:51:57 PM EST
    Rasmussen Reports show 48% of Americans agree with verdict, 34% disagree.

    Reactions to the jury decision in the shooting of Trayvon Martin vary sharply along racial lines.

    The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of American Adults agree with the jury's verdict that Hispanic neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman is not guilty of murder in the shooting death of the black teenager.  Thirty-four percent (34%) disagree with the Florida jury's verdict. Eighteen percent (18%) are not sure.

    If Rasmussen Says It ... (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by rcade on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 02:00:37 PM EST
    ... it must be true.

    President Romney


    I think O'Mara wants to sue Corey. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:43:12 PM EST
    I don't know how I missed this. I guess because I don't watch HLN. O'Mara spent the whole show with Sunny Hostin. They disussed a lot of things, including the DOJ weighing in (this was prior to the email announcement today - the interview was on the 16th).

    He talked at length about Corey and BDLR. I didn't know that Corey was six days from an election when she made her announcement. I also didn't know that BDLR told Judge Nelson that he did NOT have that phone information last January and O'Mara was just getting ready to call him to the stand to testify when Nelson put it on hold. He not only plans on following up, he's adding to his motion. She asked him about any future lawsuits GZ might have and he said (referring to earlier comments about calling him a "murderer"):

    HOSTIN: And what about future lawsuits? People are discussing whether or not George Zimmerman may file a civil suit of his own. Is he going to do something like that?

    O`MARA: We really haven`t talked it through very much. And of course I`ve not had an in-depth conversation with George about the prosecution`s reactions and the inappropriateness of their reactions. That`s probably closer to the top of my mind where I see some type of redress than anything else. I know that George would rather just move on with his life. Unfortunately that will never happen. We`ll see how the litigation goes and what we react to if anyone else files anything.

    It only takes about 15 minutes to read the whole hour interview because they kept playing videos of Rachel and Juror 37. He comments on Rachel, the jury, etc., also. As pro-prosecution as I thought Sunny was, she did a good job with her questions.


    Thanks Teresa (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by PM on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 12:00:49 AM EST
    I forgot I watched that last night. All the players have been on so many different shows this week, it's had to keep up. I was really surprised at the good questions Sunny asked. She proved to be a much better host than commentator on this case.

    It was very interesting hearing him say how glad he was to now have the time and the energy to add to and perfect his motion against the prosecution and that it was at the top of his list of things to do next.


    He's the President (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by txantimedia on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:19:40 AM EST
    of the Seminole County Bar Association.  He takes lawyer's ethics very seriously.  Corey is in trouble.  So is BDLR.

    Angela Corey Has Little to Worry About (none / 0) (#44)
    by rcade on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:17:58 AM EST
    "State attorneys cannot be brought before the bar while they remain in office. Complaints can be filed against Corey, but they will be deferred until she is no longer state attorney."

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/353633/angela-coreys-checkered-past-ian-tuttle/page/0/1?splash =


    Yeah, he doesn't intend to let (none / 0) (#24)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 01:03:57 AM EST
    up at all. Prior to the interview where Corey called GZ a murderer but still after the trial, he was already upset with how they handled discovery. He seems to be really upset that they didn't follow the same process as other prosecutors he's dealt with and he knows what their duty is.

    Some of their stuff seems like small town territorial stuff like goes on in my hometown (not Knoxville where I am now). I don't remember the Jacksonsville area being that small, but it may be that I grew up in a small town so I'm not able to judge that correctly.


    I Live in Jacksonville (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by rcade on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:20:45 AM EST
    It's not small -- 800,000 people spread out over the largest city, land wise, in the U.S. (Jacksonville ate up its entire county.)

    Jacksonville is not small town, but Corey had a bad rep before this for overcharging and attacking her critics. Last year, she called Harvard and yelled at somebody for an hour because she wanted to talk to Alan Dershowitz's boss and wasn't put through.


    She also won't talk to the Jax paper (none / 0) (#63)
    by SuzieTampa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:43:56 AM EST
    The Florida Times-Union has criticized her a lot, and her office no longer responds to the paper. They had to file a Freedom of Information request to get a press release! This is pretty incredible for a government office.

    Would Be in the Interest of His Client? (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by msaroff on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 02:28:36 PM EST
    I am not a lawyer, but I would think that keeping George Zimmerman away from making sworn statements in a discovery hearing, particularly given his history of saying the wrong thing whenever he talks about this, would be paramount.

    As former Pres. Carter was not on the jury and (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 01:29:36 AM EST
    as he is to many, including me, a person whose opinion and humanitarian work are greatly respected, in my opinion he should not have opined the jury got it right. He should have said the jury has rendered a verdict of " not guilty," which we, as a nation, should respect.

    maybe he watched the trial (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:33:13 AM EST
    He is retired, and has the time. Why can't he give his opinion now that the trial is over?

    He is of course entitled to express his (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:40:59 AM EST
    opinion. Maybe he lurks at TalkLeft!  The thing is, assuming his purpose in addressing the Zimmerman case was to attempt to quell the post-verdict furor, he'd have been more effective urging people to respect the jury's verdict. [I seriously doubt he watched the entire trial and he most assuredly did not deliberate with the jury.]

    I'm glad a respected ex-president (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Isabela Hernandez on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 06:23:03 AM EST
    has expressed his opinion that Zimmerman is not guilty of what he was charged:

    "I think the jury made the right decision based in the evidence presented because the prosecution inadvertently set the standard so high..."

    I read this as: Zimmerman was overcharged with murder.

    If he had simply said, "Respect the jury's verdict," his words would be interpreted as: "They would have convicted him if they could have, but there wasn't enough evidence because the only other witness is dead."


    This former President was a peanut (1.00 / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:33:40 AM EST
    farmer. He is not a lawyer,  As far as I know, he is not privy to why the elected prosecutor exercised her discretion in charging Zimmerman.  Many people assume she either did what the governor mandated or was influenced by public opinion by charging him w/murder 2.  I have not made those assumptions.

    He also (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:38:01 AM EST
    has a degree from the Naval Academy and graduate work in reactor technology and nuclear physics.

    But point taken - he's not a lawyer.


    Carter.....wiki (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:13:33 AM EST
    I am mistaken, he was not a rocket scientist, he was a nuclear physicist.

    After high school, Carter enrolled at Georgia Southwestern College, in Americus. Later, he applied to the United States Naval Academy and, after taking additional mathematics courses at Georgia Tech, he was admitted in 1943. Carter graduated 59th out of 820 midshipmen at the Naval Academy with a Bachelor of Science degree with an unspecified major, as was the custom at the academy at that time.[13] After serving in both the Atlantic and Pacific U.S. Submarine Fleets, Jimmy Carter attended graduate school majoring in reactor technology and nuclear physics.[14][15]

    Carter served on surface ships and on diesel-electric submarines in the Atlantic and Pacific fleets. As a junior officer, he completed qualification for command of a diesel-electric submarine. He applied for the US Navy's fledgling nuclear submarine program run by then Captain Hyman G. Rickover. Rickover's demands on his men and machines were legendary, and Carter later said that, next to his parents, Rickover had the greatest influence on him. Carter has said that he loved the Navy, and had planned to make it his career. His ultimate goal was to become Chief of Naval Operations. Carter felt the best route for promotion was with submarine duty since he felt that nuclear power would be increasingly used in submarines. Carter was based in Schenectady, New York, and worked on developing training materials for the nuclear propulsion system for the prototype of a new submarine.[16]

    so yup, he wasn't a lawyer, must be a real numb-skull.


    Well, I'm a criminal lawyer... (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by bmaz on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:42:11 AM EST
    ...and do have that experience, and Jimmy Carter was spot on. But, hey, when the message is sound, I guess people shoot the messenger.

    Oculus - a little clarification (none / 0) (#60)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:28:04 AM EST
    You stated that the former President is "not a lawyer", when responding to Isabela, who interpreted Carter's comments to mean that Zimmerman was overcharged.  You also stated he was not (to your knowledge) privy to why Corey charged him with M2.

    When you stated Carter was "not a lawyer", I interpreted that to mean he has no particular expertise in how charging decisions are made, interpreting statutes, case law, etc.  Some people are implying you meant Carter was stupid or (more generally) that anyone who is not a lawyer is stupid.

    Yeah, .... pretty ridiculous, but would you care to clarify the purpose of your "not a lawyer" statement?


    I have a Gretchen deal of respect for former (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:45:44 AM EST
    President Carter as a humanitarian and peace advocate.   He has never decided whether to charge a person with a crime. As I stated, I have no information he is privvy to Ms. Corey's thoughts or upon what she based her issuing decision.

    "Gretchen". Should be "great." (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:46:59 AM EST
    lol (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:05:52 AM EST
    he didn't just say he was not a lawyer.  He also said he was "a peanut farmer".  Of course those of us who are not lawyers are probably too stupid to know when a man's intelligence is being questioned.  
    Who was it that used to say "don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining"?  

    He IS a peanut farmer (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:25:36 AM EST
    ... and quite a successful one at that.  Are you assuming that peanut farmers are stupid?

    BTW - The point was not that Carter or all non-lawyer's are stupid, but that Carter is not a lawyer, has no experience with how these charging decisions are made, and has no information to support the specious claim of others that these charges were brought for political purposes.

    There, ... clear enough for even the farmers to understand.


    About his having "no experience" (none / 0) (#90)
    by Towanda on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 11:59:12 AM EST
    in how charging decisions are made, I would expect that he did learn a lot, for a non-lawyer, in having to make decisions as a governor and as a president on clemency.  That could be, well, "some experience" in how charging decisions are made?

    Wait.... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 12:28:45 PM EST
    I thought "experience" doesn't matter?

    At least, that's what I heard.


    I don't think (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:10:55 AM EST
    oculus meant it as an insult - I don't think she meant to imply that non-lawyers are too stupid to have an opinion.

    {Speaking for oculus without her permission}


    you know that old expression... (none / 0) (#55)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:00:40 AM EST
    "it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out...."?

    Well President is literally a rocket scientist.  He is just way smarter than most of the rest of us.  He got it right and the jury and he is saying so.  There is no reason in the world that anyone should have to try not to offend the delicate sensibilities of those people who refuse to see the facts of this case.  I only wish President Obama has the same courage.


    my mistake (none / 0) (#59)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:17:33 AM EST
    even worse, he was a nuclear physicist. A real dim bulb for sure.

    Well, the wayt hat these things are done (none / 0) (#92)
    by Towanda on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 12:01:13 PM EST
    in CYA politics, I would not be at all surprised to learn -- later, in history books -- that Carter cleared his statement or even was asked to make his statement by the White House, if Obama now is getting or heading counsel to stop speaking out on it.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#93)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 12:03:06 PM EST
    I think Carter has shown a history of independence..  so I doubt this to be the case..  but who knows.

    Well (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by woodchuck64 on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:58:17 AM EST
    It was great to finally see a respected liberal stand up and say the jury got it right, instead of the exact opposite.  That takes courage.

    Would you have the same opinion if a former (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:16:10 AM EST
    President publicly stated the jury got it wrong?

    Balance (none / 0) (#79)
    by woodchuck64 on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 11:20:20 AM EST
    In a perfect world, I would expect statesmen to do exactly what you said, go no further than saying the jury's verdict must be respected.  However, in this case we've had many public personas insist loudly that the jury got it wrong.  In this context, saying only that the jury's verdict must be respected sounds a little calculated: "Well I don't agree but we still have to respect the verdict".  So going a little further to grant that the jury weren't stupid and actually did what they were supposed to do seems warranted.

    The media now seems bent on discrediting the jury any way it can, hinting that they were too busy bowling, eating at Outbacks, and getting pedicures to pay attention to justice.  Amazing.


    Actually, I meant any former (none / 0) (#85)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 11:53:10 AM EST
    Pres. Publicly stating a given criminal jury retuned a "wrong" verdict.

    Same Opinion? (none / 0) (#80)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 11:27:18 AM EST
    Well the hypothetical former president who would say that the jury got it wrong would have to provide some logic to the statement.

    Not sure how that would be possible, but who knows, maybe there is something we all missed.

    Oh, and Carter does not have to provide logic, as it would be providing logic for something like water is wet. More burden of proof for those who would argue against water being wet or settled case law.


    Please read my reply above. (none / 0) (#86)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 11:54:09 AM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#87)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 11:56:59 AM EST
    That is what I understood you to say. And I assume you mean former US president.

    So Does Your Bias (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by RickyJim on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:29:47 AM EST
    The fact that the time, relative to other events, and place relative to where TM was previously sighted by Zimmerman, the tiny flashlight on the ground, the reported pitch darkness of the area, are absent from your speculations show you decide what you want to believe first.

    that comment was deleted (none / 0) (#126)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:31:54 PM EST
    for falsely stating the commenter's theory as undisputed facts. He's also been banned for character attacks on Zimmerman.

    Legally, provocation is (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by txantimedia on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:31:42 AM EST
    NOT words (or the lack of them??) and motions.  It's actions.  For Zimmerman to have provoked a fight, under the law, he would have had to hit or grab Martin.  There's no testimony that he did that, and Rachel has now admitted that Trayvon made the first punch.

    I would want to question her in detail before accepting her statement at face value, though.  Did Trayvon tell her he was going to sucker punch George?  Did she hear what she thought was the first punch?  Or is she assuming that from past known behavior?

    As for Trayvon's "well justified self-defense response", even if that were possible, it does not justify beating a man for almost a minute "in self defense".  Once he knocked him off his feet, he should have run as fast as he could to get away or held him down and called for help.

    But he didn't.

    Getting a Gun is a Provocation, No? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by rcade on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:30:31 AM EST
    If Zimmerman had reached for his gun while exchanging words with Martin, everyone would surely agree that is a provocation.

    How would Martin know he wasn't reaching for a gun?

    You're expecting Martin to run away from a fight once Zimmerman goes down, but if he thinks Zimmerman has a gun and was going for it, he could have reasonably believed that fighting him was his best chance to survive. And he had no obligation to retreat. Stand Your Ground goes both ways.


    The man with a gun had (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:11:42 AM EST
    a right to Stand Your Ground.

    According to Juror B-37, George was within his rights under Stand Your Ground. OTOH if you are Martin you have no rights, but an obligation to flee:

    She assigned much of the blame to Martin: "He played a huge role in his death ... when George confronted him, and he could have walked away and gone home.

    You're mixing up Zimmerman's self defense claim (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Jbsnyder on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:37:51 AM EST
    with a hypothetical Martin defense claim.  Martin could certainly raise this as giving him a reasonable fear for his life, if he were on trial.  But unless Zimmerman was in fact reaching for a weapon and not a phone, then that can't be provocation.

    Why Not? (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by rcade on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:32:06 AM EST
    Zimmerman did, in fact, have a gun. Martin fearing he was reaching for one had a basis in fact.

    Martin also could have seen the gun before throwing a punch.


    Z had a concealed weapon (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Darby on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:56:36 AM EST
    But no proof or evidence that Martin had any knowledge of til he was already assaulting Zimmerman

    Zimmerman Admitted the Motion (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by rcade on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:10:11 AM EST
    Hannity interview:

    ZIMMERMAN: He asked me what my problem was.

    HANNITY: Expletive problem?

    ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir. And I was wearing a rain jacket, and I had put my cell phone in my jacket pocket, as opposed to my jeans pocket where I normally keep it. And I immediately went to grab my phone to this time call 911 instead of a non-emergency, and when I reached into my pants pocket -- because that's where I keep it out of habit -- it wasn't there, and I was shocked. I looked up and he punched me and broke my nose.

    A person behaves erratically by following you in his car, and then follows you on foot in the dark and rain. When you ask him what his problem is, he makes a move to his pocket.

    How can you not regard that as a dangerous provocation?


    I look at it like this... (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 11:59:27 AM EST
    If TM had been a policeman and GZ reacted that way, the policeman may very well have shot him and been found justified.

    If Trayvon had shot him instead of punching him in the nose it would be a very different story.


    I represented a law enforcement officer (none / 0) (#99)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 12:37:25 PM EST
    in a civil case brought by a civilian who resisted arrest for DUI and forced the officer onto his back on a camper shell beside the driveway with plaintiff on top pummeling. The officer could not get plaintiff off of him. he drew his service revolver with his right hand and fired. One shot was left to right horizontally though and though plaintiff's body. The other entered through his back with no exit wound. Plaintiff was unarmed. defendant testified that while he was pinned on the camper shell he feared serious injury to himself. The civil jury returned a defense verdict in favor of the officer.  Fortunately the plaintiff survived and later returned to work driving heavy equipment at construction sites.

    If the plaintiff had reached for a phone (none / 0) (#104)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 01:34:11 PM EST
    in his pocket near where he also had a gun holstered, I doubt it would have even gone to trial.

    It's an interesting world...


    if he was afraid of him (4.00 / 3) (#62)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:40:30 AM EST
    he should not have left the place where he was staying to back and punch GZ in the face.  TM was close to where he was staying.  GZ was no where near him.  He could have gone inside, but instead he walked back to where Zimmerman was and confronted him.  
    And no, in that case Zimmerman reaching in his pocket should not have been threatening.  TM was being threatening and that is why GZ needed to reach for his phone, to call 911.

    And you know this how? (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:17:51 AM EST
    if he was afraid of him he should not have left the place where he was staying to back and punch GZ in the face.  TM was close to where he was staying.  GZ was no where near him.  He could have gone inside, but instead he walked back to where Zimmerman was and confronted him.

    There was no testimony or evidence of this.  testified that Martin said he was "right by" his father's house, which relative to the mile-long walk from the 7-11 could just as easily at the "T" just south of the "T".


    Don't you know the only thing (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 01:39:40 PM EST
    Rachel is credible on is that one vague statement? Whole theories have been built upon it.

    Leading a Stranger to Your House (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by rcade on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:50:34 AM EST
    Zimmerman didn't have to get his phone and call 911. He could have said "I'm with neighborhood watch" and the situation likely never happens.

    If you fear you are being followed by a dangerous person, you might not want to lead them directly to your house, where the only person home is a 12-year-old boy.

    Martin could have run into Zimmerman 35-40 feet south of the T, where Martin's phone was dropped and a few feet from where his body was found. No teen would ever intentionally drop a phone on wet grass. That calls Zimmerman's account of his movements into question.


    Your phone might fall inadvertently (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by melamineinNY on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:46:19 PM EST
    in an altercation that you began at the spot where it was found.

    Martin seeing gun (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by ahsing on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 01:43:01 AM EST
    I'm having trouble seeing the scenario where Martin sees Zimmerman's gun and slugs him pre-emptively. It's Richard Pryor Macho Man stuff. If someone has a gun and you don't, the last thing you do is hit him first.  And if you do, you don't last 50 seconds.

    Hi. Glad I found this site (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by ahsing on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:51:56 AM EST
    Most of the progressive community is singing hang em high over this, and few seem to actually have much knowledge of the case, though they are sure what it all means. OTOH, there are those who support Zimmerman for all the wrong reasons.

    What scares me is that the progressive consensus quickly seems to be converging on the notion that it's just too hard to disprove self-defense. They think they're actually going to help the interests of black people by weakening defendant rights, just because they don't like the outcome of this case. The percentage of homicide cases that are defeated by self-defense claims is miniscule, isn't it? And the percentage of those that have the racial dynamics of the Zimmerman case also quite small? The impact of weakening self-defense claims will have most of its impact in common crime cases where people may often kill in self-defense, e.g., gang conflict, not racially-motivated shootings.

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Jbsnyder on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:07:13 AM EST
    It's unbelievably short sighted.  And what's more, they won't listen to any of us who are out there fighting for justice for defendants (a class that is disproportionately non-white and poor) because they have been whipped into a frenzy and think that anyone who thinks the not guilty verdict is correct is a racist.

    And do they want a woman who shoots or stabs her rapist or abusive husband to have to explain why she didn't retreat?   Do they want her to have to produce a bunch of evidence that she really was about to be raped?

    The uncharitable part of me thinks that what they really want is something they can't get:  some sort of law that will allow them to go back in time and imprison Zimmerman and Zimmerman alone.


    Just apply the usual situational ethics (none / 0) (#42)
    by cboldt on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:10:15 AM EST
    In a case where the commentator finds the use of self to be justified, they will simply twist (or untwist) the fact or the law and claim the cases are distinguishable.

    I think those who find Zimmerman culpable are twisting the law (maybe through ignorance) and assuming facts.


    squeaky, I don't have to imagine because (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by melamineinNY on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 09:55:48 PM EST
    I've been in many uncomfortable situations and have never altered my ability to communicate clearly even when I'm, for instance, not treated well. So I see no reason why I would not speak clearly in the scenario you present. I have visited a foreign country where I did not speak the language and made every effort to try to learn some customs and language, and to not be accidentally disrespectful. It only takes a little desire and effort to do that and I have to assume Rachel was professionally prepped for trial. If she is as intelligent as her supporters are saying, then she knew how disrespectful she was being when she repeatedly refused to speak clearly and loudly enough so that the jury and court reporter could hear her and understand what she was saying.

    In retrospect her behavior felt disrespectful to Trayvon's memory as well: I got a self-absorbed impression of her - the opposite of his brother. Her belligerence led me to believe she did not want to reveal what she knew, but without knowing what was in the text messages or the conversations her and Trayvon exchanged I cannot know one way or the other. As with other things attributed to her, her so-called grief looked to me to be a wishful projection by others and not an explanation for anything. So the brief moments I saw her on Piers were more of a confirmation of what I already suspected - that she's capable of speaking clearly and directly, but does so only when she feels like it.

    Yes, and I think that's my point (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Manny on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 11:07:17 PM EST
    Yes, I guess what I was saying (albeit sarcastically) is that even though some thought she spoke that way at the trial because of lack of intelligence or education, I thought she spoke that way deliberately to frustrate the attorneys on both sides.  I saw her as a hostile witness, and I suspect her entire reluctance to speak to anyone from the moment her phone call with TM ended at 7:15:43 on that fateful day until she was released from the witness stand at GZ's trial, was because she heard more on the phone with TM than she wanted to reveal.  I suspect what she heard would have clearly exonerated GZ, and I think she felt a duty not to be a "snitch" or traitor to her race.  Maybe one day she'll write a book and we'll find out.  But then, would anyone believe whatever she says?  

    Well the truth trickles in (3.50 / 2) (#5)
    by Jack203 on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:03:01 PM EST
    She believes Trayvon hit first!  Well she's almost certainly right.  And I would bet the mortgage "You got a problem" - "You do now" - WHAM.  Would be pretty much exactly how it went down.

    Well she either has a conscience or is just too tangled up in her web of lies to even know what to say anymore.

    Truth - or "web of lies" (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:49:32 AM EST
    So, when she offers an opinion you agree with, it's the "truth trickling in", and when she says something you disagree with, she's making a "web of lies".

    Funny how that works.


    Exactly. What you know vs. what you think (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:39:30 AM EST
    two different things.

    actually very logical (3.50 / 2) (#73)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:26:50 AM EST
    I know logic is difficult when it doesn't suit your point of view, but here it is:  First you tell a lot of lies. You build a wall of lies.  Then drip by drip, the truth trickles in.  See how that works?

    Logic isn't difficult for ME (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 12:03:44 PM EST
    ... and in the instance at hand, there wasn't any "drip by drip of truth" that contradicted Jeantel's prior statements.  She offered her own opinion as to Martin striking Zimmerman first, not "truth" or even any facts.  In fact, what she actually said was that she believed Martin hit Zimmerman first, which was likely caused by Zimmerman trying to grab and detain Martin - which happens to be entirely consistent with her trial testimony.  So now that you know all of her opinion ...

    ... you still want to claim it's the "truth" trickling in?


    Is that consistent? I checked (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Towanda on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 02:31:59 PM EST
    what I recalled, and the reports from the trial that I find support my recollection that, when asked by West whether she could determine who hit first, Jeantel testified that she did not know.

    Then, a few days later, on tv, she stated otherwise.


    It's in my link (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:20:35 PM EST
    She never stated who struck the first blow in her testimony.  She stated that Martin said "Get off, get off!" to Zimmerman before the phone went dead, which is consistent with her opinion that Martin struck the first blow because Zimmerman was trying to grab/detain him.

    It's just her opinion, but some people only like half of it.


    I think we're looking at different parts (none / 0) (#113)
    by Towanda on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:28:37 PM EST
    of her testimony; see also this, specifically on the reply when West asked the question of who "threw the first punch."

    Nope - same testimony (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:39:46 PM EST
    She said that heard Martin get hit, but then acknowledged she didn't know who was hit by whom.  Given that she wasn't there and the phone cut off, she doesn't know.

    She's now offered her opinion that Martin struck Zimmerman first, but that this was precipitated by Zimmerman grabbing/trying to detain Martin, as evidenced by Martin saying "get off, get off", which is consistent with her opinion.  Some people are citing this as proof that Martin struck Zimmerman first, without acknowledging the other half of her opinion (i.e. the reason she believes he hit Zimmerman, based on what she heard).


    Aha, fact vs. opinion clarifies it (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Towanda on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:45:35 PM EST
    as what I recalled from the interview (after the trial) was that she stated as fact that Martin hit first.

    As Jack said in As Good As It gets (none / 0) (#111)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 02:33:31 PM EST
    "people who talk in metaphors can.."

    She probably doesn't even know that it's wrong (3.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Char Char Binks on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:23:36 PM EST
    to hit first without provocation -- that's old school.

    Not What She Said (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by rcade on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:22:51 AM EST
    She said she thinks Zimmerman put his hands on Martin to detain him until police arrives, which is a reasonable supposition given the way he was talking to the dispatcher and what she says she heard on the phone.

    If that happened, Martin would be perfectly within his rights to hit Zimmerman under Florida's Stand Your Ground law. And it would help explain why Martin wasn't wounded. A person grappling isn't going to bruise an opponent.


    RACHEL (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by morphic on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:29:20 AM EST
    never explained why they were so close to the T after so much alleged walking or running. Multiple witnesses claim the confrontion begin west of the T, than moved south. Zimmerman claimed he was returning to his vehicle, which was west of the T. Is Rachel claiming obese, out of shape Zimmerman was dragging Martin back to his vehicle after an extended manhunt?

    Jeantel Wasn't There (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by rcade on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 11:58:57 AM EST
    There's a limit to how much she could be expected to explain Zimmerman or Martin's whereabouts. All she knew was what limited information Martin told her about what was happening. It's not like he knew it was all about to become tragically important.

    She thinks? (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by melamineinNY on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 12:49:16 PM EST
    she thinks Zimmerman put his hands on Martin to detain him until police arrives

    And why does the eminently perceptive Ms Jeantel believe that about a man she knows nothing about and for which there is zero evidence? Does her saying it instead of, say GZ, make it a "reasonable supposition"?


    Link? (none / 0) (#8)
    by txantimedia on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:18:16 PM EST
    She testified that she did not know (none / 0) (#14)
    by Towanda on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:58:34 PM EST
    exactly that -- who hit first - when asked by West.

    IANAL but wonder whether this would be cause for a charge of perjury?  But that could hurt her chances of keeping the college scholarship.  At least, she has another year of high school to learn cursive to sign her college applications.


    Jeantel will contine to say whatever pops in her (4.25 / 4) (#23)
    by lily on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 12:50:05 AM EST
    head, today she told HP Hill that she reads the papers and follows the news, remember her testimony.

    At our house, it was Jeantel correctly Pier Morgan on the correct pronunciation of WhoopAZZ that had us busting a gut and pounding floor.

    not so funny was the audience embraces her as she explained beatdowns as nothing special, no harm done, every day fun and games.

    culture clash.....


    My take, too. (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Kplaids on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 01:47:14 PM EST
    She's making it up as she goes along.  Right now she's enjoying the attention.  

    Interesting psychology question why she hasn't bothered to just put together a complete story in her own mind.  Just too lazy or careless?  Doesn't take it seriously?  


    Rachel Janetel's speech (2.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Manny on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 03:33:54 AM EST
    Sure is funny how clearly Rachel Jeantel can speak and how articulate she is when being interviewed on a TV show.  

    Another reason I question (2.00 / 1) (#121)
    by melamineinNY on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 12:55:27 PM EST
    her truthfulness under oath. Which is the "authentic" one, if any?

    Jimmy Carter finally does (1.50 / 2) (#3)
    by txantimedia on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:42:06 PM EST
    something right.  Amazing.

    Hard to Please, I Guess (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by rcade on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:25:33 AM EST
    So Jimmy Carter building all those houses for the poor and monitoring fair elections all over the world wasn't enough for you?

    Carter is the greatest former president in U.S. history. His legacy of good works since leaving office is unparalleled.


    Jimmy Carter (4.33 / 6) (#16)
    by gaf on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:24:32 PM EST
    Looks like a lot of right wingers have floated into Talkleft recently to follow Jeralyn's outstanding coverage of the case.

    I doubt if you could have found a comment like "Jimmy Carter finally does something right. Amazing." on TL earlier.


    Oh, I know. I'm old enough (none / 0) (#19)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:31:12 PM EST
    to remember all that. I think he's gotten more liberal as he grew older.

    Either that, or the left has truly moved to the center so much, that it makes a former moderate-looking person look liberal.


    Liberal (none / 0) (#26)
    by gaf on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 02:53:40 AM EST
    I really doubt if txantimedia's complaint against Carter is that Carter was not liberal enough.

    Yeah, and I got totally lost and (none / 0) (#82)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 11:42:19 AM EST
    thought I was answering your comment to me a few above. Sorry about that and I agree with you.

    Ugh again, I thought I was (none / 0) (#83)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 11:44:35 AM EST
    answering A comment to me (jjr, I think). Double sorry :)

    I shouldn't have even mentioned politics in this thread, but I was glad to see Pres. Carter say something that I hope people will listen to.


    Well (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:50:22 PM EST
    You I guess you would be surprised....  

    Right! I'm an army of one (none / 0) (#33)
    by txantimedia on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:21:16 AM EST
    Not to mention I've been here for a while and contributed quite a few transcripts to Jeralyn's collection.

    But you keep your biases intact.


    Right? (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by koshembos on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:29:00 PM EST
    Reading Jeralyn posts on the case, I saw the case for what it really was. Now, when Carter thinks the same, I start to waver. This guy cannot shut up and never says anything I like.

    How weird that I was just thinking of (none / 0) (#2)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:32:05 PM EST
    Pres. Carter today. I was trying to think of my definition of what a true liberal is, and he came to mind. I was thinking about how shameful people made it seem for anyone who voted for him, and now he's one of the most outspoken liberals left who will speak his mind. I'm glad he spoke up about this.

    bmaz, I'm going to check that on Greta's replay. I had read about it, but forgot he was going to be on.

    Carter's smile (none / 0) (#17)
    by jjr on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:28:36 PM EST
    Carter was criticized for being too conservative when he first ran in the 76 primary. Many dems thought he had little more than a big smile. Then in 80 dems ran a true liberal against him.

    T Kennedy a true liberal (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 06:27:56 AM EST
    that's debatable.

    Trayvon was not on trial, so (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jbsnyder on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:55:28 AM EST
    the question would be "did Zimmerman provoke the confrontation", not "was Trayvon justified in his action?"  Trayvon could be justified if his fear was incorrect but reasonable.  For Zimmerman to lose his self defense right due to provocation, he would have to actually be reaching for a gun.  To say otherwise would be to say that Zimmerman should be held responsible, to the tune of 30 years in prison, for Trayvon's misunderstanding.

    If Trayvon were on trial, then he could use that gesture evidence in his self defense claim.

    the comment you are replying to was deleted (none / 0) (#125)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:21:26 PM EST
    Well said Jimmy... (none / 0) (#74)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:36:59 AM EST
    There's the legal/illegal question and the moral/immoral question, and we keep getting them twisted.  It's far too rare when the two different questions synch, primarily because our criminal code is fubar.

    Trayvon's parents on the Today Show (none / 0) (#75)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:37:17 AM EST
    this morning.

    Here's the link.

    I haven't watched it yet, but I have a feeling I've just done the equivalent of throwing a bomb into a crowded room...

    The bomb was already thrown (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 11:03:04 AM EST
    quite awhile back: by a Death Wish IV reenactor driving around at night packing heat..

    martins now (3.50 / 2) (#84)
    by Darby on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 11:44:54 AM EST
    Questioning the jurors analysis.  Time to get off the stage now....

    His parents seem like very nice people. (none / 0) (#81)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 11:40:36 AM EST
    The interview was basically the same old same old.

    Ben Crump PR (2.33 / 3) (#96)
    by PM on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 12:14:45 PM EST
    "An unarmed child strolling through his neighborhood where he had every right to be" The Ben Crump PR narrative
    the mother and father that take absolutely no responsibility for their role in dumping their son in the father's girlfriend's condo and leaving him alone with probably no knowledge that this neighborhood had been terrorized by burglars breaking and entering the Gated Community. A son who liked to, as his friend Rachel said yesterday, "whoop *ss" in fights.

    They had responsibility as parents and they failed but Ben Crump gave them a PR campaign to exploit fears and deflect from their own parental actions, imo.


    A crime-ridden neighborhood where (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 12:21:43 PM EST
    a 17-yr. old healthy male's parents should not have permitted him to walk alone at night?

    Depending on the level of seriousness (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by melamineinNY on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 12:59:02 PM EST
    with which rules of the gated community were enforced, the father or girlfriend at least should have advised him of said rules for the benefit of himself and others who might perceive him as not living there. It would have been the responsible thing to do IMO.

    Did Martin violate any HOA rules the night of (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 01:04:44 PM EST
    his deth?

    Responsibillity for child (2.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Kplaids on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 01:52:02 PM EST
    Andrew Branca LOSD Law of Self Defense said something about Z being able to sue them.  In FL parents are responsible for what a child (up to 18) does.  

    That's true in most states (none / 0) (#114)
    by Jbsnyder on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:32:43 PM EST
    but probably not well advised in this case.  Although if there is a civil suit against Zimmerman his defense attorney would at least threaten it.  

    Except crump cutting them off and not (none / 0) (#88)
    by Darby on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 11:58:09 AM EST
    Letting them answer, on several attempts by matt lauer  to ask them if they thought the prosecution failed to address the <alleged>race issues

    Every difficult... (none / 0) (#118)
    by DebFrmHell on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:53:38 PM EST
    question, though addressed to Fulton or Martin, was answered by Crump.  It was not unexpected.

    provocation (none / 0) (#95)
    by woodchuck64 on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 12:06:16 PM EST
    Anyone in TM's shoes would have thought Z was going for a weapon. And why the prosecutor ignored provocation is the real mystery here.

    That's possible and the prosecution did claim Zimmerman provoked TM.  But I think they didn't want to go to any level of detail in a scenario that would conflict with the evidence.  If they merely said Zimmerman reached into his pocket, Zimmerman still is acquitted as Jbsynder points out.  A misunderstanding won't send Zimmerman to jail.

    On the other hand, if the prosecution states Zimmerman pulled a gun, that raises many more questions such as why he waited 40 seconds to shoot with a gun already in his hand, or why he would still call for help if all he had to do was point and shoot, or why there wouldn't be a direct battle for the gun if Martin was on top, causing Martin's DNA to be found on it.  A can of worms I'm sure the prosecution didn't want to open.

    The actual evidence though does suggest Z went for his gun to "arrest" or shoot

    No, the evidence suggests the gun stayed holstered.