West is asking about a personal letter she wrote Trayvons mother.

There he is...The real George Zimmerman. THIS cold, hard, Zimmerman glaring at Rachel Jeantel this morning is undoubtedly the same menacing Zimmerman that Trayvon saw.

I hope the jury, in their frustrated impatience with West is paying attention to Zimmerman's demeanor.

Slumped in the seat at times. Cocky. Staring down the witnesses. May have been chewing gum. Kept seizing on points and hastily scrambling to write them down like he'd scored a point. Gestured or said something to lawyers several times. He thinks he's clever.

He does not have a poker face. Too transparent. I can see why he failed the police psychological tests. Just too eager. No remorse for killing a kid. Felt good at the time. Not so now. Are they gonna put him on the stand? A Captain Queeg moment?

But she is a disaster on the stand. First let me say that all I want is Justice, not revenge like most here. I have two daughters, one 14 and one 12 and if either of them acted like this young lady did on the stand I would be embarrassed and ashamed of the job I did as their mother.

Second, she is a 19 year old girl going into her senior year, that would make her 20 upon graduation, she can't read or write cursive, she was caught in several lies, she said she heard wet grass, not sure how you do that and for the first time she said she heard Trayvon say get off, something she has never said before. To me she has no credibility and all six of those women on the Jury are mothers like me. I should say I live in Lake Mary, FL. which is in Seminole County right next to Sanford.

To me Zimmerman is guilty of something but I would never put another person away in prison based upon what I heard from her the past two days. It is obvious to me that the parents attorney coached her into what to say, and I doubt almost everything she did say.

She was awful. Nobody deserves to have somebody like her be responsible for their conviction. That would be a travesty of our justice system.

The totality of the case may still convict Zimmerman. He initiated the conflict by stalking TM, made brave by his weapon. I'd hate to see him go free.

I just don't think what she said is going to do it. I don't believe in the stand your ground law but I also don't believe Trayvon is as innocent as everyone wants to believe. I believe they both are at fault and its a shame a young man had to die and for that someone needs to go to jail. Murder 2 is not going to happen, just like Casey Anthony in Orlando, the DA over charged.

Only one at fault for a gun shot and a dead kid.

you don't understand Florida law. The state must prove it was not self defense which they are failing at.

So according to the defense, it's not about race unless they want to make it about race.

response. I think I heard her respond that she had gotten some sleep, is that correct? She had to be exhausted by the end of yesterday.

"It was racial, but it was because Trayvon Martin put race in it, correct?"

Why would Rachel testifying at trial that Trayvon describing Zimmerman as a "creepy ass cracker" somehow be evidence of her bolstering her story to make it more believable to a jury?

I feel bad she has to do this but I think she is very believable.

to the trial online?

It is a leading question; a statement actually, and she is not there as an expert on race relations or sociology, or language and semantics.

I could be wrong...this all comes from my mock trial training in high school nigh on fifteen years ago, but as I recall, the prosecution cannot ask its own witnesses leading questions, but the defense can, and vice versa: the defense cannot ask its own witnesses leading questions, whereas the prosecution can during cross-examination. An actual lawyer can sure correct me, however.

Clearly doesn't like West's subtle race injection.

told her to say it was racially motivated.

I really don't like him or his methods very much.

(or something to that effect)



Yeah, the judge is getting impatient/frustrated with him.

Just now woke up.

Was doing some googling and came across an old Free Republic post where they point out that Trayvon didn't technically buy iced tea but actually instead watermelon punch. They then continued to theorize that he bought that and skittles in order to concoct some sort of drug cocktail that would have made him ultra-violent.

I shit you not.

God Bless you Free Republic, and the wonderful pinnacle of human intellect that you portray to the world.

and the missing ingredient is cough syrup with promethazine and codeine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_drank

That does not mean I am saying or implying Martin was either on it or intending to make it with the watermelon punch and skittles. Merely that such a "drug cocktail" does in fact exist. If people are stupid enough to try and get high off certain kinds of bath crystals, then they are stupid enough to mix other things together to get high.

And no I wasn't on Free Republic. Came across a mention of Purple Drank and did some research.

info keeps matching up with theirs.

IF Martin had been mixing cough syrup, watermelon punch and skittles, the codeine would have shown up in the toxicology screen. As far as I remember, without going back and reading the toxicology report gain, is that Martin had TRACE amounts of THC (pot) in his blood. I don't think the ME report indicated Martin was high at the time of the incident.

Feel free to read whatever you want into my posts.

Last edited Sat Jul 20, 2013, 03:53 PM - Edit history (1)

at least they don't try to hide smears of the victim so that the smears are couched in terms of info. When the toxicology reports do not indicate that any traces of cough syrup chemicals were found in TM's blood, and you then expound on one of the freeper themes anyway, then, yes, I'll read what you write as a conservative smear. And, wow, you got another smear in with the 'trace amounts of THC'. Aren't you the clever piler-on.

I said the toxicology reports indicated that he did not have had codeine in system and that the trace amounts of THC indicated he wasn't high at the time of the incident.

If me giving proof that Martin was not under the influence of anything is a smear, then you live in a very strange world.

describing 'Purple Drank' was the smear and that is what I replied to...and the fact that in your first post, you never said his toxic screen was clean for codeine. That's called a smear, my friend. You didn't deign to do that until your second post, after I called you on the smear, and in that post you threw in another little smear about trace THC in the coroner's report.

Victim smearing is pathetic and playing dumb doesn't become you. I'm done with this sub-thread.

in my first post I don't reference the toxicology report, but then I go on to reference it in all subsequent posts.

Note, that's soda, not Arizona Watermelon Tea. They use sprite but prefer the caffeine in Mtn. Dew or mix a Rock Star in with it.

and by the gun conservatives is truly sick. Thanks for pointing out the incorrect info in his smear attempt.

Given that there was no evidence of codeine in the toxicology report done on Martin means he wasn't under the influence of it and I never said he was.

The codeine is the part they are using to get high, what they mix it with to kill the taste is probably irrelevant.

They don't work. The kids use a carbonated drink, not a flat drink, too. It speeds the process. Because the jolly ranchers have to melt.

the influence of either codeine or pot. Not sure how I can prove to you that I agree Martin was not under the influence of anything.

it was a brief personal letter to a grieving mother, she wasn't under oath. Of course she would leave out details.

He better be glad I'm not on the jury, lol.

by acting like a complete jackass.

the judge didn't seem to like him yesterday, either
or the day before, or the first day.. lol

she was only talking on a cell phone and heard some converstion between Martin and Zimmerman and the phone went dead. Eyewitnesses were cruised through by the defense but this witness has to testify to conversations of little to no importance she had with the mom of Martin. I'm not sure why this loooooong testimony matters.

they will survive this whole trial without going insane
if he keeps going on and on and on and on and on

the more the defense lawyer comes off as a badgering jerk, the more sympathetic the jury will be to the witness.

Will there be a redirect after?

to impeach her. He drones on and on repeating the same thing.
She looks tired, but hanging in there.

I think it will backfire.

in comfortable clothes not on a jury. I think he has overreached with his incessant badgering of this witness.

That's about what he's established with his questioning of TMs friend!!

has chosen to use a certain demeanor which is not playing well.

that at the beginning when she said she can't read cursive, the hearts of all six female jurors had to be touched. I think this jury will be very sympathetic to Racheal.

v.s. "I could've heard Trayvon"
she is disputing the transcription

Deposition transcripts are often wrong in phrasing.

an attorney. Having the judge continually school him on how things are done just does not make him look good.

Bandwidth exceed.

I guess too many people are curious as to what Knock Knock is all about.

He looks like he's just hectoring this witness.

argumentative with the judge as well.

What did you say? Could've or could?
Rachel: "I COULD HEAR TRAYVON"

about letting the jury hear the audio of the deposition. "Could've" or "Could"
It's kind of mumbled, don't think it's that significant.

That was transcribed as "could've heard Trayvon" which implies something different than her intention.

Unfortunately, she is difficult to understand a times.

is "hear". She says "hear", not "heard."

I was struggling to understand if she was saying "hear" or "hear'd" (mispronouncing "heard&quot .

What is your contention? Just want to understand.

Last edited Thu Jun 27, 2013, 04:46 PM - Edit history (1)

the defense played the audio, I focused on just that tiny section, and the word she spoke is 'hear'. I can see how the transcriber heard 'coulda', because Jeantel seems to not complete the full tongue movement on ends of word with hard consonants, like words ending in 'd', so there is no release to make the letter's full sound. If you're listening to that, your brain might fill in a phantom soft sound at the end of the word, like the 'a' in 'coulda'.

Phonetically she says: "I cood her Trayvn'. I'll check the audio again later online, but doubt it will change what I'm hearing her say.

I do notice that the right-wingers who infect the comment section of my local newspaper are practically dancing with joy on the live thread, they think Ms. Jeantel is personally escorting Z from jail, she's doing so badly. But I come here and see that the opposite view is largely held. I'll have to see it for myself later.

That being said, there are two things that I find totally and completely damning for Zimmerman:

1. "These assholes always get away" and "Fucking punks"--shows to me that Zimmerman was not acting as a concerned citizen but had a chip on his shoulder that night.

2. Zimmerman's claim that he was "ambushed" by Trayvon after having chased and lost him. Makes zero logical or common sense. Contradicts every basic human behavior. Why would someone being chased by a stranger for reasons unknown voluntarily want to re-engage that person after attempting to lose him?

In watching day 2 of the trial where the evidence witness is testifying and showing the various items found on the scene, pictures of where they fell, etc., it occurred to me that since Trayvon's cellphone and headset were found on the ground near his body it tells me that he did not try to ambush Zimmerman, and that Rachel's testimony is correct and the Zimmerman ambushed him. If you were going to ambush someone, why would you still be talking on your phone and have on your headset? Even if you had stopped talking on the phone, why would you still be wearing your headset and still have your phone in your hand? It's ridiculous to imagine that Trayvon doubled back to ambush Zimmerman while still wearing his headset and holding his phone in his hand. If you're going to ambush someone you un-encumber yourself so your hands are free and your eyes and ears are free to be able to sneak up on them. Who starts a premeditated fight while still wearing a headset and holding their phone in their hand? Didn't happen. Trayvon's phone and headset being found in the grass near his body shows that he was still holding his phone in his hand and was wearing his headset when HE was ambushed.

She's freezing on the stand.

Please, Rachel, don't meltdown right now.

About rolling around.

She's got to get a handle on this ASAP, it's going south fast.

Grass has a soft rustling sound to it, but it's hard to verbally explain.

:jawdrop: Not listening - at work right now. Zimmerman's attorney is getting down to that level - eh?

This is a goal line stand for the Defendant. If the jury believes Rachel's story, Zimmerman goes to jail for a long time.

They are a cornered animal.

I know the sound she is trying to explain, especially if the headset is on the grass

Therein lies the problem which the defense is attempting to exploit.

I'm glad Zimmerman's lawyer is an ass

me a minute to come up with the word 'squeek' and maybe the example of a tennis shoe rotating on wet grass to expound on the sound.

Im really starting to get pissed off! I feel like he's been asking her the same damned questions for hour upon hour. Seems like he's just trying to put words in her mouth. Stop harassing this poor girl, dickhead!

contradict herself. Of course that won't happen, since she is telling what she experienced first hand. He is coming of as a total asshole.

Myself, I want to reach through this monitor and shake the hell out of him.

I said that I don't think a person has to have common sense to be a lawyer.

because I couldn't take it. How many different ways can you ask the same damn question? This young woman has a whole lot of stamina, and courage, to take this.

You wonder why people don't want to be witnesses? As a woman, I almost want to smack that attorney for more than one thing besides his interrogation. Knock, knock? Cracker? Trying to inflame the jury? Well, he just might be, but not in the way he wants.

Last edited Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:18 PM - Edit history (1)

The only reason left to keep harassing her is to try to get her to make an angry outbusrt at him, in order to leave the jury with that as their last bad impression of her. No other explanation left.

and I feel really sorry for Rachel being subjected to having every single word nit-picked relentlessly and repeatedly, even when she has answered to the best of her recollection and ability. I can see why people "don't want to get involved," knowing that they are apt to be subjected to this sort of harassment.

I.e. when it's not their own witness.

Or in several other limited circumstances when it is their witness.

cant imagine he's winning points from the jury either. What a jerk.

guy when dry material is presented to the jury or they need a 'bad cop'.

It's at 0:15

....when West tried to infer that it was Trayvon who started the fight.

but she is quick. Refuses to agree that Travon approached Z., repeats Z was behind him.

Say what you want about Rachel, but she put West in his place right there.

And see the look on Zimmerman's face during her testimony? It's almost certainly the same cold, hard menacing look and demeanor that Trayvon saw!

he is every patronizing asshole women deal with everyday. Beating up, and verbally humiliating an illiterate, scared high school girl may win points with some Neanderthal types, but he is losing this case, with this female jury.

Though I think he mostly lost them with that asinine knock knock joke. This is a serious case about a serious incident where a young man was shot and killed... making a crass joke under the circumstances was just about the most stupid and most alienating thing West cold have done unless he decided instead to pull down his pants and moon the jury.

Frankly, O'Mara is no better with the harassing of witnesses. He just does it less clumsily. He harassed every witness other than the blonde woman (and he likely didn't try that with her because she came off as not being the least bit timid or frightened of him). He badgered the Asian woman endlessly about her "left to right" testimony when clearly she hadn't mentioned it before because no one had specifically ASKED and she obviously didn't think it was an important detail to mention. By the end of that badgering he had her very close to tears. IIRC, he did the same to the black woman and also badgered her about her "liking" pro-Martin things on Facebook as if she's supposed to be as unbiased as a juror when witnesses for either side can be - and often are - extremely biased to one side or the other because of what they witnessed.

I really think the strategy of both of these defense attorneys is absolutely alienating the jurors, and I can't for the life of me see why they don't see that.