Image 01 Image 03

Zimmerman Update Exclusive — Mid-Day 4 — West’s Cross-Examination of Rachel Jeantel

Zimmerman Update Exclusive — Mid-Day 4 — West’s Cross-Examination of Rachel Jeantel

Hey folks,

We’re trying something different for today’s mid-day update. Rather than write a bunch of text, I’ve imbedded below some of the more key tweets I’ve made over the course of the morning. (This has the benefit of giving me a few minutes to each some lunch.)

Hopefully, the tweets below will give you a sense for how West’s cross-examination of Rachel Jeantel has gone so far this morning. We’ll have a detailed analysis, of course, in this evening’s end-of-day wrap-up post.

Enjoy, and be sure to check back in to our live coverage page at 1:14PM (EST), here:

Zimmerman Trial LIVE VIDEO – Day 4 – State’s Witnesses

That’s it for the mid-day update. Be sure to check back in to our live coverage page at 1:14PM (EST), here:

Zimmerman Trial LIVE VIDEO – Day 4 – State’s Witnesses


Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense,” now available in its just released 2nd Edition, which shows you how to successfully fight the 20-to-life legal battle everyone faces after defending themselves. UPDATE: July 5, 2013 is the LAST DAY to take advantage of the 30% pre-order discount, only $35, plus free shipping. To do so simply visit the Law of Self Defense blog.

BREAKING: “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition” is now also being carried by, at list price but with a commitment for 2-day delivery.  A Kindle version to come within a week or so (I hope).

Many thanks to Professor Jacobson for the invitation to guest-blog on the Zimmerman trial here on Legal Insurrection!

You can follow Andrew on Twitter on @LawSelfDefense (or @LawSelfDefense2 if I’m in Twitmo, follow both!)on Facebook, and at his blog, The Law of Self Defense.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


stevewhitemd | June 27, 2013 at 1:09 pm

Andrew, did the defense ask Ms. Jeantel the following question after she said that she couldn’t read cursive:

“Ma’am, can you WRITE cursive?”

After all, if she can’t read or write it, then who wrote the letter to which her name is affixed? That might be a very interesting line of inquiry. I can’t watch the trial live (I’m working for a living here! Barely working, Steve, if you’re surfing LI at the office — Ed. Shaddup, it’s my meal ticket) so I’m wondering where the defense is going to go with her.

Other than to use her to embarrass the State, of course.

    It was apparently written for her by a friend:

    State has no objection to letter coming into evidence, but does to Jeantel reading it. It was written by a friend based on what she said.— Tony Pipitone (@TonyPipitone) June 27, 2013

    Dee Dee/Rachel did sign it, though — using the name “Diamond Eugene”.

      ThomasD in reply to AmyFL. | June 27, 2013 at 1:52 pm

      Does the friend have a name? Sholdn’t the friend be called to testify as to the circumstances involved in creating the letter?

        Rick Z in reply to ThomasD. | June 27, 2013 at 2:51 pm

        Excellent Point

        Compare the “friend’s” testimony against DeeDee’s.
        Also, type out the letter, and have DeeDee read THAT

byondpolitics | June 27, 2013 at 1:14 pm

It was established initially that her friend transcribed the letter. Nothing untoward about it.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to byondpolitics. | June 27, 2013 at 3:33 pm

    The defense should ask her to name that person and consider calling her/him when they put on their case. Let’s find out if it’s true.

    Why doesn’t the defense just ask the witness why she didn’t just type it and sign it or email it, etc.? If she says she can’t type, it seems like they could then introduce her FB stuff that’s now been deleted but that they likely have.

caseyanderson2112 | June 27, 2013 at 1:17 pm

Given that West seems to be pointing out BDLR’s leading, and some might say coaching, on the tapes could West be using Rachel Jeantel to prove corruption on the part of the prosecution? I get the impression that RJ is still on the stand for her testimony regarding the actions and behavior of prosecutors.

    Jack Long in reply to caseyanderson2112. | June 27, 2013 at 1:47 pm

    prove corruption on the part of the prosecution?

    That’s what I think, too.

    The theory is, if what RJ says she heard on the phone matches actual events, but doesn’t coincide with phone records and the crime scene time line, then she was fed contrived testimony, perhaps from information on the 9-11 calls.

    For example, shouting was heard on a 9-11 call, I believe. If she mentions she heard that, but phone records indicate no cell calls were live during the that time frame, then the testimony would have been contrived.

    Another point I’ve read is that the State will probably not re-direct this witness, so West has to get as much info as he can on cross.

    That’s all just speculation, of course.

    I don’t have any insider knowledge, but West’s line of questioning there is essential the same line of questioning that would be pursued in an investigation for sanctions.

    Just a coincidence, I’m sure.


None of Trayvon’s friends will ever appear on The Food Channel

    Matt in FL in reply to Neo. | June 27, 2013 at 1:37 pm


    Rational in reply to Neo. | June 27, 2013 at 2:34 pm

    That may be because Zimmerman ate the whole channel.

      Uncle Samuel in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 2:40 pm

      At least he turned to food since he’s been confined and threatened by Obama’s thugs and legal agents, and does not do alcohol or drugs, like Trayvon. As for RJ – she obviously does all three.

    Jay Jones in reply to Neo. | June 27, 2013 at 3:59 pm

    Off the subject, but Paula Dean needs to shift fire to Sting and The Dire Straits for having the phrase “that little f*ggot” in their lyrics oh so long ago.

      Rational in reply to Jay Jones. | June 27, 2013 at 4:10 pm

      You really don’t understand the difference? Sad.

      Paul in reply to Jay Jones. | June 27, 2013 at 4:21 pm

      you’re just jealous because that little mo is a millionaire and has his own jet airplane

      Jay Jones in reply to Jay Jones. | June 27, 2013 at 4:41 pm

      @ Rational, other than using language years ago that’s inflammatory today and that they would probably take back, what’s the difference?

      @ Paul. Yes!

        Rational in reply to Jay Jones. | June 27, 2013 at 5:44 pm

        Well, I hate to point out the incredibly obvious, but the song is satire. It is an imagining of a bunch of guys who work at a crappy job, but imagine they should be rock stars. Either you never bothered to listen to, or read the lyrics, or you are too obtuse to get the joke. Either way, the joke is on you.

        As for Dean, I can only offer 2nd hand knowledge. I don’t know anything. But I have heard critics say that it wasn’t strictly about her language. It was also her attitude. She might be a white southerner and a product of her culture, but enough time has passed for her to have learned a little sensitivity. Apparently she has not.

          Jay Jones in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 9:31 pm

          Put it this way: Do you think that song flies today in the same context with the same white guys singing about looking at a rap video and saying “that little n*igger”?

          No way in hell.

        malclave in reply to Jay Jones. | June 27, 2013 at 8:30 pm

        Well, oneclear difference is that the lyrics were said publically, while what Deen said was in private conversation in a moment of fear and anger.

          Rational in reply to malclave. | June 27, 2013 at 11:33 pm

          There are numerous other allegations against Dean. I have no first hand knowledge. So you would do just as well to get them off the internet, yourself. What this has to do with the Zimmerman trial is beyond me.

          However one incident is truly bizarre and laughable, although not funny. Allegedly, Dean catered a wedding with a 1850’s theme. The help were all dressed as house slaves. The guests were dressed in antebellum style. Presumably the employees participated voluntarily, although they might have felt pressure to participate or lose their jobs. It does show an acute lack of sensitivity and a strange sense of history.

          I repeat myself on the Dire Straits song. It is a satire of ignorant people. It doesn’t represent the thinking of Mark Knopfler. If I had to guess, Knopfler probably ran across some guys and heard them talking like that.

          Boy, the sense of fake outrage and the feelings of reverse discrimination on this site are extraordinary. Were it true, it would be an outrage. But it seems more likely that the posters are simply upset at their perceived loss of automatic privilege. What is the South coming to when you can’t shoot an uppity ‘person’ and walk away?

          Goodbye, you all. This is rather tedious and predictable.

          What is the South coming to when you can’t shoot an uppity ‘person’ and walk away?

          You are really beyond the pale. You’ve created a cartoonish fantasy of “the South” in your head, and you’ll cling bitterly to it and facts be damned.

          While you’re running around pointing fingers at all of these fantasy racists you’ve created out of whole cloth, you are an actual bigot. As our mommas here in the South say, y’all need to quit bein’ ugly.

          Rational in reply to malclave. | June 28, 2013 at 10:55 am

          @AmyFL Well, I wrote it to raise hackles. Glad you rose to the bait and defended the honor of the confederacy. The original sheriff did release Zimmerman with a yawn. No it is not as simple as it once was to shoot or lynch a ‘person’ and walk away. But a lot of people, here, seem willing to give GZ a pass before all the evidence is in. They also seem to buy this particular commentator, although, I have heard a different story elsewhere. I am willing to wait for all the evidence and accept the verdict. I was not there, but neither were all the people declaring GZ innocent. I am just as skeptical of those declaring him guilty. Read my other comments. I have said that all I know for sure is that we would not have heard of either of them if Zimmerman hadn’t initiated a pursuit of Martin.

txantimedia | June 27, 2013 at 1:23 pm

Her “interview” was passingly strange. Not held at a police facility. Attended by family and their attorneys. Mother of the deceased sitting right next to her. The whole thing was setup to steer her in the direction they wanted to go rather than to get the facts as she knew them.

    CitizenEgg in reply to txantimedia. | June 27, 2013 at 1:34 pm

    Yep. They questioned her and got the answers they wanted to hear, because she modified them to fit the audience. This was beyond sloppy, and yet I’ve heard that this interview was used as the basis for the DA to file charges. Is that true? Anyone?

    Between the attitude, poor enunciation and seeming lack of awareness about how critical her exact wording is to this murder trial, I lost any compassion for Miss Jeantel in the first hour of testimony. She got a tune up last night it seems, but prosecution should’ve realized what a liability she was going to be beforehand and taken steps to deal with it.

      Rational in reply to CitizenEgg. | June 27, 2013 at 2:37 pm

      Are you sure you didn’t lose interest before she even took the stand. I don’t get the feeling you were willing to listen. Regardless of her obvious limitations, she is the closest we have got to an actual witness.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 2:50 pm

        Closest thing to an actual witness? I think not. First of all, you could swap her out for a three-toed sloth and get the same witness value and response. Second, she is not a witness. She is an advocate; possibly a paid advocate and obviously a coached advocate.

        True witnesses are those who were interviewed after the incident and told the truth about what they saw, when, where, etc., without an agenda, without embellishment. Period.

        caseyanderson2112 in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 2:58 pm

        “Rational” your desperate attempt to salvage the persecution’s “star witness” is valiant but ultimately doomed. I lost count of how many times she impeached herself on the stand, and her demeanor was hardly endearing to anyone, jury included.

        I’ll bet you’re a lifetime member of the Windmill Tilting Club.

          I am not interested in salvaging anyone. For better or worse, she is the closest thing we have to a witness. That is fact. Zimmerman will be coached, too. He certainly isn’t my idea of a stellar intellect.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to caseyanderson2112. | June 27, 2013 at 3:58 pm

          It is not a fact. The closest thing we have to a witness is GZ. Rachel is an advocate who really isn’t up to the job.

          As for intelligence, GZ is a rocket scientist compared to your sweetheart witness.

          For better or worse, she is the closest thing we have to a witness.

          And you think her testimony is helping prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 3:58 pm

        Seems to me a ‘Rational’ person waits till the evidence is in before declaring guilt or innocence. Plenty of folks here are speculating rather than declaring as you are, but their names aren’t Rational.

        Pot, meet kettle. Petard hoisted.

Tweets are a cop out! Lunch is for sissies!

(I type this between bites of my Wendy’s dbl-cheeseburger.)

    Estragon in reply to Matt in FL. | June 27, 2013 at 4:27 pm

    Burger King has introduced a Whopper Holder, a device which fits around the neck to hold the burger in place for biting, leaving the hands free to Tweet, type reports, etc.

    So the technology is there. 😉

I dont mind West’s slow pace. I think he is just waiting for an opportunity to really challenge her. But I am a bit irritated with West asking leading questions. He should be forcing her to get more information. The more she speaks, the more she contradicts earlier comments.

    CitizenEgg in reply to rokiloki. | June 27, 2013 at 1:43 pm

    I was a little surprised by the judge telling West to lower his voice when he confronted Jeantel with the fact that she was making stuff up about who hit who. Guy finally sees his chance to call bullshit on her and judge dumps cold water on him. Jeez, what’re all of us waiting for TV lawyer action going to do now?

      Rational in reply to CitizenEgg. | June 27, 2013 at 2:43 pm

      “fact that she was making stuff up about who hit who” So how come they didn’t ask you to testify? Obviously you know more about this than she does.

      I do like the fact that Zimmerman will get similar treatment. There has been infinite time for him to hone his story, but a skill cross-examiner may dismantle him and send him directly to the hoosegow.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 3:03 pm

        She’s testilying, and very poorly so, not testifying.

        GZ’s story has never changed so he will do fine if he takes the stand.

        You are not on the defense team so you don’t know if he will testify or not.

        Your post is nothing but a tanturm over the fact that the defense is making mincemeat out of the State’s star witness on whom, through Trademark’s greedy parents and their race-baiting, race-industry lawyer, the State brought these charges in the first place in this political witchhunt for a white scalp and to teach whitey to never fight back against the ongoing black-on-white assaults taking place numerous times a day across this country.

          Zimmerman is using an affirmative defense. If he doesn’t testify, the assertion that he was not justified stands.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | June 27, 2013 at 3:43 pm

          Rational, you’d better read this so that your future posts will live up to your nic:

          GZ does not HAVE to testify.

          Zimmerman is using an affirmative defense. If he doesn’t testify, the assertion that he was not justified stands.

          I’m pretty sure that’s not true.

          Lina Inverse in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | June 27, 2013 at 6:04 pm

          AmyFL, you’re right. As I understand it (IANAL), when you claim the affirmative defense of self-defense you admit that you injured or killed the person in question, but outside of Ohio it’s still up to the prosecution to disprove your claim. And even in Ohio I can’t see it being required that you yourself testify (although I imagine it would often help), just that the burden of establishing the proof of self-defense is on you.

          Zimmerman has already testified at length to the local police, who in conjunction with the local prosecutor decided they didn’t have a case … as our guest host has pointed out, the prosecution has to among other things show why the locals got it wrong.

          What Evidence is Required to Raise a Self-Defense Claim in Florida?

          @Rational. Here is the money quote from the article linked in the referenced post:

          The defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense in Florida when there is any evidence to support the claim. This is a low standard and even a “scintilla” of evidence will be sufficient, even if the self-defense theory is extremely weak or improbable. Self-defense may even be inferred from the State’s evidence without the Defendant or a defense witness ever taking the stand.

(Raises hand)

Can/should the defense call Ms. Jeantel as a witness, or does all this questioning have to be done on cross examination?

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Browndog. | June 27, 2013 at 3:27 pm

    IANAL, but since none have answered, I’ll take a shot. I think she can be recalled by the defense…….but it would probably result in a collective groan from the jury. 🙂

    But, if evidence comes in or the Crump depo ever gets done and there’s strong indication that manipulating this delicate flower was part and parcel to the charges being filed as a result of Crump’s manipulation of the system, I could see her being recalled about those issues rather than more about Trademark and the night in question. Also, if Trademark’s behaviors and history get in, she might be recalled about that, although it seems like that would stand on its own without her and she’s already fully testified about the “creepy ass cracka” and “nigga” gangsta language/attitude/beliefs/racist viewpoint of whites. Who and what she is, as it reflects on Trademark as Trademark’s girlfriend or friend-girl, has already been revealed.

rokiloki, I think he is trying to translate to the jury just in case they can’t follow her speech and speech patterns. He’s also trying to trip her up. I’m most interested in the concept Mr Tracy Martin, his attorney etc got the Racist angle going and also helped by ABC then NBC, and leaders that came to Fl to demand the arrest of Mr Zimmerman.

I’m getting the feeling that PDs across the country are beginning to gear-up for the riots! If Dee-Dee is the star witness, OMG!

This is a bit off topic, but I was watching some of HLN’s coverage of the trial yesterday evening, and one of the lawyer/commentators was making a big deal of the fact that Trayvon Martin’s pants were wet from the portion below the knees down to the feet, but there were no water or grass stains on his pants’ knees. The woman said this was clear proof that Martin was not on top of Zimmerman, as Zimmerman claims.

But looking at the photograph of Zimmerman from the crime scene, he was wearing a large jacket, and it was open (i.e. not buttoned up or zipped, but with the sides hanging open). Seems to me that if Zimmerman had been knocked to the ground, his jacket likely would have fallen open to either side of him, and Martin could have been atop Zimmerman, with his knees on the jacket. That would have prevented Martin’s pants from being wet or having grass stains on the knees, but the lower portion of his pants still would have been wet (as they were). That position also would have allowed Martin to keep Zimmerman more constrained, as it would have been more difficult for Zimmerman to get away if Martin was using his knees to pin down Martin by the sides of his jacket.

Anyway, just a thought I had. I didn’t see the opening statements, so I don’t know if this issue has even been brought up by either side.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Observer. | June 27, 2013 at 2:44 pm

    Huh? The pants being wet from below the knee and on down proves he was on his shins. The thickness of the body he was sitting on would keep his full knee area from touching the ground. Further, when you squat down on your knees, as your thighs fill out, it makes the pants ride up. When you stand up agai, they slip downward back into place. Don’t let the trayvonistas spin your head. If he’d been on the bottom, flat on his back as they claim, the back of his pants from the butt down would have been wet.

      caseyanderson2112 in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | June 27, 2013 at 3:05 pm

      Common sense and logic are foreign concepts to Trayvonistas. They have a vested interest in TM’s innocence and GZ’s guilt, and will let nothing get between them and that interest.

      Dollars to doughnuts, when GZ is acquitted Rational and his ilk will excuse the death and destruction by claiming that the “crazy-ass crackas” started it all. You heard it here first.

        GZ did start it all. That much is obvious to anyone not on this one sided site. Without GZ playing vigilante, we wouldn’t have heard of either one. There is absolutely no doubt the GZ started it. The only question is whether he was defending himself when he shot. There is no question who started it.

        If you don’t understand that, don’t lecture me. You do understand that GZ decided TM was suspicious and followed him for some period of time. Maybe he did lose him. But the definition as started is unambiguous.

        Now who started it. Come on. You can admit it. It isn’t in dispute.

          ThomasD in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 3:53 pm

          Define ‘it’ in the context of this trial and you might have a valid point.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 3:54 pm

          GZ did not start anything. That’s why he called the cops in the first place. It’s obvious that he was simply trying to maintain surveillance until the cops got there, which was why his call to the cops contained so much detail as to where he was, where the subject was moving toward, and so on, That you lose observation when someone is walking around blind corners of buildings and meandering through no particular path with no apparent destination, in the dark and the rain, there is no way for the observer, who was following NW instruction by trying to maintain a safe distance, could avoid running into the MMA-trained subject who made the aggressive choice to double-back in his zeal to confront the follower.

          “Rational” people don’t call the cops in advance and relate their movements if their intent is to murder or even just harass someone.

          woodchuck64 in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 4:05 pm

          GZ did start it all.

          In what way did he start it? The job of a neighborhood watch citizen is to be suspicious, alert and to report any suspicious activity to the police department. It was GZ’s suspicious scrutiny while on the phone with the police that upset TM and caused him to run. Only after TM ran did GZ get out of the truck and try to figure out where he was going, understandably interpreting flight as further guilt. Innocent people don’t run.

          Yes, GZ started it all by staring at TM, but that’s what he was supposed to do. That’s what any good neighborhood watch citizen should do. I would say TM started it by running, but that would be foolish.

          Nobody started it. It was two cases of mistaken identity, GZ thinking TM was a thug, and TM thinking GZ was a “crazy-ass cracker” that led to the confrontation.

          fogflyer in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 4:37 pm

          You contend JZ started “it”.
          You state GZ started it because he followed TM. If GZ stayed in the car, IT wouldn’t have happened. True. If TM stayed in his house and didn’t go out for skittles, IT wouldn’t have happened. Neither of these statements mean anything though. I could state an infinite number of decisions/ actions that could have prevented IT from happening.

          Therefore, I would suggest that the “rational” view as to who started IT, would be the first one to do something illegal.

          Please state for me what was the first illegal act in this situation?
          Who performed that act?
          And what evidence of that act do we have?

          Uncle Samuel in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 5:45 pm

          GZ was not playing vigilante – you are quoting Crump Cr*p propaganda.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 6:09 pm


          “It” never would have happened if TM hadn’t been suspended from school and shipped to his dad for those weeks of suspension.

          “It” never wouldn’t have happened if Trademark hadn’t decided to take out his anger at being suspended on a “creepy-ass cracka”.

          “It” never would have happened if Tracy and his shack job had stayed home and supervised Tracy’s miscreant son instead of going out to party until the wee hours. They didn’t even know Trademark was missing until the next day, so they didn’t even bother to check on the little thug when they eventually got home.

          “It” never would have happened if Trademark hadn’t been allowed to go all NO_LIMIT_NIGGA MMA gangsta racist in the first place. Given the immediate hiring of race-capitalist Crump as their counsel, one has to wonder if Trademark didn’t get his thinking from mom and dad who couldn’t wait to capitalize on his death through a begging tour and a lawsuit before their son’s body was even cold.

          txantimedia in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 6:49 pm

          Assume, for the sake of argument, that Zimmerman did start it. That matters not one whit. Even if you start a confrontation, under Florida law, if the confrontation escalates to the point that deadly force is justified, you still have the right to defend yourself.

          Given the fact that Zimmerman had obvious injuries to the front and back of his head, a rational person could not argue that he got the better of the fight, even if he did start it.

          Since one punch to the head can kill you (google one punch kills if you don’t believe me), deadly force is justified, under the law, as soon as the punch is directed at you, even if it doesn’t land.

          The prosecution is hoping to convince the jury that Zimmerman started it, because then they can make an emotional argument that he had no right to shoot, even though the law says that he did.

          fogflyer in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 7:34 pm

          I agree wholeheartedly, but seldom bring this point up when discussing this case. People really don’t like this idea and see it as unfair. The general populace seem to think if you start the fight, you are guilty… Period.

          I think you meant to respond to Rational, not me, unless you were just responding to back up my argument. You and I are in complete agreement.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 8:38 pm

          Fog, the latter. 🙂

          rantbot in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 9:06 pm

          Zimmerman’s claim is self-defense, not vigilantism. The two concepts are distinct. If the deadly physical encounter was started by Zimmerman (with a blow, a grab, or display of a weapon), then one might indeed claim vigilantism on Zimmerman’s part. If the deadly physical contact was started by Martin, then Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense is sound. Who started anything else prior to the physical attack is of little interest.

          Juba Doobai! in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 10:29 pm

          So, a watch guy doing his duty and following someone who seems suspicious is “starting something”? Get a life! All Trayvon Martin had to do was go home and not confront GZ. Instead, TM acted like the punk he was and thought his MMA experience could help him thump the “cracka”. That TM was bothered by GZ’s presence behind him could signal that TM had not danged good intention to begin with. Or, is a white guy (or someone perceived to be white) not allowed to walk behind a black guy for any length of time?

    rokiloki in reply to Observer. | June 27, 2013 at 6:20 pm

    Unless I missed something, I think the defense said in opening statements that Martin did have grass stains on his knees.

    But if Martin was on the bottom, wouldn’t stains be noted on his back or buttocks area? I think police noted grass stains on Zimmerman’s back.

Jeantel is behaving in an extremely passive aggressive manner. She answers questions in as few words as possible and is vague and evasive, often uttering ambiguous words. She thereby forces West to repeat what he believes her answers were, ask the question in different terms and he then gets the same response. He must want to strangle her! Jeantel answers every question with at least one or two “Sir”s, which are just dripping with contempt.

I noticed that in the recording of the interview that was played from ?April, 2012 Jeantel’s answers were clearly enunciated and adequately loud.

The Channel 9 talking head is so biased it’s laughable.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to JasonI. | June 27, 2013 at 2:41 pm

    News agencies are Obama’s PR and Propaganda Agency.

    Rational in reply to JasonI. | June 27, 2013 at 2:47 pm

    You mean they don’t agree with you. Just translating.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 4:02 pm

      Oh dear. Another fallacy of logic by the Rational poster. The two are not mutually exclusive. It is possible for it to be propanganda and to run counter to one’s beliefs. You are employing a false dichotomy, but then, the Rational would already know this.

      rantbot in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 9:15 pm

      Obama’s already told us where he is on this matter, and it’s only reasonable, since Trayvon was his son. Or would have been, if Obama had a son. Loyal sycophants everywhere have only to take their marching orders. Q.E.D.

    tencz65 in reply to JasonI. | June 27, 2013 at 3:32 pm

    must be prepped by Angela ‘Save my job’ Corey.

I’m waiting for the prosecution to make an objection on the grounds that the defense is attempting to ask questions which could make the witness give answers that would be potentially devastating to the state’s case. I suspect that this objection would be sustained.

(I’m watching this recorded and approximately 4 hrs behind the live video) On another note, I know West is going somewhere with this, and for the sharp observer, I see where these little issues in the witness’ testimony reveal themselves. But I keep expecting for West to capitalize on any of these points in a manner that it will be picked up by the not-so-sharp observer (after all, we don’t know the intelligence of each and every juror) and he doesn’t. I’m hoping that he’s doing this because he doesn’t want her to shut down before he gets to the crux of his cross.

“Crazy-ass cracker” may be erroneously punctuated and accented. If it is crazy ass-cracker, which refers to a person who practices anal sex, then it would not be racial and would support the contention Martin though he was being followed by a rapist. I don’t buy the rapist fear, rather “creepy ass-cracker” as generalized pejorative.

    CrankbaitJohnson in reply to Indigo Red. | June 27, 2013 at 3:20 pm

    (adj.)-ass (pejorative noun) is the far more common construction, and is the way Jeantel pronounced it on the stand. Althouse can be very incisive, but other time very dingy, and she’s the one feeding this dumb meme. Why are they analyzing a spoken word as if it can be subjected to textual tricks? Jeantel said “CREEPY-ass CRACKER.” It’s on TV, look it up.

      …and she’s the one feeding this dumb meme

      Ah! I was wondering where that one was coming from.

      With all due respect to Ms Althouse, because I’m sure she’s a perfectly nice lady even so, but she’s a Yankee, isn’t she?

      They talk different up there.

      I’m not pushing either interpretation and I’ve no idea how Ann Althouse is portraying the terminology. The two descriptions – Zimmerman as rapist and Zimmerman as creepy-ass cracker – don’t seem to fit together in the traditional meaning of the words. The crowd sourced definitions at Urban Dictionary gives continuity between the two.

      1. ass cracker
      One who not knowing the code or combination to a particular slice of ass is nonetheless able to get inside the ass
      Frat boy 1: “dude is so wasting his time on lulu bitch NEVER gives it up”
      Frat boy 2: “not. Dude is a total ass cracker. He will be in that ass before midnight”
      2. Ass Cracker
      One who engages in anal sex.
      That wanker is an ass cracker.
      3. Ass Cracker
      A term used to describe a man with a large enough penis, to brake the anus of the woman or man he is having anal intercourse with.
      “Damn, his’s cock is so big, he is definatly an ass cracker!”

      And it goes on:

      Jeantel is not one that most would say is speaking standard English so the words and phrases may sound familiar but have different meanings in her circle. Perhaps Jeantel should have been provided an interpreter as was the Spanish speaking woman who did, in fact, speak standard English.

        fogflyer in reply to Indigo Red. | June 27, 2013 at 7:30 pm

        Maybe you missed it, but they actually already got Ms. Jeantel to clarify that statement.
        She said that “creepy-ass” meant he might be a pervert, and that “cracker” was a term for white guy.

        Sorry, the ass-cracker theory has already been shot down by the very witness who brought it up.

          My computer’s “family filter” doesn’t like this site anymore, after that sexually graphic definition you pasted in. Y’all’re gonna lose this site its PG rating with stuff like that.

    rokiloki in reply to Indigo Red. | June 27, 2013 at 6:32 pm

    But you guys are forgetting the lines Jeantel spoken before “creepy-ass cracker” stole the spotlight.

    Immediately before –

    Jeantel: “the man looked creepy.”

    Prosecutor: “he said the man looked creepy?”

    Jeantel: “Creepy, white, kill-my-neighbors cracker.”

    This led to the “creepy ass cracker” comments. In the context of the above, she meant “creepy-ass cracker” and not the slang “creepy ass-cracker”. (note the punctuation)

      Thanks. In that context, it makes sense as a racial epithet. I didn’t hear the statements leading up to “creepy-ass cracker” in their entirety.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Indigo Red. | June 27, 2013 at 6:36 pm

    “Crazy ass cracka” is a black culture epithet to reference white people. It’s been around a long time.

    “Ass-cracker” is a term for a homosexual who forces himself or seduces sexually inexperienced homosexuals coming out of the closet.

    Trademark no doubt picked it up from his parents and his little black gangsta social circle and used it in the first sense. The idea of it being used in the second sense came from Rachel who CLAIMS she warned Trademark GZ might be a rapist. That was in her mind, not Trademark’s, according to her testimony. If Trademark had had that concern independently, he probably most definitely would have gone home and stayed home rather than confront what he thought was a potential rapist. Also, supposedly moments later, Trademark referrred to GZ as a “nigga”. If he thought GZ was a rapist, he would more likely have refferred to him as a “faggot” or “nigga faggot”, etc..

    I don’t buy the “Trademark thought GZ was rapist” theory at all. I’d also like to know if Rachel made that statement in her first Crump interview – that she told Trademark something like “Oh, he might be a rapist”. If she did, this controversy would have started long ago.

    It doesn’t wash. I think the State may try to evolve its theory of the confrontation to excuse/explain Trademark being the one to initiate the confrontation because he had fear of rape in his mind. Even if that was the case, all he had to do was go home, lock the door and call the cops and his dad…. and help protect his younger stepbrother/cousin/whoever-he-is from GZ, the big, bad rapist if he came knocking.

Maybe Martin had good reason to refer to Zimmerman as a “Crazy-ass cracker”. He is dead now at the hands of that “Crazy-ass cracker”. I guess his epitaph could be ‘Killed by a “Crazy-ass cracker”’.

Seems that the people on this site have forgotten who pursued who and who shot who. A guy was walking along, minding his own business, and now he is dead. But you want to put 100% of the blame on him. It seems Zimmerman did absolutely nothing wrong. Martin committed suicide by neighborhood watchman.

    CrankbaitJohnson in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 3:01 pm

    Curious where you come down on the Paula Deen thing, since she used the word only AFTER she was robbed at gunpoint by the disrespected African American in question.

    caseyanderson2112 in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 3:01 pm

    How sweet. Rational is going to stick by the racemongers’ story regardless of the facts. You have to admire someone who, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, stands by his/her man.

    I hope you have a counselor on speed dial. You’re going to need professional intervention when the verdict is read.

      CrankbaitJohnson in reply to caseyanderson2112. | June 27, 2013 at 3:11 pm

      Why do people with handles like “Rational” or “LogicAssassin69” or “Occam’s Hadron Collider” never live up to their own billing?

        caseyanderson2112 in reply to CrankbaitJohnson. | June 27, 2013 at 3:13 pm

        It’s a curious phenomenon to be sure. If I see those terms in a user name I know to fetch my knee boots to protect against the manure.

        moonstone716 in reply to CrankbaitJohnson. | June 27, 2013 at 3:28 pm

        My question is: what are they trying to do by coming on the forum and making stupid statements that virtually no one agrees with and are not really worth the bother of refuting? Do they just crave attention? They can’t possibly think they are going to change anyone’s mind. Pretty sad if you’re going after attention anonymously.

          Rational in reply to moonstone716. | June 27, 2013 at 3:47 pm

          i came to this site at the suggestion of someone who showed up at HP. He didn’t tell me that this site is only for those who believe one way. You just want to preach to the converted. Don’t worry. I am getting bored with the bubble.

          I am actually a programmer by trade and logician by training. But if you need to claim I am irrational, I can live with that. It is rather amusing. A site where any dissenting voice is attacked like an invading ant in a colony of ants.

          Matt in FL in reply to moonstone716. | June 27, 2013 at 3:58 pm

          Rational, you would get less pushback if the majority of your assertions weren’t opinions and/or things that have been disproven by evidence. Earlier (in another thread) you said that if we couldn’t agree that TM wasn’t doing anything wrong when GZ first saw him, we didn’t have anything to talk about. What TM was doing when GZ first saw him is irrelevant, be it right, wrong or just weird. What matters (for self-defense) is whether GZ could reasonably be seen to be in fear for his life at the time of the shooting. Slightly less important is that even if GZ initiated the contact, it could still be self defense, if he tried to get away and was prevented for doing so, and was in fear for his life. See Florida Statute 776.041 here.

          DuraMater in reply to moonstone716. | June 27, 2013 at 10:53 pm

          This is just a hunch, moonstone, but I suspect many of the Traybot Trolls stalking the internet now are former or current Obama/Organizing For America (OFA) team members. Flooding the internet with propaganda was what they were trained to do and they can’t allow their skill or a contrived racial crises go to waste.

          Anyway, whenever I spot them, I starve them. They are best ignored.

          Juba Doobai! in reply to moonstone716. | June 27, 2013 at 11:13 pm

          Rational, you might be a programmer by trade, but you do not argue rationally. I have yet to see a position of yours that is an honest assessment of the facts followed by a logical conclusion. You argue neither inductively nor deductively. Therefore, I am forced to conclude that, by making asinine statements which don’t correspond with facts or reality, you are hoping to guilt people here into regarding GZ as guilty.

          People here are following the case and assessing the evidence, and you are attempting to deflect and evade it.I’m sorry that TM is dead and that GZ is in the dock, but inasmuch as both events are true, the question must be what does the law allow, and the answer to that is likely to lead to GZ’s acquittal.

        Rational in reply to CrankbaitJohnson. | June 27, 2013 at 3:40 pm

        Try breaking out of your bubble. I am asking perfectly rational questions. They only seem irrational because you are using a closed system to judge. Basically I find the degree of hostility and certainty amusing. I am just trying to poke the hornets nest and see if anyone is willing to actually look at the few unambiguous facts that are available.

        I am content to await all the testimony and the verdict – whatever it is. After the O.J. trial, I expect noting. Besides I know a defense attorney who won 9 murder trials in a row. No they weren’t all innocent.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 4:13 pm

          Then you missed all the testimony from police dpeartment personnel, including the NW Coordinator and the Citizens-On-Patrol Coordinator.

          Try to keep up with the case before you troll this site. Further, a large portion of the readers and posters here are lawyers, and the rest of us are educated professionals in related fields or have a high degree of education, such as engineers, doctors, etc..

          You appear to be way out of your league, buddy.

          Nothing that you have said is rational. It is all racist B.S.

          txantimedia in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 6:57 pm

          Clearly you aren’t rational. OJ was innocent. (And no, I do not mean not guilty, I mean innocent. I watched the whole trial.) You apparently can’t view evidence and testimony and come to a rational conclusion because you have predetermined the outcome.

          Furthermore you display clear ignorance of the law.

          I was not the least bit surprised by the OJ verdict, because the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

        Ragspierre in reply to CrankbaitJohnson. | June 27, 2013 at 3:43 pm

        Maybe it’s aspirational. Heavy on the “ass”/

        Well, if they called themselves Alcibiades’ Sixth Krater nobody would get the joke.

      he’s the classic example of ‘Racist.’ Absolutely has his mind made up , on skin color alone . He’s shown this time an again .

    Observer in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 3:08 pm

    What nonsense. There is plenty of evidence that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor. There are witnesses who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, beating him MMA style. Zimmerman himself told police that Martin attacked him, knocked him to the ground, and was beating his head against the concrete sidewalk. Zimmerman had a badly broken nose, and numerous contusions and abrasions on his head, that support his story. Furthermore, just listen to some of the state’s own evidence: the prior 911 calls Zimmerman made to report suspicious persons in his neighborhood. In those prior calls, Zimmerman never wants to approach the suspects; in fact, he seems pretty timid (as the female police coordinator also noted about him when she tried to recruit him for a citizens’ patrol). Yet we’re supposed to believe that this cautious, timid guy suddenly transformed into an aggressive vigilante and attacked Martin without cause? Baloney. As between the two of them, Martin was the one with the history of aggression, and the one most likely to have initiated the confrontation.

    caseyanderson2112 in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 3:09 pm

    ” I guess his epitaph could be ‘Killed by a “Crazy-ass cracker”’.”

    You didn’t finish the sentence. It’s:

    Killed by a crazy-ass cracker who wasn’t as vulnerable as I thought and wouldn’t take my beat-down.

    Difference Maker in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 3:26 pm

    Couldn’t have said it better. There Trayvon was, minding his criminal business, when confronted by a citizen taking issue with his extracurriculars

    Trayvon then suicidally attacked this armed man, with the result we are familiar with today.

    A succinct summary

    SCLEO in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 3:34 pm

    I can’t find it that simple. I think that Zimmerman’s actions leading up to the confrontation are monumentally stupid. Foolish. Ignorant. He should have stayed at his car. It was begging for bad stuff to happen and he should have known better, but in and of itself it wasn’t criminal. Stupid has never been a crime even though it might ought to be. But when Martin decides to jack him up and play basketball with his head on the concrete, he has committed an assault that places Zimmerman in fear for his life and that’s when the self-defense comes in. What it boils down to is that no matter how foolish Zimmerman’s actions that placed him in the situation were, the legal questions are whether he was in a location that he could legally be, and whether he physically initiated the assault.

    Let’s think of it from another standpoint… if a woman dresses in an extremely provocative way and walks through an extremely dangerous area known for a high number of sexual assaults, we should not be surprised when she gets raped. But however foolish she may be for doing what she did, it is not unlawful and she does not deserve to be raped.

    I personally find it very difficult to believe that at the moment the confrontation became physical, that a soft-spoken man like Zimmerman physically attacked a man half a foot taller than him, and although the witness testimony varies and is disputable in many ways, the physical evidence to me is beyond dispute and consistent throughout.

      Rational in reply to SCLEO. | June 27, 2013 at 4:06 pm

      You are the first person who put together a reasoned argument and went so far as to admit the GZ was stupid. The rest will be determined by the trial. There may be lesser included charges such as negligent or involuntary homicide that cover being stupid and acting in a quasi-legal position. But I am willing to await all of this physical evidence that you claim will support your point of view.

      I disagree with your analogy of a provocatively dressed woman. It is more like that woman who walked through that neighborhood and then went home with one of the locals. GZ was not passive. He was an active participant. He did pursue. That is undeniable.

      People have chosen up sides. I know very little to a degree of certainty. I do know that Martin was not contemplating a crime at the initial moment. Except for a couple of people on this site, no one has even claimed that TM was engaged in a criminal act before he perceived GZ. TM may well have been a stick of dynamite. GZ lit the fuse. That much is clear.

      GZ has every reason to shade the story his way and has had the time and the counsel to do it. So, for people on this site to claim that the prosecution witness were coached strikes me as the pot calling the kettle black.

      Anyway, thank you. I was despairing that anyone on this site could be at all objective.

        Fabi in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 5:14 pm

        I do know that Martin was not contemplating a crime at the initial moment.

        Please share your source of this knowledge.

        caambers in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 5:24 pm

        You are incorrect…there is no evidence to indicate that Zimmerman ‘followed’ ‘pursued’ or ‘confronted’ Martin in any way. That is a meme put forth by the lawyers for the Martins and perpetuated by the media. The facts and now we’re seeing testimony that does not prove that. Also, as to Martin’s state of mind or what he was contemplating, we don’t know. We do know per the tox screens that he had THC in his system and I believe the level indicated is consistent with recent use. Remember, one of the first things Zimmerman said on the NEN was that the person he was observing seemed to ‘be on something’.

        Tomblvd in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 5:54 pm

        ” I do know that Martin was not contemplating a crime at the initial moment.”

        I second the question.

        How the Hell do you know that?!

        bubbleboy in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 7:37 pm

        rational, what’s your explanation of the media using and continuing to use an outdated photo of TM? there were(are) many other photos of him available but none would achieved the ‘innocent victim’ look they were trying to sell.

          Pardon the jocularity on a serious subject BUT everytime I see the name on your ‘handle’ I have bee, uhh no, tequila in this instance, comin’ out my nose (it burns too)..

          ..but all I think of is:

          Bubble Boy: What’s your story?
          Susan: I-I-I have no story.
          George: She works for NBC.
          Bubble Boy: How ’bout takin your top off.

        DennisD in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 8:07 pm

        Rational writes, “GZ has every reason to shade the story his way and has had the time and the counsel to do it.”

        Actually Z told his story at the police station after the shooting and then the next day gave a video re-enactment without counsel. So Z didn’t have time nor counsel.

        Juba Doobai! in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 11:28 pm

        Rational, you have obviously never been on neighborhood patrol. I was, and I managed to get some pretty good pix of juvenile thugs who had been engaged in petty crime by approaching them and taking pix even as I came.The point is to pursue and be able to provide a solid description of whomever it is who may be acting suspiciously. Therefore, it is illogical and irrational to regard GZ’s pursuit as threatening to TM when that pursuit was in the scope of GZ’s duties.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to SCLEO. | June 27, 2013 at 4:48 pm

      What did GZ do that was foolish? He followed NW policy, and that policy comes from the police department. Did you not hear the PD witness state that following a suspect at a safe distance was accetable procedure?

      TM brought his ghetto behavior and MMA fists to what he turned into a gunfight. It was the bad luck of the draw on TM’s part, in more ways than one. Sometimes gangsta thugs really do have a limit, NO_LIMIT_NIGGA notwithstanding, and a man has got to know his limitations……or stay home.

        You are correct. One of the funniest things of the first day of trial (same day the NWC was on the stand) was when they got the HOA president to admit they gave the stucco guys a thank you letter for helping apprehend a burglar. How did they do it? By following the person. BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA They get a letter of thanks, Zimmerman gets a trial.

        What he did that was foolish was follow him and not stay at his vehicle. I couldn’t care less if it is covered in their policy or not, I’ve been an officer now for 21 years and I believe wholeheartedly that it is a bad idea to follow a stranger into a dark area even if you are at what you believe to be a safe distance because he doesn’t have the degree of training needed to ensure it is done safely. The proof of this is in the fact that he HAD been made by Martin as he conducted his surveillance, who then ducked out on him and let him pass, then confronted him with, “why you following me,” as he went by headed back toward his vehicle.

        Don’t get me wrong, there is no criminality in Zimmerman’s actions in my opinion. He legally followed Martin in an area that he was lawfully authorized to be– there was no sort of trespass. Whether Martin spoke to Zimmerman or Zimmerman spoke to Martin first, there is nothing illegal in approaching a person and speaking with them (they don’t have to acknowledge either way). The self-defense issue for me comes in at the moment Martin decks him and starts beating him and the physical evidence supports that. He then lawfully defended himself as he needed to. He was absolutely legally justified, but he was foolish for getting himself in a situation that he could have avoided with a little bit of common sense. Zimmerman was just lucky that Martin wasn’t packing heat and capped him first, because I’ve seen time and time again situations where people confront strangers on their behavior and then discover how violent and dangerous they can be.

          fogflyer in reply to SCLEO. | June 27, 2013 at 7:23 pm

          I agree with you 100%!!!
          This is pretty much what I have been saying since this incident first took place.
          Everybody has been getting all caught up in superfluous details, when the heart of the matter is, “Who punched who first?”

          Assuming is was Martin, as there is no evidence to counter that, then the only other question is was Zimmerman in reasonable fear of great bodily harm when he shot TM? Again, that answer is pretty easy given his injuries. YES.

          Now if the prosecution presents any evidence to counter these two important issues, then I will consider changing my opinion.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to SCLEO. | June 27, 2013 at 7:32 pm

          Your opinion is much of what is wrong with LE today. You think you’re the only ones entitled to carry a weapon and the only ones with training to protect anybody or yourself. You’re minutes away when needed now.

          What arrogance. “To Protect and Serve”? BS. The USSC has said there is no duty for LE to defend/protect an individual anyway. If the public strictly only depended on LE for personal protection or property protection, we’d be in a lot worse shape then we are now. If criminals feared the cops, they wouldn’t commit the crime to begin with.

          As far as we know, the only other burglar in the area was caught by citizens following him. No burglars had been caught by the cops. They kept getting away and the burglaries continued. We know that from GZ’s statement to the dispatcher that the “…f*****g punks always get away”.

          Somebody has to do something about these kinds of problems. They’re serious. People work hard for their standard of living and they pay taxes for services they really don’t get much from, including LE. That people like GZ are willing to step up and use their time and resources to try to help is a good thing – a very good thing.

          If GZ had not been armed I might agree with you that it was foolish for him to try to maintain surveillance of TM. But he was armed, and he survived. The only thing that has gone wrong here is the prevalence of racial politics intruding into the justice system.

          fogflyer in reply to SCLEO. | June 27, 2013 at 7:53 pm

          Whoa Jack! Settle down…
          I think you might be misinterpreting LEOs statements.
          I don’t think he is saying only LEOs should have guns, or that ordinary citizens have no right to protect themselves or their neighborhoods. I believe all he said is that it was “foolish” of GZ to follow TM into a very dark area with no back up and a limited amount of training for the situation.

          Look, I carry concealed everyday. I have kept my eye on suspicious characters in the neighborhood late at night. But, I am not going to argue that following a suspicious character into a very dark area is NOT foolish. Doesn’t mean I don’t have a right to do it, doesn’t necessarily even mean I won’t do it, but I would have a difficult time arguing that it is not foolish.

          Maybe I am the one misreading LEOs statements, but I think you are being a bit hard on the guy.

          Juba Doobai! in reply to SCLEO. | June 27, 2013 at 11:37 pm

          SCLEO, you win the argument for us.Look at the course of your narrative: “he HAD been made by Martin as he conducted his surveillance, who then ducked out on him and let him pass, then confronted him with, “why you following me,” as he went by headed back toward his vehicle”.

          1) TM recognizes that GZ is surveilling.
          2) TM evades GZ’s surveillance.
          3) GZ passes the evading TM and is “headed back towards his vehicle”
          4) TM confront GZ (who has already passed him) and demands “why you following me?”

          The logical conclusion is GZ, whether stupid or not in his actions, was acting within the scope of his duties.

          TM could have avoided any and all contact with GZ because he had already evaded GZ’s surveillance.

          TM chose to confront GZ, thus setting in train a series of events that lead to TM’s death.

          Therefore, the rational and logical conclusion is that TM started it.

          SCLEO in reply to SCLEO. | June 28, 2013 at 3:50 am


          Thank you very much.
          (Takes a bow)

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 4:05 pm

    Did Trademark break out of his call with Rachel and call you to tell you his was minding his own business before he jumped GZ?

      JackRussellTerrierist, I hate to let the air out of you complete incorrect assumption. I believe 1000% (yes, I meant one thousand) in the second amendment. The more armed citizens there are, the more thugs will be afraid to act because they don’t want to risk encountering armed resistance. I am 50/50 on whether people should have the right to carry concealed even without a permit, v.s. being required to obtain a permit. The only thing that keeps me on the fence on that is the permit requirement involves firearms training which I’m a big advocate of (if you’re gonna carry you gotta know how to use it, which any responsible carrier should agree). I believe that every law abiding citizen should obtain training and should carry. When it hits the fan, I’m only minutes away, but you’re there right now.

      I believe in “To Protect and Serve”, but I don’t believe that the public should be forced to depend on that because I may not be there. The USSC may have said there is no duty for LE to defend/protect an individual, but it doesn’t change my belief that I DO have that duty, and that any citizen has the right to protect themselves.

      You said, “If the public strictly only depended on LE for personal protection or property protection, we’d be in a lot worse shape then we are now. If criminals feared the cops, they wouldn’t commit the crime to begin with.”

      “As far as we know, the only other burglar in the area was caught by citizens following him. No burglars had been caught by the cops. They kept getting away and the burglaries continued. We know that from GZ’s statement to the dispatcher that the “…f*****g punks always get away”.”

      You are right on the above accounts.

      However, when you have the power to take a life, even if you don’t have the intention to, you have a responsibility to exercise the utmost in judgment. As a citizen who is armed, you should not be actively pursuing potential criminals for crimes that don’t obviously involve violence against you or someone else– i.e., you shouldn’t be drawing down on a guy shoplifting twinkies. You SHOULD be drawing down on a guy attacking a little old lady on a street corner. You should NOT be pursuing or surveiling people who may righteously be suspicious, but have not yet committed any apparent crime. IF you want to fall into that latter category, you need to become an officer because every citizen has the inherent right of self defense and the defense of another in need, but it is the officer’s job to investigate crimes where there is no self defense issue in play (and if you are at home, I believe that the self defense issue is raised at the moment his foot crosses the threshold).

      And you are very right in that it is wrong that there is a prevalence of racial politics intruding into the justice system. It is offensive to me that the people who are shouting that race is a factor are the exact people who have MADE race a factor.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to SCLEO. | June 28, 2013 at 3:11 am

        I’m retired LE.

        Thank you for your excellent post. I agree with most of what you’ve said but I will continue to disagree that GZ acted foolishly in attempting to maintain surveillance of TM for the reasons I’ve already stated.

    so its ok for me to call chris dorner a crazy ass nig*er

    PackerBronco in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 4:48 pm

    Seems that the people on this site have forgotten who pursued who and who shot who.

    Seems that you’ve forgotten that Zimmerman is presumed to be innocent. The defense doesn’t have to prove one damn thing. I haven’t seen one piece of evidence or testimony yet that would prove that Zimmerman is guilty of Murder 2 beyond a reasonable doubt. Not one.

      Matt in FL in reply to PackerBronco. | June 27, 2013 at 4:50 pm

      PackerBronco gets it. The defense has to prove nothing. All they have to do is discredit the prosecution’s narrative.

      caambers in reply to PackerBronco. | June 27, 2013 at 5:42 pm

      So tired of this pursuing/following meme. It’s total bunk. Not one shred of information backs this up. I guess credit where credit is due to the unholy cabal of Martin lawyers, media, and politicians who have effectively managed to emblazon this in the minds of some.

    Juba Doobai! in reply to Rational. | June 27, 2013 at 10:41 pm

    Walking through a neighborhood in the rain and checking out the houses is not “minding your own business.”

Tweeterizing just don’t make it.

unless, of course, your name is DeeDee

The written summary is much preferred.


Watching Laurer’s testimony now. Where is rhorton1’s criticism of BDLR’s direct? This is god-awful. He is so used to using leading questions, he just does not know how to ask an open ended question, so as to let the witness give the whole story.

I’m getting the feeling that JL doesn’t think too much of BDLR. She seems pretty intelligent.

    Matt in FL in reply to cazinger. | June 27, 2013 at 3:32 pm

    I really like Ms. Lauer. She doesn’t have a dog in this fight, she appears to be quite neutral to the whole thing, but at the same time, she’s not going to let herself get taken for a fool or let her words get twisted. She’s a smart cookie.

      Matt in FL in reply to Matt in FL. | June 27, 2013 at 3:33 pm

      And just as I hit post, this gem: Lauer: Couldn’t identify screams as George Zimmerman, “I didn’t hear him yell like that in meetings.” I laughed right out loud.

    I’ve seen a few people on Twitter remark that she seems to be the first fully sane witness the prosecution’s managed to present.

One wonders if Rachael will be prosecuted for perjury????

One also must wonder if the Martin family will be charged for witness tampering in coaching her, I mean helping her recover her lost memory to make these supposedly previously unrevealed accounts in court???

Will a hand writing analysis be performed on the letter that supposedly was written by Rachael???? Who wrote the letter? Rachael or a Martin family member?

Are these questions too distracting from the MSM narrative? If so, forget you read this post.

Next question, does the NSA have the recording of the phone conversation? If so, when will Florida be issuing a warrant for the recording???? After all, you want the truth of what Rachael and St. Skittles discussed right? And Obama said IF you have to get a warrant to lawfully obtain the recording of the “inadvertent” capture of this information. He said something like that didn’t he? Well, what are you waiting for Mr. Prosecutor?

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to dscott. | June 27, 2013 at 4:56 pm

    She won’t be prosecuted for the same reason Crsytal Mangum of Duke lacrosse fame wasn’t prosecuted. She’s black and also too stupid and f****d up to prosecute.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to dscott. | June 27, 2013 at 6:52 pm

    Crump should be prosecuted. He will probably get his just desserts sooner or later.

CrankbaitJohnson | June 27, 2013 at 3:35 pm

Lauer never heard “You’re going to die tonight, MFer.” O’Mara must ask if she heard “Get off.”

on the cursive thing, if she can’t write/read it how is she supposed to sign legal documents?
if she says she can’t read it how does she know what shes writing when she signs her name?
just an odd thought I had about todays education system.

Apparently there has been some scrubbing of a certain twitter account going on, too.

Amico Andrew Branca, use cursive. You know, just in case Tawana Brawley Part 2 is reading this here printed stuff.

Can’t. Stop. Laughing.

    Matt in FL in reply to xthred. | June 27, 2013 at 3:47 pm

    I don’t know if it’s for the same reason, but I’ve laughed out loud at Ms. Lauer’s testimony quite a few times now. She’s just spiking every ball that MOM sets for her, because she’s telling the truth.

Is the prosecution purposely calling in witnesses from the Defense witness list just so that they can have the prestige of having called those witnesses first?

Laurer, so far, really has not helped the prosecution, and actually has backed up much of the defense’s case.

Watching BDLR try to impeach his own witness is amusing, but I just looked, and Jenna Lauer is following Robert Zimmerman, Jr. on Twitter. Not sure what impact that may have if it comes in front of the jury.

Amusingly, in the 2-3 minutes I had her Twitter profile on my screen to find his name, she went from 75 Followers to nearly 200. She’s never tweeted a single time, but almost 200 people want to hear in case she ever does.

    Matt in FL in reply to Matt in FL. | June 27, 2013 at 5:40 pm

    In the hour since I posted my previous comment about Jenna Lauer’s Twitter, it appears her Twitter page has been taken down.

Please keep all your cursive language to yourselves.

This is a family website!

Uncle Samuel | June 27, 2013 at 4:40 pm


Racist threats against whites. Someone is trying to or has already stirred the ugly pot.

All blood will be on Obama, Holder, Sharpton, Crump, NBPP hands and the hands of Bondi, Corey and Scott for not stopping this farce and miscarriage of justice.

If Cruz were Attorney General, and Perry the Governor, and Aripao were Sanford Sheriff, Crump would be behind bars long before now for his shenanigans. Corey and the prosecution as well as Sharpton, NBPP, et al would be dealt with in no uncertain terms. No civil suit would be filed before any criminal proceedings were completed.

Holy crap. The next prosecution witness is dressed for the evening. She is indeed well endowed.

So there was racial animosity involved, directed against “crackers”. Imagine the media explosion if Zimmerman were found to have called Martin by racially derogatory slang.

    PackerBronco in reply to DaMav. | June 27, 2013 at 4:54 pm

    He’d be charged with Murder 1 and probably certain to be convicted.

    Harry9000 in reply to DaMav. | June 27, 2013 at 7:12 pm

    To hear the press tell it in their original reporting one came away with the image of Zimmerman as some kind of Nazi skin-head cop-wannabe. In fact NBC doctored their rem,arks to have a racial motivation come out of Zimmerman’s mouth: “…he’s black”, but look: The only one of the two of them on record who issued any kind of racial slur was Martin. Go figure.

well one thing Rachel was wrong about was that TM’s ear buds fell down because the police found the ear buds in TM’s pocket when they examined the body.

    Jim in reply to PhillyGuy. | June 27, 2013 at 5:20 pm

    Great catch, Philly.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to PhillyGuy. | June 27, 2013 at 5:37 pm

    Sounds like he took them out on purpose to prepare to jump/confront Zimmerman, and she could not then have ‘heard’ the wet grass.

      Precisely. Which is why Rachel knew that if Trevon (her proxy spelling) were to jump someone, he’d be courteous enough to tell her and thing ring her back. As any gentleman would, of course.

      This looks like some low-hanging fruit to me:

      In her BdlR/TC interview, Rachel said that: ‘He [Trevon] would never fight, that’s the problem’.

      And then in court she says something like: He’d let me know if he were gonna do something and he’d call me back.

      She offered both of those statements; neither in direct response to a question. In the BdlR interview, she’s trying to please Sybrina; in court today, she seems to have been caught in an accidental moment of candor.

      I think this goes to the heart of the case and the statements cannot be honestly reconciled. Anyone else catch this?

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Fabi. | June 27, 2013 at 7:38 pm

        That seems like a ripe opportunity to introduce Trademark’s fight pictures.

      SCLEO in reply to Uncle Samuel. | June 27, 2013 at 6:16 pm

      I think the “wet grass” sound that she heard was actually the ear buds rubbing against the fabric as he put them in his pocket.

        Fabi in reply to SCLEO. | June 27, 2013 at 6:57 pm

        I agree, and hope that West was fishing in that pond when he mentioned fabric. He’s a smart cracka!

        Solomon in reply to SCLEO. | June 27, 2013 at 7:53 pm

        Is it not prudent to gird one’s loins (and secure one’s peripheral devices) preparatory to smiting one’s foe?

      Juba Doobai! in reply to Uncle Samuel. | June 27, 2013 at 11:53 pm

      Maybe she heard borgborygm, belly sounds.

And for the “it would have never happened if” folks who criminally blame Zimmerman for following him in the first place, the reality is that “it would have never happened if Martin had responded to Zimmerman’s inquiry by saying that he lived in the neighborhood instead of pummeling the crap out of Zimmerman.”

Zimmerman was not wise in following him on foot in the first place, but Martin is the one who chose to break the law by beating the crap out of Zimmerman. Quite honestly, Zimmerman didn’t kill Martin, Martin killed himself.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to SCLEO. | June 27, 2013 at 6:50 pm

    That Martin doubled back and jumped Zimmerman is the only thing that makes sense according to the map and common sense. Zimmerman was not a fighter. The other story was manufactured by Crump the Martin lawyer for propaganda purposes. (Crump should be disbarred for his shenanigans)

    Trayvon was a victim of black culture, a broken family and poor modeling.

    His Dad called a Zimmerman relative a MTHR-FKR in the courtroom on the first day! What a prince of a man. Evidently the apple didn’t fall far from the tree.

    We can be sure the Martin family story and lifestyles have been sanitized for public relations purposes. No telling what they really act like in private.

VetHusbandFather | June 27, 2013 at 7:00 pm

Do they know who wrote the letter? How do we know it wasn’t a member of the prosecution or one of the Martin family lawyers? How does Dee dee know whatvshe signed if she can’t read it?

txantimedia | June 27, 2013 at 7:02 pm

Something really interesting came out in Geantel’s testimony today. She distinguished between the word “cracka” by stating that was a common phrase (in her culture) referring to white people and “creepy ass”, which she described as “a pervert”. So maybe the reference was to a gay person. That would certainly explain her suggestion to Trayvon that maybe Zimmerman intended to rape him.

Why isn’t anybody talking about O’Mara’s potential screw up that might allow GZs prior arrest and restraint order in to evidence????

Seems to me this is the big news of the day!!

It is really a shame if it comes in as that witness, I forget her name, was probably the BEST witness for the defense yet! And that is saying a lot since almost every witness the state has called has been more beneficial to the defense so far.

Really interested in getting attorneys opinions on whether it will be allowed in. I didn’t seem to me that should be as OMara was asking her about her knowledge of GZ temperament T THE TIME of the incident. I don’t think her finding out about his arrest Much later via the news programs would be grounds for getting it in, but we shall see.

    Jim in reply to fogflyer. | June 27, 2013 at 7:28 pm

    I was listening to the testimony that supposedly “opened the door” to prior character evidence. I wasn’t taking notes, though so my opinions are based on my impression. The transcript will be available so that the questions and answers will be clear before the judge makes her ruling.

    What I thought heard was Omara ask the witness something to the effect of whether she had observed GZ around the neighborhood. When she said she had, he asked her whether she observed GZ exhibiting any aggressive or inappropriate behavior, and she answered she had not.

    Whether she had heard of prior past skirmishes with the law or aggressive behavior or not has nothing to do with her observations of GZ while they both were in the neighborhood. If I heard the direct testimony correctly, it should not have opened the door to prior past GZ conduct.

    If Omara’s questioning had asked the witness whether GZ had a reputation for aggression or violence and she answered no, the questions proffered by the prosecution would, IMO be proper because her knowledge of his reputation could be tested by those questions. If the question was whether GZ had a reputation for aggression or violence in the Twin Lakes community, the proffered questions should not be permitted since the incidents described were long before GZ lived in the Twin Lakes community.

      fogflyer in reply to Jim. | June 27, 2013 at 8:03 pm

      I am going off of memory also, but I believe he asked if she had ever known George to show aggression or violent behavior… Something to that effect. She answered that she had not.

      The state, with the jury out, then questioned the witness if she was aware of GZs arrest and order of protection. She said that she had been made aware of it via news programs about it.

      So, obviously, she was OT aware at the time of the incident, but the state apparently thinks OMaras question was open ended enough to allow her to be crossed (well I guess it is not cross seeing as it is their witness… I keep forgetting that 🙂 about that knowledge.

      Hopefully it will not get in, but OMara seems to have botched that question as the judge is at least entertaining arguments on it.

        Jim in reply to fogflyer. | June 27, 2013 at 8:44 pm

        Your recollection is probably better than mine. If it is right, I agree with you that it is on the borderline. If Omara asked a borderline question, that is a mark against him. It is very risky to ask that kind of question without thinking through all its implications.

        But in mitigation, defense counsel are under a tremendous amount of pressure primarily because of the state’s slow rolling bs, which the judge has tacitly approved.

          LoriL in reply to Jim. | June 27, 2013 at 10:56 pm

          It is just before the 19 minute mark of this tape. She was asked IN HER conversations and interactions with GZ did he seem upset, angry, a hothead? In the NW did he come off as unusual, inappropriate, vigilanti? Did it benefit the community.

          He didn’t ask has in general – just her interactions with him. I fully expect the judge to ignore this though and allow the prosecution to bring in the prior stuff.

          Tonight on CNN O’Mara said he doesn’t want to go there as to TM’s past, but he may have to depending on other testimony. I think that was in answer to Rachel being possibly called back by the defense.

          The tape:

txantimedia | June 27, 2013 at 7:21 pm

@Rational claims “I am not interested in salvaging anyone. For better or worse, she is the closest thing we have to a witness. That is fact.”

What are the ten or twenty other people who are ear and/or eyewitnesses? Chopped liver? It’s a fact that some people heard what was going on **after** Geantel’s phone call was dropped. So it’s clearly not a fact that she’s the closest thing we have to a witness. She can relate what she was told by TM, but there’s no proof that he told her the truth about anything.

‘“fact that she was making stuff up about who hit who” So how come they didn’t ask you to testify? Obviously you know more about this than she does.’

Apparently you think it’s possible for her to know more than it’s possible for her to know. She was on the phone. All she can accurately relate is what she was told. If she heard someone strike someone, she could have no knowledge of who struck whom even if TM told her the other guy hit him. All she would know is what she was told.

“Zimmerman is using an affirmative defense. If he doesn’t testify, the assertion that he was not justified stands.”

False. Under Florida law the presumption is that his self defense claim is legitimate. The prosecution must overcome that burden. You really out to read what Branca writes before pontificating on things you’re ignorant of.

“GZ did start it all. That much is obvious to anyone not on this one sided site. Without GZ playing vigilante, we wouldn’t have heard of either one. There is absolutely no doubt the GZ started it. The only question is whether he was defending himself when he shot. There is no question who started it.”

That depends a great deal on where you place the starting point. Was it when Z first saw TM? Was it when TM circled his car? Was it when Z followed him? Was it when, after losing him, TM suddenly appeared in front of him and asked him why he was following him?

So rather than your certainty, there is a great deal of doubt as to what exactly happened that night.

“Try breaking out of your bubble. I am asking perfectly rational questions. They only seem irrational because you are using a closed system to judge.”

You’ve made several claims that don’t withstand scrutiny, yet you accuse all your opponents of being irrational. It’s seems this is the Bounty and you are Queeg.

JoeThePimpernel | June 27, 2013 at 7:36 pm

According to Jeantel, Little Trayvon made it all the way home after racially profiling Zimmerman as a “crazy ass cracker,” then went back out to hunt him down.

Things are not looking good for the hoping-for-a-race-riot crowd.

CrankbaitJohnson | June 27, 2013 at 9:36 pm

@Rational is rational if you make the simple leaps to assume that GZ’s narrative is entirely false and self-serving, that his injuries were likewise false, or at least exaggerated. It helps to make these leaps if you are already convinced GZ is a murderer, I suppose, but @R is aware of the rules and would never presume guilt.

Any time the injuries come up, out comes the hand-waving and hollow phrases like “followed” and “threatened” to justify anything that Trayvon might have done to cause them, because who hasn’t had to assault and batter a nosy neighbor from time to time?

I must have been asked dozens of times in my teens what I was doing here or there by suspicious shopkeepers, restaurateurs, neighbors and had the cops called a time or two. I didn’t have to grovel before the man, I could be a sullen punk, but I kicked zero asses.

But what of the requirement to utterly dismiss GZ’s account? If nothing else, since he basically invented it on the spot in under two hours and has not wavered from it, you have to give him some credit. But no, @Rational simultaneously believes that GZ is so dumb he’ll be wiped out on cross (if he testifies) by the bumbling BDLR, and yet capable of a hastily crafted account so credible and pat with all but the flimsiest prosecution evidence that it took a national hissy fit and gubernatorial intervention to even go to trial.

Also lol at pointing out that we won’t ever hear TM’s side in a goofy appeal to emotion. Very rational, I guess, but no shit, Sherlock, he’s the victim in a murder trial.

This trial testimony by Jeantel that blacks routinely call whites “cracker” could be the basis for a “national conversation about race”–but not exactly the one that Eric Holder and Obama want. 🙂

There is a fine line between prosecutors or defense lawyers preparing a witness and one that coaches the witness to make false statements. Here, we’ve seen- and seen proven- that the SAO in this case crossed the line at least twice- with both A/A female witnesses.

In this witness’s case, the prosecutor is so hell-bent in covering up a bad case that they violated basic Rule 1 of interviewing witnesses, you NEVER let anyone else who has a stake in the statement of the witness in the room with them. You can guarantee that statement will be tainted.

Crump “found” and prepped this witness and handed her to the SAO with a public declaration attached. They were stuck with her, which was Crump’s intention all along.

As for her personality, she could not be more stereotypical of your low intelligence, belligerent, street-wise, uneducated and doesn’t care either, type of A/A personality. As a detective who worked the streets for a generation, often dealing with the “dee-dee”s of the street, I can say she was everything you think they might be. Almost like she was a TV character.

I’m telling you, in reality, if she was on the phone with TM, she was egging him on to go back and teach that white cracker a lesson about disrespecting him. That is the law of the street.

Remember, she said that Trayvon was smart enough not to jump an armed man. Not that it was WRONG to jump another person just because they insulted you.

We’ve seen Youtube after youtube of these young people acting out. Martin just jumped a guy who was armed and got killed for it.

That is the risk you take when you want to “thug up.”

Plus West got her to admit a very important point. When TM called her back after running, she thought he was behind his dad’s place.

Now that is a hundred yards or so south of where he was finally shot after confronting Zimmerman. So that means TM had to circle back around (after dumping his stash) and sneak up on Zimmerman, thus the whispering.

I’m sure at some point West is going to remind everyone of this.

[…] Zimmerman Update Exclusive — Mid-Day 4 — West’s Cross-Examination of Rachel Jeantel […]