While working out on my treadmill, I have been watching the George Zimmerman trial coverage on HLN-TV. Everybody seems to have an opinion on the testimony of Rachel Jeantel, the young woman who was talking with Trayvon Martin on a cell phone when he became involved in the scuffle with Zimmerman.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/27/teen-friend-trayvon-martin-to-return-to-stand-in-zimmerman-trial/
One thing I find bizarre is how the "panel of legal experts" hosted by Jane Velez-Mitchell is rushing to defend this woman's disastrous performance on the witness stand. They point out that she is not polished and just being herself and all that. Most of them are clearly biased against the defendant. The lawyers who make those statements know better.
I grant you that Jeantel is in a position she has never been in before and has no clue as to how to testify in court. But she has been defensive and belligerent toward the defense counsel and has to be leaving a negative impression on the jury. In addition, there have been some inconsistencies pointed out as to prior statements she has made about her conversation with Martin. Today, it was brought out that when she had given a statement to a prosecutor and was asked about Martin making a statement about Zimmerman getting out of his vehicle, she said (on tape) "You want that." (inferred meaning, "You want me to get that in too, right?")
I stress that I have not seen her entire testimony, and much of what she is saying may be true. From I have heard come out, her most important statement about her conversation with Martin was that she heard Martin say, "Get off. Get off". That would suggest that Zimmerman was on top of Martin.
However, there is no recording of that that I am aware of. The prosecution can put together a timeline showing that Martin and Jeantel were, indeed, on their phones at the time in question. What seems to be lacking is any audio with the confrontation on tape with who said what to whom and how the fight started.
In sum, the jury will have to find her testimony credible for what its worth. From what I have heard, her version doesn't even establish that Zimmerman assaulted Martin (with the possible exception of that "get off. Get off" statement she says Martin made.)
Prosecution witnesses who implode on the stand tend to have a disastrous effect on the case. Remember Mark Fuhrman? I think Jeantel's testimony (what I have heard) has done nothing to advance the prosecution case and may have damaged it badly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Another site to watch it on the computer is
http://www.foxnews.com/live-coverage/zimmerman-trial
They have commentators making points on both sides during the breaks and you can listen to the audio while you do other things.
It is a fascinating case.
Miggie,
Unless the prosecution can disprove Zimmerman's version of events beyond a reasonable doubt, I don't see them convicting him. What they need is audio tape or an eye witness who can prove Zimmerman was the aggressor in the fight and that it was he who was on top of Martin and Martin was the one screaming for help.
Unless they come up with that, i can see the defense asking the judge for a directed verdict of acquittal once the prosecution ends its case. I also think it would be granted.
Right now, this case screams reasonable doubt.
Ms Jeantel is the perfect example of a Democratic voter. Illiterate, jobless and with no future. She is lying every time she opens her mouth.
She was poorly prepped by the prosecution. I have a feeling that the prosecutor isn't calling the shots but the attorney for the Martin family is. That would explain Jeantel's testimony.
The witnesses all testified about their heads being oriented towards the North (towards the T intersection). The Kel-tec 9mm that they're talking about ejects the spent shell casing to the right hand side. If Zimmerman was on top, the spent shell casing would eject to the East (the main gate is to the North of the complex). However, in the crime investigator's testimony on the location of the items in the scene construction, the casing was on the other side. If Zimmerman was on the bottom, the shell would be ejected to the right which would be West towards Lauer's (the neighbor) townhouse...which is where it was found.
I hope the defense picks this up and points it out.
Findalis,
Having her give her statement in the Martin home in front of her mother was a stupid move and unprofessional.
They don't have to prove that Zimmerman was on top of Martin. All they have to prove is that Zimmerman initiated an unlawful confrontation, so that Martin was in reasonable fear for his safety when he attacked Zimmerman. Then it would be like, if I sought out Miggie, accused him of something, punched him out, then Miggie tackled me and sat on my chest, if I then shoot him, I've still committed a degree of homicide, because if I hadn't confronted Miggie in the first place, I wouldn't have had occasion to shoot. You don't get to get up in someone's face, then claim "self-defence" because the fight is going against you.
Its not 2nd degree murder, so far, its more like manslaughter or negligent homicide.
Siarlys,
If a Neighborhood Watch person follows a suspicious looking person in the neighborhood and is confronted by the person as to why he is following him, does that mean that the NW watch person started the "unlawful" confrontation or that Martin was in fear for his safety? For the latter to be the case, you would have to assume that Zimmerman had already pulled his gun on Martin. Or say that Zimmerman walked up to Martin and asked him what he was doing and Martin responded with punches- who is the aggressor?
It comes down to this: After the evidence so far presented, are you convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty? I doubt you are. I am open to more evidence since the DA case is not yet over, but as is, I don't know what actually happened when the two came face to face. Unless that changes, Zimmerman gets the benefit of the doubt.
I'm not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, and I'm also not on the jury, so no matter how thorough the TV coverage is, I don't have the full picture. Its up to them. I think its more likely than not that Zimmerman provoked a confrontation. If Zimmerman had been following me down the street on a dark night, I would have been worried he was going to mug me. If I had a change to throw him to the ground and pin him, I would have done so, and if he resisted, I would have tried to incapacitate him. The job of a neighborhood watch is to alert police and then let the police do their job.
Siarlys,
Well, there is yet another theory, but it still adds to up to reasonable doubt-thus far-the way i see it. I agree, the jury is hearing more and may have adifferent take, but I would be shocked if they convicted him on what I have seen and heard.
No matter what or how much evidence there is, juries are unreliable. Remember the OJ Simpson case?
There was a serial murder case here in California (Juan Corona) where this labor contractor murdered some 25 itinerant workers and buried them in shallow graves. Among other things they found receipts and bank deposit slips of his in some of the graves! Aside from bloody knives, a machete, and a pistol, they found a work ledger of his with names of some of the victims. His first case lasted about three months and the jury deliberated for 45 hours before finally finding him guilty.
He got a second trial because his first legal team was deemed incompetent. This time there were over 600 exhibits for the prosecution and the trial lasted seven months(!) This time the jury had to deliberate for 54 hours over 2 weeks before finding him guilty again.
Again, some nut case on the jury was hung up on some theory of possible innocence (The wind might have blown his deposit slip into the grave). The burden of proof becomes so heavy that ordinary justice can't be served.
Ah well, over 10% of Americans believe Elvis may be alive. Some of them end up on juries.
Incidentally, Juan Corona is up for parole (!) in 2016.
Post a Comment