The testimony of Rachel Jeantel has been a disaster for the prosecution. There has never been a single moment -- from the day Zimmerman was charged with murder on April 11, 2012 -- when I thought the State of Florida could obtain a conviction of murder in this case. But if the State actually built its trial strategy around the testimony of Rachel Jeantel... that is truly incredible. A law-school drop out could have prepped a witness better than that.

Cultural differences between the witness and defense team abound. These guys not only can't understand black dialect but they don't understand young black culture at all. It is like two different worlds.

(06-27-2013 07:11 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-27-2013 06:56 AM)Smaug Wrote:  Someone remind me what he was charged with. Murder 1?

If so, he walks. They should have looked at some manslaughter charge. His idiocy is a big contributing factor.

I agree. The State did what the public wanted. The should have gone for a lesser charge.

Zimmerman is charged with murder 2. I don't have the statutory language in front of me, but basically that means "not premeditated".

Let's wait for the trial to end before making final judgment's about the prosecution strategy, but right now it sure seems as if the people of Florida are owed an explanation of why Zimmerman wasn't charged with (say) manslaughter or some other lesser offense.

(06-27-2013 11:38 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  Cultural differences between the witness and defense team abound. These guys not only can't understand black dialect but they don't understand young black culture at all. It is like two different worlds.

What does culture have to do with it? You're asked a question and you answer it.

(06-27-2013 11:38 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  Cultural differences between the witness and defense team abound. These guys not only can't understand black dialect but they don't understand young black culture at all. It is like two different worlds.

For all the so-called "realism" of TV-cop shows like NYPD Blue, Law & Order (and yes I know those two have been over for a while), etc, etc, etc, that is one aspect of contemporary society -- the overwhelming inability of many young people (particularly but not exclusively African-Americans and Latinos) to communicate with lawyers, prosecutors, law-enforcement officers, and "middle-class" people in general -- that the entertainment media absolutely avoids like the plague.

(06-27-2013 11:42 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(06-27-2013 11:38 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  Cultural differences between the witness and defense team abound. These guys not only can't understand black dialect but they don't understand young black culture at all. It is like two different worlds.

What does culture have to do with it? You're asked a question and you answer it.

West can't understand what she means when she says something. It's not all her dialect, it is her phrasing and word selection. It all makes sense to me but I work with teenagers every day. There is also his lack of understanding of the way teen relationships work as evidenced by his questioning about the texts that went back and forth between them. West wants to make the relationship between the two cut and dry boyfriend/girlfriend when it isn't nearly simple. He also doesn't get the concept of her signing the letter "Diamond" and her mom's last name rather than using her legal name. This is very common with teens, not meant as a fake name or anything. There are lots of examples and I understand that he is trying to develop inconsistent testimony from her but if he had a better understanding of the culture she is a part of he could do a better job. So culture has a lot to do with it. If you can't understand the meaning and nuance of the words you can't have a clear grasp of the situation. I wonder if any of the jury members are mothers of teens. If they are they might well be rolling their eyes.

(06-27-2013 12:37 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-27-2013 11:42 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(06-27-2013 11:38 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  Cultural differences between the witness and defense team abound. These guys not only can't understand black dialect but they don't understand young black culture at all. It is like two different worlds.

What does culture have to do with it? You're asked a question and you answer it.

West can't understand what she means when she says something. It's not all her dialect, it is her phrasing and word selection. It all makes sense to me but I work with teenagers every day. There is also his lack of understanding of the way teen relationships work as evidenced by his questioning about the texts that went back and forth between them. West wants to make the relationship between the two cut and dry boyfriend/girlfriend when it isn't nearly simple. He also doesn't get the concept of her signing the letter "Diamond" and her mom's last name rather than using her legal name. This is very common with teens, not meant as a fake name or anything. There are lots of examples and I understand that he is trying to develop inconsistent testimony from her but if he had a better understanding of the culture she is a part of he could do a better job. So culture has a lot to do with it. If you can't understand the meaning and nuance of the words you can't have a clear grasp of the situation. I wonder if any of the jury members are mothers of teens. If they are they might well be rolling their eyes.

Is it possible that the defense thinks that the jury doesn't speak teenage slang either, and thus their inability to comprehend is a way to make the jury feel the same way? I heard on Today this morning (only saying that because they aren't exactly right wing) that the JURY was asking her to repeat things.

Dawgitall, yours is the only opinion I've heard or read that doesn't think her testimony is a complete trainwreck.

(and I've got two teenagers in my house)

Well, it doesn't help their case that this girl couldn't read a letter supposedly written by herself (with help from a friend). She said that she can't read cursive.

Building a prosecution partly on the letter of a semi-literate friend of Martin doesn't seem like a great strategy.

Watch the video clip of the questioning.

George Zimmerman Witness Can't Read Letter She 'Wrote' About Shooting

(06-27-2013 12:53 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Well, it doesn't help their case that this girl couldn't read a letter supposedly written by herself (with help from a friend). She said that she can't read cursive.

Building a prosecution partly on the letter of a semi-literate friend of Martin doesn't seem like a great strategy.

Watch the video clip of the questioning.

George Zimmerman Witness Can't Read Letter She 'Wrote' About Shooting

A large percentage of kids can't read or write cursive. I quit trying to get them to sign their name in cursive for a document I have in my paperwork a couple of years ago. I started really noticing it about five years ago. It isn't an indication of her intelligence but a lack of emphasis in the elementary schools. It doesn't surprise me at all.

(06-27-2013 12:53 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Dawgitall, yours is the only opinion I've heard or read that doesn't think her testimony is a complete trainwreck.

(and I've got two teenagers in my house)

I don't think she is a great witness, but I think she comes across believable. We will have to see how well the redirect patches up damage done by West. Who knows what the jury is thinking.

I just think the prosecution is going to need another card to play (or several) if they're going to get a conviction.

So if Martin thinks Zman may have been a rapist then isn't it possible he threw the first punch thinking he was either protecting himself or giving a pervert his just rewards?

(06-27-2013 01:06 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I don't think she is a great witness, but I think she comes across believable. We will have to see how well the redirect patches up damage done by West.

I think she comes across as determined to be as truthful as she can possibly be, as long as it helps to convict Zimmerman. When something comes up that cuts against her agenda, the claws come out.

Quote:Who knows what the jury is thinking.

A wild guess: "They haven't shown me anything to prove that George Zimmerman committed a murder."

(06-27-2013 01:14 PM)Smaug Wrote:  I just think the prosecution is going to need another card to play (or several) if they're going to get a conviction.

There's still a long way to go. Trials like this have ways of surprising observers. But just so far, I think we are approaching the point at which the only way Zimmerman gets convicted is if he (1) testifies; (2) testifies badly; and (3) breaks down and blurts out a Perry-Mason-style confession.

Well, they're doing a nice job establishing Trayon as a racist. That should go a long way in helping the prosecution...

(06-27-2013 07:53 AM)ummechengr Wrote:  I would love to hear a reasonable explanation to these photos, that could lead a jury to believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman's account of the events, was a lie.

So if you stalk me and I hit you to defend myself, then you have the right to kill me because the tables got turned on you?

(06-27-2013 01:33 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  So if you stalk me and I hit you to defend myself, then you have the right to kill me because the tables got turned on you?

Most evidence indicates that's not what happened in this case.

(06-27-2013 01:33 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-27-2013 07:53 AM)ummechengr Wrote:  I would love to hear a reasonable explanation to these photos, that could lead a jury to believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman's account of the events, was a lie.

So if you stalk me and I hit you to defend myself, then you have the right to kill me because the tables got turned on you?

You got proof of stalking? So Martin has a right to be on the property but Zman does not?

(06-27-2013 01:33 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-27-2013 07:53 AM)ummechengr Wrote:  I would love to hear a reasonable explanation to these photos, that could lead a jury to believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman's account of the events, was a lie.

So if you stalk me and I hit you to defend myself, then you have the right to kill me because the tables got turned on you?

I'm don't know where I stand on this. On one hand I don't think GZ should follow/stalk a kid. On the other hand where does that give you a right to beat someone up? Can we know for sure that he felt his life was in danger or just frustrated at GZ?

To me the whole "creepy cracker" comment comes across as frustration more so than fear.