This stuff is choice...
Basically so far, she didn't understand most of the GF's testimony because of of the way she spoke and the phrases she uses.
She believes that George got in over his head but that the roles reversed.
She doesn't think it matters if martin was going for the gun or not as at that point Martin was the aggressor and Zimmerman had a right to defend himself. The location of the keys and flashlight from where the fight ended lead her to believe that Martin was the aggressor and threw the first punch
She thinks Zimmerman fabricated some things to make his story better but on balance she believed his basic story under the embellishments.
She doesn't think race had anything to do with it and does not believe the other jurors did either.
I'm still at work so I can't watch but I believe that Piers Morgan is going to interview Rachel Janteal tonight too.
Well, that will be a meeting of two intellectuals...
Basically so far, she didn't understand most of the GF's testimony because of of the way she spoke and the phrases she uses.
She believes that George got in over his head but that the roles reversed.
She doesn't think it matters if martin was going for the gun or not as at that point Martin was the aggressor and Zimmerman had a right to defend himself. The location of the keys and flashlight from where the fight ended lead her to believe that Martin was the aggressor and threw the first punch
She thinks Zimmerman fabricated some things to make his story better but on balance she believed his basic story under the embellishments.
She doesn't think race had anything to do with it and does not believe the other jurors did either.
That interview was sickening. I don't know how she made it onto the jury. She thought that the Vietnam vet who testified that he could distinguish tones of voice was the medical examiner - he was George's friend. She admitted that Zimmerman went too far. She responded to a question about Rachel Jeantel with the phrases "these people" and "their way of life". Gross. She said 2 of the jurors initially wanted to convict of manslaughter and 1 to convict of 2nd degree murder.
That interview was sickening. I don't know how she made it onto the jury. She thought that the Vietnam vet who testified that he could distinguish tones of voice was the medical examiner - he was George's friend. She admitted that Zimmerman went too far. She responded to a question about Rachel Jeantel with the phrases "these people" and "their way of life". Gross. She said 2 of the jurors initially wanted to convict of manslaughter and 1 to convict of 2nd degree murder.
"These People" and "Their way of life" could have been referencing the fact that Jeantel admitted calling a "Caucasian" is common and not racial where she comes from.
But I can agree with one thing that I told myself when I learned more about the jurors.....
How in the everliving **** did a juror with a lawyer in the family make it on the jury.
The impression I get is ... she's prejudiced, ignorant and confused. Dude, she literally said that the Vietnam Vet - George Zimmerman's friend - was the medical examiner who testified for the defense. That's confusion. That's not good.The impression, I get is ......she's intelligent, thoughtful and sincere
The impression I get is ... she's prejudiced, ignorant and confused.
Oh, come on."These People" and "Their way of life" could have been referencing the fact that Jeantel admitted calling a "Caucasian" is common and not racial where she comes from.
Jury selection doesn't make any sense to me. If anything, I don't understand why the prosecution let this juror on the case.But I can agree with one thing that I told myself when I learned more about the jurors.....
How in the everliving **** did a juror with a lawyer in the family make it on the jury.
I thought the same thing, Caine. Sure wouldn't fly in suburban Chicago.
I just realized I screwed up in my post.....
I think everyone got the idea that I was talking about her calling white people crackers not racial and acted like it was normal.
Jury selection doesn't make any sense to me. If anything, I don't understand why the prosecution let this juror on the case.
Huh? I thought you were talking about how a woman who had an attorney for a husband got on the jury. That's what I was referring to anyway.
She also said that they considered Stand Your Ground as part of legal aspect of their decision - but Stand Your Ground wasn't a part of the trial so why were they talking about it? That's screwed up.