• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Do you feel that Rachel Jeantel hurt or helped the Prosecution.

Was Rachel Jeantel helpful or harmful to the Prosecution?

  • She did well on the stand, and helped the Prosecution

    Votes: 3 20.0%

  • She was harmful, as her attitude was disrespectful

    Votes: 10 66.7%

  • Other

    Votes: 2 13.3%
  • Total voters
    15
She established that TM was afraid of Z, that he ran from him and hid from him. That Z did not return to his car but continued his search for Martin.

I read the Crump thingy, I read the DLR interview, believe me, she did a lot better then I expected her to do.
 
Last edited:
spanky said:
She established that TM was afraid of Z, that he ran from him and hid from him. That Z did not return to his car but continued his search for Martin.

I read the Crump thingy, I read the DLR interview, believe me, she did a lot better then I expected her to do.
Click to expand...

She didn't establish squat. Her interpretations of Z's state of mind doesn't cut the legal mustard

She's a witness only on the following bit
 
Being busy I hardly could catch up with this trial. So far I had just finished watching the testimony of Rachel Jeantel late last night. It tool me three or four days to finish watching the five parts video of her testimony. Subsequently, I've watched the guy from T-mobile and part of John Good and Jenna Lauer testimonies. That's about it and tomorrow would be another week of more testimony. Waited for more than a year but hardly can keep up. Wish I have more time to just catch up....

Anyway, despite her speech difficulty I find Rachel's testimony to be very truthful and unshakable. For the most part, Don West was very patient with her and treated her fairly well except that he was trying very hard to impeach her with his repetitious questioning tactic and by putting words in her mouth on a few occasions. As a defense lawyer, that's his job, no less.

I believe Rachel when she vehemently said she didn't tell Crimp during the first interview that she attributed to zimmerman saying, "What are you talking about?" instead of "What are you doing here?"

During that part of the interview West hammered on that part over and over many times. At one point he told her that she did said that according to the transcript. That's when Rachel exclaimed something to the effect of "Is that what you're talking about?" And then in this or other part she vehemently said, "No, I didn't write that", meaning she didn't write the transcript.

The problem I see is that people who did the transcribing made mistakes in many parts of her testimony because her voice is so low most of the time and her speech is very hard to understand most of the time. That's the way she is born with.

What I think happened during her interview with Crump was that Crump at the point where Rachel was recounting what Trayvon said to Zimmerman "Why are you following me?" Crump then interrupted and was asking her something. She couldn't understand so she asked Crump, "What are you talking about?" The transcriber than mistook that as Rachel attributing that to zimmerman.

Such misunderstanding also happened a few times between her and West. But, over all she did very well and was not swayed a hair by West despite several hours of his grilling. On several occasions West tried very hard to push words down her throat but she told West squarely, "You ain't get that from me".

She was unshakable because she told the truth. The phone records also bear testimony to that.
 
I think she is more helpful to the prosecution than Zimmerman supporters can see or admit.

While I know and admit my bias, I can't speak for the jury. I just know her testimony alone won't send Zimmerman away. The state needs more, but she didn't kill the state's credit or prove Z's innocence.
 
second-degree murder will be very hard to prove ... Can the jury return a verdict of guilty on a lesser charge, say manslaughter? Anyone know?
 
windowdressing said:
second-degree murder will be very hard to prove ... Can the jury return a verdict of guilty on a lesser charge, say manslaughter? Anyone know?
Click to expand...

Yes, all lesser charges are included.

M2 was bs from the gate. SOP overcharge to leverage a plea.
 
What if...? said:
Yes, all lesser charges are included.

M2 was bs from the gate. SOP overcharge to leverage a plea.
Click to expand...
Is that legal in this USA? I thought it was M2 or forget it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom