Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 183

On June 28 2013 06:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:


She heard them fall on the grass and Trayvon saying "get off."

Defense didn't even have to try to get her to sound stupid so that no one takes her seriously.

Don West, a defense attorney for murder suspect George Zimmerman, on Thursday used the term “creepy ass cracker” seven times in a span of about three minutes to try to make the point that slain teen Trayvon Martin was the one who had made his own death into a racial incident.

In her second day of testimony, West pressed witness Rachel Jeantel about a phone conversation she had with Martin moments before he was shot to death by Zimmerman.

“So when you say it’s a racial event, what did he tell you that makes you think it’s a racial event?” West asked.

Jeantel said that Martin thought it was “strange” that he was being “stalked” by Zimmerman.

“That’s because he described him as a ‘creepy ass cracker’?” West wondered. “So, it was racial, but it was because Trayvon Martin put race in this.”

West went on to use the term “creepy ass cracker” six more times, while Jeantel insisted that it was not a racial comment.

“Can we move on to another topic?” Judge Debra Nelson finally suggested.

On June 28 2013 06:36 xDaunt wrote:
I promise that the jury isn't even paying attention right now. They're all looking at their watches. Juries are good for about 6 hours of testimony. After that, information retention is hit or miss. This particular testimony is redundant and not very important.

On June 28 2013 06:36 xDaunt wrote:
I promise that the jury isn't even paying attention right now. They're all looking at their watches. Juries are good for about 6 hours of testimony. After that, information retention is hit or miss. This particular testimony is redundant and not very important.

On June 28 2013 06:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:


She heard them fall on the grass and Trayvon saying "get off."

Defense spent a long time trying to get her to sound stupid so that no one takes her seriously.

On June 28 2013 06:33 Esk23 wrote:


She is stupid. That is a fact.

The defense was getting her to describe what "wet grass" sounds like and she paused for 10 seconds and couldn't describe it. Then she said it sounded like two people rolling about on the ground. She was then asked what that sounded like and she said it sounded like the something touching the headphones, which the defense pointed out that that could be a number of things not specifically rolling on the ground.

Her testimony is inconsistent and no one is going to send GZ to prison for the rest of his life over her testimony.

On June 28 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Students lose focus at 2 hours, I don't know how a juror can stand 6.

On June 28 2013 06:41 Kaitlin wrote:


I think it's because they tend to be somewhat responsible adults ?

On June 28 2013 06:44 skyrunner wrote:
Hmm i've noticed that the defense seems to get stuck on specific words and wordings, even though the witness doesn't seem to agree with it at first. Then basically asks the same questions 10 times in different ways just to get the witness to somewhat agree on that word, then as soon as that happens they run with it. And sometimes they don't agree and they still go with it.

Feels kinda un kosher if you know what i mean, no?

On June 28 2013 06:45 ZasZ. wrote:


Ehhh, most of the "responsible" adults I know would do anything they can to get out of jury duty, especially for a case of this magnitude. What you are left with is a handful of people who truly believe it is their civic duty and the rest being comprised of people not smart enough to get out of it. Those aren't the people I would expect to be paying attention after 6 straight hours of testimony.

On June 28 2013 06:41 Kaitlin wrote:


I think it's because they tend to be somewhat responsible adults ?

On June 28 2013 06:46 ZasZ. wrote:


That's how lawyering works. They can object if it's particularly heinous, but this is the reason why you hope for intelligent witnesses and spend a lot of time prepping them, so that they don't fall into those traps.

On June 28 2013 06:45 ZasZ. wrote:


Ehhh, most of the "responsible" adults I know would do anything they can to get out of jury duty, especially for a case of this magnitude. What you are left with is a handful of people who truly believe it is their civic duty and the rest being comprised of people not smart enough to get out of it. Those aren't the people I would expect to be paying attention after 6 straight hours of testimony.

On June 28 2013 07:00 xDaunt wrote:
The vast majority of juries are very attentive and take their role in the trial process very seriously.

On June 28 2013 06:45 ranshaked wrote:
Can anyone explain the twitter stuff? Or post a video of it? I can't find a video.

On June 28 2013 06:44 skyrunner wrote:
Hmm i've noticed that the defense seems to get stuck on specific words and wordings, even though the witness doesn't seem to agree with it at first. Then basically asks the same questions 10 times in different ways just to get the witness to somewhat agree on that word, then as soon as that happens they run with it. And sometimes they don't agree and they still go with it.

Feels kinda un kosher if you know what i mean, no?

On June 28 2013 07:05 Kaitlin wrote:


The prosecutor showed the witness' twitter account and tried to attribute twitter's list of suggestions for her to follow as people who she actually followed. Trying to discredit her.