<p>^ agree JAMCAFE—I thought she came across as genuine, what she thought or felt was very apparent, but it can work to show she was not hiding anything. Heck if she were savvier she might have left out some of the language that TM called GZ. Who would know? But she included it, and I think it demonstrated she was simply repeating what she heard as best she could. I think jurors would see this too.</p>
<p>I think she was simply tired today. I wouldn’t be surprised if she hasn’t had enough sleep lately. My impression of her was that she’s not a particularly worldly young woman but has some spunk, and that she was answering the questions as best she could without too much evasion or embellishment. Of course, I’ve seen much, much worse witnesses. If I were on the jury I wouldn’t take her testimony as gospel, but I wouldn’t discount it as being deliberately false, either. She heard stuff. She might have misheard or misinterpreted - such as the wet grass sound - but it didn’t seem like she was just making stuff up. So you take it along with the rest of the evidence.</p>
<p>Actually, most witnesses are like that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL – I’ll remember that if GZ testifies. What a perfect explanation for anything he has not been consistent about. </p>
<p>I’ll also be interested to see how respectful the prosecution is in questioning GZ if he testifies. Do we all agree that “proper” examination remains the same regardless of the witness?</p>
<p>^The defendant is not a witness. And he has already lied plenty–especially about his financial circumstances–and had some documented inconsistencies in his story.</p>
<p>No, I don’t think GZ deserves the same approach to questioning as RJ did.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>some media outlets liked to show the 12 year old Martin picture. I guess it helped their narrative.</p>
<p>Interesting piece about Rachel Jeantel.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Read more: [What</a> Black People Understand About Rachel Jeantel by Christina Coleman | Global Grind](<a href=“Why Black People Understand Rachel Jeantel by Christina Coleman”>Why Black People Understand Rachel Jeantel by Christina Coleman)</p>
<p>sally305–if the article got it right, that only Blacks understand this, then the prosecution did a horrible job selecting a jury. And, why wasn’t this something she had been prepped to explain fully?</p>
<p>As other posters have noted, cases sometime turn on the quality of the prosecution/police work as much as anything else. Imagine an all white/hispanic jury. Gotta give it to GZ’s counsel if that article is true.</p>
<p>Or, the jury could contain women like me. Until today I was unaware that I am supposed to feel insulted by the word “cracker”, particularly if it was being used by a couple of teenagers talking between themselves on a private cell phone conversation.</p>
<p>she was a disatser…changing story is never a good thing</p>
<p>@ sally305 - great article. Everyone who wants Cliff notes on her testimony should read it. The differences are that great and we need to bridge the gap.</p>
<p>@07DAD - the article gets it right but not only black people get it, others who try to understand the cultural differences get it too. Rather than view all differences as “less than.”</p>
<p>As for the job the prosecutors did, who knows if they get it. Perhaps they just couldn’t prevent the 6 white jurors from being chosen bc they are otherwise qualified ( to be the jury of GZ peers).</p>
<p>07DAD, you miss the point. This is not American Idol. The jury does not have to like RJ. There is a lot more that could possibly convict GZ besides one weak witness.</p>
<p>To me, the fact that he thought he was being followed by some creeper really doesn’t surprise me. I mean if you were being followed by some guy on your way home from a store, would you refer to him as “a local gentleman?” I would use a common slur or at least the word “jerk.” As in “some creepy jerk is following me. Call the cops”. Too bad he didn’t call 911</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Amen. </p>
<p>And if the jury believes self defense, TM decided to take care of the “creepy jerk” himself. And, ran into an armed “creep.”</p>
<p>Teen boys and young men can think they are invincible.</p>
<p>BTW–I read that State of Texas filed a capital murder charge against a 13 year old boy today.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t understand everybody’s confusion over this. TM meant “that creepy-ass cracker”, not “creepy ass-cracker”. It would be like saying “that stupid ass driver cut me off”. Stupid-ass, like creepy-ass, is an adjective.</p>
<p>^um just wondering, how do you know this?</p>
<p>This case has hung jury written all over it. Depending on which camp (TM or GZ) people have aligned themselves with, they see RJ’s testimony as a nervous woman being bullied by a defense attorney or a proven liar with falsified evidence (the letter she wrote but couldn’t read). So the issue of who attacked whom is left up to a choice between the stories of 2 proven liars. Each side has their own experts to argue whether the voice heard screaming was TM or GZ. Each side has their own experts to argue what GZ’s injuries indicate, and there is conflicting photographic/video evidence each side will present. It goes on and on.</p>
<p>The bottom line is that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, and as long as the defense can present reasonable doubt as to the prosecution’s version of the crime there is a decent chance they can return a not guilty verdict or end up as a hung jury. As we saw in the Casey Anthony trial you just never know when a jury will throw a major curveball.</p>
<p>The media has exactly what they’ve wanted all along. They took an inflammatory case and have thrown gasoline on it since the beginning, and the “star witness” has done nothing but muddy the waters even further. If this trial turns even uglier, you can bet they’ll be right there to capture it all on film. The circus continues…</p>
<p>Lindz,</p>
<p>Because that’s how kids talk. I thought it was obvious. I’m surprised that other people thought it meant something different.</p>
<p>Rachel, the witness who reported what TM said, said it meant he thought GZ was a pervert</p>
<p>I think you’re misinterpreting what she meant. TM may have thought he was a pervert because he was following him, but creepy-ass cracker means a creepy white guy.</p>