Witness: Trayvon Called George Zimmerman A ‘Creepy-A**,’ ‘White, Kill-My-Neighbors Cracker’

Mediaite ^ | June 26, 2013 | Tommy Christopher

[2ndDivisionVet]

On the third day of testimony in the George Zimmerman murder trial, the prosecution called what could be the most pivotal witness of all: Rachel Jeantel, the friend who was on the phone with 17 year-old Trayvon Martin until moments before Zimmerman shot and killed him. In the early part of her testimony, Jeantel described her conversation with Trayvon, in which he notices a man looking at him, a man Jeantel says Martin described as a “creepy, white, kill-my-neighbors cracker,” and a “creepy-ass cracker,” to which she joked that he “might be a rapist.”

The credibility of Jeantel’s testimony is crucial, because it establishes George Zimmerman as the aggressor, and contradicts the defense’s contention that Mr. Zimmerman did not pursue Trayvon Martin after the police dispatcher instructed him that they didn’t need him to do that. The phone call also represents a two-minute overlap between the time Zimmerman hung up woth the dispatcher, and when he made contact with Trayvon Martin.

The prosecution asked Rachel Jeantel what Trayvon Martin was complaining to her about on the phone, as he walked home.

“That a man just kept watching him,” she replied.

After the judge overruled a defense objection, the prosecutor continued, “Did you say anything back to him or did he say anything back to you?”

“Yes,” Jeantel replied. “I asked him how the man looked like. He just told me the man — the man looked creepy.”(continued)

[subterfuge]

For the record, I also won’t read your sloppy postings. Your sloppiness is just rude and makes you look “ stpuid.”

[subterfuge]

Just stop! You’re making an ass of yourself.

[GladesGuru]

Florida law is specific about the justification for use of lethal force being reasonable fear of serious bodily harm, or of death.

A mere punch during an altercation would probably not qualify. However, when St Skittles knocked Zimmerman down, got on top of him so he could not escape, and began slamming Zimmerman’s head against a concrete sidewalk, shooting was justified under the reasonable fear of death.

[Let's Roll]

Forgive me, I got here late, but isn’t Trayvon’s girl friend the same “witness” who in open court admitted she could not read the allegation she supposedly “wrote”? Of course her testimony is supposed to be unimpeachable because she is of the correct color.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-witness-read-letter-wrote-shooting/story?id=19504826#.UcxGvqzS4mU

[CottShop]

[[The way I understand it (not a lawyer), is that its not hearsay to testify to what was said in a conversation provided the words of the conversation itself is what the witness is bearing witness to. But if the witness is there to establish something that was merely described to them in the conversation, then the conversation is hearsay relative to establishing that something]]

Pretty much correct- where a person has no direct experience with an issue or event, whatever they say is nothign miore than heresay- if a person hears oemhting, then tries ot tell the court that without hte person they heard it from beign present, then it’;s heresay-

The girl hearing the eventsw unfold over the phone is a sticky issue inthat she can’t positively say with 100% cvertainty that the voices she heard were either trayvon’s or geroge’s- she can give an unlearned opinion, but I’m not sure if she can claim it as a fact without beigfn a forensic expert in voicwe analysis- as peopel udner stress, in thsi case, george, often have raised pitches i ntheir voices and higher octaves

There are a number of exceptiosn to the heresay rule, such as if a person is infact a voice analysis expert and was on phone with trayvon, and heard the hwoel hting go down and was then able to analyze the voices later to determien beyond a resonable doubt who voice it was

Soemtimes it is yup to a judge to determien what is gheresay and what isn’t- and it’s left to the judge’s discretion

[CottShop]

[[Even on websites that follow trials where mostly females post there is a very anti Zimmerman mentality.]]

This was my gut concern when I heard abotu hte jury- I kept hearing pundits exclaim “Women are mroe apt to look at just the facts, while men are mroe apt to becoem emotionally invested over single points i nthe case” and I thought “Really?- seems that that is just the opposite of what the e3vidence shows- women are much more apt to sympathise with trayvon’s mother it seemed, which won’t be good for zimmerman- and hte defense is goigfn to have to really workj hard to overcome that- it might even be impossible becasue of a woman’s motherly instinct to protect children no matter what they’ve doen wrong- whereas a man coudl detach hismelf from such sentiment and look more at the facts (of course not al men or women fit certain stereotypes but by and large, we follow these characteristics pretty closely)- I couldn’t udnerstand how hte puindits were comign up with hteir claims- and htese were pundits on fox too- not just liberal stations and blogs etc- Not all pundits said that but it seemd most were- Just seemed odd to me

[subterfuge]

Wow. You had to reply twice. I guess I struck a nerve

[CottShop]

[[The states star witness has become a star witness for the defense.]]

I’m sure hte prosecution sees thsi too and is furiously tryign to instruct her as to how to act and what to say- whether she follows their advice or not remains to be seen

[CottShop]

[[Zimmerman is guilty of homicide...or at least admits to homicide. Right?]]

No- he admits to justifiable homicide, the police investigated the issue and foudn it to be justifiable homicide udner hte stand yor ground act- the prosecution in playign to the racists o nthel eft falsley accused george of depraved indifference to human life and falsley arrested him fro a criem he did NOT commit- Now an innocent man is on trial for his life thanks to a prejudicial and corrupt prosecution

[CottShop]

[[Zimmerman sort of has to prove he had to kill Trayvon...]]

No- the prosecution has to prove that george simmerman was actign i na depraved indifference to human life fashion when he killed martin

[CottShop]

[[1. If Tray made it to the backyard of his dad’s girlfriend’s house while talking to W8, why didn’t he just go inside?]]

MOST LIKELY (opinion) because he was a thug who wanted street cred by murderign what he htought was a ‘white cracka’- but htis is goign to be hard to prove motive- however there are the phone calls, but no actual records of what martin said- just hte frst hand recountign of htem by an unreliable witness

[[2. If Tray was “scared”, why did he call W8 and not 911?]]

prosecution can claim ‘there wasn’t time to when the ‘poor kid’ realized he needed to defend himself- of course htis is a crock of crap- but they will likely present a similiar case

[[3. Why doesn’t Tray’s body have any bruises, marks, etc. if George was the aggressor?]]

Prosecution will likely state ‘because george only needed one act- to shoot an unarmed kid’ to subdue him (howeverm then we have eyewitness acoounts of two peopel struggling- but hten the prosecution can claim the kid was just ‘luckier’ than george and got soem licks while george perhaps missed all his punches-)

[[4. Attorney on TV last night said that Tray’s pants had grass stains on the knees, indicating he was kneeling.]]

Prosecution can simpyl state that there is no way to tell exactly where thsoe stains happened or when- not sure id defence can call an expert to determien such a thing either-

[[5. George wore a red rain coat and it was soaked on the back, indicating he was lying on his back.]]

Which isn’t unusual when rollign aroudn in a fight- but htis doesn’t do much to estalish who might have started the fight

[[6. Other witness said the person on top (during scuffle) was wearing dark clothing.]]

Unfortunately this doesn’t do much to establish who started the fight either- witness coudl have coem uin after the fight was goign on for awhile and not be able to know who started the gfight

[[7. I understand Tray’s phone was in his pocket. Did he put it there in anticipation of attacking George from behind?]]

IF so, then the hostile girl witness yeasterday lied abotu hearing the phone drop to the ‘wet grass’

Not tryign to defend trayvon here- just pointing out some issues witrh hte questions you raised that can be explained away by prosecution

[CottShop]

[[A mere punch during an altercation would probably not qualify.]]

That depends on the circumstances, like we saw recetly with hte hosue invasion where the huge black dude beat the crap out of a mother whiel her child looked on- She woudl have been justified in killing him no doubt in her own home, but also most likley woudl have been justified in killing him o nthe street had he doen the same- especially IF the child were present- but even without the child beign present- all she needed to think was that there was a reasonable possibility that she was abotu to die

George defiantely had such a probable cause- ANYTIME soemoen bashes a person’s head against a hard object, that person is justified i nthinkign hteir life is in danger- even if it’s just one bashing- but we know george had his head bashed repeatedly by a crazed kid hyped up on fear and anger (and by fear I mean that he was abotu to cross the mora line by actually murderign someone- but apaprently was willign to murder in order to gain street cred as so many punks and gang mamembers do today- I beleive george testified that martin told him george was goign to die today i n their exchange after martin blindsided him- correct me if I’m wrong)

[ltc8k6]

There are no witnesses to the start of the fight.

We will never know who started it.

There’s no way to tell who started it.

So that bit of info will play no part in the case.

GZ is the only one with strong signs of being beaten up.

GZ has to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Mustangman]

I agree with you. Plus, the TM girlfriend came off terribly as a witness....and she even claimed TM made racists remarks....which helps GZ. The account (IMO) that was most trust-worthy was the note she had her friend write to TM’s parents (the one she couldn’t read). In it she said, TM walked towards GZ, not the other way around. It would be difficult to convict GZ on her testimony because it was just all over the map. She’s obviously not the sharpest person on earth. GZ’s injuries are good evidnce that he was the one being assulted.

With all that said, this is not an ordinary case. Many have convicted GZ already and there is tremendous pressure on the jury to find GZ guilty.

[subterfuge]

I’ll just go ahead and put you dwon sa oen of teh resident cranks on the forum.