[Jeff Winston]

It has become common knowledge that Jeantel has perpetrated a number of lies on this case, both under oath and otherwise, and West made certain to touch on each of these, albeit with a relatively light hand. She lied about her age–she was 18-years-old not 16-years-old at the time, she lied about why she did not attend Martin’s funeral or wake, she lied about her name to Martin’s mother and others, and so on.

For many of these lies she offered a relatively innocuous excuse–she didn’t go the funeral because she doesn’t like to see dead bodies, for example. But the sheer number and variety of them cast Jeantel as someone who was perfectly comfortable creating a fabrication if it served her convenience or purposes.

If I'm a juror, and the sheer number of times Jeantel has lied, both under oath and not under oath, is pointed out to me, I conclude that nothing she says can be trusted.

I know, I know. I'm not a juror.

[zerosix]

Lying witness, sure but in today's racially charged society, one doesn't dare call her a liar, which would surely have been done in earlier times.

Worse yet, when reading about these witnesses and even being forced to catch a snippet of Rachel's "testimony," in earlier times we would all be correct in the view that the prosecution bombed out, Zimmerman would walk.

Today, however, in light of the OJ trial, what's wrong is right and that "crazy assed Cracker" Zimmerman ends up guilty!

[norwaypinesavage]

"I know, I know. I'm not a juror."

I was on a jury once where the perp was on trial for assault. The perp admitted to the act. The perp's girl friend, her son, the police officer, and the victim also said he did it. No one testified differently.

During the initial part of the jury deliberation, one of the jury members said "I don't think he did it". Fortunately, the rest of us were able to convince him otherwise, and the perp was convicted. Yet it goes to show what some see, and don't see during a trial.