The Zimmerman Trial

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

Oh so you believe in the super absurd "police in on it conspiracy. " the police didn't do that. Martins family and attorney saw an opportunity to make money (starting with donations and copyrighting the dead sons name) and so they and their attorney coerced b.s. from Jeantel and after they got their million they left her to squirm on the wtiness stand. They ran a scam on the tax payers.

WOW! You must know them so well to be able to speak so assuredly about their intentions. This will be the last response you get from me.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

LOL we never said he couldn't be racist. We gave his black heritage and job tutoring black youth as evidence he probably isn't. No one meant because he has black heritage he couldn't be racist, just that it would be a reason it's less likely. Also there is absolutely no evidence he is racist.
I can't believe you read that and thought we meant he literally was incapable of being racist because he had black heritage. That is ignorant.

But someone's colour is either of absolutely no importance to how they act with regard to race - which you claimed earlier - or it is of some importance. It's noticeable that when you describe Martin's 'racism' you require him to be whiter than white, to operate from a position of absolute equality, and his colour gives him no pass at all. But when discussing Zimmerman's potential racism his being mixed race is suddenly meant to count for him. You do, in actual fact, think that a person's colour has a bearing on their potential racism. Unless they are Trayvon Martin.

This - along with your eagerness to prove that Martin was some sort of cross between an MMA fighter and Al Capone - shows your incipient bias.

So tell us, now that I have discarded that inane though from your brain, do you sincerely believe black people can't be racist or as racist? Just answer straight up.

I can't believe I have to answer this yet again. Of course black people can be racist and prejudiced. But they don't operate from a position of historical cultural superiority.

Above FlyersFan (lost in some horribly ironic linguistic dead end) wonders why black people don't have access to words to insult whites with the same measure of power that whites do to insult blacks. Amusingly she thinks that this is some kind of accident, and she even said it must annoy them. I've explained there - and I'll explain again - that this is because of that historical structure.

Which is why Martin's use of the term cracker is arguably racist but not of the same order as, say, 'n-word' or coon. And as you repeatedly fail to acknowledge, the only reason it is focused on is in order to attempt to exonerate Zimmerman.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

Oh so you believe in the super absurd "police in on it conspiracy. "

Hmm. They let a guy go free after shooting a defenceless and innocent teenager the same night, without even bothering to identify the kid.

I doubt they are in on it. But it doesn't take particular paranoia to think they might at least not be completely beyond reproach.

Martins family and attorney saw an opportunity to make money (starting with donations and copyrighting the dead sons name) and so they and their attorney coerced b.s. from Jeantel and after they got their million they left her to squirm on the wtiness stand. They ran a scam on the tax payers.

That's a stunningly cynical reading of events. and almost certainly untrue. Your bias is again palpable.

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Can you show us where you came up with the 30 feet away part? That doesn’t make any sense considering how dark it was and the prosecution’s star witness testimony stating a short interval between their two sentence exchange of words and what she believed to be a hitting sound.

I thought the "star witness" was a discredited liar? Is her word only accepted when it seems to back up George's tale of woe? I'm not going to quibble over the exact distance from the T they were when Good saw them fighting, I'm just telling you George wasn't punched on the nose up at the cross-bar of the T, and mounted immediately, as he claims in his earliest statement. You know, the most important one, because they haven't had much time to revise their story to fit the facts?

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Can you show us where you came up with the 30 feet away part? That doesn’t make any sense considering how dark it was and the prosecution’s star witness testimony stating a short interval between their two sentence exchange of words and what she believed to be a hitting sound.

I thought the "star witness" was a discredited liar? Is her word only accepted when it seems to back up George's tale of woe? I'm not going to quibble over the exact distance from the T they were when Good saw them fighting, I'm just telling you George wasn't punched on the nose up at the cross-bar of the T, and mounted immediately, as he claims in his earliest statement. You know, the most important one, because they haven't had much time to revise their story to fit the facts?

edit on 30-6-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)

So you claim 30 feet but you don’t want to quibble over that. The prosecution’s star witness has 0 merits because she doesn’t back your idea of what happened. You also claim to know where George was punched. Hmmm…. Were you there? I am just wondering because you act like you were with the things you claim.

The facts have been coming out during this trial and they have been in support of George’s recollection of events. Many of your replies seem desperate like how you tried to insinuate that George grabbed Martin. That hasn’t been anywhere in the trial but you have been coming up with one bogus assertion after another.

BTW yes I believe their star witness tried to lie her way through it but the defense was smarter than her and as able to drag out enough of the truth.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Going by the following photo's, do you think 30ft is an unreasonable estimation?

statelymcdanielmanor.files.wordpress.com...

i.imgur.com...

If a different distance from the T has been entered into the record, and you are aware of it, I'm open to being corrected. I never actually said 30ft was the unanimously agreed upon distance. As to the rest of your waffle, I've decided to concede and admit that anything you say has to be well thought out, and above all, right. Good luck with your future debating endeavours.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


I did not claim that earlier. You just make up info as you go.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


She told the truth on the stand for the most part. Most of her lies were made before and used to get a settlement fro Martin's parents. On the stand she realized th getting caught in a lie there could mean trouble for her. The only time she did it was whe when she was asked a question that directly made trayvon the aggressor and she was trained on answering.

Here's another interesting snippet from George's chat with Detective Singleton.

Zimmerman: I have called a few times. You guys probably have the records.

Singleton: OK.

Zimmerman: I’ve probably called a half a dozen times.

Hmmm... closer to 50 than 6, George, but hey, who's counting?

It's surprising that the defence would object to these calls being heard if he was doing such a sterling job and had nothing whatsoever to hide.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


They took statements and brought him in, there was nothing to contradict him and if his story was true there was no crime so they couldn't keep him

Also that view, about the family is not cynical, it is probable. They knew she had lied and would be a terrible witness on the stand, but had to go through with it because they had used to to get over a million in a settlement from HOA. You think that is more shocking. Other people are starting to pick up on this too. Rachel likely wouldn't have been bright enough or see reason enough to know what her testimony could mean. That's why she rushed and said she never thought it would go so far. She didn't seek out justice for her friend, her parents sought out a payday for themselves. Now she is left to squirm, her part complete for them.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


So just making up information again. They allowed Zimmerman's other calls in. There are 7 (much closer to half dozen). They also said he never mentions race in any until he is asked.

What was the point of the lie? Since he was honest and actually pretty accurate about that, is interview is even stronger. The defense are doing their job trying to keep uneccessary info out. Trying to keep the calls out is a continuation of their sterling job. They are doing great, and they didn't just say we don't want the calls in, they said they calls can be brought in IF they can bring in Trayvons history which is fair. If the defense didn't object the state would walk all over them.

The calls will actually help Zs case, the only thing that might hurt is if all the calls are on a black person. Not that that means anything but the state will try to spin it (eve though Z didn't eve mention the race til asked, but I don't know if all the calls were on black people or not.

But your number of calls quip and suggestion that their choice to try to keep the calls out (which wasn't entirely accurate) meant they weren't doing great are both ridiculous arguments that take away from the real info.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


As I said in a previous post black people (nobody calls them coloured anymore, that's considered offensive btw) do have a term which insults white people to an equal extent as the n word. That is superflous use of "racist." An atmosphere has been created where everyone is terrified of being called a racist. It can actually hurt someone to be called a racist publicly. It's used superflously without thought to hurt people, create doubt in them and put them on the defensive. It isn't exclusive to black people, but ironically when used against a black person, not always but in many cases they will laugh it off whether true or not because they have the "that's impossible mentality" you expressed.

So, stepping away from the race issue a bit, as we all eagerly await the trial to restart on Monday morning, whatever "side" you have chosen, I thought I would give a little food for thought.

Things are going to be progressing, more witnesses, more evidence, so I thought I would drop a gift in the punch bowl.



For those that cannot, or do not wish to watch vidoes, here we have a snippet that someone found embedded in another video, and was able to isolate the essential remarks. What makes this fascinating is, this shows Trayvons' father and his girlfriend talking on camera. Tracy, the father, is standing there while his girlfriend states the following:

"Trayvon went to the store."

"He came back home and was sitting on the porch."

Wait. What? So, not only was she there, but he came BACK HOME from the store?

Perhaps this is the missing 45 minute block where it is claimed he was walking around aimlessly in the rain talking to Rachael on the phone? Standing at the "mail thingy"?

Were the girlfriend and Tracy home, and they left Trayvon on the porch to go to dinner?

Will this be asked in court? HUGE inconsistancy in that story, no?

Anyone able to find any more on this video? Has this been discussed in the past?

Has it "been posted before 100 times and debunked"?

Talk to me ATS.

reply to post by Libertygal


Wow if that is true then it pretty much blows the prosecution’s case to bits. Maybe this will come out in court maybe she isn’t thinking clear who knows but that is pretty damning in and of itself.

I thought that I would add one more topic to chew on. Unfortunately, if you cannot watch or listen to these videos, this is not for you.

The issue at hand is, in my opinion, the two people that we hear are not the same. That is to say, the person called DeDe, in the recorded interview, is NOT Rachael Jeantel, the one placed on the witness stand.

To those that watched the trial last week and saw Miss Jeantel testify, you will recognize with your own ability the two people are indeed completely different. The person on the recording has a higher pitched voice, she speaks faster, has different tones and inflections in her voice. This recording was played in court.



Now, this is allegedly Rachael Jeantel, who testified last week.



Now, keep in mind, in this video, the recording played in court, if I am not mistaken, is from the deposition, two entirely different events. Here, you have two samplings of Rachael, both recorded and live in court, and then above, the mysterious alleged 16 year old "DeDe".

Now, keep in mind, Rachael testified in court that other people used her phone. That she and Trayvon were not in a relationship, and were just friends, and that he was intetested in someone else. When asked in court out hundreds of texts between she and Trayvon how many she estimated were from other people, she said lots, then she said two, and as the attorney walked away, she mumbles, it was lots.

Now, lets suppose there really is a 16 year old DeDe. That would explain the cursive handwriting? Have we heard of handwriting samples being obtained? If not, why not? Rachael allegedly signed and dated the letter. DeDe in the first recording also sounds... brighter, whittier, more personality, bubbly. Complete opposites of Rachael.

If this is the case, consider. Rachael is an imposter, and this is with the full knowledge of the prosecution. That, friends, is another HUGE can of worms.

Got the stomach for it, ATS?

If you can, listen to, not watch, the two videos. Give your honest reply, because I contend that under no circumstances is it reasonable to claim the girl in the phone interview is Rachael. It isn't because she is "relaxed", in her element, or any other absurd claims. More to the point, she testified she "rushed it" while hiding in a closet.

Was my first statement correct, that Rachael has a multiple personality?

Why was she hiding in a closet? Did I miss this question? If I did, please, link me something with a transcript.

Thanks!

reply to post by Libertygal


Wait. I'm tired and my mind is slow tonight... I think you are suggesting Trayvon was talking to a girl named deedee instead of Rachel. I just don't see the motive. You're gonna have to spell it out for me. If the prosecution is lying, why not just get deedee to lie? I'm tired and I may or may not have been to a bar tonite. Please just spell it out to me as if I was stupid.

Originally posted by riffraff
reply to post by Libertygal

 

Wait. I'm tired and my mind is slow tonight... I think you are suggesting Trayvon was talking to a girl named dede instead of Rachel. I just don't see the motive. You're gonna have to spell it out for me. If the prosecution is lying, why not just get dede to lie? I'm tired and I may or may not been to a bar tonite. Please just spell it out as if I was stupid.

Well, the motive could be anything, which is why I brought the topic to the table for discussion. It could be political, she is someones' daughter that is politically well known or famous in the community or state.

It could be one of the attorneys' family members. It could be a neice or grandchild of Al Sharpton. The reasons for hiding the fact she exists are unending. The point being, there is a huge difference that is undeniable in both the voice, tone, inflection, personality, and dare I say it without being called racisss, intellect, of these two girls.

Who, what, where when, and why can be sussed out, I am praying that happens in court. I am hoping that the questions, like, "Are you alright? You seem different." are because someone else recognizes this, as well. Lots of hints in last weeks trial point to the defense having caught on to this, like reminding Miss Jeantel she will be called back again to testify.

If she was done, why the need to call her back? They almost begged her, yes, hindsight is 20/20, to give it up last week. She was unfailing, however, though she admitted to the lies. Why was it so easy to admit to the lies? Perhaps because SHE never was the one that told them?

If you consider DeDe is indeed a different person, then Rachael never lied, she simply gave different testimony. Therefore, the joke is on everyone that thinks she lied, right? To her, in her mind, she has always told the truth. Is this why instead of saying she lied in the phone interview, she just repeats, "I rushed it"?

Perhaps it is only Rachael covering for a friend, DeDe, who's parents would KILL her were they to find out she was talking to a boy. There is such a wild multitude of possibilities, but the one major issue at hand is, it is not a possibility that DeDe and Rachael are the same person, in my opinion, so lets start there.

Oh, there is something about Rachael, "Finally getting the phone in my name," that took some 3 weeks to accomplish. Still looking into that one.

Oh, P.S. If you do listen to the phone interview tapes, there are strange goings on, where it does sound like DeDe is being coached. Though I felt that was something of another topic.

Crump, at one point says, "Now, tell me in your own words.." Who in the heck words would she be using, but her own? What did that even MEAN? Then, she says at another point, where he is trying to obviously lead her to say Trayvon said he saw Zimmerman get out of the truck, she says, "You want that, too?"

Again, what does that even mean? Unless, of course, they had a conversation off tape, and she is asking if he wants her to lie about that, too. Like I said, more cans of worms, but, therei you go.

reply to post by Libertygal


So for this to be possible, deedee needs to have access to Rachel's phone, right. I mean, surely the phone records have been verified that Trayvon was talking to Rachel's phone just before he died, right. I still don't know what you are getting at. Maybe deedee heard what really happened and isn't willing to lie in court but Rachel is? Am I even in the ballpark?

Originally posted by riffraff
reply to post by Libertygal

 

So for this to be possible, deedee needs to have access to Rachel's phone, right. I mean, surely the phone records have been verified that Trayvon was talking to Rachel's phone just before he died, right. I still don't know what you are getting at. Maybe deedee heard what really happened and isn't willing to lie in court but Rachel is? Am I even in the ballpark?

As I said, Rachael testified last week in court "lots" of people used her phone.

Yes, phone records verify contact was between her and Trayvons' phone. However, what we do not know is, who was with Rachael? We have no way of verifying who was with her, except by her own words. Was that even asked, if she was alone that night? I don't recall hearing anything on that topic. Even if it was, there is no way to prove who was at her side, unless someone testifies to it.

She also testified she only called him back once, yet, those same phone records show that she, and several others called him, alllll night long. So if she only called back once, are we open to assume that someone in her presence was using her phone, all night, to call Trayvon?

More like Rachael was home, DeDe was there using her phone to text and talk to Trayvon. Rachael heard what happened, and is covering for DeDe.

People want to leap to poor Rachaels' defense for being picked on for not being quite mm.. so "bright", or learning challenged, yet, she was able to immediately recall not only the exact dates, but times as well as days of the week, of the deposition appointments and missed dates. It stood out as rather odd to me when I watched this unfold in court, and again, I assure I am not alone in that.

What I am getting at is, both DeDe and Rachael were coached.

The why, I don't have an answer, except to try to make a trial where there perhaps was once none. Again, why I brought the topic to the table.

As has been pointed out innumerable times, without Rachael DeDe Diamond Eugene Jeantel, there would have been no trial, no case, no star witness.

The supposition is insidious, obviously, but the entire case, including the fact that the prosecutor refused to take it to a Grand Jury, reeks if insidiousness, doesn't it?

People do remember that, right? Even though the media claims to this day Zimmerman was indicted by a Grand Jury, that is a lie. That never happened.




ETA You know, perhaps that she was a minor, and she refused to testify, and her parents refused, Florida has some odd laws. I shall look to see if Florida can compell a minor to testify.

Another consideration is, cameras would not be allowed to show the minor testifying, a huge part of the case is the publicity of it, the whole of the race issues, and without being able to show it on television destroys whatever intent the media had in publically displaying this trial. Rachael is over 18, therefore, compellable, and televiseable.

reply to post by Libertygal


The whole case reeks to high hell. As I've said before, why would the media portray Trayvon as a small child? Why would they splice 911 calls. Why would they lie about zimmernans indictment by a grand jury? Why would rachel lie about her age? Why woud Obama sully the justice process with presidential commentary? The only things we know are what we've been sold by a lying propaganda machine. It seems like no one even cares that they have been lied to. They just want revenge, not justice. A black boy has been killed by a white man and we want blood. Well I want truth. I have no white guilt, I was born in 1980 not 1880. If you think I am racist, fine. I am not but you are free to think so and I am free to not give a f..k what you think of me.
( deep breath) ok I am ranting...

There is something much bigger than Martin vs Zimmerman going on right now with this case and I don't know what it is but it scares the sh.t out of me. A plan is in place and we need to see through the BS. I mean all of us: gogo, Grantedbail, Ivan, Mr Wendell, wonderboi, flyers fan, grimpachi etc.. everyone. Forget who is guilty or not guilty that is not our place to decide we need to put together our brains and see through this because the only thing I know for sure is TPTB want us divided on this issue and we need to figure out why before it is too late
This is not just another trial. This is so much bigger than OJ or Rodney King or Casey Anthony. The corruption of this case by TPTB is unprecedented; if they have their way the world will never be the same afterwards.