General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRachel Jeantel
Yesterday, in response to a couple of articles posted on DU:GD, I made some harsh remarks. Some people thought I was knocking Rachel Jeantel (I wasnt); others thought I was being cranky (I was); and one person stated that I was jealous of another authors writing skills (I wasnt). I was in a foul mood yesterday. It happens. So, I apologize to any friends I offended.
I watched Rachels testimony. I thought that she did well. Thus, while I have sympathy for the loss of her friend -- and especially the terrible circumstances that connected her to the murder trial -- I found some of the things people said on TV, or wrote on the internet, to be condescending. Rachel struck me as a strong young lady, deserving of respect and understanding, but not to be viewed as a victim of the court proceedings.
I appreciate that courtrooms create stress. This is especially true at a time when certain trials take on a circus-like atmosphere in the national media. And I also understand, all too well, having friends and family members murdered. It may be that the combination of first-hand experience with courtrooms and funerals has impacted the manner in which I view both this trial, and Rachel.
The legal process provides us with a unique look at sociological issues in our culture. For example, taken as a whole, the legal system provides greater opportunities and protections for one sub-culture, the wealthy. Clearly, poor people make up the majority of those incarcerated in the prison-industrial complex. More, black people are more likely to be incarcerated for the exact same crime as are white folks. Yet only a fool believes that the poor and non-white are predisposed to criminal activities.
In the past, blacks were identified as a sub-culture in the United States; today, they are correctly viewed as a co-culture. Yet there is no one blanket black culture. Hence, when the host of a HLN program asked a black guest if blacks view Rachels testimony differently than do whites?, she thanked him for trusting her to speak for all black people. Safe to say, for example, that Clarence Thomas sees the world differently than Rachel Jeantel.
Rachel belongs to another sub-culture, one that was first recognized when baby-boomers became older teens and young adults: youth. Older forum members will recall when they were called a counter-culture. This illustrates an important point -- that the larger culture frequently reacts harshly to the differences in sub-cultures. This is especially true when the sub-culture takes pride in, and identifies itself with those differences. Again, older forum members will recall that the larger society sought protection from (re: to punish) those who wore bell-bottoms, colorful shirts, short skirts, and love beads. I still have some old warnings from right-wing, conservative christian leaders on the terrible threat posed by The Beatles: not just long haired pot-smokers, they, but Ringos drums beat out a subversive jungle beat (accurate quote) that made youth vulnerable to communism.
Luckily, youth has its own unique defense systems. Rachel illustrated my favorite of these very well. When an authority figure asks a young adult the same stupid question, over and over, the youth often displays her/his utter contempt for the questioner. I am convinced that this is one of the most sacred duties of youth in the larger society. And I say that as a father of four, each with an impressive skill set that allows them to make others fully aware of that contempt.
As a rule, witnesses should not argue with lawyers while on the stand. The attorney has unique advantages in that setting. The defense attorney who cross-examined Rachel is actually talented at his trade. Although his knock-knock attempt at humor was pathetic, he is good at coming across as a wise and thoughtful grandfatherly gentleman. But from what I saw, he was not entirely comfortable in questioning Rachel
..not because he was hesitant to try to expose weaknesses in her testimony, but because she was a worthy opponent. They were trading shots pretty well, in my opinion.
Thats why I have respect for this young lady in terms of her trial participation. I did not see her as the victim in that context. I felt proud of her, not sympathy.
JustAnotherGen
(31,817 posts)And this is a solid point that I agree with:
H2O Man
(73,536 posts)I think that point is likely the most important, in placing Rachel's testimony in its proper context. And as an old man, I thought she did it with style. She's a tough young lady.
longship
(40,416 posts)R&K
Much appreciated.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)Better than I would have handle Don West, the patronizing and annoying defense attorney. I didn't blame her one bit about being upset that she had to come back a second day. I didn't blame her for getting somewhat sarcastic after he pointed out her "change in attitude" the second day. I LOVED her for making an insult of "SIR!" after every one of her answers.
I am sorry that many will forever see her as ignorant or as having an "attitude". She was being forced to be polite to the attorneys who are trying to vilify her friend and to get his killer off with no penalty. I'd have an attitude, too, and I am an aging white woman.
I hope Rachel Jeantel gets more opportunities in her life as a result of this exposure. I think she has the intelligence to take advantage if they are available.
H2O Man
(73,536 posts)I agree with everything you said.
Don West could be a very effective defense attorney in many other cases. But he isn't a good fit in this one. It was surprising, at least to me, that he got thrown off in the opening statement. Did he really expect that the prosecutor wouldn't object in his attempt to inject a "folksy" story into the trial? Or that the judge would allow it? You could see him trying to gather himself, and then came the god-awful "knock-knock" bit.
If one were keeping score, his errors were glaring. Rachel may belong to one or two sub- or co-cultures that a few people are uncomfortable with, but who owns the problem? Not Rachel.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)I don't think the two have to be mutually exclusive.
H2O Man
(73,536 posts)The two are not mutually exclusive. And while I felt pride alone, I'm sure that other good people could feel both in this case. (The articles that I had responded to struck me as being sappy sympathy, and lacking in respect.)
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)And since I am not nearly as nice as you are I will say that to me, those who are so sure the jury thinks poorly of the girl seem kind of biased against both the girl and the jury. They also seem to have a fairly basic misunderstanding of the process of defense and prosecution to the point that many sound as if they oppose the accused having any defense at all. I do not take kindly to folks who think any trial should begin with foregone conclusions.
The 'apology from the world' piece, I thought was sort of insulting to the witness and the insults seemed to be toward her youth, class and even her race. Called her a child, which she is not, and seemed to claim she is too tender to take part in civil society, which I do not think is the case.
H2O Man
(73,536 posts)Projecting what the jury is thinking doesn't provide insight as to what the jury is thinking, it's just projecting one's own thinking. I have faith that a jury of intelligent adults can think clearly for themselves.
I agree with your opinion on the "world apology" bit.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)that defense attorney strikes me as a a bit odd. perhaps he was uncomfortable questioning her, but her really came off as a jerk and a bore. i thought rachel held he own, and i find her story credible.
H2O Man
(73,536 posts)to be a comfortable fit for this trial, that's for sure.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)H2O Man
(73,536 posts)that I was -- I can be a cranky, snarling old fart.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)people come to DU. Too much knee-jerk reaction to everything these days, which is why anything that has some thought behind it, is often not appreciated.
Thanks for one of the more thoughtful perspectives on this trial.
Romulus Quirinus
(524 posts)Though I have to say, it kind of shows how well informed those conservative leaders were if they thought that Ringo was the threat!
H2O Man
(73,536 posts)Of course, his drumming DID get many a youth dancing with wild abdomen in the streets of Chicago.
REP
(21,691 posts)She reminded me a bit of, "if I am, pray god keep me there; if I am not, pray god put me there." Not that she's led an army or hears voices - or is a martyr - but just showed similar quick wit under trying circumstances.
Exactly. Very impressive, I thought.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)That is partly because of her recorded (April 2 2012) interview by a Florida state attorney. He had to remind her several times that he wanted her to be truthful. When asked if Martin had told her that the guy was coming at him and was going to hit him, she said yes at first and only withdrew the claim after being reminded that he didn't want her to guess and that he wasn't trying get her to say anything unless it was true. It was sad and pathetic.
The interview to which I refer can be found at: http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/people/witnesses/witness-8-files-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-case/
Are_grits_groceries
(17,111 posts)"Sad and pathetic"
Yes the defense attorney was, wasn't he.
The defense attorney was trying to get her to say a lot of things beyond her earlier testimony. In addition, she is out of her element. She does not have any courtroom savvy.
Jeantel may be trying to please some body and protect Trayon.
Your post is condescending and highly judgmental of someone who is not as "righteous" as you are.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)You should listen to it. Her behavior in that interview was sad and pathetic.
Are_grits_groceries
(17,111 posts)And my remarks stand.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to you? How many witness interviews with state attorneys have ever listened to?
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Did you listen to the interview?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)From my recollection she has not changed her story. He called her as he was very disturbed by the fact that someone had been following him. She suggested he run and get home as quickly as possible, he told he was doing that. Then she heard another person and heard him asking why this person was following him.
Now, here is the problem. He called her while trying to get away from this stranger who had been stalking him. We know that Zimmerman had been told to say in his truck and that the police would be there any minute. We know that Zimmerman ignored that advice and followed Trayvon who was naturally upset as anyone would be, by being followed by a complete stranger. We know Trayvon was very close to his father's apartment, so that indicates he was trying to get home and away from Zimmerman. His call to her was a natural thing to do if you are being followed by a stranger.
Bottom line, if Zimmerman had stayed in his truck, Trayvon would be alive and no one would have heard of either of them. But he didn't.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)They are in dispute.
And any open-minded person who listens to the interview will find Jaentel to lack credibility.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)by a complete stranger who had been told to stay in his truck. Had he done that, we would never have heard of either of them and both would be alive and well today.
RobinA
(9,888 posts)I read a lot of commentary before seeing any testimony, and I thought neither the witness nor the attorney were as bad as they were made out to be. However, I thought her testimony was not useful to either side, as I have no idea when she was telling the truth and when she wasn't. If I were on the jury I would disregard her testimony completely.
OneGrassRoot
(22,920 posts)lamp_shade
(14,828 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)examination of Rachel: "he is good at coming across as a wise and thoughtful grandfatherly gentleman", I don't agree with your conclusion that "he was not entirely comfortable in questioning Rachel
..not because he was hesitant to try to expose weaknesses in her testimony, but because she was a worthy opponent".
To the extent he was, as you call it 'hesitant' (I'd call it careful), it was not due to her being any kind of a 'worthy opponent' but because he understands that, when there is a mismatch of intellectual strengths an attorney has to be very cautious not to appear to be beating the witness up (which can result in the jury disliking him/her and favoring the witness). West is obviously very skilled and know what he's doing.
is a good word. He was definitely walking a tightrope there, and I thought he did a pretty good job.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)West didn't really get her that rattled from the bits I saw. She didn't panic or become confused. West, on the other hand, put forward some transparently awful stuff, like suggesting Martin would have lied to her as he described what was happening in real time. Because ... he anticipated what was about to happen and was setting her up as a defense witness? Didn't track at all.
Juries are susceptible to attorneys making witnesses look bad, but they're also not blind to bullying, and old man hectoring a young girl and, for example, pretending he can't understand the way she is speaking, does not necessarily come off as "winning."
Combined with the horrendous opening "knock-knock joke," which felt like a ghastly attempt to minimize a young man's death and a murder trial, I don't think West's "bad cop" routine is necessarily carrying that much weight.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)doubt the jury is going to buy that. They are instructed to base their decisions only on the evidence. Wild speculations from both attorneys and witnesses should be dismissed during their deliberations. And that was one wild speculation.