• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Do you feel that Rachel Jeantel hurt or helped the Prosecution.

Was Rachel Jeantel helpful or harmful to the Prosecution?

  • She did well on the stand, and helped the Prosecution

    Votes: 3 20.0%
  • She was harmful, as her attitude was disrespectful

    Votes: 10 66.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 2 13.3%

  • Total voters
    15

Superfly

Salty, defiant, and completely non-compliant.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
54,784
Reaction score
43,114
Location
From Tucson to Tucumcari, Tehachapi to Tonopah
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
She was blatantly disrespectful to the entire court system, yet I've heard some legal analysts saying that she did well during her time on the stand. What do you think, though? Did she do more harm than good for the Prosecution?
 
She was blatantly disrespectful to the entire court system, yet I've heard some legal analysts saying that she did well during her time on the stand. What do you think, though? Did she do more harm than good for the Prosecution?

I don't think she helped the prosecution. Her testimony was given weeks after the event...the letter "she" wrote? Well, "she" didn't write it at all. It has inconsistencies with the final sworn deposition she gave. She wasn't there. Everything she testifies to about where he was...what he was doing? Ridiculous. She had no idea. She knew only what he said. Get rid of her assumptions...distill everything down to what he actually said? I think she proves nothing.

That, combined with her most obvious prejudice about the case (Zimmerman's guilty as sin), and her complete disrespect and disdain for the court proceedings, all combine to make me think she did more harm than good.
 
I don't think she helped the prosecution. Her testimony was given weeks after the event...the letter "she" wrote? Well, "she" didn't write it at all. It has inconsistencies with the final sworn deposition she gave. She wasn't there. Everything she testifies to about where he was...what he was doing? Ridiculous. She had no idea. She knew only what he said. Get rid of her assumptions...distill everything down to what he actually said? I think she proves nothing.

That, combined with her most obvious prejudice about the case (Zimmerman's guilty as sin), and her complete disrespect and disdain for the court proceedings, all combine to make me think she did more harm than good.

I agree. I'm confused about that letter, anyway. Did she write it? I thought she couldn't read cursive.
 
She was blatantly disrespectful to the entire court system, yet I've heard some legal analysts saying that she did well during her time on the stand. What do you think, though? Did she do more harm than good for the Prosecution?

I see these analysts still saying the prosecution has this and wonder if these people wanted and expected a different outcome so they're just hanging onto every little minute thing that might be in "their" favor.
 
She can't read. I rest my case.
 
What was your case?

That the entire trial is a joke and should never be have gotten media attention. Now ever single non-event that happens has to catch the publics eye.

I also think that everybody who is not in connection with the people directly affected by the case don't belong there.

Also, the witnesses are all unrealiable. And this woman was the least reliable and the dumbest of them all so far. She can't read.
 
Also, the witnesses are all unrealiable.

I don't agree with that at all. I think the neighbors, police officers and medical personnel are very reliable.

And this woman was the least reliable and the dumbest of them all so far. She can't read.

I agree she was the least reliable and not helpful to the prosecution. I pretty sure she can read, just not well at all.
 
without a doubt she was the best witness thus far for the prosecution
that also should indicate how "well" the state's case is proceeding

she was caught in lies
she gives ample indication martin was engaged in thug behavior
the witness pointed out that martin was racially biased

but she is also credible
her lies were for sound reason
this witness never moved away from the perception relayed by martin that he was being followed and was very alarmed by that reality
that is the most damage inflicted thus far against the defense. martin may have legitimately believed he was being pursued, and thus possessed basis to be concerned for his own safety, entitling him to stand his ground

but what attitude
what lack of situational awareness
what low aptitude

anyone who ever endorses evaluating teachers based on the students' test scores should immediately bring this almost 20 year old high school junior to mind ... and make sure not to use cursive when constructing the test
 
I don't agree with that at all. I think the neighbors, police officers and medical personnel are very reliable.

I agree she was the least reliable and not helpful to the prosecution. I pretty sure she can read, just not well at all.

Not being able to read properly by the age of 19 is not normal. For me, that's equivalent to not being able to read.

I shouldn't criticize her, I know, it is unfair of me to do so. I went to school with people who in the 10th grade (2nd year of highschool) had difficulties reading out loud because they never read out loud. But they never had any problems understanding the text when they read it silently. Just when speaking. She said she can't understand the words on the paper. It made me cringe.

But I will point it out and I apologize for any rude remarks on her person.
 
I agree. I'm confused about that letter, anyway. Did she write it? I thought she couldn't read cursive.

It's my understanding her friend wrote it for her. And, you're correct. Apparently she can't read cursive.
 
I went to school with people who in the 10th grade (2nd year of highschool) had difficulties reading out loud because they never read out loud. But they never had any problems understanding the text when they read it silently. Just when speaking.

If you can read text silently and comprehend it, but have problem reading aloud that isn't a reading problem. It's a public speaking problem.
 
Last edited:
I see these analysts still saying the prosecution has this and wonder if these people wanted and expected a different outcome so they're just hanging onto every little minute thing that might be in "their" favor.

I think even the analysts who were TM's most fervent supporters cannot believe what's going on in this courtroom. Like. There must be more! There HAS to be more!
 
It's my understanding her friend wrote it for her. And, you're correct. Apparently she can't read cursive.

I'm guessing she struggles to read regular typed print so she didn't even want to try reading cursive in front of millions of people.
 
If you can read text silently and comprehend it, but have problem reading allowed that isn't a reading problem. It's a public speaking problem.

aloud
 
If you can read text silently and comprehend it, but have problem reading allowed that isn't a reading problem. It's a public speaking problem.

Maybe it's a public speaking problem but she said that she can't understand the words written.

Anyway. I need to stop entering this subforum until this whole case blows over. Just a few more days hopefully, then a spike in the crazy and then it will be over.
 
I think even the analysts who were TM's most fervent supporters cannot believe what's going on in this courtroom. Like. There must be more! There HAS to be more!

I agree. People online last year who were SO SURE it was an open and shut case -- "He killed an innocent little black kid!" -- are now shocked by how this trial is going.
 
I think it was obvious that she didn't really care about the case and was not interested in providing evidence. This could be construed, by the defense, as her knowing that Martin intended to attack. It's speculation - I'm not claiming to know this or that it's true - but I think the defense may paint it that way (perhaps she will be recalled regarding what she knew about Martin's suspicions and intentions). She might not be done hurting the prosecution.
 
I think it was obvious that she didn't really care about the case and was not interested in providing evidence. This could be construed, by the defense, as her knowing that Martin intended to attack. It's speculation - I'm not claiming to know this or that it's true - but I think the defense may paint it that way (perhaps she will be recalled regarding what she knew about Martin's suspicions and intentions). She might not be done hurting the prosecution.

she held her ground in the belief that martin would have alerted her to his intention to attack
she could not be moved away from that perception
and it is quite possible that she was correct. it may have been her phone call back to martin which alerted zimmerman to martin's location, one concealed by the darkness until the ring tone rang out
 
I'm guessing she struggles to read regular typed print so she didn't even want to try reading cursive in front of millions of people.

Well, she reads/writes well enough to have a Twitter account and to tweet. But I wonder, and I don't mean this in an ugly way, how close to the border her IQ is.
 
Well, she reads/writes well enough to have a Twitter account and to tweet. But I wonder, and I don't mean this in an ugly way, how close to the border her IQ is.

while we are addressing some of the witness oddities, that big boobed blond colombian-native architect
in the states 12 years
and a US citizen
yet she cannot provide testimony in english ... a language she obviously speaks and understands
very cautious or attention-getting behavior?


apologies for the tread derail - had no where else to better place that observation
 
Rachel was extremely helpful to the prosecution. People keep expecting the pross to bring out witnesses that are smoking guns...the pross's smoking gun is Zimmerman.
 
Well, she reads/writes well enough to have a Twitter account and to tweet. But I wonder, and I don't mean this in an ugly way, how close to the border her IQ is.

I don't know ... how much of an IQ is required to speak three languages? Anyway, her IQ is higher than half the posters on these threads. Too early to tell how her testimony will be seen by the jury ... no one's testimony stands alone ... it's always in relation to all of the evidence ...
 
Rachel was extremely helpful to the prosecution. People keep expecting the pross to bring out witnesses that are smoking guns...the pross's smoking gun is Zimmerman.

How was Jeante extremely helpful to the prosecution?

Why is Z, the prosecution's smoking gun?
 
Back
Top Bottom