@hawkeye10,
Quote:that was not the consensus of the expert trial watchers nor of the jury.
The lawyers I listened to found her quite credible, particularly since the defense couldn't discredit her on cross-examination. But I watched her entire trial testimony and made up my own mind--and I found her extremely credible. She also seemed refreshingly candid and spontaneous, and quite authentic. And it was a very obviously stressful ordeal for that young woman--she was a key prosecution witness and the defense really couldn't shake her testimony despite keeping her on the stand for hours and hours and hours.
Again, you are commenting on a trial you never watched..
Judging by the two jurors who have spoken out, the jury seems only to have considered Zimmerman's state of mind at the time he fired his gun, and they believed he feared for his life and acted in self defense, and that it was not a premeditated act.
They both felt Zimmerman was wrong to have followed Martin, they both felt he was responsible for creating the situation, and should have been held accountable for that, but they didn't think the law allowed for that, That's where it's obvious they didn't understand the manslaughter law, or the fact that manslaughter does not require premeditation, or their option of reaching a compromise verdict. They simply disregarded everything except that, when Zimmerman fired his gun, he did so because he felt he had to, and not because he wanted to (which was the state's basis for 2nd degree murder--that he wanted to shoot Martin).
Neither of those 2 jurors said they didn't believe Rachel Jeantel. Neither of them said they believed Martin "attacked" Zimmerman, as opposed to Martin defending himself. What the Zimmerman supporters keep harping on in this thread doesn't seem to have been a concern for the jury. One of the jurors said she had no impression of Trayvon Martin, and neither saw him as a bad kid/hoodlum/thug who had attacked Zimmerman, and they really didn't consider who started the fight. They never apparently considered whether Zimmerman used excessive force in defending himself. Their comments also clearly indicated ignorance/misunderstanding of the law regarding manslaughter--one thought it had to be premeditated--so, between second degree murder, and an acquittal, they went for an acquittal. And neither of them were completely comfortable with that verdict, since both saw Zimmerman as responsible for creating the situation that led to the shooting by following Martin.
Clearly, neither of the jurors felt Zimmerman to be completely "innocent" of responsibility for this death, they didn't blame Martin for his own death, and, had they adequately understood the law regarding manslaughter, their verdict might well have been different. One of the two had sent the judge a question about manslaughter....the question never get addressed. That juror should have held out for an answer, rather than voting for acquittal and then saying afterward, "George Zimmerman got away with murder."
So, you are quite wrong to say that the jury didn't believe Rachel Jeantel, there is nothing in the remarks of these 2 jurors to support that. Their verdict focused mainly on whether Zimmerman fired that shot because he felt he had to, and they believed he did fire in self defense, or that the state failed to provide it wasn't self defense.
