Juror B37: Rachel Jeantel wasn't a good witness
In an exclusive interview on AC360, Zimmerman trial Juror B37 told Anderson Cooper she thought Rachel Jeantel was not a credible prosecution witness.
She said the most important part from Jeantel's testimony was "The time she was on the phone with Trayvon ... hopefully if she heard anything she would say she did but the time coincides with George’s statements and testimony of time limits and what had happened during that time."
The juror said the timing of the witness's call with Trayvon was not credible because "George was on the 911 call while she was on the call with Trayvon and the times coincide and I think there was two minutes between when George hung up from his 911 call to the time Trayvon and Rachel had hung up. So really nothing could’ve happened because the 911 call would’ve heard, the non-emergency call that George had called, heard something happening before that."
Juror B37 said Jeantel was not a good witness because the phrases used during her testimony were terms she had never heard before. The juror thought the witness, "felt inadequate toward everyone because of her education and her communication skills. I just felt sadness for her."
The juror said she did not think the term "creepy ass cracker" was a racial statement. The juror said this was the way Trayvon and Rachel spoke to each other, "I think it's just everyday life, the type of life that they life and how they're living, in the environment that they're living in."
 |
Post by: Anderson Cooper Filed under: Crime & Punishment • George Zimmerman • Juror B37 • Trayvon Martin |
About this Show:
Anderson Cooper goes beyond the headlines to tell stories from many points of view, so you can make up your own mind about the news. Tune in weeknights at 8 and 10 ET on CNN.
Questions or comments? Send an email
Want to know more? Go behind the scenes with AC361°
Subscribe to the podcast
On Twitter
Search the AC360 blog
What OJ Simpson and George Zimmerman have in common (besides acquittals for their crimes): Both men repeatedly were accused of violence against women well before their murder trials began. Violence against girls and women is often an overlooked and unchecked indicator of future violence. Shame on the all-female jury judging the 19 year old as not credible and then finding a concrete block and 2 lumpless scratches as credible evidence for shooting an innocent teen.
Last Saturday, shortly before the verdict was handed down in the George Zimmerman trial, Frank Taaffe, Zimmerman's neighbor and friend claimed (on live TV during Harris Faulkner's program featuring Judge Alex and Mercedes Colwin on Fox news) that he had information that one juror (of the five) was holding out and stopping the acquittal of Mr Zimmerman. Juror B37 interview confirms this exact scenario. Please investigate how Mr Taaffe got his information to assure the integrity of the jury sequestration process
What amazes me about B37 is she says this Ms. Jeantel was not a credible witness. However when Anderson asked her if she believe Ms. Jeantel when she said Trayvon called Zimmerman a racial slur, she said yes believed Trayvon did call him that to Ms. Jeantel. Amazing how juror B37 believed that racial slur part of Ms. Jeantel's testimony but nothing else. Either she is creditable or not, you can't have it both ways juror B37.
The juror asserts she did not understand the phrases used by Jeantel,terms she had never heard before. On that basis
she goes on to discredit her as not credible. If she did not understand her and the terms she used,what stopped her in her wisdom as a juror to ask for clarification. That in my opinion is a travesty of justice.
The jurors could have asked so many questions that were not answered, but they failed. Why wasn't the blood smeared on the back of Zimmerman's head (if he were the one on the ground as he states)? If Zimmerman's nose had been hit at the start (and swallowing his own blood as the defense suggested), why would Zimmerman ask the 1st person on the scene, "Am I bleeding?" When George gave his recorded to statement after the shooting, why was his voice not hoarse? How could George Zimmerman pull his gun from his back waistband without unhinging his elbow and asking the person on top to move his leg and take some of the weight off??? I could go on and on, but I'll stop to express that I was so very, very disappointed with these jurors.
After seeing Piers Morgan's interview with Jeantel it was easy to see that a respectful adult can garner the respect of youth.
After listening to B37 and she commented on she and her husband writing a book about the jurors and their decision and I came to the conclusion that she was in communication with her husband which is wrong. I strongly feel that she should be questioned about this.
I felt that Rachel was the most honest and truthful witness on the case she was as real as they come. Being a young woman never having the experience of be a witness can be daunting and scary. Most teenagers have attitude whether Black or White so I didn't judge her for that. Don West being an Adult was not only disrespectful to the Martin family but also to Rachel. His opening statement with the joke and other racially undertones he made I found totally disrespectful to the courts and the victims family. I am a 63 year old female and worked in the Corporate arena for years I've experience Whites not comprehending what I was expressing when speaking but I can assure you I understood everything that they would say. I feel it is because a person wants to feel superior so they choose not to understand. I spoke professionally and what the environment expected but was always told they didn't understand WOW. I've spoken English all my life and used proper English when speaking so just to say we as Black Folks no matter how well we express ourselves it will never be understood by those who in my opinion who think they speak the Kings language but really don't will never understand Black America by choice.
It is ridiculous that juror B37 thought R. Jeantel was not a good witness but said she was "IMPRESSED by a BLOCK OF CONCRETE" shown by the defense atty.
I can see that. Everyone is so focused on the outcome being unjust due to racial discrimination. Who discriminated? The all-female jury (who themselves could claim to be victims of the same system due to their gender, regardless of race)? No one's really talking much about the fact that the state simply didn't deliver in their prosecution. Thanks for making this point.
What? Juror B37 is saying that "nothing could have happened" in the two minutes between the end of the 911 call and the end of Trayvon's conversation with the witness?! Let me help her out - during that two minutes, Zimmerman continued following Trayvon, caught up with him, and grabbed him. Trayvon said "Get off! Get off!" and dropped the phone. I think we know what happened next.
CNNs exploitation of this poor high school girl – by having her on the air plus having jury comment on her on air is the very reason our media is a travesty and a fuel fanner for a society who can no longer seem as a whole to discard hype and focus on facts...it is disgusting that they brought this poor kid on to fan flames with leading questions meant simply to incite more hysteria without changing or seeking any new facts. Horrible.
This witness, was not properly prepped by the State attorney's. If she was suppose to be the most important witness, in the state's case, it backfired. I believe the State just went thru the motion's, they never intended to win this case. When you hand pick, the best State attorney's in Florida, how could they really lose? They appeared to be completely overwhelmed by the defense lawyers, even though the defense was never provided all the discovery, before this trial began. It should have easily been a conviction for the prosecution.
I agree fully with your comments. Thank you for sending and saying what you did.