Rachel Jeantel Gets the Trayvon Martin Treatment

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Rachel Jeantel Gets the Trayvon Martin Treatment

By Justin Peters

|

Posted Friday, June 28, 2013, at 2:31 PM

Witness Rachel Jeantel smiles towards the end of her second day testimony during George Zimmerman's murder trial for 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Seminole circuit court in Sanford, Fla., on June 27, 2013. She surely wouldn't smile about what people are saying about her on Twitter.

Photo by Jacob Langston/Pool/Reuters

Crime is Slate’s crime blog. Like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter @slatecrime.

Rachel Jeantel can’t read cursive. That’s the main takeaway from the fourth day of the George Zimmerman trial: Jeantel, the heavyset, snappy prosecution witness who was on the phone with her friend Trayvon Martin minutes before he died, cannot read script handwriting. Defense attorney Don West underlined that fact for the benefit of the jury, the general public, and everyone else looking for an excuse to dismiss her testimony.

Given the extent to which Jeantel’s demeanor was covered on television and in news articles, you’d be excused for thinking—as Jezebel’s Callie Beusman put it—that she was the one on trial. Over the past couple of days, Jeantel has recounted that Martin told her he was being followed by a “creepy-### cracker” who, it seems, then proceeded to attack him. Pundits, meanwhile, have made snickering observations that have had little to do with the substance of her testimony. They’ve criticized Jeantel’s weight, her attitude, her manner of dress, and her mumbling, inarticulate answers to West’s questions. These observations are generally framed as discussions of her credibility and how she’ll be received by the jury. But they’re also an excuse to point and laugh at a poor, black teenager who comes from an America that we’d rather not acknowledge exists.

The media has consistently treated Jeantel as if she were some sassy alien life-form. The New York Daily News story about yesterday’s proceedings focused on Jeantel-as-sideshow, calling the cursive story an “especially cringe-worthy moment,” and noting that, “[a]t one point, the key prosecution witness blurted out, ‘That’s retarded, Sir’ in response to West’s suggestion that Martin attacked Zimmerman.” On Piers Morgan Tonight, Morgan repeated the phrase “creepy-### cracker” as if it were some inscrutable bit of baby talk. The day before, panelist Jayne Weintraub disdainfully asserted that “it's really not about this young woman's … credibility, because her credibility, it's a wash whatever her testimony is. Yes, she was a difficult witness. She was impossible.”

If the established media was patronizing, many Internet users were outright cruel. As Beusman put it at Jezebel, “social media users have heavily criticized Jeantel's hair, her body, her grammar, her perceived (lack of) intelligence, her diction, and her attitude.” Hurdler Lolo Jones tweeted, “Rachel Jeantel looked so irritated during the cross-examination that I burned it on DVD and I’m going to sell it as Madea goes to court.” Somebody named Mike Lewis made another movie reference: “@AnthonyCumia this girl Rachel Jeantel looks like precious. Right? Where was her KFC?” And lest you think this is all coming from white people, much of “black Twitter” spent yesterday mocking Jeantel and her “ghetto” image. As a Twitter user named MJ’s Mommie wrote: “Its no excuse to use age for Rachel Jeantel's demeanor. Her attitude & grammar is playing right into stereotypes about black women.”

Racial and socioeconomic stereotypes play differently in different contexts. The statements and mannerisms that make Jeantel a laughingstock now might have made her a viral video star outside the courtroom. As I was watching Jeantel’s testimony and the subsequent reaction, I couldn’t help thinking about Aisha Harris’ Slate piece from May about the “fairly recent trend of ‘hilarious’ black neighbors, unwitting Internet celebrities whose appeal seems rooted in a ‘colorful’ style that is always immediately recognizable as poor or working-class.” Charles Ramsey, Antoine Dodson, Sweet Brown—these people caught white America’s attention in part because they so blatantly violated normative behavior. If Jeantel would’ve been filmed saying “That’s retarded, sir” to some reporter on the streets outside her house, the Internet might well be singing her praises. Black people are celebrated when they play the fool in the proper setting.

The implication of all the social media chatter and news coverage is clear: Rachel Jeantel was out of place in a courtroom. The flipside of that implication is clear, too: Rachel Jeantel should go back to the ghetto where she belongs. In fact, that’s the whole point of the Trayvon Martin case, which has become a referendum on how comfort and privilege deal with the unfamiliar. Before Martin died, he was dehumanized. No matter whose story you believe, it’s clear that George Zimmerman looked at a young black kid walking through a gated community and decided that he wasn’t supposed to be there. He responded by following him, approaching him, and … it’s up to you to decide what you think happened next.

The dehumanization of Rachel Jeantel—the laughter, the disbelief—is rooted in the same attitude that causes people to treat unarmed black kids with suspicion, to follow them around subdivisions for no good reason. I rarely agree with Nancy Grace, but yesterday on HLN she made a decent point. “Oh, everybody can laugh all they want to. She can’t read cursive. Or that she has nicknames she goes by that some people may laugh at; this one is ‘Diamond Eugene.’ You know what? Laugh all you want to. Nobody ever said that a murder trial was a tea party, where everybody had perfect manners and spoke perfectly. That’s not what this is about.”

And she’s right. A lot of the people in our jails and prisons come from poor black neighborhoods, and the witnesses in their trials are often made uncomfortable by courtrooms and judges and aggressive defense attorneys. Dismissing them and what they have to say because of their grammar and demeanor says more about us than it does about them. Rachel Jeantel can’t understand cursive. We can’t understand Rachel Jeantel. Which is worse?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/06/28/rachel_jeantel_witness_in_george_zimmerman_trial_gets_the_trayvon_martin.html

[Karee 4,190]

It's sad the prosecution made her go through that. They should have known after all the coaching that they gave her that she wasn't going to be a good witness for them. Thanks to the prosecution and their over-zealous need to push this case forward, they are creating more and more victims in this mess. I guess they can make millions later when they write a book. I doubt Rachel will see any of that money.

[lostinblue 1,989]

You have not seen the last of her..... She talked about thinking travon was just in a fight.....MMA was brought up today in court. Travons past will become public now.She will introduce it to the trial....

[Darnell 8,478]

God Bless Her !

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

MMA was brought up today in court.

Indeed. We learned today that Zimmermann was quite the MMA man himself. MMA training 3 days a week and 3 hours a pop. I thought that was an interesting new piece of information, didn't you?

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

She was not treated any different that any other witness in her position would be..

I should not lower my expectations of a persons ability to adjust to a situation because of their appearance. She chose to be disrespectful to the defense - people testify everyday in similar circumstances and are judged accordingly. Treating her differently would be wrong.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Her credibility should not be questioned on the basis of whether she can read cursive, or because of her hairstyle, or her weight, or her public speaking ability, etc., or even because she got a little testy on the witness stand. The defense lawyer was doing his job, which was to try to trip her up. He's in court all the time - it's his familiar turf. But it's not a familiar place for her, and she was on the stand answering a barrage of questions for seven hours. That's a long time. She's not perfect, by no means is she perfect. But she didn't ask to be a witness to a killing. Her testimony is important.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Her credibility should not be questioned on the basis of whether she can read cursive, or because of her hairstyle, or her weight, or her public speaking ability, etc., or even because she got a little testy on the witness stand. The defense lawyer was doing his job, which was to try to trip her up. He's in court all the time - it's his familiar turf. But it's not a familiar place for her, and she was on the stand answering a barrage of questions for seven hours. That's a long time. She's not perfect, by no means is she perfect. But she didn't ask to be a witness to a killing. Her testimony is important.

She just kept forgetting what crump coached her to say. .

[Darnell 8,478]

Man, that's certainly the truth ! what happened, aiyo !

[RGinWA 816]

I felt bad for her in a way. She obviously tried to avoid this entire spectacle for obvious reasons. She may not be intelligent in some peoples eyes but she's a real person, none of her is an act.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Everyone isn't a genius and well spoken. Take a look around here.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

It's sad the prosecution made her go through that. They should have known after all the coaching that they gave her that she wasn't going to be a good witness for them. Thanks to the prosecution and their over-zealous need to push this case forward, they are creating more and more victims in this mess. I guess they can make millions later when they write a book. I doubt Rachel will see any of that money.

Its sad any of this is happening. It is clearly legitimate self defense. These people are all being tortured in order to appease racists that will never be appeased. It is an attempt to show "we tried"

These people should have been left in peace to grieve and recover. Racist hacks demanded this inhumane torture of the victim and the involvement of a lot of innocent people.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Her credibility should not be questioned on the basis of whether she can read cursive, or because of her hairstyle, or her weight, or her public speaking ability, etc., or even because she got a little testy on the witness stand. The defense lawyer was doing his job, which was to try to trip her up. He's in court all the time - it's his familiar turf. But it's not a familiar place for her, and she was on the stand answering a barrage of questions for seven hours. That's a long time. She's not perfect, by no means is she perfect. But she didn't ask to be a witness to a killing. Her testimony is important.

Thanks for that.

Now tell us on what we should base her credibility? In what way will her testimony be important?

You cannot "trip up" someone telling the truth. Attorneys attempt to expose lies that way, they cannot "expose truth" that way.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Everyone isn't a genius and well spoken. Take a look around here.

And GZ should not go to prison because the witness was not able to provide evidence against him because she can't write, can't read, is insolent and ignorant. She was a prosecution witness.

Now the racists who demanded the trial are using race to defend the witnesses they wanted for the trial. This is what THEY wanted. All the players knew she was illiterate, insolent, and generally nasty. Her testimony did not surprise anyone in the courtroom. She had already been interviewed and deposed. The prosecution attorneys, no doubt, tried to educate her...ignoring the fact she is an adult that cannot read or write. Brilliant idea. But what else did they have? Oh yeah, the white guy that is very well spoken, very polite, can read, write, has nice hair...and says TM was doing the "ground and pound" when GZ was forced to shoot him in self defense.

Even if she could read, write and speak English coherently and act like a civil human being, she was hundreds of miles away listening to one side of the story on a cell phone.

Great case!

Look, when GZ walks out, it is not because of her, it is because he had a legitimate right to defend himself and no one can change that

GZ cannot be made "guilty" just because the prosecution has crappy witnesses.

I felt bad for her in a way. She obviously tried to avoid this entire spectacle for obvious reasons. She may not be intelligent in some peoples eyes but she's a real person, none of her is an act.

Good news for GZ

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

She just kept forgetting what crump coached her to say. .

She is an adult that cannot read, write or speak coherently her own native language or act in a civil manner for a brief period of time. What did they expect?

Actually, they expected what they got. When you consider that the purpose of the trial is NOT to convict GZ but to cover the state's @ss with racists when he walks out....she was the perfect witness.

"Sorry, we tried, but we lost and we even had black witnesses"

I know, it isn't going to work.