In the trial of George Zimmerman there's nothing normal because this is not a normal trial, it's a trial in which there's a lot of silent hatred going on, especially in the media. Hatred against the defendant, against the witnesses and mostly an almost unexplained hatred against the victim: Travyon Martin. If with a magic stick we could get rid of all this hatred this trial would never been held.
However this trial is actually taking place and it is a real event and as journalists we have to give our contribution for truth sake.
On the trial hearing of June 27 2013, George Zimmerman Defense Attorney Don West cross examined Rachel Jeantel, who is one of the main witnesses of this trial as she was the last person talking on the phone with Travyon Martin seconds before he had been shot by George Zimmerman. That's why she can be defined as a real key witness.
During her examination, Zimmerman's Attorney Don West, asked Rachel Jeantel a few questions that we reported here:
DON WEST, ATTORNEY FOR GEORGE ZIMMERMAN: Do you remember about the interview that you gave to Mr. Crump over the telephone?
DON WEST, ATTORNEY FOR GEORGE ZIMMERMAN: That you gave to ABC Anchorman Crump over the telephone?
WEST: And were you focused on a part of that interview where you telling Mr. Crump what Trayvon Martin said that you heard, why are you following me? Is what you said that he said, correct?
WEST: And that the first thing that you told Mr. Crump that you heard from Mr. Zimmerman was, "what are you talking about?" Do you remember saying that yesterday?
WEST: And then that changed to, what are you doing around here?
What Mrs. Jeantel could not remember and even at today is unable to remember is the fact that SHE and NOT George Zimmerman, was the one who asked the question "what you are talking about?" as a clarifying question she made to ABC News Anchor Ed CRUMP at his question: "what George Zimmerman answered to Travyon when he asked Zimmerman: "Why are you following me?"
You have to consider it was a telephone interview and Mrs. Jeantel speaks a very broken English, plus she's got some difficult in understanding people talking correct English like we saw her doing during her time at the stand.
Rachel was trying to recall her memories while being talking over the phone to ABC anchor Ed Crump and she did not immediately get what he was talking about, that's why she went "what are you talking about?".
Zimmerman Defense Attorney immediately exploited the mistaken question and used it against Mrs. Jeantel.
That's what a Defense Attorney is supposed to do! Although here we are on the moral field and not on the legal one.
You can tell that's what happened also because that's the same direct answering style she has been holding during the whole cross examination she underwent with Mr. West.
So the question "What are you talking about?" was posed by Rachel Jeantel to Mr. Ed Crump during her Phone interview and not by George Zimmerman to Travyon Martin's question "why are you following me?".
So the sentence "what you talking about" it's a question that Rachel Jeantel posed to Mr. Ed Crump of ABC News and not by Mr. Zimmerman as an answer to Travyon Martin's question "why are you following me?".
As the phone interview was obviously recorded, slick Defense Attorney Don West immediately decided to take advantage of Rachel Jeantel's clarifying question and use it as an evidence in the trial to better defend George Zimmerman. You can question his moral judgement but we all know how lawyers pay their bills.
The consequent spontaneous question is "why Ed Crump nor the Prosecution staff did not ask Rachel about this little change in her story?". We'll see....
This is just to clarify the whole situation because here we are dealing with a girl who already has a lot of problems and who is going through a very tough moment of her life as she's been involved in something way bigger than her and definitely something she did not expect to happen.
The worse aspect of this "incident" is the fact that the audience saw the contradiction of Rachel Jeantel's testimony as evidence of the fact that she was not telling the truth.