Rachel Jeantel — If you’re watching George Zimmerman’s trial, you already know who she is and have probably formed an opinion as to her credibility, and if web chatter is any indicator, it probably isn’t favorable.
The internet was not kind to Rachel Jeantel, and at first glance, it really looked as if her frustration and reluctance on the stand could harm what is probably the most direct first person account of the night Trayvon Martin was killed in Sanford in February of 2012.
At first, Jeantel read to many as unprepared and uncomfortably direct. Her casual manner of speaking and tendency to get rapidly annoyed with questioning led many on social media sites like Twitter to judge her harshly or, less frequently, plead with her to take the trial seriously and secure a conviction in her friend’s shooting death.
But the longer we thought about Rachel Jeantel the more it seemed that however she came off initially, this was not a stupid female, nor a woman unable to understand and respond to the defense’s insinuations and intentions.
Yesterday, The Inquisitr covered one particularly standout moment involving Rachel Jeantel’s testimony, one during which (despite an overall reduction in visible annoyance on the part of Jeantel in day two) it seemed this was not only ever plainer, but more pointed.
During the exchange, the defense suggests to Jeantel that Martin had planned to attack George Zimmerman, and that Trayvon may have been plotting to jump the man from whom he’d been running — per accounts by all involved, including Zimmerman.
This is important, because no one denies Martin was fleeing at every turn, attempting to evade the person unknown to him, tailing him through the night for reasons that were not clear to the teen.
But the back and forth also is an example of Jeantel’s ability to reason on the spot, and reason she does — in a way that may have obliterated the defense’s case in a terse and to the point reply.