George Zimmerman / Trayvon Martin Case #3

CherokeeNative wrote:Tamta - I am not trying to badger you, but I can't help but feel that you are not clear on what testifying under oath means. And how, although GZ has opted to shield himself behind his constitutional rights to remain silent, he is nevertheless obligated to not allow someone to testify to facts on his behalf that he knows to be anything but the truth and the whole truth. Half truths, omissions, and flat out lies must be relayed to his attorney who can inform the court. And believe me, had MOM known the truth, he would never have allowed GZ's family to commit a fraud upon the Court. He must stand before this Court long after GZ's case is over and he has a reputation to uphold for that reason. On the other hand, I do not know how you could think, if you do, that BDLR or the Court could have possibly known of the amounts that had been donated or that GZ and his wife had been spending those monies to pay their personal expenses and moving those funds about into their own personal accounts. When you testify under oath, you are obligated to speak the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If you do not understand the question, you are expected to ask for clarification. As a nursing student, I am going to go off on a ledge here and guess that she has at least an average I.Q. They asked her if she and/or GZ had any money to use towards bail - she stated no. She was asked what about the Paypal account and she again feigned ignorance. If there was any part of that line of questioning that she was unsure of, she was obligated to ask for clarification. And GZ was obligated to at a very minimum inform his attorney during the hearing that they had access to that sum of money. As BDLR stated, there is no other way to categorize it except that it was a blatant lie.

WeeBonnie wrote:Are you saying that somehow Shelly didn't know there was any relevance to the courts questions about the 200k she knew they had available and therefore it was okay for her to lie about? The court asked about ALL their assets and trusted Shelley because she took an oath. To say she didn't know if it was relevant is BS.
They asked her for a rough estimate, they knew only 2-3 was reported to the court, they had to know 200K was a very significant amount, and if they didn't know why it mattered- or if it could be used for bail, they could have asked.
Instead they pretended they knew nothing.
There's nothing honest and no good faith there.
If you read the transcripts they had access to it and both knew how much was there.
MOM is a pro- no one goes to a bond hearing without knowing exactly what it's all about. They knew it was a lie- and that's why they had Shelly do it. So GZ wouldn't be directly responsible. But he did conspire with his wife and he did know that money could be used for bond. There's no doubt about it.

Tamta wrote:

As I said above, if his own Defense attorney did not ask him specifically about the website funds and subsequently explain to him how that money would be specifically and directly relevant to the determination of bond amount, therefore I do not see how we can assume that GZ himself would have known otherwise or his wife for that fact. I do not believe that SZ was explained the relevance of this money to bond determination or anyone else in the Zimmerman family for that fact. MOM was not working for GZ that long before the hearing.

IIRC the website originally said that the donations would go towards defense and living expenses, correct me if I am wrong. Perhaps the family did not think that Bond would be considered Defense expenses, as they were trying to arrange bond without using that fund initially, even though MOM says $5000 went towards bond eventually, probably per his instructions not GZ's or the families insistence. What little I know about the tapes I do see a hesitancy on GZs part to commit to using those funds for the bond.

Also look here:

BDLR and SZ @ Bond Hearing

Q. Okay. Were you aware of the website that Mr. Zimmerman or somebody on his behalf created?
A. I'm aware of that website.
Q. And how much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was --
A. Currently, I do not know.
Q. Who would know that?
A. That would be my brother-in-law.
Q. And is he -- I know he's not in the same room as you, but is he available so we can speak to him, too, or the Court can inquire through the State or the Defense?
A. I'm sure that we could probably get him on the phone.
Q Okay. So he's not there now.
A. No, he is not, sir.Q. Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?(website)
A. I do not.
Q. Okay. You haven't talked to your brother-in-law in terms of just bare amount of how much money?
A. No. No, I have not

BDLR
1. Asks SZ only about website not personal accounts
2. Obtains from SZ who in fact actually has the bottom line on the donations (thus funds available for bond) and decides to drop it and not follow through.

I think a case for Perjury against SZ is going to be fairly weak at this point, again I know this is not in line with most of the view points here.

I think no one addressed or understood the relevance of these funds to the bond determination nor the legal and ethical significance of the donations at that time, so I do not find arguments compelling which assert the State was blindsided and GZ was a full blown liar in the limited contexts and relevant facts strictly pertaining to the issue of Bond.

These funds present a unique situation and those situations can bewilder decent people and decent officers of the court, and can also present strategic opportunities in the judicial process as well.

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2012/06/01/BondHearingTranscript.pdf

KZ wrote:Interesting articles & case. Absolutely outrageous (imo) case successfully used SYG defense. Comparison to GZ case drawn in articles.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/27/2717572/miami-dade-issues-ruling-in-stand.html

"A bag of stolen car radios — swung during a confrontation — amounted to a lethal threat to a Little Havana man who chased down a thief and stabbed him to death, a Miami-Dade judge said in her written ruling Tuesday in dismissing the murder charge against the man."

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_133

"When Greyston Garcia discovered Pedro Roteta was stealing his car radio, he grabbed a knife, ran downstairs and chased Roteta down the street. After confronting Roteta, who reportedly had a closed pocketknife in his back pocket, Garcia fatally stabbed him. He said the man swung a heavy bag of car radios at his head. The incident was caught on camera. Garcia went home and fell asleep without calling 911, court records show. Garcia initially denied any involvement in the situation, but changed his story after police showed him videotape from a nearby store security camera. The officer who supervised the case asked,"How can it be stand your ground"?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/28/miami-judge-rules-in-stan_n_1385219.html

"Garcia went home instead of calling 911 after the confrontation in January and later hid the knife and sold two of the radios."(BBM)

Gizmo711 wrote:

WeeBonnie wrote:Are you saying that somehow Shelly didn't know there was any relevance to the courts questions about the 200k she knew they had available and therefore it was okay for her to lie about? The court asked about ALL their assets and trusted Shelley because she took an oath. To say she didn't know if it was relevant is BS.
They asked her for a rough estimate, they knew only 2-3 was reported to the court, they had to know 200K was a very significant amount, and if they didn't know why it mattered- or if it could be used for bail, they could have asked.
Instead they pretended they knew nothing.
There's nothing honest and no good faith there.
If you read the transcripts they had access to it and both knew how much was there.
MOM is a pro- no one goes to a bond hearing without knowing exactly what it's all about. They knew it was a lie- and that's why they had Shelly do it. So GZ wouldn't be directly responsible. But he did conspire with his wife and he did know that money could be used for bond. There's no doubt about it.

Tamta wrote:

As I said above, if his own Defense attorney did not ask him specifically about the website funds and subsequently explain to him how that money would be specifically and directly relevant to the determination of bond amount, therefore I do not see how we can assume that GZ himself would have known otherwise or his wife for that fact. I do not believe that SZ was explained the relevance of this money to bond determination or anyone else in the Zimmerman family for that fact. MOM was not working for GZ that long before the hearing.

IIRC the website originally said that the donations would go towards defense and living expenses, correct me if I am wrong. Perhaps the family did not think that Bond would be considered Defense expenses, as they were trying to arrange bond without using that fund initially, even though MOM says $5000 went towards bond eventually, probably per his instructions not GZ's or the families insistence. What little I know about the tapes I do see a hesitancy on GZs part to commit to using those funds for the bond.

Also look here:

BDLR and SZ @ Bond Hearing

Q. Okay. Were you aware of the website that Mr. Zimmerman or somebody on his behalf created?
A. I'm aware of that website.
Q. And how much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was --
A. Currently, I do not know.
Q. Who would know that?
A. That would be my brother-in-law.
Q. And is he -- I know he's not in the same room as you, but is he available so we can speak to him, too, or the Court can inquire through the State or the Defense?
A. I'm sure that we could probably get him on the phone.
Q Okay. So he's not there now.
A. No, he is not, sir.Q. Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?(website)
A. I do not.
Q. Okay. You haven't talked to your brother-in-law in terms of just bare amount of how much money?
A. No. No, I have not

BDLR
1. Asks SZ only about website not personal accounts
2. Obtains from SZ who in fact actually has the bottom line on the donations (thus funds available for bond) and decides to drop it and not follow through.

I think a case for Perjury against SZ is going to be fairly weak at this point, again I know this is not in line with most of the view points here.

I think no one addressed or understood the relevance of these funds to the bond determination nor the legal and ethical significance of the donations at that time, so I do not find arguments compelling which assert the State was blindsided and GZ was a full blown liar in the limited contexts and relevant facts strictly pertaining to the issue of Bond.

These funds present a unique situation and those situations can bewilder decent people and decent officers of the court, and can also present strategic opportunities in the judicial process as well.

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2012/06/01/BondHearingTranscript.pdf

The part where O'Mara asks about the brother seems suspiscious to me, it's almost like the bhrother was being used as the scape goat and conveniently was not there. I truly doubt that if O'Mara would have asked to reach the brother, Shellie would have said that she was unable to reach him. They wanted to keep this money out of the bond hearing, for obvious reasons.

Gizmo711 wrote:

CherokeeNative wrote:Tamta - I am not trying to badger you, but I can't help but feel that you are not clear on what testifying under oath means. And how, although GZ has opted to shield himself behind his constitutional rights to remain silent, he is nevertheless obligated to not allow someone to testify to facts on his behalf that he knows to be anything but the truth and the whole truth. Half truths, omissions, and flat out lies must be relayed to his attorney who can inform the court. And believe me, had MOM known the truth, he would never have allowed GZ's family to commit a fraud upon the Court. He must stand before this Court long after GZ's case is over and he has a reputation to uphold for that reason. On the other hand, I do not know how you could think, if you do, that BDLR or the Court could have possibly known of the amounts that had been donated or that GZ and his wife had been spending those monies to pay their personal expenses and moving those funds about into their own personal accounts. When you testify under oath, you are obligated to speak the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If you do not understand the question, you are expected to ask for clarification. As a nursing student, I am going to go off on a ledge here and guess that she has at least an average I.Q. They asked her if she and/or GZ had any money to use towards bail - she stated no. She was asked what about the Paypal account and she again feigned ignorance. If there was any part of that line of questioning that she was unsure of, she was obligated to ask for clarification. And GZ was obligated to at a very minimum inform his attorney during the hearing that they had access to that sum of money. As BDLR stated, there is no other way to categorize it except that it was a blatant lie.

Also, the form that he has to fill out is very clear. Do you have any money in Banks, stocks etc. Do you own property etc. etc., When one goes in front of the judge, the judge has this form in front of him and will also ask these questions again. So if Zimmerman refused to answer any questions he still had to fill out the form.

Now he could have said "I don't know" or "I'm not sure", which is why the questions were asked during the hearing.

Either way one looks at it, Zimmemran used his attorney to lie, and his wife to lie, and he had them lie to the judge that will be handling his case. Now if that isn't bold, I don't know what is. It shows a total disrespect for the court, it shows how little he thinks of the law.

So now, not only does he have little regard for a human life, but he added to it by showing that he has little regard for our system as well. Zimmerman is self serving, he committed a serious crime and is charged with "murder two" and all he was able to concern himself with was to try and keep all that money from the court finding out.

He is used to people taking the fall for him (as stated in a "my space" page") and probably his daddy getting him off when ever he could. Zimmemran has shown violence in the past, has a record to prove it. Somehow he always managed to get off, and he feels that this time will be no different. So he was protecting the money (more than he ever thought he would see in a lifetime) so when this is all over, and the tax payers footed the bill, he will go on his merry way, laughing at everyone.

As for those pictures taken of Zimmerman, they describe him to a tee. The last one plainly shows that he removed mustach and beard and let his hair grow to try and change his appearance. Usually the perp grows a beard and mustach to conceal his identity, but seeing as how George already had these things, he reversed them. When he was given 48 hours to turn himself in, it was not long enough to grow these things back, he also couldn't run to a barber to get his head shaved again....just not enough time....

I don't think George will be given another bond, but if he does get one, it will be so high that he wont be able to make it without asking his attorney to throw in some of his retainer (good luck Georgie with that), and seeing as he also was so arrogant as to not even settle up with the bondsman, I doubt that any bondsman will trust him without full payment up front.

In other words...Zimmerman screwed himself this time... And I doubt that O'Mara is going to go out of his way to get Zimmerman a bond...He may try and make a case by saying that Georgie is not going to run etc., so the bond should remain the same. But I doubt that the Judge (after being made a fool of) is going to go along with that. Someone has to show Georgie that he is not in charge, and who better to show that, but the judge...........

tesstruhart wrote:http://www.sun-sentinel.com/os-george-zimmerman-stand-your-ground-20120608,0,6967649.story

Just found this, I confess I haven't read today so if its already been posted, my apologies

tesstruhart wrote:http://www.sun-sentinel.com/os-george-zimmerman-stand-your-ground-20120608,0,6967649.story

Just found this, I confess I haven't read today so if its already been posted, my apologies

KZ wrote:Interesting articles & case. Absolutely outrageous (imo) case successfully used SYG defense. Comparison to GZ case drawn in articles.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/27/2717572/miami-dade-issues-ruling-in-stand.html

"A bag of stolen car radios — swung during a confrontation — amounted to a lethal threat to a Little Havana man who chased down a thief and stabbed him to death, a Miami-Dade judge said in her written ruling Tuesday in dismissing the murder charge against the man."

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_133

"When Greyston Garcia discovered Pedro Roteta was stealing his car radio, he grabbed a knife, ran downstairs and chased Roteta down the street. After confronting Roteta, who reportedly had a closed pocketknife in his back pocket, Garcia fatally stabbed him. He said the man swung a heavy bag of car radios at his head. The incident was caught on camera. Garcia went home and fell asleep without calling 911, court records show. Garcia initially denied any involvement in the situation, but changed his story after police showed him videotape from a nearby store security camera. The officer who supervised the case asked,"How can it be stand your ground"?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/28/miami-judge-rules-in-stan_n_1385219.html

"Garcia went home instead of calling 911 after the confrontation in January and later hid the knife and sold two of the radios."

(BBM)

Reports of justifiable homicides tripled after the law went into effect, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Last year, twice a week, on average, someone's killing was considered warranted.

The self-defense law — known as "stand your ground" — has been invoked in at least 93 cases with 65 deaths, a St. Petersburg Times review found.

CherokeeNative wrote:

Tamta wrote:Snipped

"It is obvious that Zimmerman was not acting in good faith"


Respectfully, I am really not sure this is true and I know it goes against what many here think, but GZ did not lie on his intake form and he did not even testify at his bond hearing.

As I said above, if his own Defense attorney did not ask him specifically about the website funds and subsequently explain to him how that money would be specifically and directly relevant to the determination of bond amount, therefore I do not see how we can assume that GZ himself would have known otherwise or his wife for that fact. I do not believe that SZ was explained the relevance of this money to bond determination or anyone else in the Zimmerman family for that fact. MOM was not working for GZ that long before the hearing.

IIRC the website originally said that the donations would go towards defense and living expenses, correct me if I am wrong. Perhaps the family did not think that Bond would be considered Defense expenses, as they were trying to arrange bond without using that fund initially, even though MOM says $5000 went towards bond eventually, probably per his instructions not GZ's or the families insistence. What little I know about the tapes I do see a hesitancy on GZs part to commit to using those funds for the bond.

Also look here:

BDLR and SZ @ Bond Hearing

Q. Okay. Were you aware of the website that Mr. Zimmerman or somebody on his behalf created?
A. I'm aware of that website.
Q. And how much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was --
A. Currently, I do not know.
Q. Who would know that?
A. That would be my brother-in-law.
Q. And is he -- I know he's not in the same room as you, but is he available so we can speak to him, too, or the Court can inquire through the State or the Defense?
A. I'm sure that we could probably get him on the phone.
Q Okay. So he's not there now.
A. No, he is not, sir.
Q. Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?(website)
A. I do not.
Q. Okay. You haven't talked to your brother-in-law in terms of just bare amount of how much money?
A. No. No, I have not

BDLR
1. Asks SZ only about website not personal accounts
2. Obtains from SZ who in fact actually has the bottom line on the donations (thus funds available for bond) and decides to drop it and not follow through.

I think a case for Perjury against SZ is going to be fairly weak at this point, again I know this is not in line with most of the view points here.

I think no one addressed or understood the relevance of these funds to the bond determination nor the legal and ethical significance of the donations at that time, so I do not find arguments compelling which assert the State was blindsided and GZ was a full blown liar in the limited contexts and relevant facts strictly pertaining to the issue of Bond.

These funds present a unique situation and those situations can bewilder decent people and decent officers of the court, and can also present strategic opportunities in the judicial process as well.

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2012/06/01/BondHearingTranscript.pdf

Tamta - Respectfully - first, MOM did not specifically ask GZ any questions concerning the Paypal account because GZ was exercising his right to remain silent - which I am sure MOM was in agreement with. That was the specific reason for using his wife and family members to testify - so GZ would not be placed in a position to have to be grilled by the prosecutor. MOM allowed GZ to testify for the sole purpose of apologizing to the Martins - which severly limited the prosecutor from asking questions outside the scope of that testimony. Prior to the bond hearing, GZ and Shellie spent approximately $30,000 of the funds that were donated for their personal use; they moved the monies around from Paypal to their own accounts. If they can move the money around, spend it for their own personal expenses, how could they be confused about whether they could spend the money on bail? Moreover, the question posed to Shellie was what money they had available to them - since they paid bills with the money - they surely had to understand that this was money that was available to them. Wouldn't you agree?

Gizmo711 wrote:

WeeBonnie wrote:Are you saying that somehow Shelly didn't know there was any relevance to the courts questions about the 200k she knew they had available and therefore it was okay for her to lie about? The court asked about ALL their assets and trusted Shelley because she took an oath. To say she didn't know if it was relevant is BS.
They asked her for a rough estimate, they knew only 2-3 was reported to the court, they had to know 200K was a very significant amount, and if they didn't know why it mattered- or if it could be used for bail, they could have asked.
Instead they pretended they knew nothing.
There's nothing honest and no good faith there.
If you read the transcripts they had access to it and both knew how much was there.
MOM is a pro- no one goes to a bond hearing without knowing exactly what it's all about. They knew it was a lie- and that's why they had Shelly do it. So GZ wouldn't be directly responsible. But he did conspire with his wife and he did know that money could be used for bond. There's no doubt about it.

Tamta wrote:

As I said above, if his own Defense attorney did not ask him specifically about the website funds and subsequently explain to him how that money would be specifically and directly relevant to the determination of bond amount, therefore I do not see how we can assume that GZ himself would have known otherwise or his wife for that fact. I do not believe that SZ was explained the relevance of this money to bond determination or anyone else in the Zimmerman family for that fact. MOM was not working for GZ that long before the hearing.

IIRC the website originally said that the donations would go towards defense and living expenses, correct me if I am wrong. Perhaps the family did not think that Bond would be considered Defense expenses, as they were trying to arrange bond without using that fund initially, even though MOM says $5000 went towards bond eventually, probably per his instructions not GZ's or the families insistence. What little I know about the tapes I do see a hesitancy on GZs part to commit to using those funds for the bond.

Also look here:

BDLR and SZ @ Bond Hearing

Q. Okay. Were you aware of the website that Mr. Zimmerman or somebody on his behalf created?
A. I'm aware of that website.
Q. And how much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was --
A. Currently, I do not know.
Q. Who would know that?
A. That would be my brother-in-law.
Q. And is he -- I know he's not in the same room as you, but is he available so we can speak to him, too, or the Court can inquire through the State or the Defense?
A. I'm sure that we could probably get him on the phone.
Q Okay. So he's not there now.
A. No, he is not, sir.Q. Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?(website)
A. I do not.
Q. Okay. You haven't talked to your brother-in-law in terms of just bare amount of how much money?
A. No. No, I have not

BDLR
1. Asks SZ only about website not personal accounts
2. Obtains from SZ who in fact actually has the bottom line on the donations (thus funds available for bond) and decides to drop it and not follow through.

I think a case for Perjury against SZ is going to be fairly weak at this point, again I know this is not in line with most of the view points here.

I think no one addressed or understood the relevance of these funds to the bond determination nor the legal and ethical significance of the donations at that time, so I do not find arguments compelling which assert the State was blindsided and GZ was a full blown liar in the limited contexts and relevant facts strictly pertaining to the issue of Bond.

These funds present a unique situation and those situations can bewilder decent people and decent officers of the court, and can also present strategic opportunities in the judicial process as well.

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2012/06/01/BondHearingTranscript.pdf

The part where O'Mara asks about the brother seems suspiscious to me, it's almost like the bhrother was being used as the scape goat and conveniently was not there. I truly doubt that if O'Mara would have asked to reach the brother, Shellie would have said that she was unable to reach him. They wanted to keep this money out of the bond hearing, for obvious reasons.

CherokeeNative wrote:

Gizmo711 wrote:

WeeBonnie wrote:Are you saying that somehow Shelly didn't know there was any relevance to the courts questions about the 200k she knew they had available and therefore it was okay for her to lie about? The court asked about ALL their assets and trusted Shelley because she took an oath. To say she didn't know if it was relevant is BS.
They asked her for a rough estimate, they knew only 2-3 was reported to the court, they had to know 200K was a very significant amount, and if they didn't know why it mattered- or if it could be used for bail, they could have asked.
Instead they pretended they knew nothing.
There's nothing honest and no good faith there.
If you read the transcripts they had access to it and both knew how much was there.
MOM is a pro- no one goes to a bond hearing without knowing exactly what it's all about. They knew it was a lie- and that's why they had Shelly do it. So GZ wouldn't be directly responsible. But he did conspire with his wife and he did know that money could be used for bond. There's no doubt about it.

Tamta wrote:

As I said above, if his own Defense attorney did not ask him specifically about the website funds and subsequently explain to him how that money would be specifically and directly relevant to the determination of bond amount, therefore I do not see how we can assume that GZ himself would have known otherwise or his wife for that fact. I do not believe that SZ was explained the relevance of this money to bond determination or anyone else in the Zimmerman family for that fact. MOM was not working for GZ that long before the hearing.

IIRC the website originally said that the donations would go towards defense and living expenses, correct me if I am wrong. Perhaps the family did not think that Bond would be considered Defense expenses, as they were trying to arrange bond without using that fund initially, even though MOM says $5000 went towards bond eventually, probably per his instructions not GZ's or the families insistence. What little I know about the tapes I do see a hesitancy on GZs part to commit to using those funds for the bond.

Also look here:

BDLR and SZ @ Bond Hearing

Q. Okay. Were you aware of the website that Mr. Zimmerman or somebody on his behalf created?
A. I'm aware of that website.
Q. And how much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was --
A. Currently, I do not know.
Q. Who would know that?
A. That would be my brother-in-law.
Q. And is he -- I know he's not in the same room as you, but is he available so we can speak to him, too, or the Court can inquire through the State or the Defense?
A. I'm sure that we could probably get him on the phone.
Q Okay. So he's not there now.
A. No, he is not, sir.Q. Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?(website)
A. I do not.
Q. Okay. You haven't talked to your brother-in-law in terms of just bare amount of how much money?
A. No. No, I have not

BDLR
1. Asks SZ only about website not personal accounts
2. Obtains from SZ who in fact actually has the bottom line on the donations (thus funds available for bond) and decides to drop it and not follow through.

I think a case for Perjury against SZ is going to be fairly weak at this point, again I know this is not in line with most of the view points here.

I think no one addressed or understood the relevance of these funds to the bond determination nor the legal and ethical significance of the donations at that time, so I do not find arguments compelling which assert the State was blindsided and GZ was a full blown liar in the limited contexts and relevant facts strictly pertaining to the issue of Bond.

These funds present a unique situation and those situations can bewilder decent people and decent officers of the court, and can also present strategic opportunities in the judicial process as well.

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2012/06/01/BondHearingTranscript.pdf

The part where O'Mara asks about the brother seems suspiscious to me, it's almost like the bhrother was being used as the scape goat and conveniently was not there. I truly doubt that if O'Mara would have asked to reach the brother, Shellie would have said that she was unable to reach him. They wanted to keep this money out of the bond hearing, for obvious reasons.

I agree Gizmo. IF there were any conspiracies going on, or tactical manuevering, it was on the part of GZ and the Zimmerman family - and to the extent that MOM did not want to get into the discussion of the donations - it had his stamp of approval. As soon as I heard Shellie say that the ONLY person who had knowledge of the Paypal account was conveniently the ONLY family member not present to testify, I called fowl in my mind. The jail recordings only served to back that suspicion up. I am not saying that MOM was aware that there was scheming going on between GZ and his family, but he was aware of the existence of the Paypal account and I believe he purposely did not want any family member available to testify who had knowledge of the amounts. Shellie and GZ just conveniently forgot to tell MOM the huge amounts that had been donated and that they were orchestrating how those funds were being handled.

What I almost find humorous is that someone would think that the prosecutor should not have allowed Shellie and GZ to deceive the Court. LOL How silly. The prosecutor is going to try to show GZ's true colors and he did - albeit, I don't believe at the bond hearing that BDLR knew they were blatantly lying - he certainly had no obligation to clarify Shellie's responses to the extent that she never gave any indication that she did not completely understand the line of questioning. Nor did MOM - he clearly believed his client's family understood what was being asked and if the onus was on anybody to have the brother present to testify or offer to get the brother on the phone to bolster their cause, it was MOM. In light of the fact that Shellie and GZ used the money to pay their personal obligations to the tune of $30k and the fact that they were moving monies from the PayPal account into their own personal accounts, all in advance of the bond hearing, I do not see how they can explain themselves out of the situation they find themselves in short of admitting they lied. It is of no matter why they lied - the issue is they lied. Period. Until they admit that, I do not believe they will serve themselves well by trying to convince the Judge that they were "afraid." Well, I've got news for them - anyone charged with Murder2 should be afraid - it's to be expected. I also firmly believe that GZ was "afraid" the night he killed Trayvon and realized that he had shot an unarmed teen and that fear put him in cover-up mode by attempting to spin the sequence of events in his favor of claiming self-defense. In fact, GZ hasn’t told the truth since the moment he shot and killed Trayvon Martin. It's become clear from court and public records that he has sometimes been less than truthful, which is exactly why he is back behind bars. After shooting Trayvon, he told Sanford police he didn't have a criminal history, turns out he did. Weeks later he told the Seminole County Sheriff's Office he had never been in a pretrial-diversion program, but he was. His wife Shelly said she didn’t know about the amount of funds that were donated to GZ, and she did. On the witness stand in April, GZ told Trayvon's family in an apology that he had thought their son was close to his age, while on the night of the shooting he described the 17-year-old to police as in his "late teens." If I were on the jury, knowing what I know about his propensity to lie and mold things in the best of light in his favor, and his prior aggressive conduct, and the admitted fact that he has committed acts that went unpunished because his homies chose to take the wrap for him, I would not be able to believe his story of what occurred with Trayvon that night and as a result I would have no problem voting for Murder2. None whatsoever.

ETA: I can't think of a worse situation that to find GZ's comments on My Space some three years from now and find it to brag about the Trayvon case like he did in his "onlytobekingagain" page at http://www.myspace.com/onlytobekingagain/blog were he states:

…I can hit my boy up to handle a lil somethin with my sister and he's at my house with his boys on bikes before i hang up with her! They do a year and dont ever open thier mouth to get my ass pinched. My cousins the cruzado's damn i love yall, shirley and frank DONT PLAY! I gotta be honest I miss that. I dont miss driving around scared to hit mexicans walkin on the side of the street, soft ass wanna be thugs messin with peoples cars when they aint around (what are you provin, that you can dent a car when no ones watchin) dont make you a man in my book. Workin 96 hours to get a decent pay check, gettin knifes pulled on you by every mexican you run into!

Good news???? Bout Damn time!!!!!!!

2 felonies dropped to 1 misdemeanor!!!!!!!!!!! The man knows he was wrong but still got this hump, Thanks to everyone friends and fam, G baby you know your my rock!

snowbird wrote:

Gizmo711 wrote:

CherokeeNative wrote:Tamta - I am not trying to badger you, but I can't help but feel that you are not clear on what testifying under oath means. And how, although GZ has opted to shield himself behind his constitutional rights to remain silent, he is nevertheless obligated to not allow someone to testify to facts on his behalf that he knows to be anything but the truth and the whole truth. Half truths, omissions, and flat out lies must be relayed to his attorney who can inform the court. And believe me, had MOM known the truth, he would never have allowed GZ's family to commit a fraud upon the Court. He must stand before this Court long after GZ's case is over and he has a reputation to uphold for that reason. On the other hand, I do not know how you could think, if you do, that BDLR or the Court could have possibly known of the amounts that had been donated or that GZ and his wife had been spending those monies to pay their personal expenses and moving those funds about into their own personal accounts. When you testify under oath, you are obligated to speak the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If you do not understand the question, you are expected to ask for clarification. As a nursing student, I am going to go off on a ledge here and guess that she has at least an average I.Q. They asked her if she and/or GZ had any money to use towards bail - she stated no. She was asked what about the Paypal account and she again feigned ignorance. If there was any part of that line of questioning that she was unsure of, she was obligated to ask for clarification. And GZ was obligated to at a very minimum inform his attorney during the hearing that they had access to that sum of money. As BDLR stated, there is no other way to categorize it except that it was a blatant lie.

Also, the form that he has to fill out is very clear. Do you have any money in Banks, stocks etc. Do you own property etc. etc., When one goes in front of the judge, the judge has this form in front of him and will also ask these questions again. So if Zimmerman refused to answer any questions he still had to fill out the form.

Now he could have said "I don't know" or "I'm not sure", which is why the questions were asked during the hearing.

Either way one looks at it, Zimmemran used his attorney to lie, and his wife to lie, and he had them lie to the judge that will be handling his case. Now if that isn't bold, I don't know what is. It shows a total disrespect for the court, it shows how little he thinks of the law.

So now, not only does he have little regard for a human life, but he added to it by showing that he has little regard for our system as well. Zimmerman is self serving, he committed a serious crime and is charged with "murder two" and all he was able to concern himself with was to try and keep all that money from the court finding out.

He is used to people taking the fall for him (as stated in a "my space" page") and probably his daddy getting him off when ever he could. Zimmemran has shown violence in the past, has a record to prove it. Somehow he always managed to get off, and he feels that this time will be no different. So he was protecting the money (more than he ever thought he would see in a lifetime) so when this is all over, and the tax payers footed the bill, he will go on his merry way, laughing at everyone.

As for those pictures taken of Zimmerman, they describe him to a tee. The last one plainly shows that he removed mustach and beard and let his hair grow to try and change his appearance. Usually the perp grows a beard and mustach to conceal his identity, but seeing as how George already had these things, he reversed them. When he was given 48 hours to turn himself in, it was not long enough to grow these things back, he also couldn't run to a barber to get his head shaved again....just not enough time....

I don't think George will be given another bond, but if he does get one, it will be so high that he wont be able to make it without asking his attorney to throw in some of his retainer (good luck Georgie with that), and seeing as he also was so arrogant as to not even settle up with the bondsman, I doubt that any bondsman will trust him without full payment up front.

In other words...Zimmerman screwed himself this time... And I doubt that O'Mara is going to go out of his way to get Zimmerman a bond...He may try and make a case by saying that Georgie is not going to run etc., so the bond should remain the same. But I doubt that the Judge (after being made a fool of) is going to go along with that. Someone has to show Georgie that he is not in charge, and who better to show that, but the judge...........

Just wanted to say, that was a very good post that summed up events. I think his bond will be high because he lied to court and didn't bother to pay his first bail with the money he had in pay pal account witch was closed until 5 days after he was released from jail. He had the money in his account that he could have paid bond.

serenaz1 wrote:

DebFrmHell wrote:Here are some of the links I have compiled and may make for easy reference:

{snipped}

Wow, thanks Deb!

Has anyone heard anything about these new docs filed by Corey?

http://www.seminoleclerk.org/CriminalDocket/case_detail.jsp?CaseNo=592012CF001083A

06/07/2012 LETT LETTER FROM ANGELA COREY-EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR
06/07/2012 LETT 3RD SUPPLEMENTAL DISIGNATION OF ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY

Corey's second supplemental designation was her apprising the court of persons on her investigative and prosecutorial staff, that she has designated responsible for some aspect of this case. I assume the 3rd supplemental designation is more of the same.

I'm guessing the "executive order" letter is just a cover letter, referencing her authority under her March appointment by the governor.

Gizmo711 wrote:

tesstruhart wrote:http://www.sun-sentinel.com/os-george-zimmerman-stand-your-ground-20120608,0,6967649.story

Just found this, I confess I haven't read today so if its already been posted, my apologies

Yes, there are cases where the defendant will waive his rights to a jury trial and allow the judge to hear the case. However, I doubt it very much in this case. It has been said a few times that this case does not fall under the SYG law. One cannot persue someone and initiate the confrontation and than when losing the battle shoot the person (kill) and then claim SYG. If the 911 tapes didn't exist then Zimmerman may have stood a chance, but not with those 911 tapes. They are going to hang Zimmeman.

Also, when a judge hears a case and acts as the jury, it is at the accused requests. The judge cannot make that decision. I doubt very much that Zimmerman will make that request, especially after making such a fool out of Judge Lester with his lies.

For sure a jury of 12 will get this case.

DebFrmHell wrote:

Okay. I did go ask a day or two ago and I thought my questions got lost in the shuffle but I found an answer tonight from one of the legal eagles that post around the board...

Corey's second supplemental designation was her apprising the court of persons on her investigative and prosecutorial staff, that she has designated responsible for some aspect of this case. I assume the 3rd supplemental designation is more of the same.

I'm guessing the "executive order" letter is just a cover letter, referencing her authority under her March appointment by the governor.

{snipped}

DebFrmHell wrote:

Gizmo711 wrote:

tesstruhart wrote:http://www.sun-sentinel.com/os-george-zimmerman-stand-your-ground-20120608,0,6967649.story

Just found this, I confess I haven't read today so if its already been posted, my apologies

Yes, there are cases where the defendant will waive his rights to a jury trial and allow the judge to hear the case. However, I doubt it very much in this case. It has been said a few times that this case does not fall under the SYG law. One cannot persue someone and initiate the confrontation and than when losing the battle shoot the person (kill) and then claim SYG. If the 911 tapes didn't exist then Zimmerman may have stood a chance, but not with those 911 tapes. They are going to hang Zimmeman.

Also, when a judge hears a case and acts as the jury, it is at the accused requests. The judge cannot make that decision. I doubt very much that Zimmerman will make that request, especially after making such a fool out of Judge Lester with his lies.

For sure a jury of 12 will get this case.

I believe in Florida, their juries consist of six unless it is a death penalty case. It is then that the jury is increased to twelve.

Gizmo711 wrote:

Who threw the punch is not even going to come into play, if it was, than there would be no trial and GZ would not be charged with second degree murder.

The two most crucial aspects of this case are the 911 calls and that police have a body..............

DebFrmHell wrote:

clipped-
I believe in Florida, their juries consist of six unless it is a death penalty case. It is then that the jury is increased to twelve.

Freckles wrote:

DebFrmHell wrote:

clipped-
I believe in Florida, their juries consist of six unless it is a death penalty case. It is then that the jury is increased to twelve.

Makes it a whole lot easier and quicker for a smaller jury to reach decisions, I would suspect.

DebFrmHell wrote:In regards to the SYG hearing...

The reality is that this is not only a mini-trial but it also a good time for the defense to lock in witness statements. If GZ gets bound over for trial by jury, the defense will have additional months to find expert testimony that negate testimony given by witnesses that is not favorable to Zimmerman.

MOM is a player.

He already has Gilbreath on record during the bond hearing stating that the Prosecution has no idea who threw the first punch.

He got him on the wording of the APC which I thought at the time to be nit-picky but it is the jist of the Second Degree murder charge.

He got him on record discussing a Witness's statement about how she caught a glimpse of two men chasing each other even though there was not one distinguishing feature that to tell who was chasing whom. Her story has since changed to what she may or may not have seen. She has admitted she didn't have her contacts in either.

The one thing they noticed is that the only real difference between Angela Corey's Capias vrs the Capias filed by Serino is the addition of two witnesses. Dee Dee and Sybrina Fulton.

The Legal Eagles are licking their "cyber chops" in anticipation of the SYG hearing. There is some debate as to whether if SYG can be proven, if Judge Lester will make the unpopular decision to give Zimmerman immunity from prosecution or if JL will turn it to a jury for their decision.

CherokeeNative wrote:Respectfully snipped.

DebFrmHell wrote:In regards to the SYG hearing...

The reality is that this is not only a mini-trial but it also a good time for the defense to lock in witness statements. If GZ gets bound over for trial by jury, the defense will have additional months to find expert testimony that negate testimony given by witnesses that is not favorable to Zimmerman.

MOM is a player.

He already has Gilbreath on record during the bond hearing stating that the Prosecution has no idea who threw the first punch.

He got him on the wording of the APC which I thought at the time to be nit-picky but it is the jist of the Second Degree murder charge.

He got him on record discussing a Witness's statement about how she caught a glimpse of two men chasing each other even though there was not one distinguishing feature that to tell who was chasing whom. Her story has since changed to what she may or may not have seen. She has admitted she didn't have her contacts in either.

The one thing they noticed is that the only real difference between Angela Corey's Capias vrs the Capias filed by Serino is the addition of two witnesses. Dee Dee and Sybrina Fulton.

The Legal Eagles are licking their "cyber chops" in anticipation of the SYG hearing. There is some debate as to whether if SYG can be proven, if Judge Lester will make the unpopular decision to give Zimmerman immunity from prosecution or if JL will turn it to a jury for their decision.

Yes, but I believe that you will find that it was the wording of the question - Gilbreath was not the only investigator working the case, so what he may or may not have personal knowledge of could be different than what other investigators have knowledge of. I also believe the "Legal Eagles" are just a tad biased since they are mostly defense attorneys who are speculating how they would defend this case based upon their interpretation of the law and case authority.

CherokeeNative wrote:Respectfully snipped.

DebFrmHell wrote:In regards to the SYG hearing...

The reality is that this is not only a mini-trial but it also a good time for the defense to lock in witness statements. If GZ gets bound over for trial by jury, the defense will have additional months to find expert testimony that negate testimony given by witnesses that is not favorable to Zimmerman.

MOM is a player.

He already has Gilbreath on record during the bond hearing stating that the Prosecution has no idea who threw the first punch.

He got him on the wording of the APC which I thought at the time to be nit-picky but it is the jist of the Second Degree murder charge.

He got him on record discussing a Witness's statement about how she caught a glimpse of two men chasing each other even though there was not one distinguishing feature that to tell who was chasing whom. Her story has since changed to what she may or may not have seen. She has admitted she didn't have her contacts in either.

The one thing they noticed is that the only real difference between Angela Corey's Capias vrs the Capias filed by Serino is the addition of two witnesses. Dee Dee and Sybrina Fulton.

The Legal Eagles are licking their "cyber chops" in anticipation of the SYG hearing. There is some debate as to whether if SYG can be proven, if Judge Lester will make the unpopular decision to give Zimmerman immunity from prosecution or if JL will turn it to a jury for their decision.

Yes, but I believe that you will find that it was the wording of the question - Gilbreath was not the only investigator working the case, so what he may or may not have personal knowledge of could be different than what other investigators have knowledge of. I also believe the "Legal Eagles" are just a tad biased since they are mostly defense attorneys who are speculating how they would defend this case based upon their interpretation of the law and case authority.

WeeBonnie wrote:Unless their were additional eyewitnesses that we have not heard from ( is that possible?) then the defense has nothing, because GZ cannot be credible. His story has other gaping holes and I don't know what jury would think that maybe he's finally telling the truth that he was attacked. When he is shown to fudge the other details. MOM has his work cut out for him.

CherokeeNative wrote:Respectfully snipped.

DebFrmHell wrote:In regards to the SYG hearing...

The reality is that this is not only a mini-trial but it also a good time for the defense to lock in witness statements. If GZ gets bound over for trial by jury, the defense will have additional months to find expert testimony that negate testimony given by witnesses that is not favorable to Zimmerman.

MOM is a player.

He already has Gilbreath on record during the bond hearing stating that the Prosecution has no idea who threw the first punch.

He got him on the wording of the APC which I thought at the time to be nit-picky but it is the jist of the Second Degree murder charge.

He got him on record discussing a Witness's statement about how she caught a glimpse of two men chasing each other even though there was not one distinguishing feature that to tell who was chasing whom. Her story has since changed to what she may or may not have seen. She has admitted she didn't have her contacts in either.

The one thing they noticed is that the only real difference between Angela Corey's Capias vrs the Capias filed by Serino is the addition of two witnesses. Dee Dee and Sybrina Fulton.

The Legal Eagles are licking their "cyber chops" in anticipation of the SYG hearing. There is some debate as to whether if SYG can be proven, if Judge Lester will make the unpopular decision to give Zimmerman immunity from prosecution or if JL will turn it to a jury for their decision.

Yes, but I believe that you will find that it was the wording of the question - Gilbreath was not the only investigator working the case, so what he may or may not have personal knowledge of could be different than what other investigators have knowledge of. I also believe the "Legal Eagles" are just a tad biased since they are mostly defense attorneys who are speculating how they would defend this case based upon their interpretation of the law and case authority.

DebFrmHell wrote:

WeeBonnie wrote:Unless their were additional eyewitnesses that we have not heard from ( is that possible?) then the defense has nothing, because GZ cannot be credible. His story has other gaping holes and I don't know what jury would think that maybe he's finally telling the truth that he was attacked. When he is shown to fudge the other details. MOM has his work cut out for him.

CherokeeNative wrote:Respectfully snipped.

DebFrmHell wrote:In regards to the SYG hearing...

The reality is that this is not only a mini-trial but it also a good time for the defense to lock in witness statements. If GZ gets bound over for trial by jury, the defense will have additional months to find expert testimony that negate testimony given by witnesses that is not favorable to Zimmerman.

MOM is a player.

He already has Gilbreath on record during the bond hearing stating that the Prosecution has no idea who threw the first punch.

He got him on the wording of the APC which I thought at the time to be nit-picky but it is the jist of the Second Degree murder charge.

He got him on record discussing a Witness's statement about how she caught a glimpse of two men chasing each other even though there was not one distinguishing feature that to tell who was chasing whom. Her story has since changed to what she may or may not have seen. She has admitted she didn't have her contacts in either.

The one thing they noticed is that the only real difference between Angela Corey's Capias vrs the Capias filed by Serino is the addition of two witnesses. Dee Dee and Sybrina Fulton.

The Legal Eagles are licking their "cyber chops" in anticipation of the SYG hearing. There is some debate as to whether if SYG can be proven, if Judge Lester will make the unpopular decision to give Zimmerman immunity from prosecution or if JL will turn it to a jury for their decision.

Yes, but I believe that you will find that it was the wording of the question - Gilbreath was not the only investigator working the case, so what he may or may not have personal knowledge of could be different than what other investigators have knowledge of. I also believe the "Legal Eagles" are just a tad biased since they are mostly defense attorneys who are speculating how they would defend this case based upon their interpretation of the law and case authority.

I am doing this in purple since I have no clue where my quote will fall...

We have never heard George Zimmerman's exact words. We have no idea of the consistancies or inconsistancies in his statements that make the State's case. I doubt we are going to be reading them anytime soon, either. We have only heard from Proxy Spokepersons and leaks to the media.

The media is a bone of contention with me since I believe they have played me and I don't like nor appreciate it. I still think that part of their job is to give me the information in an honest way that I can formulate my own opinions. Getting led by the nose...not so much.

On more than one occasion, they have been directly responsible for mischaracterizations and have been rightfully called out on it. If you think that GZ is a huge racist, you will look for something that reinforces that belief. How about CNN and that gawdawful coons report? How about the editing magic at NBC? It took days or in some cases well over a week for the media to say... "Well, okay. We might have made a tiny error in reporting. My bad." But in the meantime, it is out there festering in the backs of people's mind. No apology from a news source will take that away.

It lowers the chance of a fair trial. IMO. Justice for Trayvon should not come as an injustice to George Zimmerman. There is a very delicate balance involved and being swayed by a media entity that is generating its own news is just wrong.

I find that appalling.

marcena2 wrote:

Gizmo711 wrote:

Who threw the punch is not even going to come into play, if it was, than there would be no trial and GZ would not be charged with second degree murder.

The two most crucial aspects of this case are the 911 calls and that police have a body..............

Respectfully disagree. Who laid hands on who first is critical. Even laying a hand on someone's forearm or a push of an index finger into chest is all it takes. Then the other has the right to defend. Dee Dee states she heard Tray say something to the effect of Get Off.

WeeBonnie wrote:Unless their were additional eyewitnesses that we have not heard from ( is that possible?) then the defense has nothing, because GZ cannot be credible. His story has other gaping holes and I don't know what jury would think that maybe he's finally telling the truth that he was attacked. When he is shown to fudge the other details. MOM has his work cut out for him.

CherokeeNative wrote:Respectfully snipped.

DebFrmHell wrote:In regards to the SYG hearing...

The reality is that this is not only a mini-trial but it also a good time for the defense to lock in witness statements. If GZ gets bound over for trial by jury, the defense will have additional months to find expert testimony that negate testimony given by witnesses that is not favorable to Zimmerman.

MOM is a player.

He already has Gilbreath on record during the bond hearing stating that the Prosecution has no idea who threw the first punch.

He got him on the wording of the APC which I thought at the time to be nit-picky but it is the jist of the Second Degree murder charge.

He got him on record discussing a Witness's statement about how she caught a glimpse of two men chasing each other even though there was not one distinguishing feature that to tell who was chasing whom. Her story has since changed to what she may or may not have seen. She has admitted she didn't have her contacts in either.

The one thing they noticed is that the only real difference between Angela Corey's Capias vrs the Capias filed by Serino is the addition of two witnesses. Dee Dee and Sybrina Fulton.

The Legal Eagles are licking their "cyber chops" in anticipation of the SYG hearing. There is some debate as to whether if SYG can be proven, if Judge Lester will make the unpopular decision to give Zimmerman immunity from prosecution or if JL will turn it to a jury for their decision.

Yes, but I believe that you will find that it was the wording of the question - Gilbreath was not the only investigator working the case, so what he may or may not have personal knowledge of could be different than what other investigators have knowledge of. I also believe the "Legal Eagles" are just a tad biased since they are mostly defense attorneys who are speculating how they would defend this case based upon their interpretation of the law and case authority.

CherokeeNative wrote:

DebFrmHell wrote:

WeeBonnie wrote:Unless their were additional eyewitnesses that we have not heard from ( is that possible?) then the defense has nothing, because GZ cannot be credible. His story has other gaping holes and I don't know what jury would think that maybe he's finally telling the truth that he was attacked. When he is shown to fudge the other details. MOM has his work cut out for him.

CherokeeNative wrote:Respectfully snipped.

DebFrmHell wrote:In regards to the SYG hearing...

The reality is that this is not only a mini-trial but it also a good time for the defense to lock in witness statements. If GZ gets bound over for trial by jury, the defense will have additional months to find expert testimony that negate testimony given by witnesses that is not favorable to Zimmerman.

MOM is a player.

He already has Gilbreath on record during the bond hearing stating that the Prosecution has no idea who threw the first punch.

He got him on the wording of the APC which I thought at the time to be nit-picky but it is the jist of the Second Degree murder charge.

He got him on record discussing a Witness's statement about how she caught a glimpse of two men chasing each other even though there was not one distinguishing feature that to tell who was chasing whom. Her story has since changed to what she may or may not have seen. She has admitted she didn't have her contacts in either.

The one thing they noticed is that the only real difference between Angela Corey's Capias vrs the Capias filed by Serino is the addition of two witnesses. Dee Dee and Sybrina Fulton.

The Legal Eagles are licking their "cyber chops" in anticipation of the SYG hearing. There is some debate as to whether if SYG can be proven, if Judge Lester will make the unpopular decision to give Zimmerman immunity from prosecution or if JL will turn it to a jury for their decision.

Yes, but I believe that you will find that it was the wording of the question - Gilbreath was not the only investigator working the case, so what he may or may not have personal knowledge of could be different than what other investigators have knowledge of. I also believe the "Legal Eagles" are just a tad biased since they are mostly defense attorneys who are speculating how they would defend this case based upon their interpretation of the law and case authority.

I am doing this in purple since I have no clue where my quote will fall...

We have never heard George Zimmerman's exact words. We have no idea of the consistancies or inconsistancies in his statements that make the State's case. I doubt we are going to be reading them anytime soon, either. We have only heard from Proxy Spokepersons and leaks to the media.

The media is a bone of contention with me since I believe they have played me and I don't like nor appreciate it. I still think that part of their job is to give me the information in an honest way that I can formulate my own opinions. Getting led by the nose...not so much.

On more than one occasion, they have been directly responsible for mischaracterizations and have been rightfully called out on it. If you think that GZ is a huge racist, you will look for something that reinforces that belief. How about CNN and that gawdawful coons report? How about the editing magic at NBC? It took days or in some cases well over a week for the media to say... "Well, okay. We might have made a tiny error in reporting. My bad." But in the meantime, it is out there festering in the backs of people's mind. No apology from a news source will take that away.

It lowers the chance of a fair trial. IMO. Justice for Trayvon should not come as an injustice to George Zimmerman. There is a very delicate balance involved and being swayed by a media entity that is generating its own news is just wrong.

I find that appalling.

On the aspect of the media DebfrmHell, I am in complete agreement. Gone are the days of truth in reporting. Fox tries to get off with the crap they pull by saying they are an entertainment channel. ABC, well, that was one major F-up. And in all, they all are spinning the circumstances of events in the best way to get public interest and a rise out of us. We have a right to be angry about that. And, I truly want GZ to have a fair trial - I honestly do. As I stated up thread, most of our laws have come about based upon what is morally right and socially correct. I don't believe that anyone, even the pro-Zimmerman groups, could honestly say that they felt what occurred to Trayvon that night was right - it should not have happened -had GZ went to Target or if he had left the matter in the hands of LE once he made that non-911 call, Trayvon would be alive. GZ needs to be punished for that and it irritates me to no end that there are those who are trying to see that he walks away from this scott-free. I don't mind the argument of manslaughter - that is for our jury to decide - but to work towards seeing that this guy gets absolutely no punishment whatsoever is leading our society down the wrong path and many more will be will be gunned down if this case and others like it are allowed to dismissed because of a poorly drafted law. That the NRA and other activists groups are involved through the funneling of monies for the defense, is just as bad, in my mind, as the media distorting the true facts as they are known. There are men and women who, right now, are sitting in jail awaiting a trial where they are wrongfully accused - where the issue isn't whether they were overcharged but were in someway cupable as GZ is, but because they did not do what they are accused of having done - yet, these activists are not donating one penny towards their defense and the accused are having to resort to public defenders as a result. In my mind, that has tilted the scales of justice; it's tilted the scales of justice in GZ's case. I believe this is a truly ethical problem. On the other hand, are the chances of Judge Lester kicking the can to the jury rather than making a determination that could possibly ruin his chances of re-election in the future? You bet your sweet bippy he will - if he plans on being on the bench after this term. Then again, he may decide as the trier-of-fact at any SYG motion that GZ has demonstrated that he has no credibility, or since we don't know what all of the evidence is, that the prosecution has made their case. Either way, there will be those that will claim that Judge Lester kicked the can, when maybe he really didn't. But I am rambling....

Tamta wrote:

WeeBonnie wrote:Unless their were additional eyewitnesses that we have not heard from ( is that possible?) then the defense has nothing, because GZ cannot be credible. His story has other gaping holes and I don't know what jury would think that maybe he's finally telling the truth that he was attacked. When he is shown to fudge the other details. MOM has his work cut out for him.

CherokeeNative wrote:Respectfully snipped.

DebFrmHell wrote:In regards to the SYG hearing...

The reality is that this is not only a mini-trial but it also a good time for the defense to lock in witness statements. If GZ gets bound over for trial by jury, the defense will have additional months to find expert testimony that negate testimony given by witnesses that is not favorable to Zimmerman.

MOM is a player.

He already has Gilbreath on record during the bond hearing stating that the Prosecution has no idea who threw the first punch.

He got him on the wording of the APC which I thought at the time to be nit-picky but it is the jist of the Second Degree murder charge.

He got him on record discussing a Witness's statement about how she caught a glimpse of two men chasing each other even though there was not one distinguishing feature that to tell who was chasing whom. Her story has since changed to what she may or may not have seen. She has admitted she didn't have her contacts in either.

The one thing they noticed is that the only real difference between Angela Corey's Capias vrs the Capias filed by Serino is the addition of two witnesses. Dee Dee and Sybrina Fulton.

The Legal Eagles are licking their "cyber chops" in anticipation of the SYG hearing. There is some debate as to whether if SYG can be proven, if Judge Lester will make the unpopular decision to give Zimmerman immunity from prosecution or if JL will turn it to a jury for their decision.

Yes, but I believe that you will find that it was the wording of the question - Gilbreath was not the only investigator working the case, so what he may or may not have personal knowledge of could be different than what other investigators have knowledge of. I also believe the "Legal Eagles" are just a tad biased since they are mostly defense attorneys who are speculating how they would defend this case based upon their interpretation of the law and case authority.

BBM

Maybe.
Maybe not.

I bet there will be many motions and many hearings on evidence and suppression of evidence in this case.

MOM is a very good lawyer and I am sure he will investigate, gather, and present evidence that will attempt to back up his client's version of events. I am sure that he has material to work with, out of what we are aware of now-or will be aware of, and from some that we may not hear of until this goes before the Court.
I am sure BDLR is going to have to work pretty hard for a conviction-
these lawyers are well matched.

There are a few cases that I spend time researching and discussing, and ALL of them constantly remind me about a critical aspect of the adversary trial system:

one side controls almost all of the gathering, protection, and release of evidence
and the public is often always the last to know.
With or without Sunshine Laws.

What we are in possession of as the public is in essence a constructed body of evidence that under the scrutiny of the trial will or will not evolve into facts.

I am in no way intimating that I think the State is manipulating or tampering with evidence, I have no reason to think that. I am only saying that there is often more in existence that could have bearing on cases than we the public will maybe ever know.
I know I can not say right now that I think everything is out there and on the table.
Aspects of the opinions and speculations that I currently hold could evolve.

I only know what I think right now.

I was not there.
I am also not aware of all of the variables that could serve to re-weigh evidence and
put it into a different light.


But I do know that GZ does not seem to have the media working in his favor....

WeeBonnie wrote:I just want to say I've really enjoyed the endless rambles of Cher and the purple paragraphs from hell. Good sparring ladies!

I agree with the criticism of the media, but GZ did pick up a lot of sympathy for his wounds also. It's just that no matter how you slice it, he doesn't easily come off as a sympathetic figure. They've tried at times to demonize Trayvon with the weed smoking and his suspension- but it didnt fly. The few that want to believe his life was worthless still believe it. I think we've all seen them post comments on news articles.

Bottom line is, Trayvons bad hbits were just a heck of a lot more harmless than GZs little hobby. As much as I think it's been sensationalized the sentiment is similar to what any community would feel after such a senseless
Killing. It's a bit like that book Bonfire of the Vanities- GZ is stuck a bit worse off than he would have been maybe 20 or certainly 40 years ago.
People are fed up seeing black youth treated as disposable. So there's an unfortunate backlash. It's unfair, but if the evidence shows him guilty, I have no problem him paying the price.

That said Deb- I fully expect manslaughter to be an alternate charge or option given the jury. I'm not sure what you've heard about Trayvons parents that they wouldn't be satisfied with that. From what I have heard, all they asked for was a day in court.
I don't recall them being anything but a class act.

Am I the only one who wouldn't be shocked if they could live with a manslaughter plea if GZ admitted he made a grave error? I think so far they've been very fair, and just want to make sure things like this don't keep happening.

GZ did pick up a lot of sympathy for his wounds

DebFrmHell wrote:

CherokeeNative wrote:

DebFrmHell wrote:

WeeBonnie wrote:Unless their were additional eyewitnesses that we have not heard from ( is that possible?) then the defense has nothing, because GZ cannot be credible. His story has other gaping holes and I don't know what jury would think that maybe he's finally telling the truth that he was attacked. When he is shown to fudge the other details. MOM has his work cut out for him.

CherokeeNative wrote:Respectfully snipped.

DebFrmHell wrote:In regards to the SYG hearing...

The reality is that this is not only a mini-trial but it also a good time for the defense to lock in witness statements. If GZ gets bound over for trial by jury, the defense will have additional months to find expert testimony that negate testimony given by witnesses that is not favorable to Zimmerman.

MOM is a player.

He already has Gilbreath on record during the bond hearing stating that the Prosecution has no idea who threw the first punch.

He got him on the wording of the APC which I thought at the time to be nit-picky but it is the jist of the Second Degree murder charge.

He got him on record discussing a Witness's statement about how she caught a glimpse of two men chasing each other even though there was not one distinguishing feature that to tell who was chasing whom. Her story has since changed to what she may or may not have seen. She has admitted she didn't have her contacts in either.

The one thing they noticed is that the only real difference between Angela Corey's Capias vrs the Capias filed by Serino is the addition of two witnesses. Dee Dee and Sybrina Fulton.

The Legal Eagles are licking their "cyber chops" in anticipation of the SYG hearing. There is some debate as to whether if SYG can be proven, if Judge Lester will make the unpopular decision to give Zimmerman immunity from prosecution or if JL will turn it to a jury for their decision.

Yes, but I believe that you will find that it was the wording of the question - Gilbreath was not the only investigator working the case, so what he may or may not have personal knowledge of could be different than what other investigators have knowledge of. I also believe the "Legal Eagles" are just a tad biased since they are mostly defense attorneys who are speculating how they would defend this case based upon their interpretation of the law and case authority.

I am doing this in purple since I have no clue where my quote will fall...

We have never heard George Zimmerman's exact words. We have no idea of the consistancies or inconsistancies in his statements that make the State's case. I doubt we are going to be reading them anytime soon, either. We have only heard from Proxy Spokepersons and leaks to the media.

The media is a bone of contention with me since I believe they have played me and I don't like nor appreciate it. I still think that part of their job is to give me the information in an honest way that I can formulate my own opinions. Getting led by the nose...not so much.

On more than one occasion, they have been directly responsible for mischaracterizations and have been rightfully called out on it. If you think that GZ is a huge racist, you will look for something that reinforces that belief. How about CNN and that gawdawful coons report? How about the editing magic at NBC? It took days or in some cases well over a week for the media to say... "Well, okay. We might have made a tiny error in reporting. My bad." But in the meantime, it is out there festering in the backs of people's mind. No apology from a news source will take that away.

It lowers the chance of a fair trial. IMO. Justice for Trayvon should not come as an injustice to George Zimmerman. There is a very delicate balance involved and being swayed by a media entity that is generating its own news is just wrong.

I find that appalling.

On the aspect of the media DebfrmHell, I am in complete agreement. Gone are the days of truth in reporting. Fox tries to get off with the crap they pull by saying they are an entertainment channel. ABC, well, that was one major F-up. And in all, they all are spinning the circumstances of events in the best way to get public interest and a rise out of us. We have a right to be angry about that. And, I truly want GZ to have a fair trial - I honestly do. As I stated up thread, most of our laws have come about based upon what is morally right and socially correct. I don't believe that anyone, even the pro-Zimmerman groups, could honestly say that they felt what occurred to Trayvon that night was right - it should not have happened -had GZ went to Target or if he had left the matter in the hands of LE once he made that non-911 call, Trayvon would be alive. GZ needs to be punished for that and it irritates me to no end that there are those who are trying to see that he walks away from this scott-free. I don't mind the argument of manslaughter - that is for our jury to decide - but to work towards seeing that this guy gets absolutely no punishment whatsoever is leading our society down the wrong path and many more will be will be gunned down if this case and others like it are allowed to dismissed because of a poorly drafted law. That the NRA and other activists groups are involved through the funneling of monies for the defense, is just as bad, in my mind, as the media distorting the true facts as they are known. There are men and women who, right now, are sitting in jail awaiting a trial where they are wrongfully accused - where the issue isn't whether they were overcharged but were in someway cupable as GZ is, but because they did not do what they are accused of having done - yet, these activists are not donating one penny towards their defense and the accused are having to resort to public defenders as a result. In my mind, that has tilted the scales of justice; it's tilted the scales of justice in GZ's case. I believe this is a truly ethical problem. On the other hand, are the chances of Judge Lester kicking the can to the jury rather than making a determination that could possibly ruin his chances of re-election in the future? You bet your sweet bippy he will - if he plans on being on the bench after this term. Then again, he may decide as the trier-of-fact at any SYG motion that GZ has demonstrated that he has no credibility, or since we don't know what all of the evidence is, that the prosecution has made their case. Either way, there will be those that will claim that Judge Lester kicked the can, when maybe he really didn't. But I am rambling....

Ramble on my friend! This is my ramble back atcha!

Just for arguments sake, and you know I do that LOL!, you are willing to accept debate on manslaughter. Well, okay... but the fact remains is that manslaughter is not the charge. It is not even an option. The charge is Second Degree Murder. Manslaughter may not even come into play. We have no way of even knowing if it ever will. It would be in the jury instructions and we are probably a year away from that.

If it is put out there as a bargaining chip just to get jail time for GZ, then it stands to my own reasoning it is because the State cannot make their case of Murder Two.

There is also the matter of the Fulton/Martin family. I don't know that they would be that amendable to a lesser charge. Not that it would legally matter, the state is going to do what the state is going to do.

But we have seen the results of the wheels not going fast enough to suit their lawyer. There would much verbal discord if that were to be the case. IMO.

There is still the perception that the SPD did not investigate despite the fact that in the 183 pg Doc Dump, you can see dates that show otherwise. Reports were coming in up until they handed to that case over.

One of the two differences between SPD and the SAO is that Angela Corey added Sybrina Fulton to the witness list. It is safe to assume it is for her to identify that it is her child that is yelling for help.

They didn't add Tracy Martin, however. He originally said either no or he wasn't sure. Crump went into spin mode after that so I am not sure the exact order. I remember he called Chris Serino a lie-teller, basically.

Robert Zimmerman stated it was his son, also.

The voice analysis from the FBI could not determine who it was exactly due to the quality of the recording.

George Zimmerman was in the back of a patrol car, stating to paramedics that were treating him that he called for help and no one came. He was placed there, hand- cuffed, shortly after the shooting. This was overheard by Officer Meade, IIRC. Who knows if GZ overheard discussions amongst witnesses and LE so I tend to discount this a just a little.

The one thing we do know is that when John responded to the calls, he made no physical effort to separate the two of them. He told them to stop he was calling the police and went back inside to do so. That could be considered as getting no help.

So knowing all of these facts...

Where is the empathy of the jury going to lie? I will tell you. It will be with the sobbing mother of a shooting victim. It is how they work past that empathy that will be the question.

((I don't know anyone who does not feel for the Fulton/Martins. Personally, the grief of the father has effected me more so than his mother. There has not been one time that I have seen him interviewed that I don't want to hug him. You can't tell him it will be okay because it will never be okay.))

Then again, he (JL) may decide as the trier-of-fact at any SYG motion that GZ has demonstrated that he has no credibility

I think the issue at hand is the crediblilty of Shelly Zimmerman. GZ was the potted palm. Even Lester admitted that he had only read her statements at that stage (6/1/12). Zimmerman was never questioned under oath about those funds. He made the apology statement. He could only be questioned by de la Rionda about that. Not that de la Rionda didn't try...he did, MOM objected, he got overruled for being outside of the scope and that questioning line was discontinued.


You know I love ya, right? Have I told you yet that a paragraph is a girl's best friend? I am an old broad...and I could use the help!

WeeBonnie wrote:I just want to say I've really enjoyed the endless rambles of Cher and the purple paragraphs from hell. Good sparring ladies!

I agree with the criticism of the media, but GZ did pick up a lot of sympathy for his wounds also. It's just that no matter how you slice it, he doesn't easily come off as a sympathetic figure. They've tried at times to demonize Trayvon with the weed smoking and his suspension- but it didnt fly. The few that want to believe his life was worthless still believe it. I think we've all seen them post comments on news articles.

Bottom line is, Trayvons bad hbits were just a heck of a lot more harmless than GZs little hobby. As much as I think it's been sensationalized the sentiment is similar to what any community would feel after such a senseless
Killing. It's a bit like that book Bonfire of the Vanities- GZ is stuck a bit worse off than he would have been maybe 20 or certainly 40 years ago.
People are fed up seeing black youth treated as disposable. So there's an unfortunate backlash. It's unfair, but if the evidence shows him guilty, I have no problem him paying the price.

That said Deb- I fully expect manslaughter to be an alternate charge or option given the jury. I'm not sure what you've heard about Trayvons parents that they wouldn't be satisfied with that. From what I have heard, all they asked for was a day in court.
I don't recall them being anything but a class act.

Am I the only one who wouldn't be shocked if they could live with a manslaughter plea if GZ admitted he made a grave error? I think so far they've been very fair, and just want to make sure things like this don't keep happening.

DebFrmHell wrote:@Serenaz
The Third Supplemental letter is now online.

It would appear that Richard W. Mantei may have taken the place of Bernie de la Rionda in the investigation, prosecution, and representation of the State of Florida in the case of State v Zimmerman.

Curiously, the notification is dated June 4th, 2012.

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/third%20designation%20of%20ASA.pdf

And no, I didn't spot this without help...

Gizmo711 wrote:The more I go over the bond hearing the more I feel suspect of it. O'Mara had the whole ordeal staged, he knew just what he was going to ask all that were present, he also knew that the brother was not going to be there. The Zimmermans had to have prepared themselves for this phone hearing. They have to be paid in advance and they also had to have someone at their home to swear them in. This was well planned in advance.

Also, there is no lawyer out here that asks a question without knowing what the answer is going to be. We all found Shellie to be evasive and not forthcoming. We all found it odd that the one person who "supposedly" had access to the money from donations, would not be there at his brothers bond hearing. So why wouldn't Zimmermans lawyer find this odd?

The mere fact that right after Zimmerman is released, O;Mara makes a discovery of all this money, I find this to be very odd. As much as I do like O'Mara, I do believe that he was being a little deceitful at that bond hearing and than later (once Zimmerman was released) decided that he would come forth with his find of these donations. O'Mara knew that eventually they would be found out and he wasn't going to come across as the bad guy and ruin his reputation.

When you look at some of the questions that were asked of Shellie by O'Mara, one has to know that they were rehearsed to a point with O'Mara doing the questioning of Shellie prior to that hearing.

In coming clean after, O'Mara probably thought that the judge would just let it ride, but when the judge revoked the bond it stunned O'Mara (you could see it all over his face). I don't believe that O'Mara had anticipated that. He may have thought by coming clean so soon that the judge would just over look it.

If the judge would have given Zimmerman a large bond it would have cleaned out that account and then it would have been discovered taht they did have money, but with coming up up a large bond would have made the court suspiscious of granting Zimmerman an indigent status. So they were caught between a hard rock and a stone. So they chose to lie.

And I do believe that O'Mara was in on this lie.

The one thing that I do not believe is that O'Mara had Zimmermans valid passport in his desk for a month without turning it in. He may very well have covered for his client at that point as not to make it a reason to revoke Zimmermans bond (which ended up being revoked anyway).

Somethings just don't meet the smell test for all concerned on Zimmermans side.

DebFrmHell wrote:Oooooh...paragraphs... I ((heart)) you!

Smootches. I got an appointment at 9am so my auntie is going to be here beforehand. I went to vacuum and the belt broke. The carpet looks like ((insert whatever expletive you deem appropriate and trust me. I have just ran through them all!)

My dark side is all over the carpet! Reference picture of The Dog for proof!

Who does this at 1am? Me, that's who.

WeeBonnie wrote:Don't strip any nuts Deb- unless it's here on this thread!
You two ladies are the American equivant of two Agatha Christie characters!
Love it!

DebFrmHell wrote:Oooooh...paragraphs... I ((heart)) you!

Smootches. I got an appointment at 9am so my auntie is going to be here beforehand. I went to vacuum and the belt broke. The carpet looks like ((insert whatever expletive you deem appropriate and trust me. I have just ran through them all!)

My dark side is all over the carpet! Reference picture of The Dog for proof!

Who does this at 1am? Me, that's who.

CherokeeNative wrote:

DebFrmHell wrote:@Serenaz
The Third Supplemental letter is now online.

It would appear that Richard W. Mantei may have taken the place of Bernie de la Rionda in the investigation, prosecution, and representation of the State of Florida in the case of State v Zimmerman.

Curiously, the notification is dated June 4th, 2012.

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/third%20designation%20of%20ASA.pdf

And no, I didn't spot this without help...

I don't know Deb, but this looks that Mantei is replacing Wolfinger and this doesn't affect BDLR at all...do you see what I am saying?

Gizmo711 wrote:The more I go over the bond hearing the more I feel suspect of it. O'Mara had the whole ordeal staged, he knew just what he was going to ask all that were present, he also knew that the brother was not going to be there. The Zimmermans had to have prepared themselves for this phone hearing. They have to be paid in advance and they also had to have someone at their home to swear them in. This was well planned in advance.

Also, there is no lawyer out here that asks a question without knowing what the answer is going to be. We all found Shellie to be evasive and not forthcoming. We all found it odd that the one person who "supposedly" had access to the money from donations, would not be there at his brothers bond hearing. So why wouldn't Zimmermans lawyer find this odd?

The mere fact that right after Zimmerman is released, O;Mara makes a discovery of all this money, I find this to be very odd. As much as I do like O'Mara, I do believe that he was being a little deceitful at that bond hearing and than later (once Zimmerman was released) decided that he would come forth with his find of these donations. O'Mara knew that eventually they would be found out and he wasn't going to come across as the bad guy and ruin his reputation.

When you look at some of the questions that were asked of Shellie by O'Mara, one has to know that they were rehearsed to a point with O'Mara doing the questioning of Shellie prior to that hearing.

In coming clean after, O'Mara probably thought that the judge would just let it ride, but when the judge revoked the bond it stunned O'Mara (you could see it all over his face). I don't believe that O'Mara had anticipated that. He may have thought by coming clean so soon that the judge would just over look it.

If the judge would have given Zimmerman a large bond it would have cleaned out that account and then it would have been discovered taht they did have money, but with coming up up a large bond would have made the court suspiscious of granting Zimmerman an indigent status. So they were caught between a hard rock and a stone. So they chose to lie.

And I do believe that O'Mara was in on this lie.

The one thing that I do not believe is that O'Mara had Zimmermans valid passport in his desk for a month without turning it in. He may very well have covered for his client at that point as not to make it a reason to revoke Zimmermans bond (which ended up being revoked anyway).

Somethings just don't meet the smell test for all concerned on Zimmermans side.

Gizmo711 wrote:The more I go over the bond hearing the more I feel suspect of it. O'Mara had the whole ordeal staged, he knew just what he was going to ask all that were present, he also knew that the brother was not going to be there. The Zimmermans had to have prepared themselves for this phone hearing. They have to be paid in advance and they also had to have someone at their home to swear them in. This was well planned in advance.

Also, there is no lawyer out here that asks a question without knowing what the answer is going to be. We all found Shellie to be evasive and not forthcoming. We all found it odd that the one person who "supposedly" had access to the money from donations, would not be there at his brothers bond hearing. So why wouldn't Zimmermans lawyer find this odd?

Stolat wrote:

Gizmo711 wrote:The more I go over the bond hearing the more I feel suspect of it. O'Mara had the whole ordeal staged, he knew just what he was going to ask all that were present, he also knew that the brother was not going to be there. The Zimmermans had to have prepared themselves for this phone hearing. They have to be paid in advance and they also had to have someone at their home to swear them in. This was well planned in advance.

Also, there is no lawyer out here that asks a question without knowing what the answer is going to be. We all found Shellie to be evasive and not forthcoming. We all found it odd that the one person who "supposedly" had access to the money from donations, would not be there at his brothers bond hearing. So why wouldn't Zimmermans lawyer find this odd?

During the hearing itself I found it immediately odd and kept asking "where's the brother???...where's the brother??? " it was painfully obvious he was strategically absent, coupled with the question of WHO was involved with the site/funds. I do NOT believe in coinkidinks in crimes. MOM only showed himself to either be deceitful or falling *drastically* short of his typical quality of competence.

It is my suspicion that we here are not the first to think these things and if it struck us as obviously odd -- it very likely struck Lester the same way as well, hence his stern revocation. The message sent that day was intended for more than just GZ. The message sent to MOM was clear: get your act together, get your client pulled together, and don't pull this crap in my courtroom again.