Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Mumbles]

Well, let's just say he didn't look 6'3" (his height according to his mother) in the picture that was circulated by the media for weeks, even by Fox News. (You know, the one that tricked the President.) So, I would say there was some major deception on the part of Crump and his media campaign, regardless of how old he was when the picture was taken.

I believe a blatant deception took place and is still taking place on the part of Crump and Sharpton and also TM's family, specifically his father. And I sincerely hope the people who are buying into this never find themselves at the wrong end of this kind of deception.

so...do either one of you have any actual evidence of any deception? You know, a memo from Crump or anyone saying, "be sure to only use the photo of him as a kid"? Because the photo I posted, is the one that was used in the vast majority of protests surrounding this case, including the protests that the family attended, for the obvious reason that it was closest to his appearance when he was shot.

Or for that matter, any evidence that the pro-Martin folks (or the president) were somehow "tricked"?

 

[GWCarver]

so...do either one of you have any actual evidence of any deception? You know, a memo from Crump or anyone saying, "be sure to only use the photo of him as a kid"? Because the photo I posted, is the one that was used in the vast majority of protests surrounding this case, including the protests that the family attended, for the obvious reason that it was closest to his appearance when he was shot.

Or for that matter, any evidence that the pro-Martin folks (or the president) were somehow "tricked"?

Well, I just put this link up, but here it is again. I doubt if there is one person in America, including you, who would think that if Obama saw this picture instead of the one Crump was shopping around, he would have said if he had a son, he would look like this:

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/did-trayvon-martin-referee-school-fights

 

[Mumbles]

Would you like a link to real pictures that some might think makes TM look like a thug? Here's one:

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/did-trayvon-martin-referee-school-fights

Sorry, but again, posting pictures of yourself at home giving the finger to your webcam, with cheap gold fronts, is hardly the sign of a thug. And in any case, his gold fronts were not recovered, meaning that he was not wearing them at the time Zimmerman decided that he was "suspicious".

 

[GWCarver]

Sorry, but again, posting pictures of yourself at home giving the finger to your webcam, with cheap gold fronts, is hardly the sign of a thug. And in any case, his gold fronts were not recovered, meaning that he was not wearing them at the time Zimmerman decided that he was "suspicious".

He looked like the guy in the 7/11 video, and one could argue the clerk viewed him as suspicious. He certainly kept an eye on him.

 

[crimresearch]

From the Orlando Sentinel

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...601_1_bond-issue-scott-ponce-george-zimmerman

Six weeks after he ordered murder suspect George Zimmerman released on bail, a judge on Friday ordered him locked up again, stopping just short of calling the defendant and his wife liars.

The issue was money: At a bond hearing April 20, Shellie Zimmerman, the defendant's wife, had testified under oath that the couple didn't have any savings when, in reality, they had more than $135,000, with more flooding in from supporters who were making contributions via a website Zimmerman set up.


"I don't know what other word to use," said prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda. "They lied."

He called their acts "an egregious violation of the law."

He had made the same allegation before, at a hearing April 27, and the judge had brushed it aside, but this time the prosecutor had tangible proof: Transcripts of several telephone calls between Zimmerman and his wife while Zimmerman was locked up at the Seminole County Jail.

In them, the couple talk about their finances and transferring money between accounts. During one call April 16, shortly after Shellie Zimmerman had left a credit union, they talked about using that money to post his bail.

"That's what it's for," she told him, according to a portion of the transcript cited by de la Rionda.

Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester Jr. was clearly unhappy.

There was no doubt in his mind, he said, that both George and Shellie Zimmerman knew they had access to pile of money. They were spending it, transferring it and talking about it on a recorded jail phone line.

"They were well aware of the amounts available," the judge said.

And they couldn't put it in the papers if it wasn't true...

 

[crimresearch]

I know Crim says the judge laughed the passport business out of court, but could someone clear this up.

------------------------

It appears that at the bond hearing there was only one passport claimed.

"this is my client's current passport and only passport that he has"

That was 4/20/2012

Yet the jailhouse call (4/17/2002) appears to discuss two passports, or else it is just confusing:

Z: Do you know what? I think my passport is in that bag.

Z's Wife: I have one for you in saftey deposit box...

Z: OK, you hold onto that.

Z's Wife: For you...


It sounds like Z knew where the Replacement one was, which Cylinder says he found when packing after the bond hearing.

----------------

Here's something else that is a bit weird.

2002 - Original Passport Obtained

2004 - Replacement Passport Obtained - Original is claimed as lost or stolen

Yet, at the bond hearing the 2002 Original Passport is the one that is produced...

So at some point he lost the Replacement, and found the Original.


ETA: All of the above is from the motion to revoke bond.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/95593851/State-v-Zimmerman-Motion-to-revoke-bond

And the prosecution lost that motion because the judge didn't buy their claims, and he accepted the defense's reasonable explanation.

No amount of rehashing or second guessing is going to produce a different outcome.

 

[crimresearch]

Bolding mine:




I can't believe that continues to fly with judges.

You can change the file dates with about two clicks if you have the right software. Easily obtainable, easy to use, and completely free.

All three are easily changed. Date Created. Date Modified. Date Accessed.

To use them for evidence of something is insane.

Even if the judge trusts the person who's computer it was. That doesn't mean the computer wasn't compromised.

And you expect that an officer of the court is going to throw away his entire career pulling something like that over something as simple as bond?

 

[johnny karate]

And the prosecution lost that motion because the judge didn't buy their claims, and he accepted the defense's reasonable explanation.

Not unless there was some other, second motion not being mentioned in any of the media reports.

The prosecution filed a motion to have Zimmerman's bail revoked.

Zimmerman's bail was revoked.

The prosecution won the motion.

 

[crimresearch]

No, I'm laughing because you actually took many posts to attempt to point out I 'butchered a quote'...at one point saying I made it up...and because I posted directly what I thought I heard from the hearing...and had not been in print yet -- It's this big cause of concern for you - when my error was the difference between this:

Me: "Does your client get to sit there like a potted plant and lead us down the primrose path????"

Judge: "Does your client get to sit there like a potted palm and let you lead me down the primrose path?"

Yeah, that's laughable. And very funny *this* is where you chose to shoot your arrows. lol.

The reality that those are 2 different statements which have a significantly different meaning because of the fabrication you made, seems lost on you... even after it has been spelled out.

So if you want to post smiley faces instead of dealing in the facts as presented... be my guest.

 

[This is The End]

And you expect that an officer of the court is going to throw away his entire career pulling something like that over something as simple as bond?

What in the world does that have to do with it being valid evidence???

You're basically saying: "Defense attorneys would never do anything fraudulent, so why not let them use evidence that is easily fabricated".

File dates should not be accepted into evidence for any reason. It's just common sense.

It's no different than accepting a hand written piece of paper that has a hand written date on it.

Actually, it would probably be possible to tell how long ago ink was written. With computer file dates, not so much...

 

[This is The End]

And the prosecution lost that motion because the judge didn't buy their claims, and he accepted the defense's reasonable explanation.

No amount of rehashing or second guessing is going to produce a different outcome.

Are you saying that jail house call sounds like they are discussing 1 or 2 passports?

 

[GWCarver]

What in the world does that have to do with it being valid evidence???

You're basically saying: "Defense attorneys would never do anything fraudulent, so why not let them use evidence that is easily fabricated".

File dates should not be accepted into evidence for any reason. It's just common sense.

It's no different than accepting a hand written piece of paper that has a hand written date on it.

Actually, it would probably be possible to tell how long ago ink was written. With computer file dates, not so much...

The judge accepted the transcripts from de la Rionda, which could have easily been fabricated. He accepted the file date from O'Mara. I think it is simply a matter of trust. He trusts they know what would happen if they tried to pull a fast one on him. As we saw today, he acts swiftly and surely to things like that.

 

[This is The End]

And they couldn't put it in the papers if it wasn't true...

We agree that the media often distort the truth.

Would you also agree that lawyers distort the truth sometimes too?

We agree that the media often makes mistakes.

Would you also agree that lawyers make mistakes sometimes too?

What about judges?

 

[This is The End]

The judge accepted the transcripts from de la Rionda, which could have easily been fabricated. He accepted the file date from O'Mara. I think it is simply a matter of trust. He trusts they know what would happen if they tried to pull a fast one on him. As we saw today, he acts swiftly and surely to things like that.

I don't care if it's the judges mother that gave him the file dates!

Trust is not the issue.

Computer file dates should not be anywhere near a courtroom as evidence.

 

[crimresearch]

What in the world does that have to do with it being valid evidence???

You're basically saying: "Defense attorneys would never do anything fraudulent, so why not let them use evidence that is easily fabricated".

File dates should not be accepted into evidence for any reason. It's just common sense.

It's no different than accepting a hand written piece of paper that has a hand written date on it.

Actually, it would probably be possible to tell how long ago ink was written. With computer file dates, not so much...

If you need to believe that O'Mara went to the trouble of deliberately falsifying his computer, and committing perjury in order to get one part of a bond motion dismissed, you might want to start a thread on that exact topic in CT.

For myself, I'm going to stick to the real world... and I'm not going to take anything you say seriously from here on out.

 

[This is The End]

The reality that those are 2 different statements which have a significantly different meaning because of the fabrication you made, seems lost on you... even after it has been spelled out.

So if you want to post smiley faces instead of dealing in the facts as presented... be my guest.

Well, I assume you aren't saying that the change from a plant, to a specific plant, a palm, is the change you are discussing. Because that would be silly.

Therefore all that is left is it changes from Z leading us, to Z letting his lawyer lead me (the judge).

That's not much of a difference. It's arguably almost the same meaning.

I'm not sure why you are saying they have a "significantly different meaning"???

Quite close actually, considering RT was saying the line from memory!

Me: "Does your client get to sit there like a potted plant and lead us down the primrose path????"

Judge: "Does your client get to sit there like a potted palm and let you lead me down the primrose path?"

Either way, it's a very funny line.

 

[This is The End]

If you need to believe that O'Mara went to the trouble of deliberately falsifying his computer, and committing perjury in order to get one part of a bond motion dismissed, you might want to start a thread on that exact topic in CT.

For myself, I'm going to stick to the real world... and I'm not going to take anything you say seriously from here on out.

I'm not sure if you are having a bit of trouble reading tonight or what.

That is what you have been saying. Very weird that after being told that is not what I said already, you claim it again!

I have been saying, repeatedly now, that it doesn't matter at all if we are to trust someone. It has no business being used at all. Period.

You are basically saying the equivalent of: We trust O'Mara, therefore we should allow him to use lie detectors as evidence.

 

[johnny karate]

If you need to believe that O'Mara went to the trouble of deliberately falsifying his computer, and committing perjury in order to get one part of a bond motion dismissed...

You keep saying that. What part of the bond motion was dismissed? What motion did the prosecution lose?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

File dates should not be accepted into evidence for any reason. It's just common sense.

It's no different than accepting a hand written piece of paper that has a hand written date on it.

1. Appeals to "common sense" are usually flawed.

2. Following your reasoning anything that could be altered or falsified should evidently not be allowed into evidence. Heck, a photo could be photoshopped, so it should "not be accepted into evidence for any reason". A will could be falsified or have the date altered. A time stamp on a contract could have been put there after the fact.

Yes, all of those could happen, but you don't rule them out merely for that reason.

Like many before you, you have revealed "common sense" to not make much sense after all.

 

[GWCarver]

I don't care if it's the judges mother that gave him the file dates!

Trust is not the issue.

Computer file dates should not be anywhere near a courtroom as evidence.

How would that be possible? Mountains of dated paperwork are involved in every prosecution, and there are a lot of prosecutions. The numbers are mind-boggling. There is no possible way to independently verify every sheet of paper to check and see if the date is accurate. I think it would be safe to say that in today's world, all of the documents are dated by computers and printed out. And, as you say, it is easy to change the date on a computer, but there isn't much that can be done about it. That is where trust comes in. If the judge feels something is hinky, he could ask for a forensic examination of the source computer. At least I think he could.

I was surprised that O'Mara was using Word Perfect. I thought that was gone.