Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[This is The End]

I'm not sure why we are even discussing the file dates still.

I'm not trying to deny that Z revealed the passport to his attorney after the first bond hearing.

What is in question, and was supposedly "laughed out of court" by the judge is whether or not Z knew he had 2 before the first bond hearing:

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

The wife says the word "one". I wonder if Z implied the word "one" at the end of his response. If he had included the word "one" there it would be a sure thing that they were talking about 2.

We already know that he lost one of them twice. I'm not so sure they knew which was which at that point, original or replacement.

If they were talking about 2 different passports in that conversation, and if they were aware of it, they should have disclosed it at the first bond hearing.

Remember his lawyer said ""this is my client's current passport and only passport that he has". That was on 4/20/2002. The jailhouse conversation was on 4/17/2002.

Not: This is my client's current passport, and the only one he currently knows the location of. Which would be more precise.

Then again, Z prolly didn't tell his lawyer at the time. Which brings up the primrose path line again.

 

[Rare Truth]

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"
...

You understand there are specific Rules of Evidence...do you not?

Pay atention to Article X here, in regard to the commentary you just made/

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/

 

[This is The End]

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.

There's a difference when not accepting the file date as evidence when the evidence is strictly about a date!

The date was the evidence.

The other "mountains of dated paperwork" is almost never specifically dependent upon the date. Or if it is, it could be collaborated.

Forget it. Forget the file date. It only matters if we didn't believe Z released the 2nd passport after the first bond hearing. Refer to my previous post.

I was just shocked that file dates are still allowed as evidence.

 

[Rare Truth]

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.

The only thing I can say is: That is the most ridiculous thing I have read all week.

And that's saying a lot.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

You understand there are specific Rules of Evidence...do you not?

Pay atention to Article X here, in regard to the commentary you just made/

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/

Ooh boy, you referred to article X, that's really impressive. Why don't y'all inform us what commentary you think I just made and then quote the part of article X you want us to read, and how you think it relates to what you think my commentary was.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

The only thing I can say is: That is the most ridiculous thing I have read all week.

And that's saying a lot.

It's saying a lot, but far more about you than him.

 

[crimresearch]

The only thing I can say is: That is the most ridiculous thing I have read all week.

And that's saying a lot.

As ridiculous as you 'citing' the Federal Rules of Evidence in a state trial, without having a clue what they mean?

Nope. Have fun with your fantasy game playing, I'll stick to the real world thank you.

 

[Rare Truth]

Ooh boy, you referred to article X, that's really impressive. Why don't y'all inform us what commentary you think I just made and then quote the part of article X you want us to read, and how you think it relates to what you think my commentary was.

The smart ones here can figure it out.

If you can't, that's OK.

Nighty nites now.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

The smart ones here can figure it out.

If you can't, that's OK.

Nighty nites now.

That's what you call getting called on your bluff (mentioning article X to try and sound knowledgeable). So now you respond with BS ("the smart ones here can figure it out") because you got called on your bluff and can't actually make an argument.

 

[Rare Truth]

As ridiculous as you 'citing' the Federal Rules of Evidence in a state trial, without having a clue what they mean?

Nope. Have fun with your fantasy game playing, I'll stick to the real world thank you.

*yawn* oNe Last.

Florida State Rules of Evidence

Chapters 90 and 92 of Title VII of the Florida Statutes govern evidence admitted in Florida state courts. Like many other states, Florida has substantially adopted the FRE into its own rules of evidence. Under the Florida Statutes, the rules regarding admissibility of digital photographs are actually identical to the FRE.

http://www.ehow.com/list_6642974_federal-evidence-digital-cameras-florida.html

FRE. That's shorthand for Federal Rules of Evidence

Man. You strikin' out big time today.


*ouch*

sleep tite.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

*yawn* oNe Last.

Florida State Rules of Evidence

Chapters 90 and 92 of Title VII of the Florida Statutes govern evidence admitted in Florida state courts. Like many other states, Florida has substantially adopted the FRE into its own rules of evidence. Under the Florida Statutes, the rules regarding admissibility of digital photographs are actually identical to the FRE.

http://www.ehow.com/list_6642974_federal-evidence-digital-cameras-florida.html

FRE. That's shorthand for Federal Rules of Evidence

Man. You strikin' out big time today.


*ouch*

sleep tite.

Boy you really stuck it to him...except...oh wait, you didn't. Because I didn't see him say anything about whether Florida has adopted the same rules as the federal with regard to digital photographs. So you may think you have a big "gotcha" there, but as usual you came back empty.

 

[crimresearch]

*yawn* oNe Last.

Florida State Rules of Evidence

Chapters 90 and 92 of Title VII of the Florida Statutes govern evidence admitted in Florida state courts. Like many other states, Florida has substantially adopted the FRE into its own rules of evidence. Under the Florida Statutes, the rules regarding admissibility of digital photographs are actually identical to the FRE.

http://www.ehow.com/list_6642974_federal-evidence-digital-cameras-florida.html

FRE. That's shorthand for Federal Rules of Evidence

Man. You strikin' out big time today.


*ouch*

sleep tite.

By you proving that you don't have a clue about the law, but are willing to make up anything, no matter how ridiculous...?

OK, I'll be happy to let you claim as many internet game points as you want.

I'll just have to console myself with boring old facts and reality.

 

[This is The End]

I'm not trying to play any games. I noticed a claim that one of the 2 motions to revoke bond was supposedly "laughed out of court" by the judge.

I'm trying to analyze that first motion, the passport issue, to see exactly what they thought they had.

The jailhouse conversation can read either way.

That still doesn't excuse Z for not telling his attorney that there was a lost passport floating around before the first bond hearing.

Especially considering Z is the person who is basically the sole eye witness to the important part of the incident in question.

 

[Cylinder]

That still doesn't excuse Z for not telling his attorney that there was a lost passport floating around before the first bond hearing

Why would he do that? I mean, the order to surrender the passport was enetered at that hearing. It did not exist before then. Zimmerman self-reported both the money and the passport.

 

[Dcdrac]

George Zimmerman's bond revoked as judge rules he 'deceived' court

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/01/george-zimmerman-bond-revoked-trayvon-martin


I wander what else he has lied about?

George Zimmerman, the neighbourhood watch captain accused of murdering Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, had his bail revoked on Friday for "deceiving" a court over the amount of donations made to his defence fund.

Circuit judge Kenneth Lester Jr ordered that Zimmerman, 28, must turn himself in within 48 hours after hearing from prosecutors that the defendant and his wife Shellie had more than $135,000 available to them from donations to a PayPal account set up on his private website soon after his arrest in April for the shooting on 26 February.

 

[This is The End]

Why would he do that? I mean, the order to surrender the passport was enetered at that hearing. It did not exist before then. Zimmerman self-reported both the money and the passport.

Well, when the lawyer said "this is my client's current passport and only passport that he has" Z could have at least coughed a couple times.

 

[Dancing David]

I didn't write the article and please don't alter my posts. That's not what I posted.

And I made it clear I altered the post, did I not? I thought that was enough.
next time I will pull the quote from your tag.

 

[Cylinder]

Well, when the lawyer said "this is my client's current passport and only passport that he has" Z could have at least coughed a couple times.

 

[Dancing David]

Yep, and I hope to God they don't focus on irrelevant things like what the forensic evidences supports, who attacked who, who was getting beaten, who was screaming for help, whether GZ ever intended to get close to TM, or any other nonsense like that. Instead I hope they focus on the single relevant fact - "yo b*****, why'd you get outta da car?"

And that fact comes from where exactly?

 

[Dancing David]

I will hold the same attitude. However, it seems to me his original statements must have been consistent with the evidence because they didn't feel at that time there was reason to arrest him. Also, after the special prosecutor's investigation apparently unearthed an unsatisfactory initial investigation, there haven't been any repercussions to those negligent officers who were involved in that shoddy investigation.

This is silly spinning, you can conduct an initial investigation and make a decision, then a later decision can be made as more evidence is gathered and analyzed.

All without incompetence of shoddy investigation.