Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Cylinder]

And that fact comes from where exactly?

Edit: Whoops, miread your comment...disregard.

 

[Dancing David]

Probably just raise his bail and be out again shortly.

Kind of a silly exercise, but they have to play the games, I guess.

A judge following SOP is playing games, okay.

 

[Dancing David]

Any idea what the possible impact might be on the main trial?

Low to zero, would be my guess.

 

[Dancing David]

Hmm....considering how we started this case thinking that a gun toting racist had chased down a 12-year old kid and then shot him in cold blood, and the racist police department let him off because his Dad was a judge, only to learn that there was a teensie weensie more to it than that, yes, I think I'd like to hear a little more about this than what the prosecution has to say about it.

We started this with my OP care to show that in the OP?

 

[Dancing David]

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".

Excuse me, are you a professional with a professional career that has data thrown in the spot light and the court has the ability to subpoena you computer and your files?

Would YOU do that, is that the level of your ethics, knowing that everything you do is going to be examined and you can loose your job and never work again?

I won't install unlicensed software at work, the consequence is too high, I won't reveal all the confidential and personal data that I read on people desktops. Because I have no reason to, what motive outweighs the consequences here?

 

[Dancing David]

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

Trust is not the issue.

trust is exactly the issue, why would a lawyer throw away their career for this?

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

Really? What does it cost to go to law school? How much income is lost by being disbarred? What evidence do YOU have they are fabricated?

 

[Moss]

Given the amount of metadata embedded in files today falsifying them seems to be a rather steep slope to take. Either that or I imagined the forensic computer science presentation a friend of mine working for the Federal Criminal Police Office did a few weeks ago.

 

[Dan O.]

trust is exactly the issue, why would a lawyer throw away their career for this?


Really? What does it cost to go to law school? How much income is lost by being disbarred? What evidence do YOU have they are fabricated?

You should complete the cost-benefit analysis: What is gained by fabricating this evidence? What is the probability that it will be investigated?



If the probability for an investigation is esentually zero, the cost will be zero regardless of the possible penalty. For issues like this, there should be a non-zero probability that it will be investigated just like a random IRS audit that keeps tax payers honest.

 

[Beerina]

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

No it isn't. The most ridiculous thing you have read all week is the CDC pointing out it is not aware of any looming health issues in response to the innumerate zombie-like attacks the past few days.

 

[quadraginta]

You should complete the cost-benefit analysis: What is gained by fabricating this evidence? What is the probability that it will be investigated?



If the probability for an investigation is esentually zero, the cost will be zero regardless of the possible penalty. For issues like this, there should be a non-zero probability that it will be investigated just like a random IRS audit that keeps tax payers honest.

On the benefit side, what's in it for the lawyer? Risking disbarment and possibly a jail term of his own just to keep a defendant on the street. It's no skin off his nose where Z spends his time until the trial. Chances are good that the bond would simply be renegotiated to a higher level anyway.

It isn't going to make any significant difference to the case itself. Why would he even attempt a stunt with such potentially disastrous consequences to him personally? Even if he is the sort to compromise his professional ethics to that degree I can't see him doing it for such a small return on the risk.

 

[Dcdrac]

Surely this makes his testimony suspect? he has lied about money he could have used for bail why on earth do that?

 

[BenBurch]

Indeed, once we have an under-oath lie or two, a witness can be impeached with that quite easily.

This means he will not be testifying at his own trial.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Any idea what the possible impact might be on the main trial?

I think it will destroy Zimmerman's credibility. He essentially got caught flagrantly lying to a judge under oath. Jurors will certainly be more likely to doubt his account of the confrontation and killing.

In fact, I suspect his lawyer will begin suggesting he take a plea bargain if any is offered.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Indeed, once we have an under-oath lie or two, a witness can be impeached with that quite easily.

This means he will not be testifying at his own trial.

And the case is essentially a he said/she said (between Zimmerman's and Trayvon's girlfriend's accounts of the confrontation). (From what I've seen, the physical evidence doesn't rule out either account.) So this should pretty well destroy Zimmerman's defense.

I'm wondering now if it will even go to trial. He might get a plea deal.

And here's my thinking on this: if events were as Zimmerman said, then why would he risk his defense by lying about the money and passport? (It really looks as if he were planning to flee, or at least trying to keep that option open.) That lie really should cast doubt on his account of the confrontation, IMO.

 

[Beerina]

OJ had a passport and lots of money and looked like he might flee, but he was completely innocent.

Don't judge, haters!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

OJ had a passport and lots of money and looked like he might flee, but he was completely innocent.

I'll cede you that. Zimmerman is at least as innocent as OJ!

(FWIW, OJ did flee. Just slowly, and very publicly until his friend talked him into surrendering. His was more of a flight to contemplate suicide than anything else, I think.)

 

[bookworm]

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.

Yes, you're right. In THIS case, however, wasn't the common understanding that nothing was being investigated and the special prosecutor had to come in and do an investigation because people were in an uproar over the way the initial investigators just let Zimmerman go free?

 

[Moss]

I think it will destroy Zimmerman's credibility. He essentially got caught flagrantly lying to a judge under oath. Jurors will certainly be more likely to doubt his account of the confrontation and killing.

In fact, I suspect his lawyer will begin suggesting he take a plea bargain if any is offered.

While I'm not sure how far we should trust GZ's testimony regarding the evening of the killing I'm also not quite sure if lying about money is in the same category as lying about how you ended up killing someone else. Quite frankly that seems like two entirely different categories.

 

[Noztradamus]

Given the amount of metadata embedded in files today falsifying them seems to be a rather steep slope to take. Either that or I imagined the forensic computer science presentation a friend of mine working for the Federal Criminal Police Office did a few weeks ago.

So, create the files in a really old program like Word Perfect.

 

[quadraginta]

While I'm not sure how far we should trust GZ's testimony regarding the evening of the killing I'm also not quite sure if lying about money is in the same category as lying about how you ended up killing someone else. Quite frankly that seems like two entirely different categories.

If, for the sake of discussion, we accept this (although both lies seem to me to fall into the category of lying for personal gain), what do you conclude from the distinction, that Z would be more likely to lie when the reward is comparatively trivial (hanging on to money which was gifted to him for his legal problems instead of spending it on his legal problems) than he would be when the stakes are his long-term freedom?

Or would it be the other way 'round?