Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[quadraginta]

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

WordPerfect is alive and well, has been pumping out new versions steadily, and, it would seem, has a certain popularity in the legal community. Corel even caters specifically to that niche market.

Check out what wiki has to say about faithful customers.

(Who knew??? )

 

[Cylinder]

Zimmerman's defense does not rest on his credibility in the usual sense of the word. This case isn't even a he said/he said. This case isn't a nebulous I shot him from 10 feet because of a threatening gesture/word.

Zimmerman made a very specific set of claims. The physical evidence thus far has bore them out. These are facts beyond change. You can't really alter the fact that Zimmerman and a man ~20 feet away describe the event in the same manner down to very specific details like moving from concrete to grass. You're not going to get around the fact that Zimmerman was attacked in a way that has every hallmark of an ambush. You can't get around the fact that Zimmerman did not choose lethal force as the first option. The physical evidence and eyewitness testimony will tell the tale here.

 

[crimresearch]

Zimmerman's defense does not rest on his credibility in the usual sense of the word. This case isn't even a he said/he said. This case isn't a nebulous I shot him from 10 feet because of a threatening gesture/word.

Zimmerman made a very specific set of claims. The physical evidence thus far has bore them out. These are facts beyond change. You can't really alter the fact that Zimmerman and a man ~20 feet away describe the event in the same manner down to very specific details like moving from concrete to grass. You're not going to get around the fact that Zimmerman was attacked in a way that has every hallmark of an ambush. You can't get around the fact that Zimmerman did not choose lethal force as the first option. The physical evidence and eyewitness testimony will tell the tale here.

The prosecution can certainly try to attack Zimmerman's credibility, but again, there is that pesky 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' thingy... and mudslinging has been known to backfire.

Their proof looks a whole lot more 'inconsistent' than any of GZ's statements seen so far, so I'm still waiting to see what the state actually enters into evidence at trial.

 

[Dan O.]

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.

O'mera is claiming that his client turned that passport into him at an earlier date. Why even make that claim? If he had not notified the prosecution of the existence of the second passport that means the prosecution had discovered on their own that George still had a second passport and the one he turned in at the bond hearing was invalid. Since O'mera made the explicit claim to the court that this was his clients only passport, there should be an investigation into why O'mera was making that claim. It's possible that O'mera choose to head off that investigation with a little white fabrication to support a claim that his client had voluntarily surrendered the second passport before the prosecution brought up the issue. This fabrication will not be investigated. You yourself are arguing that it should not be investigated. Therefore there is no risk.

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.

What is the return. Apart from protecting his clients credibility in the trial itself, he is protecting the public's perception of his clients credibility. The public he would be concerned with are the ones making donations on his clients web site which goes directly into an account which he controls to be used for his client's defense. In other words, his client's reputation is money in his own pocket.

Zero risk to keep open a gravy train that neted $200K in a few weeks before the trial even started. That sounds like the expected benefits outweigh the expected costs.

Of course, this is all just speculation. Maybe George really did turn in that passport on his own.

 

[crimresearch]

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.

Except that of course, the judge will follow the law, in instructing the jury on whether or not they can use pretrial hearing issues as proof of guilt...

 

[Cylinder]

Florida 907.041(4)(h)

The defendant is entitled to be represented by counsel, to present witnesses and evidence, and to cross-examine witnesses. The court may admit relevant evidence without complying with the rules of evidence, but evidence secured in violation of the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Florida shall not be admissible. No testimony by the defendant shall be admissible to prove guilt at any other judicial proceeding, but such testimony may be admitted in an action for perjury, based upon the defendant’s statements made at the pretrial detention hearing, or for impeachment.

The state will probably get to visit the issue, but they shouldn't be able to go in to any depth, since it doesn't impeach any specific claim relevant to the case but rather his general honesty.

 

[Moss]

Zimmerman's defense does not rest on his credibility in the usual sense of the word. This case isn't even a he said/he said. This case isn't a nebulous I shot him from 10 feet because of a threatening gesture/word.

Zimmerman made a very specific set of claims. The physical evidence thus far has bore them out. These are facts beyond change. You can't really alter the fact that Zimmerman and a man ~20 feet away describe the event in the same manner down to very specific details like moving from concrete to grass. You're not going to get around the fact that Zimmerman was attacked in a way that has every hallmark of an ambush. You can't get around the fact that Zimmerman did not choose lethal force as the first option. The physical evidence and eyewitness testimony will tell the tale here.

Except that man saw only parts of the end of the encounter and the physical evidence could either be consistent with TM attacking GZ or TM trying to disable an attacking GZ. The only description of the most relevant part, namely who started the fight and how it started is that of the person most likely to have a motive to paint himself in a positive light.
I don't think it is as clear cut as many in this thread make it out to be.

 

[Unabogie]

Zimmerman's defense does not rest on his credibility in the usual sense of the word. This case isn't even a he said/he said. This case isn't a nebulous I shot him from 10 feet because of a threatening gesture/word.

Zimmerman made a very specific set of claims. The physical evidence thus far has bore them out. These are facts beyond change. You can't really alter the fact that Zimmerman and a man ~20 feet away describe the event in the same manner down to very specific details like moving from concrete to grass. You're not going to get around the fact that Zimmerman was attacked in a way that has every hallmark of an ambush. You can't get around the fact that Zimmerman did not choose lethal force as the first option. The physical evidence and eyewitness testimony will tell the tale here.

Except for the witness who was on the phone with Trayvon at the time, who heard them both speak to each other before any altercation took place. I'm not sure how that has the hallmark of an "ambush". Unless you believe the word of a proven liar, proven assaulter of a LEO, guy with a restraining order for assaulting his "ex-hoe", guy who laments that all Mexicans will come after him with knives, and a guy who has now perpetrated a material deception in his own trial.

You have to take his word as 100% truthful to get anywhere in this case.

Good luck with that.

 

[Unabogie]

There are a group of people around here who have come to accept everything Zimmerman says as if he's 100% honest. And you have to, in order to believe his tale of an unprovoked attack from a kid who had every reason to be where he was and was doing nothing wrong at the time of his death.

You have to have 100% faith that George Zimmerman would never lie to a court or to the police.

As I wrote in the other thread, good luck with that.

 

[GWCarver]

Correction

My apologies for the mistake, but here is a correction from the transcript I posted earlier. It was de la Rionda asking the questions, not O'Mara. Again, all mistakes are mine.


Bernie - Okay. And you mentioned also, in terms of the ability of your
husband to make a bond amount, that you all had no money, is that
correct?
Shelly - To my knowledge, that's correct.
Bernie - Okay. Were you aware of the website that Mr. Zimmerman or
somebody on his behalf created?
Shelly - I'm aware of that website.
Bernie - And how much money is in that website right now? How much
money as a result of that website was...
Shelly - Currently, I do not know.
Bernie - Who would know that?
Shelly - That would be my brother-in-law.
Bernie - And is he -- I know he's not in the same reoom as you, but is
he available so we can speak to him, too, or the Court can inquire
through the State or the...
(snip)
Shelly - I'm sure that we could probably get him on the phone.
Bernie - Okay. So he's not there now.
Shelly - No, he is not, sir.
Bernie - Do you have any estimate as to hom much money has already been
obtained or collected?
Shelly - I do not.
Bernie - Okay. You haven't talked to your brother-in-law in terms of
just bare amount of how much money?
Shelly - No. No, I have not.
Bernie - Okay. And how long has that website been in existence, ma'am?
Shelly - I do not know. I have not been with my husband since he's
been in hiding. I do not know.

 

[GWCarver]

Except for the witness who was on the phone with Trayvon at the time, who heard them both speak to each other before any altercation took place. I'm not sure how that has the hallmark of an "ambush". Unless you believe the word of a proven liar, proven assaulter of a LEO, guy with a restraining order for assaulting his "ex-hoe", guy who laments that all Mexicans will come after him with knives, and a guy who has now perpetrated a material deception in his own trial.

You have to take his word as 100% truthful to get anywhere in this case.

Good luck with that.

Make that "accused" of perpetrating a deception.

 

[Unabogie]

Make that "accused" of perpetrating a deception.

The judge granted the motion, therefore he perpetrated a deception. And the deception has been clear for weeks for anyone who saw that bond hearing and then heard a few days later about his $200k PayPal account.

In order to support George Zimmerman, you need to believe his word 100%. He needs to have credibility. This event: him hiding his more recent passport ("You hang on to that for me") and telling the court he had no money, is just devastating.

 

[GWCarver]

The judge granted the motion, therefore he perpetrated a deception. And the deception has been clear for weeks for anyone who saw that bond hearing and then heard a few days later about his $200k PayPal account.

In order to support George Zimmerman, you need to believe his word 100%. He needs to have credibility. This event: him hiding his more recent passport ("You hang on to that for me") and telling the court he had no money, is just devastating.

Don't be silly. The passport is a non-issue - the judge brushed it aside. I'm wondering why de la Rionda passed up an opportunity to talk to the brother-in-law Shelly said would have the answers. Instead, he just asked her more questions. Could he have been planning yesterday's surprise all the way back at the bond hearing? If that is true, they must have a really weak case.

The more I think about it, this could be like looking at the 7/11 tape released far and wide, only to find it was an incomplete picture. The Three Stooges were missing and there was no palming money, no TM pacing back and forth waiting for them to come out, no cigars... You know, the best parts.

There were four days between the last phone call and the bond hearing, and we have no idea what transpired between the brother-in -law, Shelly, and Zimmerman during that time. We don't know how much money was where, or its availability at the exact time Shelly was answering the questions. I'm looking forward to finding out.

 

[Unabogie]

Don't be silly. The passport is a non-issue - the judge brushed it aside. I'm wondering why de la Rionda passed up an opportunity to talk to the brother-in-law Shelly said would have the answers. Instead, he just asked her more questions. Could he have been planning yesterday's surprise all the way back at the bond hearing? If that is true, they must have a really weak case.

The more I think about it, this could be like looking at the 7/11 tape released far and wide, only to find it was an incomplete picture. The Three Stooges were missing and there was no palming money, no TM pacing back and forth waiting for them to come out, no cigars... You know, the best parts.

There were four days between the last phone call and the bond hearing, and we have no idea what transpired between the brother-in -law, Shelly, and Zimmerman during that time. We don't know how much money was where, or its availability at the exact time Shelly was answering the questions. I'm looking forward to finding out.

Well, in a case where his word is the only thing that we have to go on, Zimmerman just destroyed his own case.

But best of luck with watermelon lean and the 7/11 conspiracy. Especially since they found all those drugs on Trayvon's body.

Be sure to write O'Mara and make sure he includes that picture of Trayvon flipping the bird. I'm sure that will save George.

 

[casebro]

And other people believe the punk was as pure as the driven snow.

 

[Unabogie]

And other people believe the punk was as pure as the driven snow.

And still others believe your argument is made of straw.

 

[crimresearch]

The judge granted the motion, therefore he perpetrated a deception. And the deception has been clear for weeks for anyone who saw that bond hearing and then heard a few days later about his $200k PayPal account.

In order to support George Zimmerman, you need to believe his word 100%. He needs to have credibility. This event: him hiding his more recent passport ("You hang on to that for me") and telling the court he had no money, is just devastating.

Yeah, the passport issue was so 'devastating' that the judge denied the prosecution's motion on it.

That is a bit of reality that no amount of internet verbage is going to make go away.

But hey, here's his phone number, call him up and make him do it over again...
http://seminoleclerk.org/

Now Zimmerman gets a new hearing for a higher bond, at which time the judge will decide on his credibility on that specific issue, and that issue alone. He'll either pony up more money, or he'll sit in jail.

And no amount of internet wishful thinking is going to turn the judge into a whiny baby saying ' You told me a fib, so I'm going to get even with you by finding you guilty right now because I hate you!!'.

Come the criminal trial, (as pointed out repeatedly, and ignored) the prosecution can try to bring up that Zimmerman said he had a red truck when it was really a burgundy SUV, said he was 28 when he was really 28 and 7 months, said he weighed 210 when it was really 220, *and* that he told the court he had X amount of dollars when he had much more.

At which point the judge can rule on what is allowed, and the jury can decide what to consider.



Do you have anything that is either correct or useful?

 

[crimresearch]

Except for the witness who was on the phone with Trayvon at the time, who heard them both speak to each other before any altercation took place. I'm not sure how that has the hallmark of an "ambush". Unless you believe the word of a proven liar, proven assaulter of a LEO, guy with a restraining order for assaulting his "ex-hoe", guy who laments that all Mexicans will come after him with knives, and a guy who has now perpetrated a material deception in his own trial.

You have to take his word as 100% truthful to get anywhere in this case.

Good luck with that.

Except for the small matter, posted here over, and over, and over, that there is a Supreme Court ruling on whether or not such things can be allowed in as evidence of guilt.

But hey, if you ignore all the facts about the law, and replace them with internet gossip and fantasies, I'm sure the rest of the world will follow suit.

After all, they wouldn't want you to accuse them of being on the wrong 'team' just because they stuck to the facts, now would they?

 

[Unabogie]

Except for the small matter, posted here over, and over, and over, that there is a Supreme Court ruling on whether or not such things can be allowed in as evidence of guilt.

But hey, if you ignore all the facts about the law, and replace them with internet gossip and fantasies, I'm sure the rest of the world will follow suit.

After all, they wouldn't want you to accuse them of being on the wrong 'team' just because they stuck to the facts, now would they?

Who said anything about what would be allowed in court? Aside from your completely annoying habit of referring to things "posted over and over" while never including those links along with your whining (have you ever heard of a freaking bookmark?) we're talking about our own ability to ferret out the credibility of George Zimmerman, the guy who shot and killed a 17 year old.

The fact that rules of evidence could or would preclude the use of his history of violence is not germane to our ability to decide if the man is credible or not. I don't know if the judge will allow George's lie about his finances or his lie about his extra passport to come in as evidence. I do know that we're not jurors, so I can use those lies to demonstrate that George lies. He assaults. He posts racist rants against "Mexicans".

Therefore, I think his word is useless and that he's a creep.

 

[GWCarver]

Diwataman has come up with another gem. Look what de la Rionda left out of the bond hearing transcript presented to the judge yesterday - the part about Shelly saying she could get the brother-in-law on the phone to answer his questions. This guy is a real snake.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MpzBX9Q56Ws