Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[crimresearch]

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.

You've demonstrated no such ability.

You've made specific legal assertions, and when pressed for proof, you've demonstrated denial of facts (and especially of links that have been posted, followed by the 'memory hole' dodge), and you've demonstrated conclusions based on fantasies... neither of which accomplish anything except upping the post count.

 

[kedo1981]

And just think how many problems it would solve if Zimmerman gets iced in jail while awaiting trial.
No “expensive trial”, no “nearly impossible jury selection”, no “race riots perpetuated by Jesse Jackson” when he's found not guilty,

 

[Amazer]

Here is a more complete picture of Shelly's statement transcribed from the Treehouse. Any mistakes are mine.

O'Mara - 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.
O'Mara - Okay. Were you aware of the website that Mr. Zimmerman or
somebody on his behalf created?
Shelly - I'm aware of that website.
O'Mara - 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.
O'Mara - Who would know that?
Shelly - That would be my brother-in-law.
O'Mara - 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...

(snip)

Shelly - I'm sure that we could probably get him on the phone.
O'Mara - Okay. So he's not there now.
Shelly - No, he is not, sir.
O'Mara - Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been
obtained or collected?
Shelly - I do not.
O'Mara - 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.
O'Mara - 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.

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.

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

I'll confess that I'm somewhat confused. In the earlier transcript that bit about contacting the BIL hasn't been snipped. You yourself quoted it (see your post above).

And even if that bit was snipped from the transcript, it's still abundantly clear that Shelly lied under oath, as evidenced by the article that KatieG linked to.

 

[johnny karate]

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

What motion was denied?

 

[johnny karate]

Make that "accused" of perpetrating a deception.

Is that like Martin was "accused" of having a "burglary tool"?

Oh, that's right... I forgot we hold Zimmerman to a different standard of evidence.

When a judge refers to what Zimmerman's wife did as a "material falsehood" and revokes his bond because of it... well, we can't really know what happened until we have all the facts.

However, with Martin, screwdrivers become burglary tools, and Skittles and fruit drinks becomes ingredients for some kind of drug cocktail. No further evidence required.

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.

And how convenient it was for the prosecution to have Zimmerman and his wife play right into their hands by lying to the court about the money.

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.

Zimmerman's wife flat-out denied the existence of the money, and knowing about it. So unless "what transpired' involved some kind of hypnosis or memory-erasing drug, I'm not sure what you think it could be that would mitigate such a willful deception.

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.

Yes, clearly de la Rionda is the snake. Not the woman who lied under oath, or the man she colluded with to do it.

 

[Dan O.]

In the bond hearing, isn't it the duty of the defense to present their case when they are the ones that are making the claim that they have no money. Why is it suddenly the prosecutors fault for not waterboarding the brother in law to get to the truth?

 

[Dan O.]

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

Is it being a snake to have left out that the brother in law was not in a location where he could be sworn in so his testimony could not have been heard by the court?

 

[EdG]

Is it being a snake to have left out that the brother in law was not in a location where he could be sworn in so his testimony could not have been heard by the court?

It is if you're a novitiate in The Church of Gun Woo. Mustn't bother them with pesky "facts" and "truth". You'll shatter their belief system and trigger psychological meltdowns.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It is if you're a novitiate in The Church of Gun Woo. Mustn't bother them with pesky "facts" and "truth". You'll shatter their belief system and trigger psychological meltdowns.

Really, so far, it appears that those pesky facts and truth have borne out GZs assertion that he shot TM in self defense.

That seems to leave the bond hearing to allow those who have already determined GZ guilty to jump up and down with glee that they can call GZ and his wife liars.

If the state wants to prosecute either GZ or his wife for perjury or whatever else they may be able to based on the first bond hearing, I assume they would have already done so. It seemed Judge Lester shared that thought as well.

I guess we'll see. Again, I don't think they will, and I think you'll see GZ out again on a higher bond within the next few weeks.

 

[Kaosium]

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

It makes the judge suspect. Have you ever heard of someone being punished because they were sent money by supporters? Facing potential liabilities of a million dollars or more for legal and other expenses, that money sent to him doesn't make it so he's not indigent. Let's say he'd put down a figure for money sent by supporters, a few days later it goes to court and by then the amount is much higher due to additional contributions, would that mean he's still 'lying?'

It looks like the prosecution doesn't have a case so they have to manufacture one with crap like this. It has nothing to do with what happened that night whatsoever.

 

[lionking]

Zimmerman.Liar.

 

[GWCarver]

Is it being a snake to have left out that the brother in law was not in a location where he could be sworn in so his testimony could not have been heard by the court?

Go back and read the transcript. Bernie asks if the brother-in-law is in a location where they can speak to him. Shelly says she is pretty sure she can get him on the phone. Bernie starts asking her questions again after stating some mumbo jumbo to CYA. To me, that means he really didn't care about the truth. Caring about the truth is supposed to be his job. Instead...

Yesterday, Bernie presents a transcript to the judge with the conversation about the brother-in-law removed - the exact part where Shelly tells him how she can help him get the answers he is seeking. The prosecutors clearly didn't want the judge to see that part of the transcript.

 

[Dancing David]

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?

No

 

[Amazer]

Go back and read the transcript. Bernie asks if the brother-in-law is in a location where they can speak to him. Shelly says she is pretty sure she can get him on the phone. Bernie starts asking her questions again after stating some mumbo jumbo to CYA. To me, that means he really didn't care about the truth. Caring about the truth is supposed to be his job. Instead...

I have a nagging suspicion that Bernie's contract has no clause that stipulates that caring about the truth is his job.... but I could be wrong. Doubtlessly you will be so kind as to provide us with the precise job description of Bernie?

Yesterday, Bernie presents a transcript to the judge with the conversation about the brother-in-law removed - the exact part where Shelly tells him how she can help him get the answers he is seeking. The prosecutors clearly didn't want the judge to see that part of the transcript.

Because it isn't relevant to what transpired during the bail hearing perhaps? From the recorded conversation between Shelly and GZ while he was in jail it's clear that she is aware of the approximate amount of money that was available on those accounts and she flat out denied any knowledge of it. The offer to contact a third party who has that information also doesn't change the fact that she lied about what she knew.

 

[Korren]

It makes the judge suspect. Have you ever heard of someone being punished because they were sent money by supporters?

He is not being punished. He has simply had his bail revoked, because the court discovered that some of the premises he had been granted bail under didn't hold. A suspect's finances is a routine factor when bail is considered.

It has nothing to do with what happened that night whatsoever.

This much is true.

 

[GWCarver]

I have a nagging suspicion that Bernie's contract has no clause that stipulates that caring about the truth is his job.... but I could be wrong. Doubtlessly you will be so kind as to provide us with the precise job description of Bernie?

"The Supreme Court has defined our role on numerous occasions as prosecutors that we are not only ministers of justice, we are seekers of the truth."

-Angela Corey

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june12/trayvonmartin_04-11.html

 

[Amazer]

"The Supreme Court has defined our role on numerous occasions as prosecutors that we are not only ministers of justice, we are seekers of the truth."

-Angela Corey

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june12/trayvonmartin_04-11.html

My guess is that you're reading that a little too broadly.

 

[IMST]

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

Not that it's relevant to the case, but I'm not aware of any evidence that the victim here wasn't a good kid. And it's notable that there's been a bunch of photos falsely claimed to be him. Should there really be evidence to make their point, it seems suspicious that people would instead fake it.

 

[This is The End]

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

I asked you this already but, is there no doubt in your mind at all that the judge did not make a mistake on the passport issue?

From the evidence presented to the judge it sure sounds like:

#1: Possibly Z knew where both passports were, at least generally.

#2: and definitely Z knew there were 2, even if one was lost, so when his lawyer said "this is my client's current passport and only passport that he has" Z definitely knew different. He just sat there like a potted palm and let his lawyer lead the judge down the primrose path. Exactly like the judge said he did with the PayPal issue.

In light of #2, and possibly #1, I am not so sure why you are 100% certain that the judge did not miss something on the issue of the passport.

I, for one, do not assume that anyone is beyond mistake if they are human. Even if they are on the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

[This is The End]

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?

Using that same logic, then anything that could be easily fabricated should be allowed as evidence.

Lawyers potentially throwing their careers away is not the reason they have standards for evidence.

I actually spent an hour reading the link RT posted yesterday and it seems to back that up.

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

They didn't write all those just so lawyers wouldn't potentially throw their careers away! There are real reasons behind each and every one of them.

Remember, we're talking about when the file date is used as specific evidence of creation time, not just normal documentary evidence that is in file form.

It's weird that we're even still talking about file dates. No one is trying to claim that Z didn't turn his 2nd passport in after the first bond hearing.

I just saw that the file creation date was so readily accepted and was shocked.

See my previous post for the real issue with the passports.