Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Amazer]

One has nothing to do with the other. I am waiting for all of the information to come out, which I expect it will at the next hearing, to determine what if any lies were told. That's not the issue. The issue is an officer of the court purposely editing a recording to leave out highly relevant information. You can excuse it away all you want by claiming the brother in law wasn't there, that it wasn't relevant etc., but no remotely ethical prosecutor or defense attorney would edit a recording like that.

Convictions have been overturned on this type of thing, when prosecutors have played parts of recordings for a jury to hear while omitting other parts that they purposely excluded that changed the meaning of what they included.

Except that in this case it does not change the meaning of what they included.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Except that in this case it does not change the meaning of what they included.

I have not been able to listen to the court hearing yet so perhaps you are right. I look forward to the next one and I hope they are vigorously questioned and then I think we'll have more information to determine what happened.

 

[This is The End]

Except that in this case it does not change the meaning of what they included.

I'm not exactly seeing why it was relevant either.

It should have been included because, even though she lied, she offered the name of someone who perhaps wouldn't lie???

Is that what people are seriously saying?

For all we know, the brother-in-law would have said nothing about the PayPal money as well.

 

[This is The End]

It's not specifically that "lies were told" by Z. He didn't even speak except for that statement he made to M's mom.

We can even forget about the lies Z's wife told under oath.

What mattered was the fact that Z let his lawyer say things that Z knew were false about the money and about the passports.

Which is why the judge said the line of the year.... (yes, it's not just the line of the day anymore )

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

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

It should have been included because, even though she lied, she offered the name of someone who perhaps wouldn't lie???

Is that what people are seriously saying?

Nope. Are you seriously suggesting they are? Nice strawman.

For all we know, the brother-in-law would have said nothing about the PayPal money as well.

 

[johnny karate]

Nope. Are you seriously suggesting they are? Nice strawman.

Then of what importance was the testimony regarding the brother-in-law?

And how does that mitigate the lies told by Zimmerman's wife?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Just to be clear, while I'm going to wait until the next hearing here before establishing an opinion on what happened with regard to the bond hearing, if GZ (I don't really care about his wife or anyone else) knowingly misled the court, I find it outrageous, beyond idiotic, and it'll absolutely make me less likely to believe him on other fronts.

 

[This is The End]

Talking about the brother-in-law bit being snipped from that conversation is about as important as talking about file dates with the passports.

It's a far cry from the meat of the 2 motions for revoking bond. Little more than a distraction.

 

[KatieG]

Just to be clear, while I'm going to wait until the next hearing here before establishing an opinion on what happened with regard to the bond hearing, if GZ (I don't really care about his wife or anyone else) knowingly misled the court, I find it outrageous, beyond idiotic, and it'll absolutely make me less likely to believe him on other fronts.

Did you read the state's motion to revoke and the transcripts of the bond hearing Friday yet? Not bein' a smart azz, just asking. If you read the motion and then the testimony of the credit union people, along with the conversations between GZ and SZ, it makes more sense, at least it did to me.

The is the transcript (not final) of M'OM appearing on Anderson 360 Friday night:

Part of it here:

COOPER: Does -- I mean, does he admit that he tried to mislead the court or does he say he tried to mislead the court?

O'MARA: Well, there's no question that they knew about the money, and actually in a previous correspondence to the judge, we had acknowledged that. The question of whether or not they presented it properly, I think it was somewhat misleading to the court. I have gone over that with George. I think you need to realize that we're still talking about a 28-year-old who, you know, is being charged with a crime he does not believe he committed. And his whole life has been turned upside-down. So I think it all needs to be kept in context.

COOPER: The prosecutor, though, is saying that he and his wife had phone conversations that they knew were likely being recorded because he was in prison at the time, and that she was actually at the bank where the PayPal account was and that they were talking in code, which -- which seems to -- is relatively sophisticated, if that's true.

O'MARA: Well, the code that they were using, to the extent that they were using a code, if you read the transcripts, if they were talking about $180,000, they were talking about $18 or $90 was $9, so I don't think that it was a particularly sophisticated code that they were using.

Secret Squirrel type spies, these two.

For all of you wondering how GZ could have known how much was in his paypal account, your question is answered.

 

[Noztradamus]

I don't know that anyone said he wasn't a "good kid". I mean, people have pointed out that he:
Attacked GZ,
Attacked a bus driver,
Possessed stolen jewelery,
Had a burglary tool,
Had been taking drugs,
was suspended 3 times in the last 6 months.

But I don't think that anyone has gone so far as to say he wasn't a "good kid".

A few "alleged"s seem missing there. Feel free to add them.

 

[Dancing David]

No? Well, what would you say is the reason the black community was protesting?

Your statements are often over broad and hyperbolic.

"the common understanding" is what you said.

 

[Dancing David]

I was talking about the media portrayal, not this thread.

"the common understanding", is not what some yahoos say in the media.

Maybe you could make these statements clearly the first time.

 

[GWCarver]

Yeah that would be wow, just wow... Except for the nasty fact that the brother in law was in a location where there was no notary to swear him in...

Do you have a source for this? The last I heard, de la Rionda asked Shelly if she could get in touch with him, she said she could probably get him on the phone, and de la Rionda made no effort to contact him to find out where he was located. That would mean the brother-in-law's proximity to the undisclosed location or the courthouse was unknown to de la Rionda. Ditto for his proximity to a notary.

 

[johnny karate]

O'MARA: I think you need to realize that we're still talking about a 28-year-old who, you know, is being charged with a crime he does not believe he committed. And his whole life has been turned upside-down. So I think it all needs to be kept in context.

Oh man... there isn't an eye-rolling emoticon big enough for that whopper.

O'MARA: Well, the code that they were using, to the extent that they were using a code, if you read the transcripts, if they were talking about $180,000, they were talking about $18 or $90 was $9, so I don't think that it was a particularly sophisticated code that they were using.

Secret Squirrel type spies, these two.

Yeah, I have to wonder how "Well, it was a stupid and easily-deciphered code" becomes a defense. Zimmerman and his wife knew their conversations were being recorded. Clearly, they were trying to refer to the money in oblique terms. That the deception was transparent doesn't make it any less of a deception.

O'Mara needs to stop talking to the media. He's only making his weaselly client look more like a weasel, and making himself look like a weasel by defending him.

 

[johnny karate]

Do you have a source for this? The last I heard, de la Rionda asked Shelly if she could get in touch with him, she said she could probably get him on the phone, and de la Rionda made no effort to contact him to find out where he was located. That would mean the brother-in-law's proximity to the undisclosed location or the courthouse was unknown to de la Rionda. Ditto for his proximity to a notary.

And once again... none of this is of any relevance or importance.

Zimmerman's wife lied on the stand, and most likely colluded with her husband to deceive the court.

No red herring about the brother-in-law changes that.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So did he turn himself in yesterday? I only read that the deadline was some time on Saturday, but I haven't heard whether or not he complied.

 

[crimresearch]

So did he turn himself in yesterday? I only read that the deadline was some time on Saturday, but I haven't heard whether or not he complied.

How does 48 hours from the judge's ruling on Friday end on Saturday?

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/Judge-...urn-Himself-in-Within-48-hours-156350675.html

 

[johnny karate]

So did he turn himself in yesterday? I only read that the deadline was some time on Saturday, but I haven't heard whether or not he complied.

Apparently, O'Mara's website has indicated Zimmerman is back in Florida. He has until 2:30 PM local time to report back to jail.

Edit: Link

 

[GWCarver]

Talking about the brother-in-law bit being snipped from that conversation is about as important as talking about file dates with the passports.

It's a far cry from the meat of the 2 motions for revoking bond. Little more than a distraction.

The motion with regard to his passport was denied. The judge clearly disagrees with your reasoning on file dates.

Recall that three people were fired from NBC for editing a transcript in order to present the impression that Z was a racist. They did that because those employees were intentionally misleading the public.

In Florida, the transcript presented to the judge is available to the public, so removing testimony without documenting it with a notation of some sort would be misleading both the court and the public.

I would say the bond hearing transcript was edited (with nothing to indicate anything had been excised) in order to give the impression that Z's wife wasn't interested in providing the prosecution with the answers it was seeking. Even if de la Rionda chopped it out and stuck in someplace else in the pile, it is still misleading.

 

[GWCarver]

And once again... none of this is of any relevance or importance.

Zimmerman's wife lied on the stand, and most likely colluded with her husband to deceive the court.

No red herring about the brother-in-law changes that.

I don't recall the judge saying she lied. Bernie de la Rionda said she lied, but he doesn't count.

In your opinion, which questions did she answer with lies? Please only include the ones for which you can document the lie.