Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[GWCarver]

For those who are wondering exactly where Z's key chain was found, it was in the grass right next to the orange leaf on the edge of the sidewalk up towards the "T".

http://www.craigboyce.com/w/2012/05/trayvon-martin-crime-scene-photos/evidence-photos-6/

A better picture of the leaf:
http://www.craigboyce.com/w/2012/05/trayvon-martin-crime-scene-photos/evidence-photos-7/

Here is the closeup of the key chain and the leaf:
http://www.craigboyce.com/w/2012/05/trayvon-martin-crime-scene-photos/evidence-photos-8/

 

[Amazer]

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.

I hardly think it's the responsibility of De la Rionda to contact/locate the brother-in-law concerning the amounts available in those accounts. That responsibility lies with GZ.

 

[GWCarver]

And Jeralyn says...

"George Zimmerman will get a hearing on the revocation of his bond , after he turns himself in. I think the judge will give him bond again.

Once he is re-bonded , this will become a minor footnote."

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/2/142039/6821

 

[johnny karate]

The motion with regard to his passport was denied.

What motion was that? Please provide a cite.

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.

Nonsense. If Zimmerman's wife was interested in providing the prosecution with the answers it was seeking, she would have provided the prosecution with the answers it was seeking. Instead, she chose to lie.

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

Are you kidding me?

And he can’t sit back and obtain the benefit of a lower bond or circumstances based upon those material falsehoods. That’s what they were. So at this time, revoke his bond, place him on no bond status. Find that good cause exists based upon the material misrepresentations that the court relied upon. Order him to surrender himself within 48 hours to the sheriff of Seminole county.

Granted, he didn't point a finger at Zimmerman's wife and shout "Liar!", but the meaning is clear. To argue any differently is a game a semantic horseshoes I don't care to play.

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

Gladly.

Lie #1:

De la Rionda: 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?

Zimmerman: To my knowledge, that's correct.

Lie #2:

De la Rionda: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?

Zimmerman: I do not.

As established by the following conversation between Zimmerman and his wife which demonstrates both her awareness of the money (which she denied in Lie #1) and her awareness of the amount (which she denied in Lie #2):

George: In my account, do I have at least 100?

Shellie: No.

George: How close am I?

Shellie: 8. 8.60.

George: Really? So total everything, how much are we looking at?

Shellie: Like 155.

Furthermore, the following conversation demonstrates the shorthand in which they were speaking regarding the amounts (unless someone want's to argue they thought the bond might actually be $100):

George: If the bond is more than 15, pay the 15. If more than 15 pay 10 percent to the bondsman.


Shellie: You don't want me to pay 100?


George: I don't know.


Shellie: All right just think about it.


George: I will.


Shellie: That's what it's for.

 

[crimresearch]

"George Zimmerman will get a hearing on the revocation of his bond , after he turns himself in. I think the judge will give him bond again.

Once he is re-bonded , this will become a minor footnote."

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/2/142039/6821

Yep... The purpose of bond is to benefit the system, and the factors for granting it *include* not misleading the court... but that isn't the only criteria.

Even if Zimmerman isn't given a higher bond based on the correct asset reporting, it isn't the 'Gotcha!' on the murder issue that some people are obsessing over.

 

[johnny karate]

"George Zimmerman will get a hearing on the revocation of his bond , after he turns himself in. I think the judge will give him bond again.

Once he is re-bonded , this will become a minor footnote."

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/2/142039/6821

And other legal experts seem to disagree:

The questioning of Zimmerman's truthfulness by the judge on Friday could undermine his credibility if it is brought up at trial. It also may complicate how his defense presents him as a witness, said Orlando-area attorney Randy McClean, who is a former prosecutor.

"The other key witness, unfortunately, is deceased," McClean said. "Basically, Zimmerman is going to be asking the jury to believe his version of the facts. … As the case stands now, his credibility is absolutely critical to the case."

Furthermore, considering Jeralyn made this unfounded claim:

Other witnesses and physical evidence support that Zimmerman was attacked.

... I'm not sure how much credibility she has.

The only actual evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman is the word of a man who just got caught red-handed trying to deceive a court of law.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

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

Maybe you could make these statements clearly the first time.

Maybe you can find something better to do than be the thread nanny and chastise people, especially since I took the time to clarify and answer for you, to which the normal response if any might have been " thanks for clarifying".

 

[Dan O.]

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.

Like WOW man, why are you trying to mislead us?

The last exchange on the subject of the brother in law's location was

Bernie: "So he's not there now?"
Shelly: "No he is not, sir."​

This is quite definately relavent to your argument yet you left it out.



As to the relevancy of the brother in law to Friday's hearing, none at all! The prosecution's claim is that Shelly directly and her husband indirectly through his silence lied about their knowledge of the funds from the web site. The prosecution proved this through the recorded conversation between Shelly and her husband discussing the money available in the various accounts for covering the bond.




But wait, There's more...

DiwataMan2, in a YouTube expose of the prosecution leaving out critical relavant parts of the testimony,

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

if you actually compare that presentation with the Motion to revoke Bond that was filed with the court you will see that DiwataMan2 left out a very critical part. Just before the section that DiwataMan2 quoted is the heading:

Questioning by Mr. de la Rionda (Transcript pages 27 and 27, copies attached).​

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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

CNN reports (breaking news--no article yet) that he has turned himself in.

I'm not sure where I heard that the deadline was Saturday, but I'm sure I heard it (on radio most likely). Anyway, at least he complied with this ruling. If he were late, it would bode poorly for his chances of being released on bond.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Even if Zimmerman isn't given a higher bond based on the correct asset reporting, it isn't the 'Gotcha!' on the murder issue that some people are obsessing over.

Lying (or "misleading") the court is definitely bad for his credibility as a witness. His defense pretty much depends on his testimony.

 

[Moss]

Even if Zimmerman isn't given a higher bond based on the correct asset reporting, it isn't the 'Gotcha!' on the murder issue that some people are obsessing over.

While it may affect the trial I'm not sure if it should. As I tried to say before but did not clarify: I believe lying ( if it was lying) about money does seem to be slightly less problematic than lying about a situation where you killed someone. I think the expectation would be that it's less likely to bite you in the backside if you get caught. (With the added caveat that yes, I am speculating about that.)

I was asked about what evidence there is that maybe TM tried to disable an attacking GZ: The evidence seems about as much as the evidence that TM ambushed GZ. I don't dispute that GZ was hurt by TM. I don't dispute what the witness saw. But neither of those parts tell us how the altercation started, which is exactly the most relevant point. Unless something has come to light that points to the fact that it could only have been an ambush.

To put some oil on the fire: The cries for help were stopped by the shot. Which situation could accommodate that it was Trayvon on top and crying for help?

 

[crimresearch]

Lying (or "misleading") the court is definitely bad for his credibility as a witness. His defense pretty much depends on his testimony.

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

 

[Dan O.]

"George Zimmerman will get a hearing on the revocation of his bond , after he turns himself in. I think the judge will give him bond again.

Once he is re-bonded , this will become a minor footnote."

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/2/142039/6821

And other legal experts seem to disagree:

The questioning of Zimmerman's truthfulness by the judge on Friday could undermine his credibility if it is brought up at trial. It also may complicate how his defense presents him as a witness, said Orlando-area attorney Randy McClean, who is a former prosecutor."

^{(Parts of this post have beel clipped. Are you confused?)}

Lying under oath is serious. But the rules of evidence are tricky. It would generally be quite difficult to get this into the trial to impugn George's testimony. But there is one big loophole. If George is found guilty of a crime with a penalty of more than 1 year, that information is admissible. It's too early at this point to say if the prosecution will seek an indictment for George's perjury or if they will otherwise be able to admit this into evidence in the trial.

 

[epepke]

It does include, many times, that until you are ready to fire your weapon, you never put your finger inside the trigger guard.

I believe (it's been a while since I got mine) it's a compentency course of 4 hours, a passing grade of 85% or better, a background check, and a waiting period.

It usually takes about 2-3 months to be approved.

It's fairly simple though.

That's been changed. You now have to demonstrate that you can fire a weapon. Only once, though.

 

[Dan O.]

While it may affect the trial I'm not sure if it should. As I tried to say before but did not clarify: I believe lying ( if it was lying) about money does seem to be slightly less problematic than lying about a situation where you killed someone. I think the expectation would be that it's less likely to bite you in the backside if you get caught. (With the added caveat that yes, I am speculating about that.)

What is more important than the subject of the lie is the venue in which the lie is a material element. For example, lying during the trial about the existence of money in an account which led to a dispute and escalated to murder could be a class 2 felony with a sentence of up to 15 years. The same lie about the same money in the same account when told in a bond hearing to determine ability to pay bail would be a lessor penalty though I haven't figured out what that penalty would be. (When George gets sentenced I'll tell you)

 

[GWCarver]

Like WOW man, why are you trying to mislead us?

The last exchange on the subject of the brother in law's location was

Bernie: "So he's not there now?"
Shelly: "No he is not, sir."​

This is quite definately relavent to your argument yet you left it out.



As to the relevancy of the brother in law to Friday's hearing, none at all! The prosecution's claim is that Shelly directly and her husband indirectly through his silence lied about their knowledge of the funds from the web site. The prosecution proved this through the recorded conversation between Shelly and her husband discussing the money available in the various accounts for covering the bond.




But wait, There's more...

DiwataMan2, in a YouTube expose of the prosecution leaving out critical relavant parts of the testimony,


if you actually compare that presentation with the Motion to revoke Bond that was filed with the court you will see that DiwataMan2 left out a very critical part. Just before the section that DiwataMan2 quoted is the heading:

Questioning by Mr. de la Rionda (Transcript pages 27 and 27, copies attached).​

That part of the conversation was not relevant to the point I was making. The moment Shelly told de la Rionda she could contact the brother-in-law by telephone, it was obvious he wasn't there in the room. The final question by de la Rionda was redundant and was probably made for the record.

Is it really necessary to parse every word in my posts looking for something to disagree with? I have to say that was a very weak effort, especially when accompanied by an accusation that I am trying to mislead everyone here. And, you actually used a quote from my transcription above to support your accusation. In other words, I was the source for the information you accused me of trying to hide.

Anyway, do you have a link to the attachment for "pages 27 and 27"?

 

[GWCarver]

And other legal experts seem to disagree:



Furthermore, considering Jeralyn made this unfounded claim:
... I'm not sure how much credibility she has.

The only actual evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman is the word of a man who just got caught red-handed trying to deceive a court of law.

You forgot the "IMO"...

 

[GWCarver]

What motion was that? Please provide a cite.

I thought you didn't like to play semantics. But, let me rephrase - the portion of the motion to revoke Z's bond that dealt with the passport was found by the judge to have no merit.

 

[tsig]

Lying (or "misleading") the court is definitely bad for his credibility as a witness. His defense pretty much depends on his testimony.

But, but he really didn't lie, if he did lie it wasn't about anything important, if it was anything important then it had nothing to do with the case.

The goalposts they are a mooving.

 

[johnny karate]

You forgot the "IMO"...

That's because it wasn't necessary. There isn't any evidence that Martin attacked (as in initiated an assault) Zimmerman (again, outside of the word of a liar).

If you disagree, feel free to present said evidence.

I thought you didn't like to play semantics. But, let me rephrase - the portion of the motion to revoke Z's bond that dealt with the passport was found by the judge to have no merit.

It's not semantics. To say a motion was dismissed has a very specific meaning, and is quite a bit different than saying the judge decided one particular aspect of motion (that he would eventually grant) has no merit.

You aren't the first person to make this specious claim, and as a matter of fact, this claim has been framed as if the proceedings were some kind of slam dunk for the defense. That strikes me as quite disingenuous, which is why I asked for the clarification.