Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[johnny karate]

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.

Zimmerman may not have lied by uttering the lie himself, but he certainly allowed his wife and lawyer to stand before a judge and tell "material falsehoods" on his behalf. At the very least, he is a liar by proxy.

And I don't see anyone moving the goal posts. Zimmerman lied. And that lie affects his credibility. Some may disagree, but the arguments from those who don't have been consistent on that point.

 

[KatieG]

Zimmerman may not have lied by uttering the lie himself, but he certainly allowed his wife and lawyer to stand before a judge and tell "material falsehoods" on his behalf. At the very least, he is a liar by proxy.

And I don't see anyone moving the goal posts. Zimmerman lied. And that lie affects his credibility. Some may disagree, but the arguments from those who don't have been consistent on that point.

Not the OP but I think they meant the defense is moving the goalposts. I read it that way, sarcasm meter pegging out.

 

[johnny karate]

Not the OP but I think they meant the defense is moving the goalposts. I read it that way, sarcasm meter pegging out.

Ahh.. I believe you are correct. I'm usually better at detecting sarcasm. Good catch, Katie. And my apologies to tsig if I misinterpreted that post.

 

[Dan O.]

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

That was a typo on my part. The document I was copying from actually says "pages 26 & 27".

Are you really asking for that link? Do you want to verify that the attachment contains the complete exchange and hasn't been truncated? If that's the case then I success you contact DiwataMan2 because he is the one that is making that claim. If you simply want to see the document, this is a court record so should be available through an open records request to the court. The judge and the defense would already have these full transcripts so I really don't know why they waisted a tree attaching an excerpt to the motion. This portion of the hearing itself was posted on YouTube and I believe has been posted in this thread already. If you wanted to verify my claim then you should have asked for a link to the Motion to Revoke Bond PDF. I imagine you already have it. But I can give you a link if you really need it.

 

[GWCarver]

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.



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.

My suggested "IMO" was in reference to this part of your post:

"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."

I think everyone on the planet knows the motion to revoke Zimmerman's bond was approved, and I haven't run across anyone who is so delusional as to think the proceedings were a "slam dunk" for the defense.

I'll get to the rest of your post about Shelly's testimony, but it seems like every important sequence in the bond hearing took place during a CNN commercial break.

 

[johnny karate]

My suggested "IMO" was in reference to this part of your post:

"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."

Okay, but he did get caught red-handed trying to deceive a court of law. He benefited from "material falsehoods" his wife and attorney presented on his behalf. That's why he is sitting in a jail cell right now.

I think everyone on the planet knows the motion to revoke Zimmerman's bond was approved, and I haven't run across anyone who is so delusional as to think the proceedings were a "slam dunk" for the defense.

As follows:

Bond revoked..new hearing later. And it looks like the prosecutor is a moron. The judge just laughed him out of court on the passport conspiracy theory, and called him incompetent on the money issue.

If you mean the prosecution got caught trying to sneak a lie past the judge and he called them on it, you are correct.

One good thing for GZ, the prosecutors appear to be idiots.

Those are awfully damn strange interpretations for a hearing that was nothing short of a complete victory for the prosecution.

 

[Dan O.]

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.

Apparently it was important because without it someone could state later that "That would mean the brother-in-law's proximity to the undisclosed location or the courthouse was unknown to de la Rionda". By restating the question, he is able to get a clear answer to whether the brother in law could be asked to testify in this hearing. And that ansswer was: "No, he is not."

Is it really necessary to parse every word in my posts looking for something to disagree with?

No, it isn't. If I went through every post in detail I would be busy all day. I just have a go at the ones that stand out.

I have to say that was a very weak effort

As Ben would say: "This little one's not worth the effort".

especially when accompanied by an accusation that I am trying to mislead everyone here.

That's called maintaining a continuity of theme.

And, you actually used a quote from my transcription above to support your accusation.

It helps to use sources that the target accepts. Though in this case I had transcribed those 2 lines myself from the YouTube video.

In other words, I was the source for the information you accused me of trying to hide.

And there it is in post [11818] (And corrected in post [11910])
So you admit that you knew about the money second question before making that claim. You make this so easy.

 

[Dcdrac]

I have begun to wander how the court and the prosecution catching GZ lying about something as important as his bail does not cast dobut on him as a reliable withness.

 

[Unabogie]

I have begun to wander how the court and the prosecution catching GZ lying about something as important as his bail does not cast dobut on him as a reliable withness.

Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. In some people's minds, the villain in George's lie about his giant pile of money was actually the prosecutor. Since he didn't go out of his way to help Zimmerman and his wife explain away their lie to the court.

Again, if you come to this case with the desire to believe Zimmerman, then watermelon lean and gold teeth and assaulted bus drivers get uncritical acceptance, while Zimmerman and his racist rants and his history of violence and his material deception to the court are handwaved away.

They are going to be shocked if the guy is convicted. It'll be a travesty of justice!

 

[This is The End]

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.

I think I covered that quite well in post #11939. That motion did have merit. The exact same merit as the other motion. It's really quite clear:

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.

For the actual evidence of #2 and possibly #1 in the above please read the motion #1 to revoke bond here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/95593851/State-v-Zimmerman-Motion-to-revoke-bond

A summary:

IIt appears that at the bond hearing there was only one passport claimed.

"this is my client's current passport and only passport that he has"

That was 4/20/2012

Yet the jailhouse call (4/17/2002) appears to discuss two passports, or else it is just confusing:

Z: Do you know what? I think my passport is in that bag.

Z's Wife: I have one for you in saftey deposit box...

Z: OK, you hold onto that.

Z's Wife: For you...


It sounds like Z knew where the Replacement one was, which Cylinder says he found when packing after the bond hearing.

----------------

Here's something else that is a bit weird.

2002 - Original Passport Obtained

2004 - Replacement Passport Obtained - Original is claimed as lost or stolen

Yet, at the bond hearing the 2002 Original Passport is the one that is produced...

So at some point he lost the Replacement, and found the Original.

And then after the 4/20 bond hearing he found the Replacement.

I wonder if the replacement (the one he found while "packing to move" and turned in after the first bond hearing) was the one he said "I think my passport is in that bag."

And if the original was the one she said: "I have one for you in saftey deposit box..."

That seams to be fairly likely.

Either way #2 is backed up with solid evidence.

He let his lawyer lead the judge down the primrose path in regards to the number of passports.

 

[This is The End]

"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

But he will have to testify.

Another side note from that link. In the video the judge says that in order to gain another bond, Zimmerman will have to testify himself and explain why he allowed his wife to lie and why he allowed his lawyer to make material misrepresentations to the court.

So the state gets a whack at George in a completely unforced error.

Good move, George. There's that sterling judgement and honestly we've all come to expect from you.

Seeing this situation, I'm shocked that this is the same guy who ended up shooting an unarmed teenager.

Just shocked.

Wow. That's a tough call for Z and his lawyer to make.

Z has to either sit in prison, or testify at another bond hearing.

Which makes the third option (which I believe JoeTheJuggler was the first to suggest after the news on Friday) sound a bit better than those two options.

Plea deal.

 

[This is The End]

Zimmerman may not have lied by uttering the lie himself, but he certainly allowed his wife and lawyer to stand before a judge and tell "material falsehoods" on his behalf. At the very least, he is a liar by proxy.

Personally, and morally, I believe it to be the same thing.

If you just sit there while you know someone lies, especially if it involves you, then you are just as much a liar as they are if you do not speak up.

In a court setting it might be different. He would have to wait for the lawyer to sit back down and whisper the truth into his ear.

I doubt he did that either.

 

[GWCarver]

Personally, and morally, I believe it to be the same thing.

If you just sit there while you know someone lies, especially if it involves you, then you are just as much a liar as they are if you do not speak up.

In a court setting it might be different. He would have to wait for the lawyer to sit back down and whisper the truth into his ear.

I doubt he did that either.

Do you know for certain that Z can be forced to testify against his wife and he doesn't have the right to remain silent? The judge accused Z of sitting there like a "potted palm", so it appears he didn't think Z had those rights. I am massively confused about this.

 

[This is The End]

Do you know for certain that Z can be forced to testify against his wife and he doesn't have the right to remain silent? The judge accused Z of sitting there like a "potted palm", so it appears he didn't think Z had those rights. I am massively confused about this.

Perhaps Unabogie will tell us at what "link" and what "video" the judge says it...

Another side note from that link. In the video the judge says that in order to gain another bond, Zimmerman will have to testify himself and explain why he allowed his wife to lie and why he allowed his lawyer to make material misrepresentations to the court.

It's not in question that Z had the right to not testify at the first bond hearing and at the motion to revoke bond hearing. I'll wait for Unabogie to clarify exactly what link that video is in.

Apparently he might not have the same right at a 2nd bond hearing.

 

[crimresearch]

I think I covered that quite well in post #11939. That motion did have merit. The exact same merit as the other motion. It's really quite clear:



For the actual evidence of #2 and possibly #1 in the above please read the motion #1 to revoke bond here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/95593851/State-v-Zimmerman-Motion-to-revoke-bond

A summary:



And then after the 4/20 bond hearing he found the Replacement.

I wonder if the replacement (the one he found while "packing to move" and turned in after the first bond hearing) was the one he said "I think my passport is in that bag."

And if the original was the one she said: "I have one for you in saftey deposit box..."

That seams to be fairly likely.

Either way #2 is backed up with solid evidence.

He let his lawyer lead the judge down the primrose path in regards to the number of passports.

I already posted the judge's phone number so you could explain to him how badly he screwed up on the law when he denied the prosecution's motion on the passports.... did you call and tell him?

Or better yet, send him an email with your quotes, and tell him he didn't actually say what came out of his mouth.

 

[Unabogie]

Perhaps Unabogie will tell us at what "link" and what "video" the judge says it...



It's not in question that Z had the right to not testify at the first bond hearing and at the motion to revoke bond hearing. I'll wait for Unabogie to clarify exactly what link that video is in.

Apparently he might not have the same right at a 2nd bond hearing.

It was the same link you provided. At the top of the page is a video of the hearing and in it, the judge says he'll make George testify if he wants a new bond.

 

[This is The End]

I already posted the judge's phone number so you could explain to him how badly he screwed up on the law when he denied the prosecution's motion on the passports.... did you call and tell him?

Or better yet, send him an email with your quotes, and tell him he didn't actually say what came out of his mouth.

I really don't know how you can read all that data, and that be your response...

Do you believe it is possible for a judge to make a mistake?

It's not like it really even matters.

AFAIK the judge accepting one of the motions to revoke bond is having the exact same effect as him accepting both motions.

BTW: JK has asked you repeatedly to point out exactly where the judge denied motion #1.

 

[This is The End]

It was the same link you provided. At the top of the page is a video of the hearing and in it, the judge says he'll make George testify if he wants a new bond.

I assume you mean this link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/95593851/State-v-Zimmerman-Motion-to-revoke-bond

I'm not on a connection right now that will load that link correctly. Someone else will have to see if the video link is still at the top of it.

 

[Unabogie]

I assume you mean this link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/95593851/State-v-Zimmerman-Motion-to-revoke-bond

I'm not on a connection right now that will load that link correctly. Someone else will have to see if the video link is still at the top of it.

No, it was this one here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-02/zimmerman-credibility/55346970/1

But now they've replace the hearing with a video of George turning himself in.

That's where the video was previously. I'll see if YouTube has it.

 

[quadraginta]

Do you know for certain that Z can be forced to testify against his wife and he doesn't have the right to remain silent? The judge accused Z of sitting there like a "potted palm", so it appears he didn't think Z had those rights. I am massively confused about this.

His wife wasn't on trial. How could he testify against her for anything? If he had said something he would merely have been correcting her.

Remaining silent is what got him in trouble. The right to remain silent is to protect a defendant against self-incrimination. If he had spoken up he wouldn't have been incriminating himself. Just the opposite. It was clamming up that was the problem.