• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh. My. Gawd.

Talk about a pantload.

Explain to me how this can be meaningful and it still be possible that George Zimmerman might be let out on bail? If it doesn't preclude that eventuality, then how important can this failure to disclose actually be?
 
Explain to me how this can be meaningful and it still be possible that George Zimmerman might be let out on bail? If it doesn't preclude that eventuality, then how important can this failure to disclose actually be?
In case you hadn't noticed, Zimmerman is now sitting in the hoozegow, and likely will be sitting there for quite a spell. All because of his (and his wife's LIES).

His only significant asset was his credibility, which has now officially crapped the bed.

If you don't think that's "meaningful" to this case, I don't know what to tell you.
 
Even GZ's own attorney is acknowledging that he knowingly allowed the judge to be mislead so I have 0 remaining doubt at this point that's exactly what he did and that there are is no extenuating context or circumstances. I think GZ is a supreme idiot. Until now I've felt the evidence supports what we've been told he said but frankly this makes me nauseous.

[snip]

He just managed to totally **** himself over nothing, over ******** trinkets which is what 135K is in the total scheme of things related to this trial.

Yep.

It tells against credibility and judgement.

Until now the physical evidence tied up with his story, and I felt that his history of calling the police and letting them handle situations made it likely that all he had tried to do that evening was just to try and keep TM in sight. Now, with this kind of judgement... I wouldn't put money against the possibility that he aggravated/precipitated the situation in some way. (Still don't think there is anything in the public domain that convicts him anywhere near beyond reasonable doubt... but in my mind the possibility that he might be guilty of manslaughter (morally, not necessarily legally i.e. 'beyond reasonable doubt') has gone up significantly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do I have to remind everybody that it requires evidence, not conjecture, to convict somebody of a crime?
 
In case you hadn't noticed, Zimmerman is now sitting in the hoozegow, and likely will be sitting there for quite a spell. All because of his (and his wife's LIES).

His only significant asset was his credibility, which has now officially crapped the bed.

If you don't think that's "meaningful" to this case, I don't know what to tell you.

So are you saying this definitely precludes him getting bail again? If it doesn't, then failing to disclose this money sent isn't even enough to prevent his getting bail, yet somehow you think it should override all the actual evidence and make him guilty of murder?
 
So are you saying this definitely precludes him getting bail again? If it doesn't, then failing to disclose this money sent isn't even enough to prevent his getting bail, yet somehow you think it should override all the actual evidence and make him guilty of murder?
There is nothing definite in this world except death and taxes.

Since to get a bond review again, Z's lawyer would necessarily have to put him on the stand and open his client to cross again - (and it worked out so splendiferously for him last time lol) I think O'Mara is going to be pondering long and hard on that one, but Z himself is ultimately responsible for that call.

You nor I have seen all the 'actual evidence.' So far, what has been shown does not look good for GZ. I don't think the prosecutor with a 90% conviction rate is going to be filing charges 'on a whim.' I think they DO have the evidence.

His statements should be coming out soon...along with things like the Clubhouse security video, and GZ's video reenactment.

Hope you're around for the fireworks then...
 
How does George not disclosing that a bunch of people sent him money have anything to do with the case?

It makes him a liar. And key aspects of his story are dependent entirely upon his word.

If he had disclosed it, what would have been the effect? A somewhat higher bond, presumably to prevent his ability to flee? He didn't flee, did he? So in the end it was meaningless anyway, and it did get disclosed after he talked to his lawyer.
That's super. Guess what? He's still a liar.

When has a legal defense fund ever been used as an excuse for a fishing expedition in order to impugn the integrity of the accused? What do you suppose that implies about the quality of 'evidence' against him in the murder trial--which is what actually matters?
It has nothing to do with the evidence against him, and everything to do with his credibility. As it stands right now, he has none.

He had mere minutes to come up with a story that would be cross-checked with people who had witnessed it and there was physical evidence all over as well as recordings of his 911 call. It was found by the police after a thorough investigation to be consistent with the physical evidence and the preponderance of witness testimony, especially the part that has him on the bottom getting beaten and yelling for help well before the gun came out and was used. John, the closest witness to the struggle, was himself surprised that Trayvon didn't let up when John said he was calling 911, so intent Trayvon was on continuing the attack--where he had the advantage.
First of all, he didn't have just "mere minutes", unless you want to argue he immediately began giving the police a detailed account the moment they arrived.

Secondly, it's not as if he had to give some completely fabricated story. All he had to do was tell them exactly what happened with just any details that might incriminate him left out or changed. That the witness testimony or physical evidence hasn't yet undermined his version of events doesn't mean he didn't lie.

And it should be noted that the police did want to charge him with manslaughter. So a professional investigator who has seen more of the evidence than any of us didn't feel the case was quite so open and shut.

It could be he had reason too suspect Zimmerman was the liar we now know him to be.

One doesn't need George Zimmerman's testimony to determine more or less what happened. His wounds are evidence of him getting beaten, his definitely being on the bottom when John looked out is strongly suggestive of who was doing the yelling, the fact they met at all after TM took off running when he could have easily escaped had that been his aim is again indicative of who desired the encounter.
Is someone on the losing end of fight always an innocent victim justified in killing the other person? That Martin was winning the fight shortly before he was killed hasn't ever really been in question. But a lot of what transpired before depends on Zimmerman's account.

Did he pursue and confront Martin? Who started the altercation? These are important questions for which the only answers we have come from the version of events of a proven liar.

You may not find that to be significant, but others do.

As such whether George Zimmerman disclosed to the prosecution (which he would have every reason to believe is corrupt) just how much money people were sending him isn't evidence of much of anything other than George Zimmerman doesn't trust the prosecution. Why should he? Telling the truth and cooperating throughout got him a bounty placed on his head and then singled out for prosecution due to all the liars lying about him. At worst this was a lie to protect himself and his family, no one else could have been harmed.
He didn't just lie to the prosecution. He lied to court, and apparently his own attorney.

That's not something that can be said about all the people who've lied about him, they wanted to (or knew it might) hurt someone, George Zimmerman, which puts him on a higher ethical plane than (many of) his contemners.
Yeah, you go with that. At the end of the day, Zimmerman is still a liar who attempted to perpetrate a deception in a court of law. And now we're expected to believe what he tells about the night he killed someone under murky circumstances.
 
Do I have to remind everybody that it requires evidence, not conjecture, to convict somebody of a crime?

I don't think anyone is making the argument that because Zimmerman lied he is automatically guilty of murder. The argument is that because Zimmerman lied, his credibility is shot.

And since key aspects of his account rely solely on his word, the issue of his credibility is significant.

But the prosecution still has to make their case. No one is suggesting otherwise.
 
The more I think about it...the more I think the Judge may not change his "No Bond"
status.

Z deliberately tried to hide large sums of money and an active passport.

That tells me (and perhaps the judge) - he may have indeed been a flight risk.

GZ probably didn't count on the ankle bracelet ...yup. I'm leaning towards seeing Ole GZ in jail for quite some time.

Not calling it for certain yet, but I'm leaning that way.
 
I have never been a fan of 'trial by media' because it has a tendency to skew the scales of justice in ways that are sometimes quite abominable, and this case is yet another example, in my view, of why strong sub-judice laws are desirable in the interests of justice.

I'm just saying.
 
"Zimmerman certainly has some explaining to do, but his legal team has not decided if he will speak on his own behalf.


"My understanding was that Judge Lester seemed to indicate that he wanted testimony. That is a very complex decision to make about what effect that would have, not only at the hearing itself, but any future testimony, so we haven’t made that decision yet," O’Mara said."

Read more: http://www.wesh.com/news/central-fl...14483652/-/531c5ez/-/index.html#ixzz1wsEb5l4V

Judge Lester made it clear Z would need to testify if he wanted a new Bond hearing.

If GZ insists on a bond rehearing, his lawyer will officially be in crapping bricks territory.



​
 
There is nothing definite in this world except death and taxes.

Since to get a bond review again, Z's lawyer would necessarily have to put him on the stand and open his client to cross again - (and it worked out so splendiferously for him last time lol) I think O'Mara is going to be pondering long and hard on that one, but Z himself is ultimately responsible for that call.

Then this failure to disclose wouldn't automatically make him ineligible for bail in the future? Why wouldn't it if it's being trumpeted as 'evidence' he should he found guilty of a murder charge?


You nor I have seen all the 'actual evidence.' So far, what has been shown does not look good for GZ.

What actual evidence have you seen that supports a murder conviction--or even manslaughter?

I don't think the prosecutor with a 90% conviction rate is going to be filing charges 'on a whim.' I think they DO have the evidence.

Then why didn't she put it in her affidavit? Did you see what Alan Dershowitz had to say about that? If she had actual evidence of murder do you think she'd be making a big deal about whether money sent to Zimmerman was disclosed to the court, which apparently is not enough to even bar him from getting bail again?

His statements should be coming out soon...along with things like the Clubhouse security video, and GZ's video reenactment.

Hope you're around for the fireworks then...

Do you think there will actually be evidence of murder (or even manslaughter) there? Remember what the reasonable doubt standard is: a reasonable person should have no doubt the defendant is guilty. What if there's people on that jury who think the evidence of George Zimmerman's wounds and the witness testimony (not to mention a reasonable interpretation of the 911 call) that supports that he was getting beat up constitutes doubt that he set out to murder Trayvon in a 'depraved' mind?
 
Last edited:
Then this failure to disclose wouldn't automatically make him ineligible for bail in the future? Why wouldn't it if it's being trumpeted as 'evidence' he should he found guilty of a murder charge?




What actual evidence have you seen supports that a murder conviction--or even manslaughter?



Then why didn't she put it in her affidavit? Did you see what Alan Dershowitz had to say about that? If she had actual evidence of murder do you think she'd be making a big deal about whether money sent to Zimmerman was disclosed to the court, which apparently is not enough to even bar him from getting bail again?



Do you think there will actually be evidence of murder (or even manslaughter) there? Remember what the reasonable doubt standard is: a reasonable person should have no doubt the defendant is guilty. What if there's people on that jury who think the evidence of George Zimmerman's wounds and the witness testimony (not to mention a reasonable interpretation of the 911 call) that supports that he was getting beat up constitutes doubt that he set out to murder Trayvon in a 'depraved' mind?

This prosecutor tends to spring things on the defense at hearings, so I expect that to continue.

My guess will be that at the next bond hearing, Corey might come out with charges regarding the bond/passport deal.
 
This prosecutor tends to spring things on the defense at hearings, so I expect that to continue.

My guess will be that at the next bond hearing, Corey might come out with charges regarding the bond/passport deal.

I don't think any of this was "sprung" on Zimmerman at all. When Zimmerman perpetrated his fraud and then told his lawyer about it, I'm reasonably sure that O'Mara fully expected the state to nail him on it. O'Mara already knew he'd been lied to and he knew the court was deceived. Just because the SAO also covered their bases and produced a jailhouse tape that confirmed that the deception was willful doesn't shift the blame over to the DA.

Free flowing profanity was probably pretty common around O'Mara's office that day.
 
I don't think any of this was "sprung" on Zimmerman at all. When Zimmerman perpetrated his fraud and then told his lawyer about it, I'm reasonably sure that O'Mara fully expected the state to nail him on it. O'Mara already knew he'd been lied to and he knew the court was deceived. Just because the SAO also covered their bases and produced a jailhouse tape that confirmed that the deception was willful doesn't shift the blame over to the DA.

Free flowing profanity was probably pretty common around O'Mara's office that day.

If he committed fraud or perjury or whatever, he surely can't get away with it, especially with this prosecutor. That's why I expect charges.

By sprung, I mean it was not expected to be brought up at the hearing.

I'm sure O'mara knew of it, just not that it was going to come up right then.
 
That was my point about fair amount of public perception having turned in his favor. Now he has lost a lot of that good will because his credibility has been damaged.

I doubt if there will be any permanent damage to his credibility, at least with his supporters. I don't think there is anything that could rehabilitate his credibility with most of his detractors because they have never believed he has been telling the truth since the beginning.

The mistake Zimmerman made was not telling the court his wife was lying or misrepresenting their finances during a hearing, as she was testifying. There may yet be other evidence that mitigates this mistake, but I really doubt if your average citizen, i.e. potential juror, is going to see this action as proof Zimmerman can't be trusted. Ratting out your own spouse during a hearing that is being televised live is something most of us would like to avoid. I certainly would never want to be placed in that position, and neither would most others.

After the hearing he went back to jail, but he did tell his lawyer all about it the first time he saw him. Recall O'Mara was in no hurry to get him released because he felt it wasn't safe, so Z had to stay in jail a few extra days so he could make plans to go into hiding.
 
I don't think anyone is making the argument that because Zimmerman lied he is automatically guilty of murder. The argument is that because Zimmerman lied, his credibility is shot.

And since key aspects of his account rely solely on his word, the issue of his credibility is significant.

But the prosecution still has to make their case. No one is suggesting otherwise.


I would just like to remind many of you that you have already professed you thought GZ had 0 credibility and no reason to tell the truth in the first place. So, in reality, you shouldn't be viewing him any differently now...

OOPS, I meant to respond to the prior post:
It makes him a liar. And key aspects of his story are dependent entirely upon his word.
 
Last edited:
The trial is at least a year away. So this won't affect it at all, imo. By then it will have been explained or smoothed over by GZ's team.

Unless he gets charged with something substantial.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom