Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[GWCarver]

Worse than you suggesting Trayvon Martin was drinking watermelon juice and cough syrup? That's really funny stuff!

But are you really going to ask for a cite that Shellie is willing to conspire with her husband to lie? She did it just last week in hiding their assets from the judge. It was in all the papers. It's why George is sitting in jail right now.

Come on, man. Don't be obtuse.

Well then, a citation for exactly what you said should be easy to find. Also, I don't recall saying TM was drinking lean. I have pointed out his tweets in which he was trying to find "codine", but I don't know if it was here. In any case, it is a fact. The tweets are at the Treehouse.

ETA: Just to remind you of your original assertions:
She perjured herself in front of the whole world.

We now know that Shellie Zimmerman is perfectly willing to conspire and lie with her husband (there goes that credibility thing again)

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Maybe he confessed to killing Trayvon as a Klan initiation rite?

We have the same evidence for both, meaning none.

We know he made statements, even though we can't read them yet.

There is zero evidence he voluntarily gave a blood sample, especially that night, which is when it would have made a difference.

JR"2 BUCCAL SWABS· ZIMMERMAN
Two (2) buccal swab samples collected from the cheeks (1-L, 1 .. R) of George Michael
Zimmerman, W/M, 0.0.13.: 10105/1983, while at the Sanford Police Department.

I imagine that was just for DNA, I don't know what else they could learn from it or use it for, if anything.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://i1175.photobucket.com/albums/r632/DiwataMan/George Zimmerman Photos/DSC_0014.jpg

The light is well buried in the grass, and it's only a small LED light. It's possible you would not see it if it's there in the distant photos.

 

[Rare Truth]

JR"2 BUCCAL SWABS· ZIMMERMAN
Two (2) buccal swab samples collected from the cheeks (1-L, 1 .. R) of George Michael
Zimmerman, W/M, 0.0.13.: 10105/1983, while at the Sanford Police Department.

That's a DNA sample.

Not a blood sample.

<sheesh>

Oh. You edited. Good job.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://i1175.photobucket.com/albums/r632/DiwataMan/George Zimmerman Photos/DSC_0015.jpg

Another shot of the light.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

http://i1175.photobucket.com/albums/r632/DiwataMan/George Zimmerman Photos/DSC_0014.jpg

The light is well buried in the grass, and it's only a small LED light. It's possible you would not see it if it's there in the distant photos.

Thanks, that's the photo I looked at before, where I noted you can't see the lens. I didn't provide a link, I should have.

That's not the same photo Dan posted.

 

[LTC8K6]

Thanks, that's the photo I looked at before, where I noted you can't see the lens. I didn't provide a link, I should have.

That's not the same photo Dan posted.

It's the same leaf.

 

[LTC8K6]

JR"2 BUCCAL SWABS· ZIMMERMAN
Two (2) buccal swab samples collected from the cheeks (1-L, 1 .. R) of George Michael
Zimmerman, W/M, 0.0.13.: 10105/1983, while at the Sanford Police Department.

I imagine that was just for DNA, I don't know what else they could learn from it or use it for, if anything.

Maybe blood samples are part of his medical records, which we can't see? We only got a glimpse of his doctor's report via stills from a video as they panned by a page or two.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I did read it, and I do disagree. As soon as we all heard about George's windfall (just after the bond hearing) it was obvious that something was wrong with their claim of indigence. Go back through this thread and you'll see all of us scratching our heads and this sudden turn of events. The fact that they are caught on tape talking about all of their money is just the icing on the cake. This was a gift to the prosecution, plain and simple.

And again, it was enough to send George to jail and to cause the judge to ask when charges were coming. Jeralyn Merritt isn't the font of all knowledge.

My whole point was to show it isn't as simplistic as you describe it. Jeralyn Merritt does not have to be the font of all knowledge to provide evidence to make that point.

 

[crimresearch]

After all, they collected the keys to his truck at the scene, and his story was that he was on his way back to his truck, right? He said TM jumped him while he was returning to his truck. He wouldn't return to his truck unless he arrived there in his truck.

Did they think he was walking back home to his truck?

Plus we have the call recordings.

There's no way they could have thought he was on foot, imo.

Also, even if they only found out he was in his truck the next day, they could still seize it and examine it.

Well, if you are going to keep on applying common sense to the actual recorded facts, you might reach that conclusion...

 

[Noztradamus]

There are two reasons why this would be relevant. One, he could have been prescribed a drug over depression or other issues. The fact that he HADN'T taken his meds could explain sudden violence or rage. The underlying issue for which it was prescribed would be informative. Was he on the way to pick up a refill on his anti-depression meds?

Second, some meds can actually CAUSE rage or other strange behavior. They tested Trayvon to see what he had in his system, and when they found small traces of weed, you saw around here how people screamed "reefer madness!"

Well, I'd like to know what George was on that night. It's a shame we won't know because they never tested him and Shellie moved the truck. That's all I'm saying.

Without testing, we can't know which (if any) of his prescriptions was influencing him; the Temazepam (treating the anxiety) or the Aderall (causing it, and which may be which he needed the Temazepam)

 

[johnny karate]

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/5/223228/5631

If you haven't, read it. Yes, it's from the perspective of a defense attorney, and someone who isn't privy to all the details. But she appears to make a plausible defense for GZ and SZ. You probably disagree, but it does demonstrate, IMO, that the circumstances of perjury and conspiracy not so obvious and clear as you make them out to be.

It's very obvious and clear, as I demonstrated in this post. That Jeralyn has to ramble on for 4000 words to rationalize what I can prove by simply pointing to the transcripts reveals nothing more than her own bias.

As for the conspiracy angle, Zimmerman's wife lied on the stand on his behalf, and O'Mara filed an official document with the court containing a material falsehood because Zimmerman failed to disclose pertinent information.

Anyone who thinks these two instances of deceit were coincidental and unrelated is clearly more interested in defending Zimmerman at all costs than they are in simply acknowledging the truth.

The judge certainly didn't buy any of this b.s. rationalization, which explains Zimmerman's current mailing address.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41iU8jkfxYL.jpg

The little flashlight is the keyring. The keys are on the ring, not the light.

 

[johnny karate]

Well then, a citation for exactly what you said should be easy to find. Also, I don't recall saying TM was drinking lean. I have pointed out his tweets in which he was trying to find "codine", but I don't know if it was here. In any case, it is a fact. The tweets are at the Treehouse.

ETA: Just to remind you of your original assertions:
She perjured herself in front of the whole world.

How soon you forget.

We now know that Shellie Zimmerman is perfectly willing to conspire and lie with her husband (there goes that credibility thing again)

If you are so biased to believe that when Zimmerman's wife lied on the stand and Zimmerman himself withheld pertinent financial information from his lawyer that these activities weren't done as a coordinated effort to hide their money, I can't really help you.

Perhaps you don't consider collusion to deceive the court as "jaw-dropping" as a teenage boy's trip to 7-11.

 

[GWCarver]

How soon you forget.

If you are so biased to believe that when Zimmerman's wife lied on the stand and Zimmerman himself withheld pertinent financial information from his lawyer that these activities weren't done as a coordinated effort to hide their money, I can't really help you.

Perhaps you don't consider collusion to deceive the court as "jaw-dropping" as a teenage boy's trip to 7-11.

Well, if you want to provide citations for the two items highlighted above, that is OK with me.

 

[johnny karate]

My whole point was to show it isn't as simplistic as you describe it. Jeralyn Merritt does not have to be the font of all knowledge to provide evidence to make that point.

She doesn't provide evidence. She rationalizes to the point of bordering on dishonesty.

For instance:

While Shellie Zimmerman knew the amount of funds in George’s credit union account on April 16, she may not have known the amount in the website/Paypal account on April 20, which is what she was asked by the prosecutor, particularly since money was coming in every day and her brother-in-law may also have been able to move funds out of the Paypal account. She may not have checked the Paypal account after April 16. She may not have wanted to speculate and give an answer that was wrong.

Yeah, that's just a pile of crap.

Jeralyn is suggesting Zimmerman's wife "may not have wanted to speculate and give an answer that was wrong". To a question in which she was specifically asked to speculate.

From the bond hearing transcript:

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

Zimmerman. I do not.

The transcripts from the conversation with her husband reveal discussions of specific dollar amounts. She may not have known the exact amount available, but that's not what she was asked. In short, she lied.

Furthermore, I don't see anything in Jerlayn's post that addresses this whopper:

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.

That's Zimmerman's wife flatly denying the existence of money of which she had full knowledge. No amount of rationalization about her not knowing what money was in which account at what time explains that.

 

[GWCarver]

Well, if you want to provide citations for the two items highlighted above, that is OK with me.

Johnny Karate,
Oh, I didn't forget about your posts. There were a couple of things she said I was unaware of, and do appear to be lies, although since then Jeralyn has written a pretty good defense for her answers. But, a lot of lies are told in court that don't fall into the category of perjury. At this time, de la Rionda has presented her answers to court as lies, but hasn't charged her with perjury. Even if he does charge her, the story will be that she is charged with perjury, not that "she perjured herself" as stated above.

 

[johnny karate]

Well, if you want to provide citations for the two items highlighted above, that is OK with me.

Clearly, you're going to deny that Zimmerman and his wife colluded until one of them actually admits it to you in person. Even then, I suspect you'll still be skeptical.

But are you seriously denying that Zimmerman's wife lied on the stand?

 

[johnny karate]

Johnny Karate,
Oh, I didn't forget about your posts. There were a couple of things she said I was unaware of, and do appear to be lies, although since then Jeralyn has written a pretty good defense for her answers. But, a lot of lies are told in court that don't fall into the category of perjury. At this time, de la Rionda has presented her answers to court as lies, but hasn't charged her with perjury. Even if he does charge her, the story will be that she is charged with perjury, not that "she perjured herself" as stated above.

Then maybe you can explain this:

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.

Because Jeralyn - heroine of truth and justice - seems to conveniently gloss right over it in her bloviating attempt to rationalize obvious deceit.

 

[GWCarver]

She doesn't provide evidence. She rationalizes to the point of bordering on dishonesty.

For instance:


Yeah, that's just a pile of crap.

Jeralyn is suggesting Zimmerman's wife "may not have wanted to speculate and give an answer that was wrong". To a question in which she was specifically asked to speculate.

From the bond hearing transcript:


The transcripts from the conversation with her husband reveal discussions of specific dollar amounts. She may not have known the exact amount available, but that's not what she was asked. In short, she lied.

Furthermore, I don't see anything in Jerlayn's post that addresses this whopper:


That's Zimmerman's wife flatly denying the existence of money of which she had full knowledge. No amount of rationalization about her not knowing what money was in which account at what time explains that.

Oh, come on now. If her lawyer advised her to answer the questions truthfully, and not to speculate or add anything, why would she answer a question which required her to speculate?