Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Dancing David]

Well, if a plea bargain is coming, I guess this arrest might start the talks.

I don't know about a plea, that would be interesting. Here in Illinois it would depends upon the DA

 

[Dancing David]

He is being railroaded.

I believe my use of the term and yours must vary considerably.

 

[Kaosium]

Zing!

All jokes aside, it's one thing to speculate out of one's depth prior to the release of pertinent information, but another entirely to do the same once that information has been made available.

This didn't come as a big surprise to me either. Back around page 200 when I first entered the thread and the paypal nonsense came up I suspected the prosecution might try a stunt something like this. I'd hoped I'd been mistaken when nothing happened with it until the suppression hearing, but listening to that judge in the audio of that hearing put me back on guard, and reading more about the prosecutor suggested she might be debased enough to go after George Zimmerman's wife on this 'issue.'

Thus my speculation was correct, wasn't it?

I don't recall anyone saying the EMTs or the doctor were wrong once their reports were released. But we have people in this thread who have the audacity to chastise and denigrate a veteran judge as if they somehow know better than he does. That's just sheer idiocy.

Johnny, in every miscarriage of justice there is (almost always) a judge who made a mistake, if not several. To pretend that judges are infallible is nonsensical. They are human just like you and I and they can be fooled and/or bow to public pressure or unwilling to admit the prosecution might be disingenuous.

And it won't be the last we've seen of such idiocy, mark my words. Any turn of events that doesn't benefit Zimmerman will be viewed by some as part of some bizarre conspiracy to railroad him. It's already been hinted at, and it will only get worse.

Which would also be the case were he actually being railroaded, wouldn't it? You know a good way to tell? The facts and evidence of the case being made are a big clue. If the prosecution is being thoroughly disingenuous with those, then that's an indication they might just do it again--or employ 'any means necessary' to win their case.

Let's take this new 'revelation' that she transferred money in amounts of 'nines' such as $9,999 so as not to be required to fill out some form. Did it occur to you that might not be to try to 'hide it' from the prosecution, but simply because if someone says to you? 'if you take out $10k you have to fill out this form which if you make a mistake on you might be subject to severe penalties. However if you take out $9,999 you don't have to worry about that.'

What's the obvious choice?

 

[GWCarver]

I believe my use of the term and yours must vary considerably.

Why is that? I think what is being done is legal, but a railroad nonetheless.

 

[This is The End]

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/12/193621/590

Jeralyn's take.

Looks more like spin than a take.

 

[This is The End]

I'm quite sure that there is no evidence at all that could come to light that would convince some of you that Z is guilty.

Z himself could confess and some of you would still spin it.

 

[johnny karate]

This didn't come as a big surprise to me either. Back around page 200 when I first entered the thread and the paypal nonsense came up I suspected the prosecution might try a stunt something like this.

There was no stunt.

Zimmerman's wife lied on the stand and she got caught.

Now she's going down for perjury.

End of story.

I'm not responding to the rest of your post because, quite frankly, it was a bunch of nonsense.

 

[KatieG]

Looks more like spin than a take.

That's what she does. Being a lawyer doesn't make it true even if you say it over and over.

 

[This is The End]

Why is that? I think what is being done is legal, but a railroad nonetheless.

How is that possible unless you are using a different definition of railroad.

Railroad, as commonly used, would require the prosecution to have solid evidence that Z is innocent.

You don't seriously believe that they do, do you?

It would also be illegal. There is no such thing as a legal "railroading". Having solid evidence that Z is innocent and prosecuting him would be illegal.

 

[johnny karate]

I'm quite sure that there is no evidence at all that could come to light that would convince some of you that Z is guilty.

Z himself could confess and some of you would still spin it.

These latest events certainly reveal who in this thread is interested in the truth, and who is interested in merely pushing an agenda.

I've said repeatedly that Zimmerman could very well be innocent of the crime of which he's accused, and I will accept whatever result his trial yields.

Meanwhile, others are already girding their loins to argue the conspiracy angle should things not go their way.

 

[GWCarver]

So who passed the law, was it Corey, by fiat or dictate?

Do things occur in a context or in isolation?

Here is a little info on Corey prosecuting juveniles.

http://www.blackeconomicdevelopment...as-adults-heads-trayvon-martin-investigation/

 

[GWCarver]

How is that possible unless you are using a different definition of railroad.

Railroad, as commonly used, would require the prosecution to have solid evidence that Z is innocent.

You don't seriously believe that they do, do you?

It would also be illegal. There is no such thing as a legal "railroading". Having solid evidence that Z is innocent and prosecuting him would be illegal.

It's legal, you just have to change prosecutors and investigators.

 

[Rare Truth]

Just read this:

"She looks real suspicious. She looks like she’s up to no good or she’s on drugs or something." oh wait, that's my wife.

lol

 

[This is The End]

How is that possible unless you are using a different definition of railroad.

Railroad, as commonly used, would require the prosecution to have solid evidence that Z is innocent.

You don't seriously believe that they do, do you?

It would also be illegal. There is no such thing as a legal "railroading". Having solid evidence that Z is innocent and prosecuting him would be illegal.

It's legal, you just have to change prosecutors and investigators.

I'll just take that as a "Yes, I'm not using the common definition of a railroading."

BTW, I asked you a direct question:

Do you, GWCarver, believe that the prosecution has solid evidence that Z is innocent?

Please answer that one.

As for the opposite question, whether or not the prosecution has some good evidence that Z is guilty, I believe I can safely assume you believe they don't?

We'll just have to wait until the trial (or, less likely, a future evidence dump) to find out if they do indeed have good evidence that says Z is guilty.

 

[Kaosium]

Fascinating. Either, in some strange twist of fate, only you have the power to see the truth that somehow several legal professionals involved in this case failed to see... or you're wrong.

If you're unwilling to make the argument yourself, could you at least link me to the arguments made by the 'several legal professionals' whose 'analysis' you've found so enlightening?

Let's see if they amount to more than 'everyone says so! You must be delusional or dishonest if you disagree that the prosecution's allegation isn't absolutely true on the face of it!'

Guess which option my money is on?

Are you enjoying yourself?

What would honestly be the point of that conversation? The lies she told are obvious.

Saying something false does not inherently make it a 'lie' either in court or elsewhere. Being as the court had already questioned her on that it's quite possible she figured they knew who to ask for an estimate already and of course were aware that the fund existed. Do you honestly believe that she thought she could deceive them?

You deny that fact. Arguing with you further would be pointless. You are clearly committed to your denial.

Let us just say I am skeptical of 'facts' being produced by this prosecution for damned good reasons.

It will still be you. She won't be acquitted.

You're right, it's quite possible it will be dismissed before it gets that far.

How does writing Judge Lester's name as "Judge Lynch Lester" serve as criticism? It's a cheap shot taken at someone you've decided not to like because things didn't turn out the way in which you preferred.

Nope, that's not it! Believe it or not!

 

[Rare Truth]

It might be getting worse for Shell

"
Jeffrey Neiman, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice, said cash transactions in excess of $10,000 usually trigger a reporting requirement by the bank to multiple government agencies — including the IRS.


"If Mrs. Zimmerman intentionally structured the financial transactions in a manner to keep the offense under $10,000, not only may she have committed perjury in the state case, but she also may have run afoul of several federal statutes and could face serious federal criminal charges," Neiman wrote in an email to The Associated Press."


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...v3ErMQ?docId=fd73031204fa444993c926d9d7ab8c63


Lawyer up gal.


Maybe you could start a website called therealshelliezimmerman.com

 

[Rare Truth]

...

...

Sooooo...........how much money did you send him?

 

[This is The End]

I see. She committed perjury, but they just didn't charge her.

Out of kindness I suppose

TVZ

I'm waiting for crimresearch's take on today's events.

 

[GWCarver]

I'll just take that as a "Yes, I'm not using the common definition of a railroading."

BTW, I asked you a direct question:

Do you, GWCarver, believe that the prosecution has solid evidence that Z is innocent?

Please answer that one.

As for the opposite question, whether or not the prosecution has some good evidence that Z is guilty, I believe I can safely assume you believe they don't?

We'll just have to wait until the trial (or, less likely, a future evidence dump) to find out if they do indeed have good evidence that says Z is guilty.

I believe the prosecution did not have the evidence necessary to prosecute Zimmerman. The lead investigator said there was no reliable evidence it was not self-defense. I don't think there can be evidence he is innocent because there was no witness to the beginning of the altercation.

I have never heard of the idea that there couldn't be a "railroad" unless the prosecution had evidence of innocence. Here's what it says at dictionary.com...

9.
Informal . to convict (a person) in a hasty manner by means of false charges or insufficient evidence: The prisoner insisted he had been railroaded.

 

[GWCarver]

I'm waiting for crimresearch's take on today's events.

Hey, the judge had a similar reaction.