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

Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

Status
Not open for further replies.
OnlyTellsTruths said:
So you are saying that Frank is lying when he says he is friends with Z?
Click to expand...
Nope, but I will say you've shown a history in this thread of being unable to reason things out and of seeing everything in black in white. You did it a few pages ago when you couldn't understand crimresearchs posts and kept insisting he said something he didn't and now you're doing it here again. I mean, if Frank says they are friends, they must be, and there couldn't possibly be any grey area there. :rolleyes:
I guess everyone is delusional for believing someone who says they are friends with someone else!
Click to expand...
Previous to reading that exchange someone would not be. If however after reading that exchange someone does not adjust their position to at a minimum thinking "gee, maybe these guys aren't very close "friends", yes, delusional.
 
Last edited:
triforcharity said:
Casual acquaintences? Sure, I can agree with that.

I have, on more than a few occasions called even close friends Mr. _______

It's a sign of respect.
Click to expand...
I think the other things stated were much more important than the Mr, I agree that Mr. can occasionally be used even in intimate circumstances.
 
LTC8K6 said:
It sure reads like it was.

Perhaps you should quote the post you are responding to when you reply?
Click to expand...

I wasn't replying to any post. I made a stand alone post. That is allowed, correct? Next time, should I wait until someone else posts before me? Are there special rules for me only?
 
Last edited:
Unabogie said:
Regarding calling Frank "Mr. Taffe", yeah good point. It's not as if George has a history of using language designed to deceive when he thinks others will hear it.
Click to expand...
Yes, the criminal mastermind GZ carefully planned out the use of the word "Mr." from his jailhouse phone, as well as offering condolences to his "good friend" on the death of his son, who died over a year ago. He's evidently such a good friend that he'd never been able to offer his condolences even though they live a block apart.

But the cool thing is that he planned all this out. Why, I bet he purposely caused bond to be revoked, so that these discussions could become public, and that in turn people would be tricked into believing Frank is not his friend, which after all, is CRUCIAL to his defense! This GZ is the Professor Moriarty of the modern day criminal world!
 
triforcharity said:
This has an arrest for a grand total of two people, for one offense.

WRT: descriptions that didn't come from GZ, I don't understand what you mean CR. Frank Taffee said all the suspects were black males. Was wondering how he could have come up with that. I don't recall that being in the reports that I saw.

Do you have a link to the full 9 burglary reports by chance? I can't find mine. IIRC, most did not have a suspect description, but maybe one or two.
Click to expand...
Seriously, I don't get your point... there were apparently a lot of crimes, and a lot of people reporting them. The media, at least as represented in that Wiki, has seen fit to only mention the race of a few suspects/arrestees.

Are you arguing that the number might have been 5 or 12?
Or are you saying that all the residents who called the police 400 some times, even the black ones, are racists?
 
Yes, the criminal mastermind GZ carefully planned out the use of the word "Mr." from his jailhouse phone...
Click to expand...

Z didn't make that call to Taafee from Jail - he called him early on, when Z was free and in hiding. Frank seemed to be one of the few people Z talked to.

Also, regarding FT's son, he died a few years ago - and it was from a drug overdose. Frank very likely did not talk about it. His other son, the brother of that deceased was posting on a website about it a while ago...(confirmed) (no, I'm not going to dig through the slush to find the postings) -- but he made it clear it was his deranged father that led the son to turn to drugs from his psychotic abuse, and led to him killing himself.

Frank Taaffee's entire family has disowned him, he abused all of them, FT's violent domestic abuse is a matter of record.

I highly doubt FT would offer up the details of a son he probably had some responsibility in driving into suicide.
 
KatieG said:
I wasn't replying to any post. I made a stand alone post. That is allowed, correct? Next time, should I wait until someone else posts before me? Are there special rules for me only?
Click to expand...

No, there aren't special rules for you, but clarity is always good, especially in a long and wandering thread.

Besides, I don't believe you weren't addressing my "strong evidence" post. :)
 
LTC8K6 said:
So far the amount of evidence against GZ seems to be small, though.

This despite Lester's claim of strong evidence.

I don't think we have seen much evidence against GZ, except for arguing over GZ's recall of the night.

If there is any strong evidence in Corey's case against GZ, I haven't seen or heard of it yet.

She could still produce it, of course.

I think we can safely say that SPD did a decent initial investigation and they did not find anything strong to refute GZ's claim.
Click to expand...
Again, 'strong evidence' in that legal context (pretrial hearings), doesn't mean what you are saying. It simply means that it isn't weak. It carries absolutely zero connotation of guilt in the eyes of the court, and is no predictor of outcome.
 
crimresearch said:
Again, 'strong evidence' in that legal context (pretrial hearings), doesn't mean what you are saying. It simply means that it isn't weak. It carries absolutely zero connotation of guilt in the eyes of the court, and is no predictor of outcome.
Click to expand...

Well, so far the evidence seems indeed to be weak...

It may carry zero connotation of guilt with Lester, but it carries a large connotation of guilt in the media and with the public and particularly with board posters.
 
Dan O. said:
O'Mara would never allow George to accept such a deal. Not while his client still has a substantial legal defense fund and can fight these charges. Even before the trial, having both George and his wife use the accomodationss provided will substantially reduce their living expenses that would otherwise eat into the fund.

Staying in prison may be better for George too. While he is in custody pending trial, he apparently has additional privileges evidenced primarily by his extensive phone usage. After he is found guilty, his sentence will be reduced by this soft time served.
Click to expand...

Yep, his lawyer will be loyal to the last dollar.


Right, jail time is good time,not. (have you ever been locked up?)
 
LTC8K6 said:
No, there aren't special rules for you, but clarity is always good, especially in a long and wandering thread.

Besides, I don't believe you weren't addressing my "strong evidence" post. :)
Click to expand...

I don't give a **** what you believe. I was trying to make sure other people could clearly see I was not misunderstanding the bond hearing or the circumstances around it.
 
KatieG said:
Also, this is the sequence of events at the bond hearing.

Lester never announced, made any pronouncements or said anything during the hearing about the evidence being strong.

At the hearing he read directly from this statute;

Statute 3.131 subsection 5

All information provided by a defendant in connection with any application for or attempt to secure bail, to any court, court personnel, or individual soliciting or recording such information for the purpose of evaluating eligibility for or securing bail for the defendant, under circumstances such that the defendant knew or should have known that the information was to be used in connection with an application for bail, shall be accurate, truthful, and complete, without omissions, to the best knowledge of the defendant. Failure to comply with the provisions of this subdivision may result in the revocation or modification of bail. However, no defendant shall be compelled to provide information regarding his or her criminal record.
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/c...eport_AppA.pdf

-------

It was his written ruling several days later when the strong evidence comes in. Here is the entire ruling, full and in context, there is so much more to it and he spells everything out according to the law;


http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_...ing bond.pdf
Reply With Quote
Click to expand...
Do you really think anyone here doesn't know the difference between the bond hearing where the judge did make the determination that the evidence was strong enough to require a bond, and the bond revocation hearing later where he had no need to repeat himself because it wasn't at issue?

Seriously?
 
LTC8K6 said:
Well, so far the evidence seems indeed to be weak...

It may carry zero connotation of guilt with Lester, but it carries a large connotation of guilt in the media and with the public and particularly with board posters.
Click to expand...

Notice how I am clearly addressing this post to YOU?

What are the chances any board posters here will actually be on the jury?
 
LTC8K6 said:
Well, so far the evidence seems indeed to be weak...

It may carry zero connotation of guilt with Lester, but it carries a large connotation of guilt in the media and with the public and particularly with board posters.
Click to expand...
No doubt about that.
 
crimresearch said:
Do you really think anyone here doesn't know the difference between the bond hearing where the judge did make the determination that the evidence was strong enough to require a bond, and the bond revocation hearing later where he had no need to repeat himself because it wasn't at issue?

Seriously?
Click to expand...

What the **** do you want from me? First, I was told I obviously don't know what the bond hearing was about! Second, I was accused of mistakenly believing the judge can go all postal and revoke bond on a whim or maybe he got his knickers in a twist. I was posting to specifically address the issue of what JKL said at the hearing vs. what was later included with his written ruling.

Then, when I clearly lay out posts which represent the FACTS of the case and the sequence of events at the bond hearing, you give me ****. What the **** is your problem? Don't you have some flies around that need their wings pulled off?

I was specifically addressing comments related to what JKL actually said at the bond revocation hearing vs. what was included in his written ruling.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

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