• 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.
Can anyone explain why MOM is bring up injuries at the bond hearing? Is this to refute the "evidence is strong" comment from the judge?

This seems odd.
 
Unabogie said:
I think that strikes me, while watching this Zimmerman walkthrough, is how different he sounds on the NEN call. He sounds like he's slurring his words, and his accent is slightly different. I still think he sounds intoxicated on the NEN call because of this.
Click to expand...
I thought the same thing. He slurs his words, has a much different tone and words like truck became shruck.

Again, he was taking psychotropic drugs, so even a beer or two could really mess him up.
 
Unabogie said:
Can anyone explain why MOM is bring up injuries at the bond hearing? Is this to refute the "evidence is strong" comment from the judge?

This seems odd.
Click to expand...
I think they're going to try and go the George was brain damaged route - and that's why he deceived the court.

:)
 
crimresearch said:
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?
Click to expand...

Not at all sir. Not one bit. I am NOT saying that.

What I AM saying, is that Frank Taffee and others, making the claim that the majority (and in Taffee's case, ALL) of the suspects were young black males, is wrong, and incorrect.

There is NO way to know what the race of the suspects were, if there were no eyewitnesses to the crime, and no arrests.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
:confused:



Why do you continue to not provide me some quotes from earlier in this thread (as we discussed) that explain their friendship, whatever it may be ?
Evade, Evade, Evade....
Click to expand...
Time machine... now Triforcharity's using it.

I cn haz nxt plzz?
 
Last edited:
Significant amount of blood on his nose and goatee. So tell me again how Trayvon tried to smother his mouth and nose and didn't end up with any blood there?
 
Unabogie said:
Can anyone explain why MOM is bring up injuries at the bond hearing? Is this to refute the "evidence is strong" comment from the judge?

This seems odd.
Click to expand...

Not that statement specifically but they are challenging the strength of the evidence.
 
triforcharity said:
Not at all sir. Not one bit. I am NOT saying that.

What I AM saying, is that Frank Taffee and others, making the claim that the majority (and in Taffee's case, ALL) of the suspects were young black males, is wrong, and incorrect.

There is NO way to know what the race of the suspects were, if there were no eyewitnesses to the crime, and no arrests.
Click to expand...
I agree... if there were no witnesses or arrests. From what I've heard, Taffee comes off as completely unbelievable.

But I also have no reason to think that there were no witnesses, or no arrests.
 
So George declined going to the doctor, but someone at work told him he needed to in order to show to the cops.

So I guess he felt alright after his near death experience.
 
crimreasearch, just the person I was hoping to see. Please explain why they are going through all of this discussion of injuries etc.? From this layman's perspective I'd have assumed that what was relevant was revisiting the deception that took place at the original bond hearing, and deciding if they were going to reissue bond? Why are they revisiting all of these other things that seem more appropriate to be visiting at trial?
 
Unabogie said:
Is that an element of the bond release? So will the SAO now bring in some of their evidence and we're about to have a mini-trial?
Click to expand...

Yes. Florida requires guilt evident or presumption great to deny bond unless other circumstances exist (flight risk, danger to society, etc)
 
Last edited:
Voice stress test not admissible at bond hearing?

(The video stream barely works for me, and I still haven't found an audio only stream...)
 
Cylinder said:
Yes. Florida requires proof evident or presumption great to deny bond unless other circumstances exist (flight risk, danger to society, etc)
Click to expand...
OK, though I still find it strange because it seems as though that aspect of it was covered already, I guess that answers my question to crimresearch.
 
OnlyTellsTruths said:
Voice stress test not admissible at bond hearing?

(The video stream barely works for me, and I still haven't found an audio only stream...)
Click to expand...

Here's a good stream, if you have a decent internet connection.

http://www.wesh.com/news/central-fl...eld/-/14266478/15346056/-/yob27e/-/index.html

The local stations are:

www.WFTV.com

www.wesh.com

www.local6.com

Those are the big three, and wesh has a decent live stream.

No audio only that I know of.

It also appears that CourtTV is covering it nationally.
 
Last edited:
Natural Born Skeptic said:
crimreasearch, just the person I was hoping to see. Please explain why they are going through all of this discussion of injuries etc.? From this layman's perspective I'd have assumed that what was relevant was revisiting the deception that took place at the original bond hearing, and deciding if they were going to reissue bond? Why are they revisiting all of these other things that seem more appropriate to be visiting at trial?
Click to expand...
Fundamentally, people have a right to bond that isn't excessive, in part because of the whole 'innocent until proven' thing.
It is good for everyone concerned, for them to be out assisting in their own defense.

The first hurdle is do they simply get released until trial, or should they have to post a bond? A weak case is usually going to get someone released on their own.

A stronger(er) case will call for some assurance they won't flee.

To lose that right entirely, the judge has to evaluate flight risk, danger to witnesses or the public, ability to pay the bond and so forth.

Zimmerman's material misrepresentations via his wife don't raise a serious issue on any of those points.

I suspect O'Mara is negotiating for a higher bond that doesn't wipe out the fund. By revisiting the weakness of the prosecution's case, he's focusing attention away from the money.

He's also probably playing to the jury pool.
 
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