Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[crimresearch]

If I'm not mistaken this thread was shut down around the time that GZ's wife was arrested for perjury, and therefore there was not much discussion about it. Some questions:

1. Is the prosecution allowed to now pressure GZ to plea in exchange for letting his wife off?
2. If GZ had testified at the bond hearing, is it right to assume they would have immediately asked him questions that would have forced him to implicate his wife? I know someone cannot be forced to testify against a spouse, but that's an all or nothing proposition, is it not? That is, he can't only answer questions he likes, then refuse if they pertain to his wife?
3. What are the chances his bond hearing subterfuge will be allowed into trial to demonstrate his truthfulness? Under what circumstances, if any, will that be allowed?

They can make an offer. He can decide if pleading guilty to a homicide is worth not having her go through a trial for something that is traditionally hard to get a conviction on (except as a plea to a greater crime). I can't see his attorneys recommending he accept. At some point, someone should point out to GZ that the judge can override the plea deal recommendation, so it isn't a sure thing.

Generally you can refuse to answer individual questions, after answering others. Under a grant of immunity you can't. That's not a regular feature in bond hearings because of the ruling mentioned before about pretrial self-incrimination.

The broad test for admissibility of things not directly related to the crime, is balancing probative versus prejudicial value.
The 'if you had even the slightest inconsistency in anything you've ever done your whole life, doesn't that mean you are lying about the crime' goes a lot farther on the internet and TV than in real life. People who do things wrong are allowed to be innocent of other things, post Salem.

If the prosecution is allowed to suggest that George knew he was guilty of murder and was planning to flee, one obvious rebuttal is that he was afraid that all the gossip and media manipulation *and inconsistencies from the government*, meant that he was going to be railroaded while innocent, not that he knew he was guilty. The fact that he cooperated, didn't flle that night, turned himself in when needed and so on works against the prosecution on that.

Other than that, his bonehead moves *after* the crime aren't going to be very probative about what he was doing when he pulled the trigger, and look pretty prejudicial judging by the reactions here..

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Posted on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 06:22:21 PM EST

More news in the George Zimmerman case. He posted the $1 million bail and was released from jail.

The next discovery round will be available to the media on Monday through the court's media website.
...

Any links from the major media or anyone else yet ?

Looking forward to some add'l photos and maybe some crime scene sketches, etc.

 

[quadraginta]

I think you're in the wrong forum, the farming and gardening forums are a few indexes yonder over there.

Well. someone may be, perhaps.

But don't you think your suggestion would be more useful if it were directed at the one who actually planted the crop, instead of people who have to wade through the results in a futile attempt to glean something resembling relevant content?

 

[crimresearch]

Why do you keep making statements like this?

Since I have made no assertions, I don't need to back them up. In fact, I can't.

They don't exist.

I certainly haven't made any about the legal system.

What I did was ask you a question in response to an assertion which you made. (In this post, in case your memory needs assistance.)

A question which you seem to have been too busy planting straw to actually respond to.

Here, I'll give you another chance.

​

After you answer (or before, if you wish) you can explain what assertions I have made about the legal system which even remotely resemble either of these assertions you are attempting to attribute to me.

​

If you can't then it is only so much straw.

"Routine" and "mundane" were your choice of words. Since we are discussing the facts of the Zimmerman case it is perfectly reasonable for me to ask you to clarify your statement with regard to the subject at hand.

I am puzzled that you are so strenuously avoiding this, to the point of outright fabrications about what I have written.




Ironic that you should follow up with an insinuation like that, after such a blatant exhibition of your own inability to respond to what has actually been written here. But since the link I provided to the post of yours is not sufficiently accurate for you, I will reiterate the sequence in more detail.

You said ...

​

-------------------------------------------
(Note that this is the very first mention of the phrase or concept of 'pro-Zimmerman' in this exchange, or (to the best of my memory) any exchange between the two of us. Or for that matter (again, to the best of my recollection) any post by me at all.

This is best explained by the fact that not only am I neither 'pro' nor 'anti- Zimmerman', but beyond that I am profoundly uninterested in whether or not anyone else is save for how that might affect the actual facts of the case.

But back to the topic of this post.)
--------------------------------------------

I responded ...

​

You came back with ...

​

See how that works? Your meme, which you brought in.

Also, you are the one who has been blathering on about the Constitution, which I have made no comment about either directly or indirectly.

I did not question the legality or the propriety of Zimmerman's current bail, or the proceeding in which it was assigned, or the donations he has received. Those are utterly artifacts of your own creation. AKA, beau coup straw.

I simply asked you if you felt that the adjectives which you chose apply, in your opinion, to the facts in the case we are discussing.

If they do not, and your hyperbole was ill-considered, simply say so. There's nothing shameful about a moment of over-enthusiasm. It happens to us all.

It certainly doesn't merit the mountains of dried grass you've been so preoccupied with piling up.

Routine and mundane were my choice of words for being granted due process in the legal system. For getting bail, including non-excessive bail. For being allowed a lawyer, constitutional rights, and so forth. Just like anyone else. Just like thousands of people accused of crime all across the nation.

When the frenzy about Zimmerman actually being given such due process came up, I asked why he shouldn't be... a very relevant question to the discussion at large, which you chose to not answer.

I asked how sticking to the facts and not buying into the myths and gossip made anyone 'pro-Zimmerman, as had been claimed dozens of times.

That was spun by you into claiming that I brought up the notion of being on the 'pro/anti Zimmerman' teams. Which would be a specious argument, gven the fact that I was referencing several others who *had* suggested just that.

On the topic of the $1 million amountbeing somehow 'wrong', I've noted that the actual attorneys in this case didn't find it 'wrong' enough to appeal.

And on that claim, I've asked those commenting on the problem with Zimmerman getting bond, for legal cites controverting my observation.
I asked those who had something to support the notion that there is anything wrong with the amount, to please clarify. Some people did, quite logically.


Again, very relevant to the topic, and again... unanswered by you.

It apparently bothers you enough for you to not only bring it up over and over, but to conflate what i actually said into some sort of debate.

I'll stick to the facts as they exist in the law.

I've asked repeatedly for you to drop the debate tactics, and discuss such facts, I'm not going to wait any longer.

 

[Bob001]

.....his bonehead moves *after* the crime aren't going to be very probative about what he was doing when he pulled the trigger, and look pretty prejudicial judging by the reactions here....

But in this particular case GZ's integrity is the core issue. It is undisputed that GZ deliberately shot and killed an unarmed teenager in a public place. He has never claimed that somebody else did it or that his gun went off by accident or that TM was breaking into his home. His only defense against criminal charges is that he was in fear for his life, and that his fear was reasonable under the circumstances. He alone knows what he was thinking and feeling during his confrontation with TZ, and he alone knows what preceded it. Anything that raises doubts about his honesty weakens his defense. His "bonehead moves" prove nothing about the incident, but they say a lot about what kind of person he is and what he might be willing to do.

 

[crimresearch]

But in this particular case GZ's integrity is the core issue. It is undisputed that GZ deliberately shot and killed an unarmed teenager in a public place. He has never claimed that somebody else did it or that his gun went off by accident or that TM was breaking into his home. His only defense against criminal charges is that he was in fear for his life, and that his fear was reasonable under the circumstances. He alone knows what he was thinking and feeling during his confrontation with TZ, and he alone knows what preceded it. Anything that raises doubts about his honesty weakens his defense. His "bonehead moves" prove nothing about the incident, but they say a lot about what kind of person he is and what he might be willing to do.

Absolutely correct on the fear for his life issue. Very well put.

But 'integrity' isn't an element of the crime of murder...

There isn't anything that says a certain 'kind of person' can be presumed guilty on that basis.

The appearance of integrity seems huge from the outside looking in, but the courts aren't supposed to operate that way.

It's along the lines of 'can a prostitute' be raped? Can a person with no integrity kill someone in self defense? Yes to both.

On the issue of credibility, the test has been there long before Zimmerman came along. If it is prejudicial against the defendant, the court needs to take extra care before letting it in.

And since it looks like undermining Zimmerman's credibility may be all the prosecution's got in the absence of mind reading, they need to be very careful in what they ask for.

Just smearing the defendant isn't going to be allowed, and can even backfire if the jury starts subjecting the prosecution's every word and action to the same level of personal scrutiny...

 

[marplots]

But in this particular case GZ's integrity is the core issue. It is undisputed that GZ deliberately shot and killed an unarmed teenager in a public place. He has never claimed that somebody else did it or that his gun went off by accident or that TM was breaking into his home. His only defense against criminal charges is that he was in fear for his life, and that his fear was reasonable under the circumstances. He alone knows what he was thinking and feeling during his confrontation with TZ, and he alone knows what preceded it. Anything that raises doubts about his honesty weakens his defense. His "bonehead moves" prove nothing about the incident, but they say a lot about what kind of person he is and what he might be willing to do.

Wouldn't it be ironic if he is both a liar and innocent of the crime?

This reminds me of the Casey Anthony case in that way. Even if someone has lied, you still have a barrier to surmount. It seems like they not only have to discount GZ's story, but come up with a believable alternative. I don't think it's enough just to put his inconsistencies in front of a jury, but I'm not confident enough to bet on it.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Any links from the major media or anyone else yet ?

Looking forward to some add'l photos and maybe some crime scene sketches, etc.

update:
http://twitter.com/RoblesHerald
Next round of evidence in the ‪#Zimmerman‬ case expected 10 AM Thursday.

 

[crimresearch]

Wouldn't it be ironic if he is both a liar and innocent of the crime?

This reminds me of the Casey Anthony case in that way. Even if someone has lied, you still have a barrier to surmount. It seems like they not only have to discount GZ's story, but come up with a believable alternative. I don't think it's enough just to put his inconsistencies in front of a jury, but I'm not confident enough to bet on it.

Very much the point.

We could get a whole new pile of documents showing that Zimmerman is in fact a gangbanger, that he only looks thinner because of liposuction paid for with the defense fund, that he cheated on his wife, that he stole a candy bar in 3rd grade, hasn't paid his taxes, and that some people say that he practices witchcraft...

Still don't get to bring out the torches yet.

And because of the safeguards, the ironic fact is that the worst sort of people will slip though the cracks on their lucky day.

The alternative is to do away with such protections, build a few million more prison cells, and live with the increase in false convictions.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...y-with-murder/2012/07/09/gJQA6E4UYW_blog.html

Did George Zimmerman try to get away with murder?

This is what you can get when judges write things like Lester wrote.

Hey, if GZ was trying to flee, like Lester said, then I guess the case is over.

A judge basically said GZ was guilty, and acting guilty. Why have a trial?

 

[Bob001]

....We could get a whole new pile of documents showing that Zimmerman is in fact a gangbanger, that he only looks thinner because of liposuction paid for with the defense fund, that he cheated on his wife, that he stole a candy bar in 3rd grade, hasn't paid his taxes, and that some people say that he practices witchcraft...

I would say it would not necessarily hurt his defense if those things were proven to be true, but it would hurt him if it was proven that he lied about them. If, for example, he claimed that he never met the people he was in a gang with, that his weight loss was purely the result of diet and exercise, that he had always been faithful to his wife, that he had never eaten a candy bar, that the IRS stole his tax payment, and the voodoo dolls hidden in his garage were really custom Barbies, it would raise doubts about whether he was testifying truthfully about his state of mind when he killed somebody. We are asking him to tell the truth about what he thought, without any corroborating witnesses or physical evidence; if he has a history of lying about other things, important and otherwise, and getting caught, it will be harder to believe him if he tells a story that can't be proven false.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

We are asking him to tell the truth about what he thought, without any corroborating witnesses or physical evidence; if he has a history of lying about other things, important and otherwise, and getting caught, it will be harder to believe him if he tells a story that can't be proven false.

It might be for us on the forum. But it'll be utterly irrelevant to the people sitting on the jury who most likely won't ever hear of any such untruthfulness. That concept is so central to our legal system, that I can't fathom why people keep bringing it up again and again as if it doesn't exist.

Remember when William Kennedy Smith was on trial for rape? And other women came forward in the press and claimed he'd raped or tried to rape them? But the jury never heard it? So unless the judge allows in evidence that GZ is a pathological pathological liar, it's irrelevant. That's why I asked if the prosecution will be allowed to bring in his lying at the bond hearing in the main trial in an attempt to impeach his statements to police. My guess is if he does not testify they will not be able to mention them. Not so sure about it if he takes the stand though. I'm sure those more knowledgeable than I am can better guess on that front.

 

[Bob001]

..... But it'll be utterly irrelevant to the people sitting on the jury who most likely won't ever hear of any such untruthfulness.....

I'm not so sure that's true. GZ is not legally required to testify at his trial, but as his defense depends entirely on what he was thinking, the jury will expect to hear about it from his own mouth. There isn't anyone else who can claim to read his mind. Then if he testifies, he gets cross-examined, and I don't think he's smart enough to avoid the traps that would open up his whole history.

I just don't think a jury of average citizens is going to just go along if GZ's defense attorney stands up and says "He was afraid for his life. You have to believe him. We're done here."

 

[Bob001]

Also, if the women in the William Kennedy Smith business had been allowed to testify, it would still have come down to "he said/she said" about matters that were unrelated to the case at hand. Their testimony wouldn't have proven anything. But if GZ can be proven to have lied about a matter of fact relevant to the case, I suspect that the jury would hear about it one way or another.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I'm not so sure that's true. GZ is not legally required to testify at his trial, but as his defense depends entirely on what he was thinking, the jury will expect to hear about it from his own mouth.

1. People get found innocent all the time without taking the stand on their own behalf so I'm not sure why it would be any different here.

2. Why would the jury have to hear from GZ? The prosecution has to prove that he's guilty, he doesn't have to prove that he's innocent. So far I've heard them present a theory that he chased TM down and tried to hold him. So then Omara gets to cross examine every states witness and make them prove that theory. I'm not saying that depending on how things progress GZ might not need to testify, but I certainly don't think it's a necessity based on past precedent.

Maybe I'm wrong but I think the governments case is going to hinge to a great extent on how significant the discrepancies really are are between the different statements he gave.

 

[crimresearch]

I'm not so sure that's true. GZ is not legally required to testify at his trial, but as his defense depends entirely on what he was thinking, the jury will expect to hear about it from his own mouth. There isn't anyone else who can claim to read his mind. Then if he testifies, he gets cross-examined, and I don't think he's smart enough to avoid the traps that would open up his whole history.

I just don't think a jury of average citizens is going to just go along if GZ's defense attorney stands up and says "He was afraid for his life. You have to believe him. We're done here."

That's possible in any jury trial.

If a bunch of average people want to lie when they swear or affirm to not let their prejudices interfere with their duty to be impartial, then William Kennedy Smith walks for rape, because he was 'too good looking to have to rape someone' (from a post trial interview with an elderly female juror).

And if the Zimmerman jurors want to ignore the judge's instructions, and factor in that he 'looks like a gangbanger', or 'Jesse Jackson said this was an assassination of a black child', then they are going to do that.

Happens all the time, and it can't be stopped.

In the less extreme case, if the jurors want to try to figure out how many punches it takes to end up with Zimmerman's injuries, compare that to his emotional and dramatic description of the fight, and decide if he was also exaggerating when he said Martin grabbed for the gun...

We would have to be there to know

 

[johnny karate]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...y-with-murder/2012/07/09/gJQA6E4UYW_blog.html



This is what you can get when judges write things like Lester wrote.

Hey, if GZ was trying to flee, like Lester said, then I guess the case is over.

A judge basically said GZ was guilty, and acting guilty. Why have a trial?

I'm not sure what your problem is with that editorial. From what I can tell, every bit of it is factually correct. The only part that is questionable is the query that assumes Zimmerman's alleged preparations to flee means he is guilty of murder ("If Zimmerman didn’t do anything wrong, why was he trying to run?").

Also, it adds further enlightenment to Zimmerman's medical report:

... his own medical report, conducted the day after the shooting because he needed it and a police report to return to work, described his head injuries as “normocephalic, atraumatic.” That’s doc speak for “normal.”

Feel free to Google those terms.

So along with this list of officially documented injuries:

• Broken nose

• Two small cuts on the back of his head (2 cm and .5 cm respectively)

• Forehead abrasion (mentioned in the EMT report but not by the doctor)

... we have the doctor specifically saying there was no significant head trauma.

So remind me again... what is the evidence that Zimmerman was repeatedly punched and had his head repeatedly bashed onto the concrete by Martin?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

If a bunch of average people want to lie when they swear or affirm to not let their prejudices interfere with their duty to be impartial...

And if there was ever a case where I can imagine people lying (on BOTH sides) to get on the jury so they can pursue an agenda, this is it. As others have pointed out, the racial makeup of the jury would seem to be significant, though I'm not convinced that's as cut and dry as many think.

 

[This is The End]

You mean the one that GZ's own attorney handed in? That one? Yep, sounds like a plan to flee to me. It's hard to keep track of all of these passports so if I'm wrong on that count let me know.

Wow, it's like you don't even see my posts. People need to seriously get the timeline straight.

I don't get it. I can't reconcile the fact that GZ voluntarily turned in a passport, yet judge Lester claims he was getting ready to flee the country.

Well, first of all (not that you don't know this), Z turned in the passport days after the first bond hearing. So the judge is assuming Z only did that after something else prevented his escape. Perhaps a person talked sense into him, or perhaps other means prevented it.

Just having the passport is not exactly a magic "get out of the country" card.

So the time-line would go:

He's in jail supposedly planning his escape from the country.
At the bond hearing he still has hopes of escape.
He get's out of jail after the bond hearing.
His hopes are dashed for whatever reason.
Then he turns in his original passport.

Read that timelike and then ask yourself why it is weird that you and TheL8Elvis keep saying "How could the judge think he was gonna flee, his lawyer turned in his passport!!". Because it was days later, that's why!!

I can only assume why you keep making that mistake. Just like I can only assume why you thought the judge's bail statements were "bizzaree".

 

[This is The End]

If I'm not mistaken this thread was shut down around the time that GZ's wife was arrested for perjury, and therefore there was not much discussion about it. Some questions:

First of all, the thread was never "shut down". Second of all, it was put on moderated states way after Z's wife was arrested for perjury. At least a month after. Thirdly, there was plenty of discussion about it.

So you are triply mistaken.