Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Rare Truth]

You are 'amazed' that a defense attorney would actually do their job, and be zealous in Zimmerman's case?
...

The statement: "Generally, a statement by the judge that he feels a party has lied in a case indicates bias against the party."

Though the party has lied - and the defense attorney said as much, in this admission:

“Mr. Zimmerman’s failure to advise the Court of the existence of the donated funds at the initial bail hearing was wrong and Mr. Zimmerman accepts responsibility for his part in allowing the Court to be misled as to his true financial circumstances.”

It show bias, yes, bias, for the judge to make a statement about the admitted lie. Yeah, I agree with you - that's zealousness. Stupidly zealous, and frightfully wrong, but, hey, the guy knows his audience.

No lynch mob mentality here, nosirree, none at all, at all

If racially charged hyperbole is what is needed to try and make the case, I suggest more heapings. It really spices it up. For some.

 

[Unabogie]

Interesting link. This claims that according to the surveillance videos at the clubhouse, George never parked where he said he parked. And they have links to the surveillance videos themselves if you care to spend your Saturday watching them.

http://imgur.com/a/bcAII

This one is looking out the front door and would have seen George's truck if he parked where he said he did on the walkthrough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=czdwBkPZwbs


ETA: Eh. Just glanced and I don't know if you can make out much of this video.

 

[Dan O.]

What I'd like to figure out is why the discrepancy between this and Google Maps? As as wrote above, Google Maps seems remarkably accurate when looking at things like baseball diamonds and football fields. It's accurate to what looks like inches. Yet in this case, GM says a distance is around 45 feet but the map that was drawn up gets you to different numbers which seem about 15 feet off. The map says it's not to scale, but that doesn't affect our ability to use the numbers. So I see three possibilities:

1. Those numbers are off.
2. Those numbers are correct, but we're reading them wrong and they are measuring something else or measuring in a different way.
3. Google Maps is nearly perfect everywhere but on Twin Trees, Sanford FL.

I'd like to understand which of those things are true.

Google maps doesn't show where the body or any of the objects were. These numbers don't show where the Tee is. You are trying to interpret the positions of objects on uneven terrain from the photos by eye. This can sometimes be deceiving.

To improve this, Sketchup will allow us to map multiple photos taken from different angles onto the same model. When this is done, it will validate the 3 dimensional model and then we can measure everything directly on the model. This however will take some work and I'm hoping that the new version has improved the process.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Just to make it more realistic, I've added in where I suspect George came sprinting into the situation.

 

[Limehouse Chappie]

I guess I'm a little slow today, can you quote the part where Zimmerman says he was scared at the T?

Just gonna bump this up since it never got answered.

 

[crimresearch]

The statement: "Generally, a statement by the judge that he feels a party has lied in a case indicates bias against the party."

Though the party has lied - and the defense attorney said as much, in this admission:

“Mr. Zimmerman’s failure to advise the Court of the existence of the donated funds at the initial bail hearing was wrong and Mr. Zimmerman accepts responsibility for his part in allowing the Court to be misled as to his true financial circumstances.”

It show bias, yes, bias, for the judge to make a statement about the admitted lie. Yeah, I agree with you - that's zealousness. Stupidly zealous, and frightfully wrong, but, hey, the guy knows his audience.
If racially charged hyperbole is what is needed to try and make the case, I suggest more heapings. It really spices it up. For some.

I'll leave all of that sort of game to you, you've got plenty of practice.

 

[Rare Truth]

I'll leave all of that sort of game to you, you've got plenty of practice.

Too bad you won't find any posts of mine racially dripping in any way shape or form.

Sometimes throwing out falsehoods might fool the occasional reader, not the regular posters who know.

Bad game plan when you have nothing to back it up.

 

[triforcharity]

The Leatherman Blog made an interesting point. If the judge was truly biased against Zimmerman, why wouldn't he just deny bond??

IMO, the judge granting bond even considering the **** GZ has pulled, shows that he is giving GZ every benefit of the doubt.

 

[crimresearch]

Too bad you won't find any posts of mine racially dripping in any way shape or form.

Sometimes throwing out falsehoods might fool the occasional reader, not the regular posters who know.

Bad game plan when you have nothing to back it up.

If you had a single fact relevant to this case, I'm sure you would have posted it by now, instead of the incessant derails into personal attacks and wild theories.

If you think I'm going to fall for your baiting to derail the thread, you are sadly mistaken.

 

[sgtbaker]

The Leatherman Blog made an interesting point. If the judge was truly biased against Zimmerman, why wouldn't he just deny bond??

IMO, the judge granting bond even considering the **** GZ has pulled, shows that he is giving GZ every benefit of the doubt.

I think it's a common tactic with defense lawyers. The right judge can tip the scales and any hope of Lester being the right judge were trashed when GZ allowed the courts to be misled.

 

[Unabogie]

The Leatherman Blog made an interesting point. If the judge was truly biased against Zimmerman, why wouldn't he just deny bond??

IMO, the judge granting bond even considering the **** GZ has pulled, shows that he is giving GZ every benefit of the doubt.

I like his blog. He lets people post no matter what their position is, and he has a few lawyers on there hashing out legal concepts.

 

[crimresearch]

The Leatherman Blog made an interesting point. If the judge was truly biased against Zimmerman, why wouldn't he just deny bond??

IMO, the judge granting bond even considering the **** GZ has pulled, shows that he is giving GZ every benefit of the doubt.

I don't know what to make of Leatherman

I can't find anyone who agrees with his earlier assertion that in Florida the prosecution can forbid Zimerman to introduce his own statements, and the police evidence into the trial... that simply isn't the way the system works. They can choose what evidence *they* bring, but it isn't their call as to what public records the defense presents.

On bond, as explained over and over, it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, it is a Constitutional guarantee.

Which is why during pre-trial, the judge generally chooses legal terminology very carefully.

This was explained in great detail during the discussion about the judge saying 'strong' evidence, instead of 'weak' or 'overwhelming' evidence against GZ. It is essentially a legally neutral term.

'Did in fact make material misrepresentations' is another legal tap dance to pinpoint a problem without giving the impression that the judge is pretrying the case.

If the judge actually wrote the words "I hereby find George Zimmerman and Mr. O'Mara to be liars' that would definitely be grounds to get a new judge.

I'd have to see a link to those exact words though. He didn't strike me as that incompetent.

If the judge merely said something less than flattering about the bond issue, then O'mara is doing what he swore to do, and playing every card dealt to him, as he is required to do.

So again, the question remains, this is the way the legal system has worked for a long time, why all the 'amazement' and outrage that the rules are being followed in this one particular case?

 

[Unabogie]

I don't know what to make of Leatherman

I can't find anyone who agrees with his earlier assertion that in Florida the prosecution can forbid Zimerman to introduce his own statements, and the police evidence into the trial... that simply isn't the way the system works. They can choose what evidence *they* bring, but it isn't their call as to what public records the defense presents.

I don't think that's what he said. I thought he was talking about the hearsay rule. He said this:

http://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/category/evidence/hearsay-rule/

First, every oral or written assertion, including non-verbal conduct, if intended as an assertion, that George Zimmerman made outside the courtroom regarding what happened in this case is hearsay, if offered by the defense at a hearing or during the trial to prove that whatever he asserted is true.

Why? Because hearsay is defined in evidence rule 801 as a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Second, hearsay is not admissible, unless pursuant to another evidentiary rule or exception.

The effect of these rules means that a defendant in a criminal case cannot introduce at a hearing or at trial a prior statement that he made, if he offers the statement to prove what he asserted in the statement.

Example: A detective is testifying in a bank robbery trial and the defense attorney asks, “My client told you that he was at work that day and did not rob the bank, didn’t he?”

The question is improper because it’s being offered by the defense to prove that the defendant did not rob the bank.

What happens, however, if the prosecutor seeks to offer the statement because it can prove the defendant was not at work as he claimed?

Answer: The defendant’s statement is admissible because it’s an admission by the party opponent, who is the defendant in this hypothetical. See evidence rule 801(d)(2).

The purpose of the admission-by-a-party-opponent rule is to permit a party to introduce statements by the opposing party. To simplify that process, rule 801(d)(2) exempts such statements from the hearsay rule.

Bottom Line: None of Zimmerman’s statements to the police will be admissible at his trial, unless the prosecution offers them. Do not expect the prosecution to do that, unless it is offering them into evidence to prove that he lied.

IANAL, so I'd encourage you to go over and challenge him on this. He answers questions faithfully.

 

[Limehouse Chappie]

Hey Unaboogie,

Can you take a few minutes out of your busy posting schedule to quote the part of the NYT article that says Zimmerman was scared at the T? Thanks.

 

[Noztradamus]

No. There are street lights. Not many and they are very tall, taller than the apartments, probably ment for decoration more than for providing light. They can be seen in the Google maps view of the neighborhood and in the street view looking in from both entrances.

You are correct about the streetlights, although I think the carhole lights would provide more illumination

http://www.cfnews13.com/content/dam/news/images/2012/07/george-zimmerman-aerial-1.jpg

Actually, he could simply drive forward to the south end of Twin Tree Lane where we can plainly see there is a street sign at the intersection (have you noticed how common it is to find street signs at intersections?) This would allow him to keep an eye on the back entrance so he could tell the cops if the ******* got away or not while giving them his exact location and best of all, he can stay safely seated in his truck.

I can't see a street sign at the intersection of Twin Trees and Long Oak Way.

But, yeah, long time ago I suggested that, if George was thinking, going to the bottom of Twin Trees, he could watch from his truck both the pathway and the lower corner of Retreat View Circle. Also he could direct the cops to enter from the back entrance on S. Oregon and meet him there.
And tell them if the suspect had actually left by the rear entrance or not.

 

[johnny karate]

Hey Unaboogie,

Can you take a few minutes out of your busy posting schedule to quote the part of the NYT article that says Zimmerman was scared at the T? Thanks.

Since it seems so important to you that people offer responses in a timely fashion, here's a post directed to you that you must have overlooked:

Where do you see people clamoring for Zimmerman's head that you felt the use of the term "Trayvon-truther" was appropriate?

Because for the most part, all I see are some people who don't believe Zimmerman's story, while managing not to clamor for his head in the process.

And since you acknowledge that legal standards don't apply to this discussion... if I don't believe Zimmerman when he says he acted in self-defense, exactly what "burden" do I have?

 

[Dan O.]

You are correct about the streetlights, although I think the carhole lights would provide more illumination

http://www.cfnews13.com/content/dam/news/images/2012/07/george-zimmerman-aerial-1.jpg



I can't see a street sign at the intersection of Twin Trees and Long Oak Way.

You may be right. There is a street light and a stop sign but I'm not seeing the street sign either. I was also incorrect on the configuration of the streets in that part of the neighborhood. This would be embarrassing if I actually lived there and was a member of the enighborhood watch.

Something else I noticed in your photo: I recalled George saying he stopped under the street light on Retreat View Circle. But I don't recall him saying that he crossed the street to where the street light is.

 

[Unabogie]

Hey Unaboogie,

Can you take a few minutes out of your busy posting schedule to quote the part of the NYT article that says Zimmerman was scared at the T? Thanks.

It wasn't in the article. It was in his interview, which you'd have to actually listen to in order to hear it. Hope this helps and enjoy your evening.

 

[Dan O.]

Here are the marker locations drawn to scale. (assuming I read all the numbers right)

One bit I haven't fixed yet is that marker #4 is on the baseline between the pillars. Moving it out will shorten the baseline slightly and therefore affect the locations of all the other markers.

 

[Dan O.]

And here are the same markers placed on Google maps. I placed marker #4 by the privacy fence where it should be. But since it should be west of the baseline between the pillars, everything else should shift slightly to the east. In particular, marker #2 should be on the sidewalk and marker #1 right at the edge of the walk. But this will do for now.

ETA: The houses are not aligned N-S so I'll need to add a bit of rotation.

I measure about 38 feet south from the center of the tee to the marker for Trayvon's head.