Ridiculous assertions require ridiculous evidence ?
Let's be clear:
I said I believed martin either committed some type of theft or was holding for a friend. Those are two reasonable conclusions based on the circumstances. If I said I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt, what belief should I hold ?
As you do below in defense of Zimmerman, you could simply deny the facts.
Maybe Martin didn't actually have that jewelry and screwdriver.
Maybe the school official was mistaken or confused.
If GZ had lots of money, but no passport, wouldn't that be evidence he was going to flee ?
If GZ had a passport but no money , wouldn't that be evidence he was going to flee ?
Since GZ paid outstanding debts , would that be evidence he was not going to flee ?
Since there was no discussion of extradition or non-extradition countries, would that be evidence he was not going to flee ?
Since there was no discussion or plans to flee at all, would that be evidence he was not going to flee ?
Is there no room for any different interpretation of these facts ?
Zimmerman hid a passport and a large sum of money from the court. I'm open to hearing an alternative explanation that accounts for these facts rather than denying them.
I did. They were hiding the money to appear indigent at the bond hearing. The passport was a mistake, honestly overlooked initially...
And there's that denial I was talking about. At least you didn't insult my intelligence by claiming the hiding of the money was an honest mistake too.
...but then intentionally not turned in, perhaps with the thought it could be used if GZ needed to flee the country.
I see... so after the serendipity of an honest mistake, Zimmerman realizes a second passport might come in handy if he decides to flee, but he never actually planned to flee. He just kept that "plan" in a different part of his brain from where he keeps his actual plans, and that's how we split that particular hair.
Keeping that in mind, here's a thought: Maybe Martin practiced self-hypnosis, and at the time he was caught with the screwdriver and jewelry he wasn't consciously aware of any wrongdoing he engaged in to acquire those items, so realistically he couldn't at that time be culpable for that wrongdoing.
I know that seems farfetched, but don't you think we owe him the benefit of the doubt?
That is completely different, and reasonable alternative to the way Lester interpreted the evidence.
No, you want to pretend "honest mistakes" were made by two people conspiring to decieve the court in contradiction to the evidence. There's actually not a whole lot that's reasonable about that.
The option to flee ... I thought that was clear ? The possibility that he would be able to leave the country, if he chose, because he still had a passport.
Yeah, I'm actually looking for an alternative explanation to Zimmerman planning to flee. So we seem to be in agreement that this is the only reasonable conclusion to draw about a man who hides a passport from the court.
No, that means you can't prove he was going to flee, but was only thwarted by the ankle monitor.
Why do think it needs to be proven? You certainly didn't require anything be proven before deciding Martin was involved in a burglary.
Judge Lesters claim is not just 'he was planning on fleeing'. It's that he would have fled if not for the ankle jewelry.
Because people usually make plans with the intention of carrying them out. Otherwise they wouldn't be called "plans". So Lester drew the very reasonable conclusion that the guy making a plan to flee must have been thwarted.
And my original contention, which I still believe, was simply the conclusion that GZ would have fled if except for the anle bracelet in not giving someone the benefit of the doubt.
And you've yet to offer as a basis for that doubt an alternative explanation why a man facing a lengthy prison term would hide a large sum of money and a passport from the court.
