Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[This is The End]

Zimmerman Defense Responds to Witness #9 Statements

Of course they are going to deny it and defend against it!

As crim would say, if they didn't they aren't very good defense attorneys...

Could someone clear up whether or not Z allegedly stopped the alleged child molestation when he was 18 or did he stop when he was 21?? I see conflicting reports.

 

[crimresearch]

Anybody care to speculate about whether GZ could be prosecuted for these latest allegations? Has the statute of limitations run out? Was he too young to be responsible at the time the events may have occurred?

Depends on if the upper age was 16 or 19... but Florida did have a short statute of limitations.

 

[WildCat]

What do you know, WildCat tries to make the same defense with the same info. Why am I not surprised.

You don't think that's odd?

Did you miss the part that said she went to the cops with it 2 days after the shooting? Long before there was a media circus....

She did that anonymously, and then to say the Zimmermans were racists. Only later did she identify herself and come forth with these other accusations.

Does anyone else in the family corroborate her story, such as the sister she reportedly told 4 years after the last assault?

 

[This is The End]

You don't think that's odd?


She did that anonymously, and then to say the Zimmermans were racists. Only later did she identify herself and come forth with these other accusations.

Does anyone else in the family corroborate her story, such as the sister she reportedly told 4 years after the last assault?

Let's forget the part where you, of course, don't believe her. No surprise there. Let's forget about that for now. Let's go back to the part where you say it is somehow different because one or both of them were minors at the time:

Excuse me while I go vomit. On the heels of the Penn State debacle, I don't know if I can deal with more child molesting.

I'm not sure that's the right name for it, she's 27 now so her accusations go back to when he was 7 or so?

This was after you were provided with info that it continued until one, or both, of them were over 18.

Even if you missed it, you are suggesting that it is OK to sexually molest a child if you are only a few years older than that child..... That somehow that makes it not as bad? Not as bad for the victim? Not as bad for the perpetrator?

Cause it sure seems that way. If you could go on record now and say I read it wrong and that you believe it is just as bad either way that would be great.

 

[WildCat]

Let's forget the part where you, of course, don't believe her. No surprise there. Let's forget about that for now. Let's go back to the part where you say it is somehow different because one or both of them were minors at the time:

Do you really think a 7 year old is capable of sexual molestation?

This was after you were provided with info that it continued until one, or both, of them were over 18.

I've seen no such evidence from any reputable news source. What I have seen is evidence that the last alleged occasion was when the girl was 16 years old, at which point Zimmerman may have been 18, but he may also have been 17. And the girl says she told no one until 4 years later when she was 20?

And these people she says she told, have they corroborated this?

Cause it sure seems that way. If you could go on record now and say I read it wrong and that you believe it is just as bad either way that would be great.

You do realize that all we have now are accusations? And 7 years old is maybe too young to charge someone with sexual assault?

 

[triforcharity]

Anybody care to speculate about whether GZ could be prosecuted for these latest allegations? Has the statute of limitations run out? Was he too young to be responsible at the time the events may have occurred?

Apparently it continued (IIRC) well into his teens. There are no SOL on sexual battery in the state of Florida. Yes, he COULD be prosecuted. Will they? I have no idea. It's kind of a 50/50 on that.

ETA: In certain cases. There are a FEW exceptions. Very few.

 

[triforcharity]

Judicial ethics. It certainly would not be a crime, since her name is actually now a public record, though one that is exempt from release until the trial phase.

If the SOF decides to open an investigation into this allegation, her name would forever be sealed per Florida SS. 794.024 and 794.03

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ml&StatuteYear=2012&Title=->2012->Chapter 794

Again, only if the state decides to open a formal investigation.

ETA: If it hasn't already been released.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I think I will withhold any judgement on this. The way this came to light is weird but I would not accuse anyone of making up sexual assault for any reason.

Some random thoughts on this for which I'm going to use your post as a springboard .

1. I think whoever is responsible for releasing the information, since it's clearly irrelevant legally, is guilty of ethical misconduct (not saying it's illegal, I guess this is how you play the game). Why? Because it serves no purpose whatsoever except to pollute the jury pool and make this guy hated. It's also going to open this woman up to unprecedented scrutiny, I hope she's told them that's OK because that's what's going to happen now.

2. I predict this may backfire. Have they established the credibility of this woman's accusations? I think some in the media are going to look at this a little harder than usual and be more inclined to question the accusations because of the nature of them, since if it's true it means he was molesting his cousin at age 8. If the accusations don't come back as credible it might backfire and make the prosecution look bad. Of course if they come bac as credible, it'll make GZ look like a seriously demented guy.

 

[Dancing David]

Do you really think a 7 year old is capable of sexual molestation?

Yes, now the level of culpability is different.

 

[WildCat]

Yes, now the level of culpability is different.

That's what I'm talking about, he'd be unlikely to even understand what sexual was all about. And for that then to continue through most of the teen years? It just seems odd to me. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, just that it's extremely unusual. At least I've never heard of a similar case!

 

[sgtbaker]

Some random thoughts on this for which I'm going to use your post as a springboard .

1. I think whoever is responsible for releasing the information, since it's clearly irrelevant legally, is guilty of ethical misconduct (not saying it's illegal, I guess this is how you play the game). Why? Because it serves no purpose whatsoever except to pollute the jury pool and make this guy hated. It's also going to open this woman up to unprecedented scrutiny, I hope she's told them that's OK because that's what's going to happen now.

2. I predict this may backfire. Have they established the credibility of this woman's accusations? I think some in the media are going to look at this a little harder than usual and be more inclined to question the accusations because of the nature of them, since if it's true it means he was molesting his cousin at age 8. If the accusations don't come back as credible it might backfire and make the prosecution look bad. Of course if they come bac as credible, it'll make GZ look like a seriously demented guy.

If this turns out to be true, I would guess that a whole **** storm of accusations are going to follow. Why would an 8 year old be that sexually curious and dominating? AFAIK an 8 year old being that hypersexual is a strong indicator of sexual abuse.

I don't understand one thing, though. You can't even bring prior accusations of sexual assault into a sexual assault case. How is it that this can be thrown into the mix? I imagine the discovery process is different than what is allowed into evidence but isn't there some kind of protection against this kind of jury pool tainting? What's the point of not allowing irrelevant information into evidence if it can be splashed all over the news prior to the case?

 

[GWCarver]

If this turns out to be true, I would guess that a whole **** storm of accusations are going to follow. Why would an 8 year old be that sexually curious and dominating? AFAIK an 8 year old being that hypersexual is a strong indicator of sexual abuse.

I don't understand one thing, though. You can't even bring prior accusations of sexual assault into a sexual assault case. How is it that this can be thrown into the mix? I imagine the discovery process is different than what is allowed into evidence but isn't there some kind of protection against this kind of jury pool tainting? What's the point of not allowing irrelevant information into evidence if it can be splashed all over the news prior to the case?

My understanding is both the prosecution and the defense didn't want this released, but were overruled by Lester.

The Treehouse, Unabogie's favorite site, has her name and picture up.

 

[sgtbaker]

My understanding is both the prosecution and the defense didn't want this released, but were overruled by Lester.

The Treehouse, Unabogie's favorite site, has her name and picture up.

The article I read, only mentioned the defense not wanting it released but the judge overruled him twice. I didn't know the prosecution didn't want it released, either.

I am sorry but shame on Treehouse.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

The Treehouse, Unabogie's favorite site...

 

[This is The End]

Do you really think a 7 year old is capable of sexual molestation?

Wow. You seriously think a 7 year old can't commit sexual molestation?? That's absolutely disgusting.

Absolutely disgusting.

 

[This is The End]

Some random thoughts on this for which I'm going to use your post as a springboard .

1. I think whoever is responsible for releasing the information, since it's clearly irrelevant legally, is guilty of ethical misconduct (not saying it's illegal, I guess this is how you play the game). Why? Because it serves no purpose whatsoever except to pollute the jury pool and make this guy hated. It's also going to open this woman up to unprecedented scrutiny, I hope she's told them that's OK because that's what's going to happen now.

Wow.

"Because it serves no purpose whatsoever except to pollute the jury pool."

???

What about to put a child molester behind bars??? Did that ever occur to you??

This just points to your absolute blindness to anything outside of Z getting away with the M shooting. Facts be damned.

 

[This is The End]

As for all of you questioning the credibility of the accuser.

I could understand it if you were questioning the credibility of an accuser that just randomly appeared.

But this is Z's cousin. I doubt she is going to just make this stuff up for no reason.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

The article I read, only mentioned the defense not wanting it released but the judge overruled him twice. I didn't know the prosecution didn't want it released, either.

I've read contradictory information, earlier today I read that the prosecution did want it released. If it's true that they didn't want it released, one could ask why? For ethical reasons, or other?

 

[GWCarver]

The article I read, only mentioned the defense not wanting it released but the judge overruled him twice. I didn't know the prosecution didn't want it released, either.

I am sorry but shame on Treehouse.

From Jeralyn Merritt aka "TalkLeft" at TalkLeft:

Her statements are not "evidence" for court purposes. They are part of the discovery provided to defense. As such they were released to the media under public records laws. O'Mara and the state asked the statements not be released, the judge denied their request.

http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2033.105.html

 

[sgtbaker]

Wow.

"Because it serves no purpose whatsoever except to pollute the jury pool."

???

What about to put a child molester behind bars??? Did that ever occur to you??

This just points to your absolute blindness to anything outside of Z getting away with the M shooting. Facts be damned.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the shooting, at all. If he was found guilty of murder 2, it has absolutely zero relevance to a sexual assault accusation, and if he was found guilty of sexual assault, it doesn't automatically make him a murderer. They are two separate situations tied together for no other reason than the witness called back to make the second accusation. The prosecution had to turn it over because they legally cannot withhold evidence. Apparently both sides fought to keep it sealed, possibly because of the weight of the accusation, or possibly because the witness did not want this information released.