Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[GWCarver]

It looks like O'Mara was lying about the cousin shopping her story to People Magazine.

Frances Robles ‏@RoblesHerald People magazine tells me Zimmerman's cousin never approached them for money or a story. @GZlegalCase


O'Mama caught lying, again. ho hum

She was clearly shopping it around. Don't forget to apologize if it turns out you are wrong. It is entirely possible she was going through a third party. There is discussion about it elsewhere. You know where to look.

 

[crimresearch]

What the **** is your problem? If you don't like my posts, don't read them but get the hell off my ass.

I'm not a goddamn lawyer so I won't be citing any of those things and you damn well know it. I have opinions; don't like them, don't read them.

I think the Sunshine law is good and bad. Bad in this instance because nobody wanted this info released, but here it is.

You are entitled to your own opinions.

You aren't entitled to try to pass them off as facts without being called on it.

Throwing tantrums like the above when people don't believe you, changes nothing.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Why? It's certainly part of the OP topic now.

Because it appeared there was general agreement that it was irrelevant to the case, and it's possibly a more incendiary topic than the case itself, so just to help avoid the thread getting moderated again. As I said, just a thought.

 

[Rare Truth]

People: Let's not go making things personal again, and start in with such bickering...kay?

We had this thread shut down to moderation status before. Let's not let that happen again.

Please?

 

[crimresearch]

Because it appeared there was general agreement that it was irrelevant to the case, and it's possibly a more incendiary topic than the case itself, so just to help avoid the thread getting moderated again. As I said, just a thought.

It is irrelevant to the trial. This thread hasn't been about the facts at issue in the trial for a looooooong time.

I'd say that if this goes, it should take about 20 other side topics with it.

 

[KatieG]

You are entitled to your own opinions.

You aren't entitled to try to pass them off as facts without being called on it.

Throwing tantrums like the above when people don't believe you, changes nothing.

If a law seems bizarre to me, that's my opinion. Show me exactly where I passed off my "opinion" as a fact. I'll be right here, waiting.

 

[Rare Truth]

She was clearly shopping it around. Don't forget to apologize if it turns out you are wrong. It is entirely possible she was going through a third party. There is discussion about it elsewhere. You know where to look.

I don't go to conservative treehouses where the snakes are lower than the slime they writhe in...

 

[TheL8Elvis]

She's the Miami Herald reporter who has been intensely reporting the case from the beginning. She contacted People Magazine, and they answered.

Are you thinking she is fabricating their response or something?

Argument from authority ?

I don't know how MOM got the information in the first place, and all I saw was a reference to his stating it. I assume he has some sort of proof or evidence for his claim, and he will be producing it.

Until then, there are many other possibilities other than 'he is lying'. It seems quite premature to base that conclusion off a tweet.

 

[crimresearch]

If a law seems bizarre to me, that's my opinion. Show me exactly where I passed off my "opinion" as a fact. I'll be right here, waiting.

Your 'challenge' to show you your own words has been answered before, and then ignored by you. Not falling for it again.

But I will honor your request to quit reading your posts.

 

[Noztradamus]

Discovery is limited to evidence of the charged offense(s). The prosecution was never under any obligation to turn over to the defense any information that is not evidence, potential evidence, or a lead that might turn up evidence of second degree murder. The molestation evidence should never have been included in the discovery materials in the first place. That was the prosecutor's decision. You don't get to say your hands were tied when you tied them yourself.

I see potential problems in allowing the prosecution to decide what is not related to the offence and can be kept from the defence

And there may also be statute of limitations issues.

There is now this thing called the iNternet, which you can get on your iPhone, which answers questions like that in about two minutes (not many people know that).

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It is irrelevant to the trial. This thread hasn't been about the facts at issue in the trial for a looooooong time.

I'd say that if this goes, it should take about 20 other side topics with it.

Yeah, that's why I felt hypocritical bringing it up.

 

[crimresearch]

I see potential problems in allowing the prosecution to decide what is not related to the offence and can be kept from the defence



There is now this thing called the iNternet, which you can get on your iPhone, which answers questions like that in about two minutes (not many people know that).

The prosecution doesn't get to just arbitrarily decide. If they try at trial, to hide something useful to the defense, the courts can take multiple actions to correct that.

 

[Freddy]

It appears you are wrong.

It wouldn't be the first time.

A lawyer explains it:

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif] expy on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 06:18:54 PM EST
[/FONT]

I don't think we are qualified to say what may be used as potential evidence. It has been remarked it *could* be used in rebuttal if character witnesses are used, and could lend itself to display a pattern of manipulation and violence.

Furthermore, if, after interviewing the witness, the state chose to withhold that information, it seems they could be in a heap of trouble. They must release ALL> good, bad, indifferent.

Well, technically, the prosecution could decide not to release any of witness 9's statements. All that would do is preclude them from calling her as a witness.

And she's pretty useless as a witness in the murder case, even in rebuttal. I agree that it is legal to release all the testimony if the prosecution is considering calling her as a witness for any purpose. My problem is with even considering having her testify. She can't testify about the allegations, even if she testifies.

So I'll back off the insinuation that it might have been prosecutorial misconduct to include the statement, though it would be misconduct if the witness was coached to say she remembered Zimmerman supposedly not liking black people. Impossible to prove, but improper coaching is very common, and the statement about Zimmerman not liking black people seems awfully convenient given that it's totally unrelated to the allegations and also inconsistent with the FBI's findings and several well-sourced anecdotes about Zimmerman's behavior. I do not claim it was illegal to include witness 9's statements, just that it looks like a dirty trick to smear Zimmerman, and an act of desperation.

 

[crimresearch]

Yeah, that's why I felt hypocritical bringing it up.

Well this does have the added squick factor.

 

[Freddy]

I see potential problems in allowing the prosecution to decide what is not related to the offence and can be kept from the defence

No argument here, but prosecutors generally have that discretion. The duty is a heightened when the evidence is even arguably exculpatory, but the prosecutor is usually still the one to make that call.

There is now this thing called the iNternet, which you can get on your iPhone, which answers questions like that in about two minutes (not many people know that).

I don't have an iPhone.

 

[KatieG]

Your 'challenge' to show you your own words has been answered before, and then ignored by you. Not falling for it again.

But I will honor your request to quit reading your posts.

I have no clue what you are talking about. Florida does seem to have some very bizarre laws, in my opinion. I haven't stated any legal facts or specific parts of a law I deem bizarre. In this instance, I think the Sunshine law in Florida had a bad result. IMO.

 

[Noztradamus]

I don't have an iPhone.

"Ooh, they have the Internet on computers now." - Homer Simpson

(Said when it wouldn't have needed explaining why the line was funny)

 

[Rare Truth]

It wouldn't be the first time.



Well, technically, the prosecution could decide not to release any of witness 9's statements. All that would do is preclude them from calling her as a witness.

And she's pretty useless as a witness in the murder case, even in rebuttal. I agree that it is legal to release all the testimony if the prosecution is considering calling her as a witness for any purpose. My problem is with even considering having her testify. She can't testify about the allegations, even if she testifies.

So I'll back off the insinuation that it might have been prosecutorial misconduct to include the statement, though it would be misconduct if the witness was coached to say she remembered Zimmerman supposedly not liking black people. Impossible to prove, but improper coaching is very common, and the statement about Zimmerman not liking black people seems awfully convenient given that it's totally unrelated to the allegations and also inconsistent with the FBI's findings and several well-sourced anecdotes about Zimmerman's behavior. I do not claim it was illegal to include witness 9's statements, just that it looks like a dirty trick to smear Zimmerman, and an act of desperation.

No, if they interviewed her, they had to release it to Defense, whether they wanted to or not.

The defense is entitled to that information. Indeed, must have it. The media should not, but thems they way they work things in Eff Ell Aye.

As for your last paragraph...have you listened to the recorded phone call, which came in anonymously to the SPD within TWO DAYS of the shooting? That was her. It was released months ago. She called in, on her own, uncoached, and made those charges about Z 'not liking black people.' She also hinted at 'things he did to her' - the specifics were deleted out. (silence in those portions of the recording...)

Again, this was right after the incident. It might enlighten you to listen to that 2-28 call to SPD, which they, again, under Sunshine Laws, were forced to release.

 

[triforcharity]

No argument here, but prosecutors generally have that discretion. The duty is a heightened when the evidence is even arguably exculpatory, but the prosecutor is usually still the one to make that call.



I don't have an iPhone.

Just FYI Freddy, there are very few cases where sexual battery has a statute of limitations in Florida. If she claims that he forcibly raped her in her teens, it's a life felony, and therefore, has no SOL.

I can cite the FL SS for you if you're curious about it.

 

[crimresearch]

Just FYI Freddy, there are very few cases where sexual battery has a statute of limitations in Florida. If she claims that he forcibly raped her in her teens, it's a life felony, and therefore, has no SOL.

I can cite the FL SS for you if you're curious about it.

Oh, please do...






775.15