Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[triforcharity]

That would depend on the evidence presented and the defense presented.

Ok, fair enough. Given the evidence at hand, which I know you've seen, what defense argument could convince you that SZ did not lie to the courts?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

O'Mara needs to read JREF more often. Somehow he's suffering under an impression that the judge found the Zimmerman was planning to flee and only thwarted by GPS monitoring.

That's an excellent point. He evidently doesn't understand that because the judge preceded his comment that GZ was planning to flee with the comment "it's entirely reasonable for the court to conclude" that changes everything, and it wasn't actually being stated as a conclusion. (don't think about that argument too much or you may hurt your head from all the head shaking it will induce)

Ok, fair enough. Given the evidence at hand, which I know you've seen, what defense argument could convince you that SZ did not lie to the courts?

I can't speak for him, but I'm going with "alien mind control" . Kidding aside, I suspect the defense angle will be to argue context and her understanding of the questions and how they applied, and I suspect the technical issue of whether she commited perjury may not be as open and shut as some think. That said, it appears to me that she lied.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Ok, fair enough. Given the evidence at hand, which I know you've seen, what defense argument could convince you that SZ did not lie to the courts?

Assuming I am correct in my understanding that the prosecution needs to meet the below standards:

Except as provided in subsection (2), whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true, under oath in an official proceeding in regard to any material matter, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

I guess I would be arguing that she did not state anything she did not believe to be a lie. I would claim that the MOM prepped her, and told her to tell the truth, but to absolutely avoid answering any questions she wasn't absolutely sure she knew the answer to.

To address the lies as Johnny Karate listed them:
De la Rionda: Okay. And you mentioned also, in terms of the ability of your husband to make a bond amount, that you all had no money, is that correct?
Zimmerman: To my knowledge, that's correct.

I would claim that MOM explained that becuase they had no jobs, and no assets they could liquidate that were of any note, that was essentially 'no money' and that he was planning on filing paperwork to have them declared indigent.

De la Rionda: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?
Zimmerman: I do not.

I would claim that she assumed the question about estimating how much money was in the account as a current estimate, which she didn't have, so she answered she didn't have a guess.

I would claim that if her intent was to deceive the court , she would not have directed them to the person who could answer that questions about specific amounts. (as she did)
Again, if BDLR wanted to know rough amounts, he could have asked her much better questions.

IOW - I see it as difficult for the state to prove that SZ did not believe she was telling the truth.
I don't know if there is an argument against the specific amounts of money in her answers being materially relevant or not. That's my non-lawyer take, and why I don't think I can jump to the conclusion that she is guilty of perjury without at least hearing what she might have to say in defense.

ETA: I thought it worth adding I do think she was trying to not tell the court any more information that she had to. I also think she was trying to be evasive without outright lying

 

[This is The End]

You forgot to answer my questions ... again. It's very difficult to discuss the case when you won't answer any questions.

Link to the post where you answered JK's questions. Don't just say you answered them earlier in the thread. Link to it.

Also - please link to your described evidence that was put forth ?

Hey check it out. The L8Elvis still thinks the word reasonable means the same thing in legal and in common use. Or is L8Elvis "just asking questions"?

 

[This is The End]

Yes, that whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing is a crock of ****.

Innocent until proven guilty is the standard for the USA and jury rooms. We have also learned it is also the favorite excuse of many people in this thread to not think critically about Z's claims.

Even though this case is in the USA it doesn't mean you shouldn't think logically about all aspects of it.

This is not like 911 or Bigfoot where the evidence is quite clear. We just don't have any evidence at this point to show that the killing was justified.

It would be quite narrow minded to only think this thread is about whether or not Z will be convicted in a US court of law. A true skeptic should wonder whether or not they are convinced that the killing was justified.

 

[This is The End]

O'Mara needs to read JREF more often. Somehow he's suffering under an impression that the judge found the Zimmerman was planning to flee and only thwarted by GPS monitoring.

Did you miss that the first time O'Mara claimed that on On July 13? Or are you just bringing it up again for giggles? That July 13 Motion to Disqualify was full of enough fail to write a book.

 

[Cylinder]

5th DCA Docket for State v Zimmerman

The court and the state have until Aug 23 to respond to the petition.

 

[This is The End]

Writ of prohibition to appeal Lester's order on recusal.

Zimmerman Defense Files Petition for Writ of Prohibition

22 hours later:

Petition for Writ of Prohibition

Hey wow... thanks for posting the exact same link again...

Same time tomorrow?

 

[Cylinder]

Procerdure for petitions

81.011 Petition for prohibition.—The petitioner shall file a petition stating the nature of the action, the proceedings in the inferior court, tribunal or body presuming to exercise jurisdiction sought to be prohibited, and demand that writ of prohibition be granted in that behalf. When the matters appear on the face of the proceedings in the body presuming to exercise jurisdiction, the certified transcript of the record of all the proceedings shall accompany the petition. When the matters are not matters of record, they shall be verified by affidavit of petitioner or petitioner’s agent, or attorney.

81.021 Prohibition; supersedeas.—If in its judgment a prima facie case is made, the court shall issue an order directed to the body presuming to exercise jurisdiction and to plaintiff to show cause why the writ of prohibition should not issue. The order is a supersedeas and shall be served on the body presuming to exercise jurisdiction and the parties at such time as the court directs and those served shall defend within the time set in the writ. In case of failure to make an answer, it may be enforced by contempt.

 

[This is The End]

837.02 Perjury in official proceedings.--
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true, under oath in an official proceeding in regard to any material matter, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

How is there any doubt in your mind that those requirements were met? I assume you listened to the jail house calls?

False statement? check

She knew it was false? check

Was it material? check

Which one of those are you unclear on? Or are there even more requirements?

 

[Cylinder]

22 hours later:

Hey wow... thanks for posting the exact same link again...

Same time tomorrow?

You're welcome.

Actually the first link originally was the short press release that I quoted before the actual petition was released. Now it's just the petition itslef, apparently.

 

[This is The End]

I guess I would be arguing that she did not state anything she did not believe to be a lie. I would claim that the MOM prepped her, and told her to tell the truth, but to absolutely avoid answering any questions she wasn't absolutely sure she knew the answer to.

That's the most convoluted thing I have ever read.

You could use that to excuse all perjury ever! The lawyer confused her!

Funny how that is O'Maras excuse for the money and passport issue as well. The were just confused and young.

Hmmm I wonder if she should believe:

"Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god?"

Or what her Lawyer told her earlier in prep!

TheL8Elvis is clearly going out of the way to defend Z and Z's wife under convenient cover of the US innocent until proven guilty.

This is not a courtroom TheL8Elvis, this is a skeptics internet forum. Can we just concentrate on the evidence? You can give Z and his wife an inch here or there, but when you constantly give them a mile it gets ridiculous.

 

[This is The End]

Actually the first link originally was the short press release that I quoted before the actual petition was released. Now it's just the petition itslef, apparently.

So you are claiming that the content on that exact same URL changed in the past 24 hours?

And if so, did you think you might want to add that in that 2nd post?

"It appears they changed or updated the content of this link."

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Innocent until proven guilty is the standard for the USA and jury rooms. We have also learned it is also the favorite excuse of many people in this thread to not think critically about Z's claims.

Even though this case is in the USA it doesn't mean you shouldn't think logically about all aspects of it.

This is not like 911 or Bigfoot where the evidence is quite clear. We just don't have any evidence at this point to show that the killing was justified.

It would be quite narrow minded to only think this thread is about whether or not Z will be convicted in a US court of law. A true skeptic should wonder whether or not they are convinced that the killing was justified.

Ah, the no true skeptic fallacy.

 

[Cylinder]

So you are claiming that the content on that exact same URL changed in the past 24 hours?

Yup - I'm guessing it did. The first post you cited originally was a short press release which was quoted in the same post. That was before the petition was published. MOM talks about the rules for releasing them in his press conference.

And if so, did you think you might want to add that in that 2nd post?

I actually didn't realize the URL was the same until you just pointed it out. I just read the article and copy the URL if I plan on posting it...I rarely pay attention to the actual URL itself.

ETA: I see, they actually kept the press release and added links to the petition and attachments.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Link to the post where you answered JK's questions. Don't just say you answered them earlier in the thread. Link to it.

No, because you haven't answered a single question of mine. As I said earlier, you don't appear to be interested in a discussion.

Hey check it out. The L8Elvis still thinks the word reasonable means the same thing in legal and in common use. Or is L8Elvis "just asking questions"?

Hey, check it out, OTT still refuses to provide evidence for claims.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That's the most convoluted thing I have ever read.

You could use that to excuse all perjury ever! The lawyer confused her!

Why don't you go back and hilite where I used the word confused, or implied anyone confused her ?

Funny how that is O'Maras excuse for the money and passport issue as well. The were just confused and young.

Hmmm I wonder if she should believe:

"Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god?"

Or what her Lawyer told her earlier in prep!

TheL8Elvis is clearly going out of the way to defend Z and Z's wife under convenient cover of the US innocent until proven guilty.

This is not a courtroom TheL8Elvis, this is a skeptics internet forum. Can we just concentrate on the evidence? You can give Z and his wife an inch here or there, but when you constantly give them a mile it gets ridiculous.

You can't focus on the evidence of whether she is guilty of perjury without focusing on the legal conditions that need to be met to prove perjury.

I was simply trying to answer triforcharitys question.

 

[This is The End]

O'Mara needs to read JREF more often. Somehow he's suffering under an impression that the judge found the Zimmerman was planning to flee and only thwarted by GPS monitoring.

Did you miss that the first time O'Mara claimed that on On July 13? Or are you just bringing it up again for giggles? That July 13 Motion to Disqualify was full of enough fail to write a book.

Here's the link to that July 13th motion for anyone who missed it:

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/motion to disqualify Judge Lester.pdf

As shown repeatedly in this thread, many posters here do not realize that defense attorneys can ever be wrong. Or even that they sometimes intentionally try to spin information, leaving out key details.

Read that pdf and you will see multiple instances of the defense trying to say that the Judge said something conclusively, not just relative to the already debunked "reasonable to flee".

That is what a good defense attorney does.

So when Cylinder says this cute line:

O'Mara needs to read JREF more often. Somehow he's suffering under an impression that the judge found the Zimmerman was planning to flee and only thwarted by GPS monitoring.

No. O'Mara is not "under that impression". That is just what O'Mara, as the defense lawyer, has to put in the motion, and in the monition from a month ago linked in this post. He has to frame it in the best possible light for Z, and, in the US at least, he has great leeway to spin it. It does not mean that O'Mara himself personally thinks that the judge said it was a sure thing.

Also note that posters here easily get that impression that that is what O'Mara believes 100% exactly like how those same users get the impression that the judge stated the fleeing was a sure thing in the other motion.

Both mistakes made by reading the motions in common language and not in a legal light.

 

[This is The End]

Why don't you go back and hilite where I used the word confused, or implied anyone confused her ?

AH, that old game again.

Show me where I used the exact word "confused"!

No one is falling for show me where I used that exact word game.

To confuse this:

I guess I would be arguing that she did not state anything she did not believe to be a lie. I would claim that the MOM prepped her, and told her to tell the truth, but to absolutely avoid answering any questions she wasn't absolutely sure she knew the answer to.

With this:

"Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god?"

She would have to be confused. By definition.

 

[This is The End]

No, because you haven't answered a single question of mine.

Everyone can read the last few pages and see that #1 you were asked first. And that #2 I have answered more questions, and applied more information, directly related to your posts than most or all other content on those 2 pages. It almost seems like you just want things to stay foggy.

If I am to read anything into your posts, it is likely intent to obfuscate.