Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[johnny karate]

You may want to actually read the article I posted as this is not a lie at all. The question was about the ORIGINAL statement. Not about what was currently in the account.

I did read the article. Right up to the point that it lauded Alan Dershowitz for his "withering criticism" of the probable cause affidavit while conveniently failing to mention that Dershowitz was actually wrong.

That's when I realized it was a website dedicated to pushing an agenda rather than telling the truth.

I have provided quotes that are clear-cut instances of Shellie Zimmerman lying.

The transcripts from the jail house and the court are freely available to any and all who care to peruse them.

I personally don't care to play the game where we hold them up in the right light at the right angle to see if maybe Shellie Zimmerman wasn't really lying. I'll leave that to the Zimmerman fans.

 

[johnny karate]

Some people already have all the answers.

They sure do:

Yes, I feel confident he stole it or was holding it for someone.

My how times have changed. We've moved from confident assertions based on circumstantial evidence, to this fuzzy, nebulous area in which everything is unknowable unless proven in court.

 

[Dan O.]

Why would that excuse her blatant lying and George's conspiracy with her to defraud the court? My goodness, but you are just never going to see these people for who they are.

I wouldn't worry about it. Newton may not have been following this thread the last time this issue came up and was answered. I felt there was a reasonable chance that he may either gain new knowledge through this exchange or would be inclined to research the issue on his own and come back with new knowledge that I was not aware of. In either case, someone wins and it was a fair exchange. When someone shows they aren't here to exchange knowledge, I choose not to waste my time with them.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I did read the article. Right up to the point that it lauded Alan Dershowitz for his "withering criticism" of the probable cause affidavit while conveniently failing to mention that Dershowitz was actually wrong.

That's when I realized it was a website dedicated to pushing an agenda rather than telling the truth.

I have provided quotes that are clear-cut instances of Shellie Zimmerman lying.

The transcripts from the jail house and the court are freely available to any and all who care to peruse them.

I personally don't care to play the game where we hold them up in the right light at the right angle to see if maybe Shellie Zimmerman wasn't really lying. I'll leave that to the Zimmerman fans.

And yet the first instance of your evidence is a complete deception. Read the question that was posed to SZ carefully and put it into context. It's not a lie, it's not even a half-truth.

 

[johnny karate]

And yet the first instance of your evidence is a complete deception. Read the question that was posed to SZ carefully and put it into context. It's not a lie, it's not even a half-truth.

She was asked if she and her husband had money to put towards his bond.

She said no, despite the fact they had over $150,000 at their disposal.

She lied.

What "context" do you imagine mitigates that lie?

 

[Newtons Bit]

For anyone that has a basic understanding of the legal system, it Was assertained by the prosecutor while he was questioning Shelly:

Q: And is he — I know he’s not in the same room as you, but is he available so we can speak to him, too, or the Court can inquire through the State or the Defense?

A: I’m sure that we could probably get him on the phone.

Q: Okay.* So he’s not there now.

A: No, he is not, sir.

​

The prosecution calls SZ. But the brother-in-law is "unavailable to the court" because they would have to call him as well? That doesn't make any sense at all. They could have got him on the phone, or delayed the proceeding until they could get information from him. They chose to do neither.

What I find troubling is: it is probable the prosecution already knew how much was in the account and intentionally chose to keep that information from the court. The prosecution was arguing for a higher bond. They knew the fund existed. This is a high profile case of a polarizing nature that has garnered international attention. In this case, such a fund is likely to gather large amounts of donors. They had in their possession phone records that talked about amounts in the fund from four days prior. They then decided not to call the brother-in-law to determine how much money is in the fund. They chose not to provide the court with the phone records. This allowed GZ to walk with a very low bond (on the short-term). That's either gross incompetence or manipulation.

Shelly obviously didn't understand the requirement of testifying under oath at this type of hearing though she should have given that she herself was just sworn in before she started to testify. But the attorneys on both sides and the court would have understood so there was no attempt to make what would be a pointless call.

Why would the attorneys understand that calling the person with the exact size of the fund be pointless? Wouldn't that be the opposite of pointless?

The prosecutor then went with the next best alternative and asked Shelly:

Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?​

To which she willfully lied.

I believe this is the only avenue in which the prosecutors have a chance in getting a conviction. However, in the questions proceeding this one, SZ gave the prosecution the name of who would actually have the exact numbers and then, most importantly, offered to get him on the phone. There's no sign of deception, in fact it's just the opposite. This, coupled with the fact that the "lie" was nothing more than an invitation for SZ to guess will make a conviction a hard sell to a jury.

BTW, Thanks for the link to that article that provided the relavent testimony. It would have been a pain otherwise to have to hunt for it.

No problem.

 

[Newtons Bit]

She was asked if she and her husband had money to put towards his bond.

She said no, despite the fact they had over $150,000 at their disposal.

She lied.

What "context" do you imagine mitigates that lie?

The question was about her original affidavit, which she swore before she knew about the fund. One of the incredibly sleazy things that the prosecution is doing here is cutting the transcript from page 16 to page 24. They cut out SZ offering to call her brother-in-law in order to get the exact numbers on the defense fund as well.

 

[Dan O.]

And yet the first instance of your evidence is a complete deception. Read the question that was posed to SZ carefully and put it into context. It's not a lie, it's not even a half-truth.

You are apparently trying to claim that the question applied to a prior instance in time and that her answer was simply acknowledging the prior answer she had given. However, even if through this sophisticated interpretation the answer is not technically untrue, she still deceived the court through omission of the fact that the situation had substantially changed since the deposition.

But let's take a close look at that answer.

A. To my knowledge, that is correct.​

Your claim is that the subject to which that answer applies is the statement made by the prosecutor and more preciesly, that the answer that the prosecutor quoted from the deposition was the answer that she had given in that deposition. This however would be a definite knowledge that she would have. Either the prosecutor supplied her actual answer or he did not and she would know that. The preposition "To my knowledge" implies that the answer she is giving applies to facts that she may not be aware of. The subject is therefore not the answer she gave in the deposition but the actual state of their having money. Also notice the present tense of the answer: "that is correct" implying that the answer as given in the deposition still applies at the time of this hearing.

 

[Dan O.]

One of the incredibly sleazy things that the prosecution is doing here is cutting the transcript from page 16 to page 24. They cut out SZ offering to call her brother-in-law in order to get the exact numbers on the defense fund as well.

Did you watch the hearing or are you only going by snippets you have seen elsewhere. You are apparently unaware of the protocol that was being followed.

 

[johnny karate]

The question was about her original affidavit, which she swore before she knew about the fund.

Yeah, you go with that. We'll see how it plays in court.

One of the incredibly sleazy things that the prosecution is doing here is cutting the transcript from page 16 to page 24. They cut out SZ offering to call her brother-in-law in order to get the exact numbers on the defense fund as well.

Cry me a river. Shellie Zimmerman could have saved everybody a lot of trouble by simply telling the truth. She knew about the money and she was certainly familiar enough with the amount to offer an estimate.

Have fun with your tedious and disingenuous hair-splitting. I'll leave you to it.

 

[Dan O.]

What I find troubling is: it is probable the prosecution already knew how much was in the account and intentionally chose to keep that information from the court. The prosecution was arguing for a higher bond. They knew the fund existed. This is a high profile case of a polarizing nature that has garnered international attention. In this case, such a fund is likely to gather large amounts of donors. They had in their possession phone records that talked about amounts in the fund from four days prior. They then decided not to call the brother-in-law to determine how much money is in the fund. They chose not to provide the court with the phone records. This allowed GZ to walk with a very low bond (on the short-term). That's either gross incompetence or manipulation.

When did you first discover the key to the code that the Zimmermans were using while discussing quantities of money. I believe there was a discussion in this very thread trying to determine what the scaling factor was before the actual amounts became available to the public. The prosecution would have been in the same boat and while they could have speculated, they would not have known until they accessed the bank records.

If the prosecution went into this hearing after having seen George's bank records, they may have a problem, Claiming that they must have listened to all the phone recordings and that they were able to unambiguously decyphering the code isn't going to fly.

 

[johnny karate]

What I find troubling is: it is probable the prosecution already knew how much was in the account and intentionally chose to keep that information from the court. The prosecution was arguing for a higher bond. They knew the fund existed. This is a high profile case of a polarizing nature that has garnered international attention. In this case, such a fund is likely to gather large amounts of donors. They had in their possession phone records that talked about amounts in the fund from four days prior. They then decided not to call the brother-in-law to determine how much money is in the fund. They chose not to provide the court with the phone records. This allowed GZ to walk with a very low bond (on the short-term). That's either gross incompetence or manipulation.

Priceless.

You're being over backwards to turn Shellie Zimmerman's lies into not-lies, but you have no problem making unfounded assumptions and using those to springboard into preposterous allegations.

You have no idea if the prosecution was aware of the amount of money the Zimmermans had prior to the first bond hearing.

You have no idea when the prosecution acquired the jail house phone records.

Contrary to what you propose above, what actually is probable is that the prosecution - like the rest of the world, including Zimmerman's own lawyer - had no idea the Zimmermans would attempt to perpetrate a fraud upon the court, and only investigated and discovered their deception after the fact.

But if you persist with this nonsense, I invite you to offer evidence as to when the prosecution knew about the secret stash of money the Zimmermans conspired to hide from the court, and when they acquired the jail house phone records.

I'll be over here not holding my breath.

 

[triforcharity]

The question was about her original affidavit, which she swore before she knew about the fund. One of the incredibly sleazy things that the prosecution is doing here is cutting the transcript from page 16 to page 24. They cut out SZ offering to call her brother-in-law in order to get the exact numbers on the defense fund as well.

Newtons, The biggest problem, is that Shellie DID know. She DID know that there were large amounts in the fund. Her and her husband talked about it. That she didn't know exactly matter none. (At least in MY opinion)

She knew they had more than $5,000 in the account. She knew they had, at minimum, $86,000, since she even told George on the phone.

She knew it was a very large amount, and she decided to lie anyway.

I honestly don't think the SAO knew just how much was in the PayPal and various other accounts that come from donations. If they did, I would think that they would have called for her arrest in court that afternoon, and GZ would most likely have been denied bond at that time.

With regard to the brother in law, or brother, it doesn't matter if they called him or not. The state does not have the burden to prove or disprove the defense's statements.

Cheers Sir!

 

[Dancing David]

Why are you leaving out the fact that the prosecution made no effort to depose the brother-in-law and ascertain the account balances ? Was it too much effort for the court to have him phone in testimony, just like everyone else ? Surely the account balance was of utmost importance in determining bail, right ?

It feels like you are being manipulative.

I am sorry, but the prosecution is under no burden to do any such thing, if she knew that there was any amount in the account and that they could access it to male the bond payment, that is sufficient.

Your statements on this account are ridiculous and specious, the court is under no such obligation, if she was sworn in her testimony to the court and she was aware of the money in the account then she may have.committed perjury.

The burden is on her to tell the truth if she was under oath.

 

[Dancing David]

And yet the first instance of your evidence is a complete deception. Read the question that was posed to SZ carefully and put it into context. It's not a lie, it's not even a half-truth.

If she was aware of the money in the PayPal account then that is all that matters, the rest will be up to the system to determine the nature of the charges and consequences. There is no reason to have not mentioned the money in the Paypal account, if it can be established that she was aware of it, then that is what matters.

 

[Dancing David]

The question was about her original affidavit, which she swore before she knew about the fund. One of the incredibly sleazy things that the prosecution is doing here is cutting the transcript from page 16 to page 24. They cut out SZ offering to call her brother-in-law in order to get the exact numbers on the defense fund as well.

Then that would be even worse, that means she was aware of the defense fund, that means she may have deliberately omitted it for whatever reason. That makes it worse, it does not matter what her reasoning is, if she was aware of the fund that is all that matters. She could have just said, there is the defense fund, and she would not be facing a perjury charge.

The burden is on her to answer the questions accurately, if she is under oath.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

If her (only) intent was to mislead, why do you folks think she suggested the prosecutors should call her brother-in-law? That seems like she either truly wanted them to get actual information from him, or it was a monumental bluff on her part? While it does appear to me that she lied, I'm having a hard time reconciling that with her statement that they should call her brother-in-law.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Newtons, The biggest problem, is that Shellie DID know. She DID know that there were large amounts in the fund. Her and her husband talked about it. That she didn't know exactly matter none. (At least in MY opinion)

She knew they had more than $5,000 in the account. She knew they had, at minimum, $86,000, since she even told George on the phone.

She knew it was a very large amount, and she decided to lie anyway.

But where's the actual lie? This is the question:

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.

Look at the hilited part: "and you mentioned also". De la Rionda is asking SZ about previous statements. That's not a question about whether or not she currently has money. Only that she stated on her affidavit that she has no money. That affidavit was taken before the prison phone calls where SZ informs GZ about how much is the account.

I honestly don't think the SAO knew just how much was in the PayPal and various other accounts that come from donations. If they did, I would think that they would have called for her arrest in court that afternoon, and GZ would most likely have been denied bond at that time.

And that's a possibility. The prosecution may have been suffering from gross incompetence when the declined to find out how much was in the account. I think it's possible that they let GZ go with the intention of bringing him back and having him remanded. A game, if you will, to trap him.

With regard to the brother in law, or brother, it doesn't matter if they called him or not. The state does not have the burden to prove or disprove the defense's statements.

I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that she provided a name that could answer their question. I'm not saying they should have called the brother to determine whether or not she had an estimate for the amount of money collected.

Cheers Sir!

Pistols at dawn!

 

[Newtons Bit]

Then that would be even worse, that means she was aware of the defense fund, that means she may have deliberately omitted it for whatever reason. That makes it worse, it does not matter what her reasoning is, if she was aware of the fund that is all that matters. She could have just said, there is the defense fund, and she would not be facing a perjury charge.

The burden is on her to answer the questions accurately, if she is under oath.

Where (when?) did she omit it? I'm confused as to what you're arguing here.

 

[johnny karate]

If her (only) intent was to mislead, why do you folks think she suggested the prosecutors should call her brother-in-law? That seems like she either truly wanted them to get actual information from him, or it was a monumental bluff on her part? While it does appear to me that she lied, I'm having a hard time reconciling that with her statement that they should call her brother-in-law.

How abut this option? Shellie Zimmerman - like her husband - is an idiot.

To suggest that either she deceived perfectly or didn't deceive at all is committing a fallacy of the excluded middle.