Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[TheL8Elvis]

Some people already have all the answers.

They sure do:

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis
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.

Good, we are making progress. This time you represented my views correctly.
Now, if you would just stop conflating this burglary issue with he perjury issue and pretending they were similar enough to compare them and draw conclusions, then you would be onto something.

Speaking of having all the answers ... where do you stand on this, now ?

If I'm wrong and you are right, it should be too difficult for you to simply offer a cite.
...
She lied under oath. That's perjury. Feel to offer a cite that proves me wrong.

 

[johnny karate]

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.

That's an interpretation of the question that's specious enough to be laughable.

And you're also overlooking the second lie she told when she was asked if she could estimate how much was in the defense fund. She most certainly could, as she had been discussing exact amounts with her husband in the jail house transcripts.

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.

Then why not trap him on the spot?

Why let him walk on a lower bond if they had the information at the time that might have gotten him remanded?

Why wait until a second bond hearing to unleash their plot?

This conspiracy theory you've dreamed up is too stupid to be taken seriously.

I call Poe.

 

[Dan O.]

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.

This was a bond hearing setup by O'mara partly to present the family financial situation so that the court could set the appropriate bond. O'Mara would have discussed with the Zimmermans what needed to be presented at that hearing. The question that should be asked is why the brother-in-law whom the Zimmermans knew had knowledge of a substantial resource for covering the bond (As Shellie said, "that's what it's for") was left out of this hearing and not even mentioned to O'Mara. It sounds to me like the Zimmermans had intentionally arranged that this information would be unavailable in order to hide the fund from the court. They should be lucky to get off with just a purgory conviction for this stunt.

 

[johnny karate]

Now, if you would just stop conflating this burglary issue with he perjury issue and pretending they were similar enough to compare them and draw conclusions, then you would be onto something.

I don't think you know what "conflating" means.

I'm not suggesting the burglary and perjury issues are the same. Nor am I comparing them.

I'm comparing the standard of evidence you require in both to make an assumption of guilt.

And it's quite obvious a double standard is at work.

Speaking of having all the answers ... where do you stand on this, now ?

My position hasn't changed. Why would it? Shellie Zimmerman lied under oath. That is patently obvious.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

This was a bond hearing setup by O'mara partly to present the family financial situation so that the court could set the appropriate bond. O'Mara would have discussed with the Zimmermans what needed to be presented at that hearing. The question that should be asked is why the brother-in-law whom the Zimmermans knew had knowledge of a substantial resource for covering the bond (As Shellie said, "that's what it's for") was left out of this hearing and not even mentioned to O'Mara. It sounds to me like the Zimmermans had intentionally arranged that this information would be unavailable in order to hide the fund from the court. They should be lucky to get off with just a purgory conviction for this stunt.

That seems possible and those are good points but it seems like you only partially answered my question. What do you theorize her thought process was that prompted her to suggest they call him, if her intend was to deceive them and stop them from finding out about the money? I admit that I'm somewhat playing devils advocate here which is what I tend to do when I want to flesh something out.

 

[Unabogie]

That seems possible and those are good points but it seems like you only partially answered my question. What do you theorize her thought process was that prompted her to suggest they call him, if her intend was to deceive them and stop them from finding out about the money? I admit that I'm somewhat playing devils advocate here which is what I tend to do when I want to flesh something out.

Because she knew they couldn't "just call him". The process had to have a person in the room to swear her in, and they couldn't just call other people and start asking them questions? Tell me if I'm wrong on that, but wasn't there a notary of some sort to verify who was on the phone and that she was sworn in before her testimony?

Also, you're assuming she had a thought process at all. Stupid criminals do stupid things.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I don't think you know what "conflating" means.

I'm not suggesting the burglary and perjury issues are the same. Nor am I comparing them.

I'm comparing the standard of evidence you require in both to make an assumption of guilt.

And it's quite obvious a double standard is at work.

Fine, the standards of evidence for each situation are not comparable because the scenarios are not properly analogous.

My position hasn't changed. Why would it? Shellie Zimmerman lied under oath. That is patently obvious.

Nice dodge. I provided you with a cite of the law that explained perjury was more than simply lying under oath. Newtons bits also linked to an article which also clearly explained all the elements above telling a lie that are needed to prove perjury.

If I'm wrong and you are right, it should be too difficult for you to simply offer a cite.
...
She lied under oath. That's perjury. Feel to offer a cite that proves me wrong.

Since you asked for a cite to prove you wrong, and were provided one, I thought you might acknowledge that and change your position.

 

[johnny karate]

Fine, the standards of evidence for each situation are not comparable because the scenarios are not properly analogous.

The scenarios don't have to be analogous, only the standard of evidence you apply in each.

When is comes to deciding if Martin was involved in burglary, circumstantial evidence is all you require to make a confident asserton of his guilt.

When it comes to deciding if Shellie Zimmerman is guilty of perjury... well, we just can't know despite having her lies on record.

That's a double standard.

Nice dodge. I provided you with a cite of the law that explained perjury was more than simply lying under oath. Newtons bits also linked to an article which also clearly explained all the elements above telling a lie that are needed to prove perjury.

Since you asked for a cite to prove you wrong, and were provided one, I thought you might acknowledge that and change your position.

What cite would that be? This one:

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.

?

Were you being serious? Your argument is that Shellie Zimmerman lied but maybe didn't know she was lying?

That's a laugh.

She is on record demonstrating knowledge of things she would later deny knowing under oath.

In what way is it reasonable to believe she didn't know she was lying when she denied knowing the things we know she knew?

 

[triforcharity]

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

When she said " to my knowledge, that's correct". Her original affidavit that claims no money may have been accurate at the time it was originally written. But, it's no longer correct. Not even close. She should have disclosed the fact that there were large amounts of money available to her.

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.

See above.

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.

The prosecution most likely would have had to obtain a warrant, do their research, and all that jazz.

Could it have been a trap? Possibly. I am reminded of the phrase "Give them enough rope to hand themselves".

Which may be an ulterior motive. It proves that at minimum, SZ's willing to lie, and GZ is willing to lie.

If it is, it worked out perfectly.

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.

Ok, gotcha.

Pistols at dawn!

**** man, dawn? That's WAY too early. How about 10:00am? That way it's not too hot, but I still have the rest of my day to piddle around.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

...

What cite would that be? This one:
?

Were you being serious? Your argument is that Shellie Zimmerman lied but maybe didn't know she was lying?

That's a laugh.

She is on record demonstrating knowledge of things she would later deny knowing under oath.

In what way is it reasonable to believe she didn't know she was lying when she denied knowing the things we know she knew?

You're being dishonest. The cite was in response to your question (my bold):

...
She lied under oath during a court proceeding. If there is some other aspect to committing perjury of which I am not aware, feel free to educate me.
...

 

[johnny karate]

You're being dishonest. The cite was in response to your question (my bold):

No, I think you are the one being dishonest.

I used the term lie. The law you cited uses the term false statement.

A lie, by definition, is a conscious act of dishonesty.

And a false statement is not necessarily a lie, for which the law you cited makes allowances.

The disagreement we are having is whether or not Shellie Zimmerman lied, not whether or not she made a false statement.

She clearly lied. And the evidence for that lie is phone transcripts that indicate she had full knowledge of things she would later deny under oath.

And the law makes no allowances for lying.

 

[Freddy]

Because she knew they couldn't "just call him". The process had to have a person in the room to swear her in, and they couldn't just call other people and start asking them questions? Tell me if I'm wrong on that, but wasn't there a notary of some sort to verify who was on the phone and that she was sworn in before her testimony?

Also, you're assuming she had a thought process at all. Stupid criminals do stupid things.

Not entirely sure what you're asking, but I have participated in hearings where a person not present testified, under oath, via speaker phone. It was a pretrial hearing in juvenile court, and the person was a noncustodial parent who lived either in another state, or far enough away that they couldn't be there. That was in Indiana, though, so the substantive and procedural law might differ from that in Florida.

If Florida law does not allow such testimony, a continuance seems like a logical solution. The amount of money in the fund is important for setting an appropriate bond, and the court could have allowed GZ out on the lower bond pending another hearing, at which the bond amount could be raised, or not, depending on the new information. Or the court could have ordered GZ detained until that hearing.

The prosecution should have informed the judge at the bond hearing that they had the recorded phone conversations indicating that Ms. Zimmerman knew that the fund was substantial, even if she didn't know the exact amount.

All that said, Ms. Zimmerman was, in my view, clearly less than honest. However, it is generally very difficult to get a perjury conviction, and there is enough ambiguity here that, with a good lawyer, she would have a decent chance of getting off.

 

[johnny karate]

The prosecution should have informed the judge at the bond hearing that they had the recorded phone conversations indicating that Ms. Zimmerman knew that the fund was substantial, even if she didn't know the exact amount.

And the evidence that the prosecution had the phone conversation transcripts prior to the first bond hearing is... ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

She lied under oath during a court proceeding. If there is some other aspect to committing perjury of which I am not aware, feel free to educate me.

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.

Other aspect in bold.

No, I think you are the one being dishonest.

I used the term lie. The law you cited uses the term false statement.

A lie, by definition, is a conscious act of dishonesty.

And a false statement is not necessarily a lie, for which the law you cited makes allowances.

The disagreement we are having is whether or not Shellie Zimmerman lied, not whether or not she made a false statement.

She clearly lied. And the evidence for that lie is phone transcripts that indicate she had full knowledge of things she would later deny under oath.

And the law makes no allowances for lying.

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.

Allowance for lying in bold.

It is absolutely not the case that "She clearly lied", no matter how many times you assert it.

 

[johnny karate]

So now you're arguing the existence and amounts of money the Zimmermans had at their disposal to pay bond aren't material issues at a bond hearing? This just gets more and more entertaining.

And yeah, she clearly lied. It's right there in the transcripts. But go ahead and keep denying that. This is fun.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

It doesn't matter if under oath she said that she had no knowledge of funds that could be used to pay bond, it does not matter otherwise.

 

[Dancing David]

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

When asked if she or her husband had funds to pay bond and she did not say "there is a Paypal account".

But then I haven't read the charging statement, which parts did she make under oath at the bond hearing?

The arrest warrant says that
http://syndicatednews.net/clients/syndicatednews/SHELLIEZIMMERMAN_ARREST_WARRANT.pdf

O'Mara:Other major assets that you have that you can liquidate reasonably to assist in coming up with money for a bond.

She replied "Not that I am aware of"

and then after

O’Mara: And are you of any financial means to that you could assist in those costs?
SZ: Um… not, not that I’m aware of.

So regardless of why she made those statements that is the basis of the perjury charge, which I assume will be dismissed at some point.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

It doesn't matter if under oath she said that she had no knowledge of funds that could be used to pay bond, it does not matter otherwise.

How does that in any way address my question ?

 

[Newtons Bit]

When she said " to my knowledge, that's correct". Her original affidavit that claims no money may have been accurate at the time it was originally written. But, it's no longer correct. Not even close. She should have disclosed the fact that there were large amounts of money available to her.

The question wasn't whether or not the statement in the affidavit still held true, but rather if said statement was made on the affidavit. Saying "that's correct" is in fact the truth as she did state, in her affidavit, that they had no money.

This is the argument that would be brought up in trial where facts like what the actual question was matters.

See above.

The prosecution most likely would have had to obtain a warrant, do their research, and all that jazz.

Could it have been a trap? Possibly. I am reminded of the phrase "Give them enough rope to hand themselves".

Which may be an ulterior motive. It proves that at minimum, SZ's willing to lie, and GZ is willing to lie.

If it is, it worked out perfectly.

I'm not sure that she was trying to deceive the court, given that she admitted that the fund existed and then offered to get someone on the phone to state how much was in it. Someone who is trying to conceal the amount in the fund wouldn't do that.

**** man, dawn? That's WAY too early. How about 10:00am? That way it's not too hot, but I still have the rest of my day to piddle around.

Yea, it's not like we're going to do anything other than fire them into the air anyways. ...right?

I gotta go see about getting a second. I wonder if rwguinn is free...

 

[Dancing David]

That seems possible and those are good points but it seems like you only partially answered my question. What do you theorize her thought process was that prompted her to suggest they call him, if her intend was to deceive them and stop them from finding out about the money? I admit that I'm somewhat playing devils advocate here which is what I tend to do when I want to flesh something out.

It doesn't matter, she should have said something directly about the Paypal account in the discussion of funds and her husbands status as an indigent person.