Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[TheL8Elvis]

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.

You really need to go back and re-read the thread. You asserted, multiple times, the only criteria for committing perjury was lying. It's not.

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

Newtons Bits had a go at trying to explain that she didn't lie, but your response was :

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

You've already made up your mind she is guilty without hearing a word of her defense. No point in trying to have a discussion with you.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

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.

Here is why it matters. It matters because her attorney will most certainly bring it up in her defense. He will ask why she did that if it was her intention to deceive. He will point out that she could have lied and said "we raised $1700" but that instead she told them the person they could ask that would (ostensibly) have given them the full and proper amount.

Now again, I'm not saying I don't think she was misleading or lied. But I'm also looking at this from both angles including the ones her attorney's will almost certainly argue. And it seems like this angle may have some value, since people don't seem to want to answer it . I mean, it's not that hard to answer. What do you think her thought processes were that she gave them the name of the person that could give them the answer? Don't you think her attorney will argue that if it was her intent to deceive that she's have just lied about the amount and said "$1700" or something like that?

And don't tell me we it's a waste iof time theorizing about her thought process because this is 400 pages of theorizing about peoples thought processes . Why TM did this, why GZ did this, and so on.

 

[Newtons Bit]

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.

Even when that discussion (her affidavit) took place before she was aware that such an account exists?

 

[Unabogie]

Even when that discussion (her affidavit) took place before she was aware that such an account exists?

Why would the affidavit be an issue here? She was asked some very direct questions about their finances.

Do you have money?
Can you make bond?

And she clearly lied and said no, we have no money and no, I don't know how much we have.

You guys are going to be so shocked when she's convicted, with this elaborate conspiracy theory and excuse making.

 

[This is The End]

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.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.... The question is:

you all had no money, is that correct?

It has nothing to do with the "And you mentioned also".....

Why in the world would he be asking her to merely confirm whether or not she put something in a statement earlier!! It was clearly in the statement!


If I said "Hey, Newton, remember when you mentioned to me that 2 + 2 is 4? Is that correct?" I wouldn't be asking you if it was correct that you told me!! I would be asking you if the 2 + 2 = 4 is correct. To suggest I was asking you merely to confirm that I am recollecting correctly is beyond ludicrous.

 

[This is The End]

Here is why it matters. It matters because her attorney will most certainly bring it up in her defense. He will ask why she did that if it was her intention to deceive. He will point out that she could have lied and said "we raised $1700" but that instead she told them the person they could ask that would (ostensibly) have given them the full and proper amount.

You were told about 50 times a reason why and yet you keep asking. As was just explained to her at the time, she knew the brother could not testify because there was no notary at his location to swear him in.

 

[johnny karate]

You really need to go back and re-read the thread. You asserted, multiple times, the only criteria for committing perjury was lying. It's not.

Oh okay... I thought we were discussing the specifics of this particular instance and not simply attempting to score cheap debate points.

Congratulations on catching me on a technicality.

That being said, it's irrelevant to this situation because Shellie Zimmerman was discussing a material issue.

You've already made up your mind she is guilty without hearing a word of her defense. No point in trying to have a discussion with you.

Her lies are self-evident, despite whatever semantic trickery to which you and others are desperately clinging.

Maybe not as self-evident as what it means when a black kid is caught with jewelry and a screwdriver, but I work with what I'm given.

 

[Newtons Bit]

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.... The question is:




It has nothing to do with the "And you mentioned also".....

Why in the world would he be asking her to merely confirm whether or not she put something in a statement earlier!! It was clearly in the statement!

He does it multiple times in the questions just before the big "lie". Here's the video.

DLR at 24:00: Let me then start at the very beginning of your testimony, you stated that you had been married for how long?

DLR at 24:35: You all stated that you did not own that home.

DLR at 25:30: I think you stated that you are from Florida, correct?

DLR at 25:48: I think you also mentioned that you all had no money, is that correct?

My timestamps may be a off a small amount.

If I said "Hey, Newton, remember when you mentioned to me that 2 + 2 is 4? Is that correct?" I wouldn't be asking you if it was correct that you told me!! I would be asking you if the 2 + 2 = 4 is correct. To suggest I was asking you merely to confirm that I am recollecting correctly is beyond ludicrous.

Let me change that for you.

Q: "You also mentioned that 2+2=5, is that correct"
A: Yes, that is correct.

Of course, 2+2=4, but that wasn't the question. That statement was whether or not the witness had made that comment.

 

[johnny karate]

He does it multiple times in the questions just before the big "lie". Here's the video.

DLR at 24:00: Let me then start at the very beginning of your testimony, you stated that you had been married for how long?

DLR at 24:35: You all stated that you did not own that home.

DLR at 25:30: I think you stated that you are from Florida, correct?

DLR at 25:48: I think you also mentioned that you all had no money, is that correct?

My timestamps may be a off a small amount.

So your theory is that the prosecutor wasn't actually asking her questions about being married, owning a home, being from Florida, or having money?

But rather, he was just asking her if she had already answered those questions?

Yeah, that makes complete sense.

Because when someone asks "You said you were picking me up at 8, right?" they're not confirming the pick-up time, but rather just asking if the other person had previously stated what time they were picking them up. And that's exactly how normal people communicate.

 

[Dan O.]

He does it multiple times in the questions just before the big "lie". Here's the video.

DLR at 24:00: Let me then start at the very beginning of your testimony, you stated that you had been married for how long?

Thanks again for the link.


Do you all realize that this prior testimony/statement being referred to is her testimony in this very proceeding when she was questioned by George's attorney and then she was being cross examined by the prosecution.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Thanks again for the link.


Do you all realize that this prior testimony/statement being referred to is her testimony in this very proceeding when she was questioned by George's attorney and then she was being cross examined by the prosecution.

I'm not sure all of it is. The question asking her about her statement of being married certainly is. I hear her stating that she herself does not have assets that she can liquidate to help him. I haven't heard MOM asking her about his assets, however.

They do talk about various affidavits, etc during the course of the testimony, so I'm assuming some of it is coming out of that.

eta: But if there wasn't a prior statement, she's lying about having made a statement regarding the assets of "you all".

 

[triforcharity]

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.



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.

How much money they do or do not have is very material matter when it comes to a bond. VERY much so.

She said, at the bond hearing that they were basically broke. That is not true, not matter how you want to slice it and spin it.

 

[This is The End]

Q: "You also mentioned that 2+2=5, is that correct"
A: Yes, that is correct.

Of course, 2+2=4, but that wasn't the question. That statement was whether or not the witness had made that comment.

The only reason for you to possibly read it that way is if you are covering up for a lie and you know it.

If someone says:

You also mentioned that 2+2=5, is that correct?

They are asking you if 2+2=5 is correct, not if it's correct that you mentioned it!! Why would they be asking you if you mentioned it, they have it right there!. I seriously don't believe that you don't see this. You just want to see if you can get anyone else to believe the spin.

 

[This is The End]

How much money they do or do not have is very material matter when it comes to a bond. VERY much so.

Yeah it doesn't make sense why someone would even try and suggest that how much money they have is not a material question at a bond hearing...

 

[This is The End]

Because when someone asks "You said you were picking me up at 8, right?" they're not confirming the pick-up time, but rather just asking if the other person had previously stated what time they were picking them up. And that's exactly how normal people communicate.

It's so completely illogical that I seriously down Newtons actually believes it. It's just being ran up the flag pole.

 

[Dan O.]

I'm not sure all of it is. The question asking her about her statement of being married certainly is. I hear her stating that she herself does not have assets that she can liquidate to help him. I haven't heard MOM asking her about his assets, however.

If I'm not mistaken, Florida is a community property state. His assets are her assets.

 

[Noztradamus]

Let me change that for you.

Q: "You also mentioned that 2+2=5, is that correct"
A: Yes, that is correct.

Of course, 2+2=4, but that wasn't the question. That statement was whether or not the witness had made that comment.

Been done better

Bernard Woolley: [Discussing possible reasons for the Prime Minister’s early retirement] “Minister, I’ve heard something quite different.”

James Hacker: “What?”

Bernard Woolley: “That there is £1 million worth of diamonds from South Africa in a Downing Street safe, but of course it’s only a rumour.”

James Hacker: “Is that true?”

Bernard Woolley: “Oh, yes.”

James Hacker: “So, there ARE all those diamonds in Downing Street!”

Bernard Woolley: “Are there?”

James Hacker: “You just said there were.”

Bernard Woolley: “No, I didn’t.”

James Hacker: “Yes, you did! You said you’d heard this rumour, I said is it true, you said yes!”

Bernard Woolley: “I said yes, it was true that it was a rumour.”

James Hacker: “You said you heard it was true!”

Bernard Woolley: “No, I said it was true that I heard it!”

It's a tactic to appear to be imparting information to the government/courts without actually doing so.

 

[triforcharity]

Yeah it doesn't make sense why someone would even try and suggest that how much money they have is not a material question at a bond hearing...

It's rather puzzling to me why someone would even say that.

It's.....dumb. I'm no expert on legal matters, but it's really a no brainer.

 

[triforcharity]

If I'm not mistaken, Florida is a community property state. His assets are her assets.

If they're married, typically, yes.

Not always though. I believe (don't quote me on this) an inheritance that is designated for a specific person is not always community property.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

I understand the line of thinking, but in this case, they're not discussing what happened previously. They are discussing his ability to make bond and how much liquid assets they have. So, what she said before, matters very little.

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.

I fully believe, based on what I have seen, that she had every intention of deceiving the court. They also attempted to hide a passport, and that was discovered also.

I also believe that her saying that her brother knew, but she didn't, she was trying to distance herself from the money.

But, it's my own personal beliefs, and as I am not psychic....

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...

Exactly. Plus, this whole dawn thing....just doesn't work. I mean, you can't go drinking beer at 6am after the duel.

Go check with RW. Maybe we can get a fourth and do doubles.