Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[leftysergeant]

From that same link:



Nope, none of that patrolling going on here.

And boy, that Frank Taaffe sure didn't know George, that's for darn tootin'.

Taaffe is dog poo, a violent felon and a rotten excuse for a father.

He regularly beat the crap out of his wife and kids, with a result that one of them eventually committed suicide. The other died just recently in a car crash that may have involved alcohol.

They couldn't stand the animal and had nothing to do with him by their choice. When he chose to have contact with them, the ploice generally told them tha he was not allowed to.

All we have to support Z's story is Z's word and nobody with any moral fiber is there to support him.

 

[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.

http://law.justia.com/codes/florida/2005/TitleXLVI/ch0837.html

You tell me if the only criteria for perjury is lying under oath during a court proceeding or not.

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

I thought it was quite clear we were discussing perjury in general.

Congratulations on catching me on a technicality.

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

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

So, there was clearly confusion of interpretation in a written back and forth between us, but somehow it's just semantic trickery if someone claims there is a confusion of interpretation in a verbal exchange ?

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/0...more-questions-of-prosecutorial-overreaching/

This Court has held that statements alleged to be perjurious must be of “empirical fact” and not of opinion, belief or perception…. One of the essential elements of perjury in official proceedings is that the person making the statement does not believe it to be true… The questions posed to elicit perjured testimony must be asked with the appropriate specificity necessary to result in an equally specific statement of fact.

Cohen v. State, 985 So.2d 1207 (Fla. App. 3 Dist. 2008)(citations omitted).

 

[Newtons Bit]

It will be fun watching you try to make that one stick.

In hearing, the purpose of which was explained was to assertain if the family had assets to put towards George's bond:

Q: you all have no money?
A: To my knowledge, that is correct.​

Please include the "I think you also mentioned earlier" in the question, it's very relevant.

Earlier in a recorded phone conversation discussing the PayPal money and paying the bond:

"That's what it's for."​

GZ told her the money was for his bond. Thus it would be entirely reasonable for her to claim that she did not believe that the money was hers.

 

[Dan O.]

It's reported in two different place by two different people as "on" but you still insist it wasn't.

I already covered all three reports where the flashlight "on" has been brought into this thread. You provide nothing new here.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

GZ told her the money was for his bond. Thus it would be entirely reasonable for her to claim that she did not believe that the money was hers.

Not to mention, no one has hear her story of what other things she may have been told, and by whom, in the intervening period.

Suppose she claims she spoke with an attorney the day before the hearing, and he told her any money raised in donation could not be used. Just supposing if she claimed that happened, then wouldn't that, in her mind, supersede what her husband told her, and make what he told her irrelevant ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Then who turned it off manipulated the evidence before Smith took the photographs?

I already covered all three reports where the flashlight "on" has been brought into this thread. You provide nothing new here.

How exactly is this 'addressing' a statement given by officer mead that he saw the flashlight on ?

 

[Dan O.]

Please include the "I think you also mentioned earlier" in the question, it's very relevant.

You've been helpfull in the past with links. Can you provide a link to the entire hearing so I can give you the exact quote of what was said 10 minutes earlier as well as the complete quote for this question and answer.

"GZ told her the money was for his bond. Thus it would be entirely reasonable for her to claim that she did not believe that the money was hers.

But not at all reasonable for her to not know why money was being discussed in this hearing in the first place.

 

[Dan O.]

How exactly is this 'addressing' a statement given by officer mead that he saw the flashlight on ?

Show me the original statement by Mead. Not the corrupted OCR of his statement and not someone else's recall of his statement.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Show me the original statement by Mead. Not the corrupted OCR of his statement and not someone else's recall of his statement.

It's page 11 of the second round of discovery documents, just like I posted. Do you need a link to the second round of discovery documents ?

 

[Dan O.]

Suppose she claims she spoke with an attorney the day before the hearing, and he told her any money raised in donation could not be used. Just supposing if she claimed that happened, then wouldn't that, in her mind, supersede what her husband told her, and make what he told her irrelevant ?

Is that what you think O'mara told her? Are you saying that George is completely innocent of leading his attorney down the Primrose Path.

 

[Dan O.]

It's page 11 of the second round of discovery documents, just like I posted. Do you need a link to the second round of discovery documents ?

I asked for it last time. Are you going to provide it now?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Is that what you think O'mara told her? Are you saying that George is completely innocent of leading his attorney down the Primrose Path.

No, that is not what i think .

I think that it is a plausible defense for her to claim someone else told her something different in the days after the conversation with her husband, rendering their conversation irrelevant.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I asked for it last time. Are you going to provide it now?

http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/doc...discovery-documents-part-2-284-pages-7122012/

or

http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf

 

[This is The End]

Please include the "I think you also mentioned earlier" in the question, it's very relevant.

No it's not relevant. At all. As pointed out to you many times.

To think that we are to believe that they are just verifying that she said the information, and not that they are verifying the actual information! It's even a stretch to try and suggest that she mistakenly thought that... It is clearly defense spin. And not even good defense spin.

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.

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.

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!.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Deleted.

 

[Newtons Bit]

No it's not relevant. At all. As pointed out to you many times.

To think that we are to believe that they are just verifying that she said the information, and not that they are verifying the actual information! It's even a stretch to try and suggest that she mistakenly thought that... It is clearly defense spin. And not even good defense spin.

Asserting something does not make it true. DLR does this multiple times when questioning her. I don't know why he chose to frame the questions that way. But it is very plain that he did.

 

[WildCat]

The flashlight was not illuminated. We have the photograph to prove that.

A photograph wouldn't show that, the flash from the camera would have washed out the far weaker light from the flashlight.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I asked for it last time. Are you going to provide it now?

I don't see where you asked for it last time ... how about a quote/link ?

 

[This is The End]

But it is very plain that he did.

It is not very plain that he did. Not only that, but it is quite obvious that he did not frame it that way at all....

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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.

No, you would be asking him if he remembered. Hence the words: Hey, Newton, remember when...

You are making assumptions. You assume someone is answering what you meant to ask, not what you actually asked.

Again, this is an adversarial process. If SZ answers the question she is actually asked, not the question BDLR intended to ask, that is a fault of BDLR.