Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[johnny karate]

The prosecution asked SZ about the fund at the bond hearing. What other evidence do I need to provide that the prosecution knew about the fund?

Fair enough.

But that's one out three claims.

Where is your evidence that knew how much was in the fund, and that they had possession of the jail house phone records prior to the first bond hearing?

 

[Dancing David]

The prosecution asked SZ about the fund at the bond hearing. What other evidence do I need to provide that the prosecution knew about the fund?

And when asked if she knew of any assets she could use or GZ could use to pay the bond, what was her answer?

Was it "There is the Paypal account."

All that matters is how she answered that question at the bond hearing, for some reason that you don't understan, it does not matter at all what the SA office knew.

All that matters is :

-Was she questioned as to the state of her and GZ's funds at the time?
(Which seems to be a subject of debate)
-Was she aware of funds available to her and GZ?
-Did she claim to have no funds?

So the point I am trying to understand is not anything other than this:

-Was Shellie asked at the bond hearing (not the affidavit) if she or GZ had funds to post bond?
-Did she have knowledge of funds in the Paypal account?
_If she was asked in court in June at the bonds hearing about funds to pay a bond, did she answer with the Paypal account?

What the SA did or did not do is immaterial, all that matters is if SZ answered the questions truthfully or not.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Fair enough.

But that's one out three claims.

Where is your evidence that knew how much was in the fund, and that they had possession of the jail house phone records prior to the first bond hearing?

I did not say that they knew how much was in the account. I said it was probable, given the information that they had access to, that they would assume it to be a large sum.

Could you avoid the straw men, please?

 

[johnny karate]

I did not say that they knew how much was in the account. I said it was probable, given the information that they had access to, that they would assume it to be a large sum.

Could you avoid the straw men, please?

Oh I see... it was only probable. Yes, what a completely out-of-left-field straw man I created out of that perfectly reasonable claim.

So what information did they have access to that would inform of the amount of money the Zimmermans had at their disposal? Please provide a citation.

And after two attempts you still haven't provided evidence that the prosecution had the phone records in their possession prior to the first bond hearing. I'd like to see a citation for that as well.

Edit:

I said it was probable, given the information that they had access to, that they would assume it to be a large sum.

And by the way, that is not what you said.

You didn't say the prosecution would assume it was a large amount.

You said they already knew how much was in the account:

...it is probable the prosecution already knew how much was in the account...

So your attempt to back-pedal has been noted.

 

[Dan O.]

The "had" is especially relevant since it's referring to past tense, as is "mentioned" for that matter. When my brain hears those types of words it tends to immediately "go past tense" because I assume people are using them for a reason. This reminds me of the earlier discussion where some people insisted it was "impossible" that GZ didn't know the street name. Even after quite a few people pointed out they don't know the street names of streets close to them it was still "impossible".

An objective reading of the statement above makes it easy to see it could be validly interpreted by different people in different ways, but some people only seem to see the world from one viewpoint, and anything that doesn't confirm that viewpoint is rejected or even worse deemed ridiculous or dishonest.

If you engage in cherry picking, your could easily lock yourself into one interpretation. That's why I prefer to try and take in the whole picture.

The "had" is of course past tense. But if we look at the context around that question, it is quite apparent when that past event took place. I've already stated my belief that this was referring to the answer to the question posed by O'mara 10 minutes earlier.

This is further supported by Mr. De la Rionda prefacing his initial question with "Let me start off at the very end ... ", where he questions Shelly If she believes her husband is a danger to the community. And in fact, you can look that up in the transcript and see that the last two questions by O'mara were exactly on that subject. (the cross begins on transcript page 374 or page 18 of the PDF)

Then on page 380 of the transcript, (Page 24 of the PDF), line 22, de la Rionda prefaces the next series of questions with: "All right. Let me then start at the very beginning of your testimony. You stated you had been married for how long with mr. Zimmerman?" A review of the beginning of her testimony starting on page 12 of the PDF: Q. State your name. Q. How are you related to George Zimmerman? And how long have you been married? And again shows a correlation.

So when we get to the critical question on transcript page 382 (PDF page 26) line 11: "And you mentioned also, in terms of the ability of your husband to make bond, that you all had no money." can there really be any denial that this is also referring to the direct examination in this same hearing, specifically to the question on page 371 (PDF page 15) line 11: "are you of any financial means where you can assist in those costs?"

 

[Newtons Bit]

So when we get to the critical question on transcript page 382 (PDF page 26) line 11: "And you mentioned also, in terms of the ability of your husband to make bond, that you all had no money." can there really be any denial that this is also referring to the direct examination in this same hearing, specifically to the question on page 371 (PDF page 15) line 11: "are you of any financial means where you can assist in those costs?"

If that's was that question is referring to, then all SZ has to do is argue that she did not believe the money was hers. Which will be an easy task, as GZ told her that money was for the bond.

 

[Alt+F4]

If that's was that question is referring to, then all SZ has to do is argue that she did not believe the money was hers. Which will be an easy task, as GZ told her that money was for the bond.

I'm not buying that Newtons, I'm married too. I know what money is mine alone and what money is ours together in a joint account which we both own. Anyone who doesn't know what money belongs to them is either a fool or a liar.

 

[johnny karate]

If that's was that question is referring to, then all SZ has to do is argue that she did not believe the money was hers. Which will be an easy task, as GZ told her that money was for the bond.

I get the feeling when you're not providing evidence for unfounded claims to support your conspiracy theory about the prosecution, you're busy not actually reading the transcripts from the court or the jail house phone conversations.

Shellie Zimmerman said she had money in her personal bank account upwards of $10,000. I quoted the relevant statements upthread.

I look forward to you explaining how someone can reasonably claim money in their possession is not actually theirs.

 

[Dan O.]

I'm not buying that Newtons, I'm married too. I know what money is mine alone and what money is ours together in a joint account which we both own. Anyone who doesn't know what money belongs to them is either a fool or a liar.

That's not necessarily a mutually exclusive selection. In one of the recorded conversations after discussing the quantities of money to be transferred, Shelly remarked to George: "You'll live well". This could be interpreted as her belief that all the money belonged to George alone. George though immediately corrected her with: "We'll live well".


When we get to the bond hearing though, Shelly appears to know about community property. She was asked a series of questions about her employment and George's employment where we learn that she has been a full time student while George has been intermittently employed. This is capped of by asking her how they lived when neither of them was employed. To this she answers: "We collected unemployment."

 

[Newtons Bit]

I'm not buying that Newtons, I'm married too. I know what money is mine alone and what money is ours together in a joint account which we both own. Anyone who doesn't know what money belongs to them is either a fool or a liar.

Err... exactly?

 

[Cylinder]

5th DCA order for the state to provide a response to Writ of Prohibition.

Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(j), it is ORDERED that Respondent in the above-styled cause shall file a response with this Court, on or before Thursday, August 23, 2012, by 5:00 p.m. to the Petition for Writ of Prohibition, filed August 13, 2012. Attorneys shall also e-mail a copy of the ordered response or reply to this Court in compliance with Administrative Order AO5D08-01.

This Order shall not stay proceedings in the lower tribunal relative to this cause.

Pursuant to rule, Jedge Lester will have an option to reply to the writ as a party to the action. The state is required to respond. After this response is filed with the court, Zimmerman will have 20 days to to reply to the state's argument.

 

[This is The End]

I noticed something from Z's statements to Hannity. I'm pretty sure I missed something from this specific exchange the first time around because I was so distracted by how ironic it was for Z himself to be the first person to give us a valid reason M would have for punching him.

Read the first Z paragraph carefully.

http://nation.foxnews.com/george-zi...-zimmerman-breaks-his-silence-hannity-tonight

Ironically, Z makes it sound like M punched him because M thought Z was going for a gun. If I was his lawyer I would have told Z not to tell this story before the interview even happened.

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir. And I was wearing a rain jacket, and I had put my cell phone in my jacket pocket, as opposed to my jeans pocket where I normally keep it. And I immediately went to grab my phone to this time call 911 instead of a non-emergency, and when I reached into my pants pocket -- because that's where I keep it out of habit -- it wasn't there, and I was shocked. I looked up and he punched me and broke my nose.

HANNITY: One shot?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

HANNITY: One shot?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes.

HANNITY: So he said to you, you have expletive, you have a problem. Those are the exact words used. You remember it?

ZIMMERMAN: "Do you have a problem? What's your problem?"

HANNITY: What's your problem.

And you said to him, "I don't have a problem."

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

HANNITY: You reached for your phone?

ZIMMERMAN: I reached for it as I was saying, "No, I don't have a problem."

HANNITY: And at that point you just got hit?

ZIMMERMAN: He was already within arm's length from me.

HANNITY: And was that the punch in the nose that broke your nose?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

OK for the full context I added the next 4 lines to that, and here is the part immediately preceding that exchange (again you can check the full context at the above link):

Note the highlights in light of the first Z paragraph we read above.

HANNITY: Because they said, you know, can we meet you here at a certain location, and you said have them call me.

ZIMMERMAN: Yes.

HANNITY: Why did you want them at that point to call you?

ZIMMERMAN: I hadn't given them a correct address. I gave them a -- the clubhouse vicinity. However, I was walking through to my street, Retreat View Circle, and I was going to give them the actual street number and name.

HANNITY: How long was it, George, after that, that you saw Trayvon again? Because you said you stopped, that you did not continue pursuing him. When did you next see Trayvon Martin?

ZIMMERMAN: Less than 30 seconds.

HANNITY: OK. Where were you? Where exactly were you at that point, and how far away were you from your car at that moment?

ZIMMERMAN: I'd guess about 100 feet or more.

HANNITY: So you never went further than how far approximately from your car?

ZIMMERMAN: I would estimate it to be approximately 100 feet.

HANNITY: So you never went further than that from the car?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: OK. And so at that point, Trayvon is -- all of a sudden you turned around and there he was?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

HANNITY: What happened next?

ZIMMERMAN: He asked me what my problem was.

HANNITY: Expletive problem?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir. And I was wearing a rain jacket, and I had put my cell phone in my jacket pocket, as opposed to my jeans pocket where I normally keep it. And I immediately went to grab my phone to this time call 911 instead of a non-emergency, and when I reached into my pants pocket -- because that's where I keep it out of habit -- it wasn't there, and I was shocked. I looked up and he punched me and broke my nose.

OK let's forget about the whole Z ironicallly giving a reason for why M would punch him.

Let's also forget that Z suddenly thinks it's time to call 911 just because a 17 year old kid asked him what his *********** problem is...

Here's the weird part.

I had put my cell phone in my jacket pocket, as opposed to my jeans pocket where I normally keep it. And I immediately went to grab my phone <snip> I reached into my pants pocket -- because that's where I keep it out of habit -- it wasn't there

He had just put his cellphone in his jacket pocket 30 to 60 seconds before that. How in the world do you forget where you put your cellphone 30 seconds ago?

I know lots of people are going to respond with "He was nervous, you forget things in intense situations." or "I always forget where I put things, even when I'm not in a situation like that!" or "He obviously says he reached for it instinctively, where it should be."

All 3 of those excuses would make alot more sense if we weren't talking 30 seconds here! I'm sure the treehouse type posters will believe 100% that he forgot. The justicequest type posters will believe 100% that he is lying. I think we should not believe 100% either way and ask ourselves if there is any reason he would want to say that story if it didn't happen really happen like that.

He puts his cell phone in his jacket pocket. 30 seconds goes by. He forgets where it was and instinctively reaches for it in his pants pocket? It just doesn't smell right.

So I ask myself why would he want to claim he was reaching for his pants pocket?

This convulsion is even less conclusive that the chambercheck audio comparison, but I think the odds of the prosecution claiming that Z had his gun out the whole time, or pulled up his shirt before the punch, is pretty good.

 

[WildCat]

So do the medical professionals who examined Zimmerman. They also have medical training.

They didn't note these additional "abrasions" you claim exist.

What's so special about your eyes?

Edit: You have read the medical reports, right? Because it wasn't that long ago when you were scoffing at the idea they had been released while everyone else was full aware that they had been. And I just want to make sure you weren't still laboring under the same willful ignorance that caused you to make embarrassingly uninformed posts in the past.

Is an abrasion something a doctor would consider an injury requiring treatment? If not, why would it be mentioned in the report?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

...
So I ask myself why would he want to claim he was reaching for his pants pocket?

So what did yourself answer ?

That was a long way to go for an argument from incredulity about which pocket he had his cellphone in...

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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

So Dan, was the keychain flashlight "on" , or are the officers who all reported it being "on" mistaken, and it was actually "off", despite what they reported ?

Dan ? Did you not get the chace to look at page 11 yet ? Here, it's just one sentence:



ETA: oops, didn't mean to make it so small...

 

[WildCat]

I noticed something from Z's statements to Hannity. I'm pretty sure I missed something from this specific exchange the first time around because I was so distracted by how ironic it was for Z himself to be the first person to give us a valid reason M would have for punching him.

Read the first Z paragraph carefully.

http://nation.foxnews.com/george-zi...-zimmerman-breaks-his-silence-hannity-tonight




OK for the full context I added the next 4 lines to that, and here is the part immediately preceding that exchange (again you can check the full context at the above link):

Note the highlights in light of the first Z paragraph we read above.



OK let's forget about the whole Z ironicallly giving a reason for why M would punch him.

Let's also forget that Z suddenly thinks it's time to call 911 just because a 17 year old kid asked him what his *********** problem is...

Here's the weird part.




He had just put his cellphone in his jacket pocket 30 to 60 seconds before that. How in the world do you forget where you put your cellphone 30 seconds ago?

I know lots of people are going to respond with "He was nervous, you forget things in intense situations." or "I always forget where I put things, even when I'm not in a situation like that!" or "He obviously says he reached for it instinctively, where it should be."

All 3 of those excuses would make alot more sense if we weren't talking 30 seconds here! I'm sure the treehouse type posters will believe 100% that he forgot. The justicequest type posters will believe 100% that he is lying. I think we should not believe 100% either way and ask ourselves if there is any reason he would want to say that story if it didn't happen really happen like that.

He puts his cell phone in his jacket pocket. 30 seconds goes by. He forgets where it was and instinctively reaches for it in his pants pocket? It just doesn't smell right.

So I ask myself why would he want to claim he was reaching for his pants pocket?

This convulsion is even less conclusive that the chambercheck audio comparison, but I think the odds of the prosecution claiming that Z had his gun out the whole time, or pulled up his shirt before the punch, is pretty good.

For the life of me I can't figure out why any rational person would think any of that was significant.

It's like 9/11 truthers going over every statement with a fine-toothed comb looking for anything that doesn't look right to them, then declaring proof of inside jobby-job.

Did you know Rumsfeld once said the nose cone of the plane that hit the Pentagon punched through the C-ring? OMG, inside job!

 

[johnny karate]

Is an abrasion something a doctor would consider an injury requiring treatment? If not, why would it be mentioned in the report?

A forehead abrasion was mentioned in the EMT report. I'm not sure if you read it or were even aware it had been released. (It has, by the way. Quite some time ago.)

Why mention one abrasion but not the numerous others you claim exist?

 

[johnny karate]

Here, I'll re-post this since the champions of Shellie Zimmerman seemed to have overlooked it:

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

Shellie: None that I know of.

O'Mara: I have discussed with you the pending motion to have your husband, George, declared indigent for cost, have I not?

Shellie: Yes, you have.

O'Mara: Are you of any financial means where you can assist in those costs?

Shellie: Not that I'm aware of.

George: You're going to take out 10 and keep it with you in cash, less than 10.

Shellie: Like 9.

George: Say about 10. I'm wondering, you have more than 10, right?

Shellie: Not with me.

George: You don't have access to more than 10 in your account?

Shellie: I do.

George: I have access to... in your account.

Shellie: Yeah.

That's Shellie Zimmerman under oath claiming to not be of any financial means to assist in her husband's legal costs five days after stating on the record she had at least $10,000 in her personal bank account.

My guess for the lack of response is that LegalInsurrection.com doesn't address this particular exchange, so some people don't know what their opinions are without being told first.

 

[Dan O.]

So Dan, was the keychain flashlight "on" , or are the officers who all reported it being "on" mistaken, and it was actually "off", despite what they reported ?

I'm still going through the data. But a curious bit just turned up. One of the first reports (first discovery page 20) that I originally attributed to Christopher Serino actually belongs to Leon Ciesla. This is the original report that was so badly butchered by the OCR. It a strange world where OCR errors are closer to the truth than the original. If Serino did see the small flashlight illuminated on the ground, why didn't he say so in the first report?

The other report of the flashlight that turned up in the second discovery dump: "Officer Mead saw the flashlight "on" at the intersection of the two walkways when he responded to the scene." This is also curious because Meed had filed two prior reports which we can see in the first discovery, page 15 filed on 2/27 and page 18 filed on 3/15, and in neither report is the flashlight even mentioned.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I'm still going through the data. But a curious bit just turned up. One of the first reports (first discovery page 20) that I originally attributed to Christopher Serino actually belongs to Leon Ciesla. This is the original report that was so badly butchered by the OCR. It a strange world where OCR errors are closer to the truth than the original. If Serino did see the small flashlight illuminated on the ground, why didn't he say so in the first report?

The other report of the flashlight that turned up in the second discovery dump: "Officer Mead saw the flashlight "on" at the intersection of the two walkways when he responded to the scene." This is also curious because Meed had filed two prior reports which we can see in the first discovery, page 15 filed on 2/27 and page 18 filed on 3/15, and in neither report is the flashlight even mentioned.

What exactly do you mean butchered by OCR ? You are looking at the actual documents. I don't understand how OCR has anything to do with this.

Officer Smiths report (page 80) clearly states "there were a set of keys containing a small flashlight that was on, ..."

Officer Mead clearly states the flashlight was on.