Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Newtons Bit]

Well, context is everything, ya know. Of course GZ didn't shoot TM before TM punched (if that's what happened) GZ. No where in my post did I say that. The normal reader would have picked up on the intent, based on your comment and the context of my response. If you want to continue to parse and distort posts out here, it's going to be a very long haul.

Your post does say that if one reads it literally. And while such a statement would be crazy; crazy isn't unusual in the JREF forums.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

How is this...

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

Shellie: Not that I'm aware of.

...not a lie?

Is 'of any any financial means where you can assist' an empirical fact, or an opinion ?

Do you think the prosecution can prove SZ believed she was of financial means ?

What if SZ didn't think that the money she was moving was 'hers', but she was moving it for her husband, since he couldn't.

Is it possible SZ had discussions with MOM after the jailhouse call that you keep quoting, which contradict that jailhouse call and changed SZ opinion on what he money was for ?

BDLR did a craptastic job. Since the prosecution knew about the paypal accounts, all they had to do was ascertain how much money was in them. SZ told them how to do that.

They chose not to ask her simple questions of empirical fact, like "Does that account contain more than 10,00 dollars ?"

I think the case against SZ is weak, at best. I agree it seems as if she was attempting to evade answering the questions with full candor, I don't see how the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that her answers are clearly false statments of empircal fact that she did not believe.

 

[johnny karate]

Is 'of any any financial means where you can assist' an empirical fact, or an opinion ?

Do you think the prosecution can prove SZ believed she was of financial means ?

What if SZ didn't think that the money she was moving was 'hers', but she was moving it for her husband, since he couldn't.

Is it possible SZ had discussions with MOM after the jailhouse call that you keep quoting, which contradict that jailhouse call and changed SZ opinion on what he money was for ?

BDLR did a craptastic job. Since the prosecution knew about the paypal accounts, all they had to do was ascertain how much money was in them. SZ told them how to do that.

They chose not to ask her simple questions of empirical fact, like "Does that account contain more than 10,00 dollars ?"

I think the case against SZ is weak, at best. I agree it seems as if she was attempting to evade answering the questions with full candor, I don't see how the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that her answers are clearly false statments of empircal fact that she did not believe.

You must have not read this post.

And if you think this is the standard:

I don't see how the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that her answers are clearly false statments of empircal fact that she did not believe.

...how do imagine anyone has ever been found guilty of perjury?

If saying under oath you have no money while bank records clearly indicate you had in excess of $57,000 at the time is not a demonstrable instance of perjury, then what is? How can perjury ever be proven?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You must have not read this post.

I did read it.

And if you think this is the standard:
...how do imagine anyone has ever been found guilty of perjury?

If that's not the standard, please provide me with the standard.

If saying under oath you have no money while bank records clearly indicate you had in excess of $57,000 at the time is not a demonstrable instance of perjury, then what is? How can perjury ever be proven?

The hilited part is not what she said. It may be what she implied, but that's not the same thing.

You didn't answer my questions. I responded specifically to the statements you posted. You said you wanted to have a discussion ... ignoring all my questions and telling me I am wrong about what the prosecution needs to prove is not really having a discussion.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Here is where it all went wrong. In your original post, you posted the OCR text as:

Yes, I did. I also provided the link to the document.

The intention was not to confuse the issue, but it was easier to use the OCR'ed text than to post images of the PDF. So sorry if that mislead you.

Rare Truth responded with a link and clipping with: It reads "a small flash light on the ring".

LTC8K6 chimed in with a reference to page 80 where CST Smith clearly says the flashlight was on.
<...>
The similarity of page 20 with the butchered OCR from page 80 convinced me that you were referencing page 20 in your post. It was only when I was able to view these entries side by side that I could see my mistake.

Yes, at that point was clearly not an OCR problem, and you understood she reported the light was on. Which made wonder why you bothered bringing up the OCR.

At that point, you decided the photo showed the light was not on ...

My position remains mostly unchanged. I still accept as I always have that CST D. Smith says in her report that the flashlight was on. In putting this post together, I spotted one additional item that supports the "on" hypothesis; CST D Smith initially walked the scene with Mead and Ayala. This would explain why Mead would be questioned about the state of the flashlight. But does not explain why Mead failed to mention it in his two earlier reports or why there is nothing on this from Ayala in the second discovery.

ETA: There is really only one more thing to do to completely settle this. I think someone somewhere had identified the actual model of this flashlight. If a similar unit could be found, it could be tested to see if its light would or would not show up in similar conditions.

And yet you still think your interpretation of a photo trumps two officers reports ?

So, my next question is, which photo shows that the light is clearly off ?

This one ?

http://i1175.photobucket.com/albums/r632/DiwataMan/George Zimmerman Photos/DSC_0014.jpg

This one ?

http://i1175.photobucket.com/albums/r632/DiwataMan/George Zimmerman Photos/DSC_0015.jpg

This one ?

http://i1175.photobucket.com/albums/r632/DiwataMan/George Zimmerman Photos/DSC_0013.jpg

 

[bookworm]

What's even more interesting is that Zimmerman, in his NEN call, states that Martin "has his hand in his waistband", indicating that he thinks that this is important and possibly threatening. And he further notes that Martin "has something in his hand" soon after this, and immediately pleads "please, just get an officer over here." And yet, he expects us to believe that *him* sticking his hands into his pants after following Martin and being confronted by him is a completely invalid reason for Martin to hit him.

Zimmerman and his supporters use this double-standard a few times to justify Zimmerman's actions in this case. We're expected to believe that Martin is suspicious because he's "walking around, looking about" and "looking at houses" (which, for reference, is exactly what people do when outside talking on a cell phone, and thus not at all suspicious), yet he explains in his re-enactment that *he* was looking at a house at the end of the T. He asks us to believe that "looking at [him]" is suspicious, yet it's fine for him to sit in his car and stare at Martin. He asks us to think that walking towards him is threatening, yet him getting out of his car and running after Martin is not at all a reason for Martin to worry about his intentions.

The only conclusion I can reach is that, by his own admission, Martin should have found Zimmerman to be extremely threatening, and thus he had a legal right to beat Zimmerman, in order to protect his own life.

ETA: If Zimmerman instinctively reached for the pocket where he normally keeps his cell phone, wouldn't he have instinctively put it in that same pocket?

I think everything could have happened exactly as you've just said above and if it did, I agree with you that Z appeared threatening to M. I agree with you that Martin was justified in worrying about his intentions. I'm a little shaky that he would be legally justified in hitting based on only that. However, I think under all those circumstances Zimmerman would STILL be justified in shooting someone who is banging his head on the ground. Can you agree to that?

 

[johnny karate]

If that's not the standard, please provide me with the standard.

Okay, let me rephrase. I don't think the standard means what you think it means. In your opinion, how does the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant believes they (the defendant) lied?

The hilited part is not what she said. It may be what she implied, but that's not the same thing.

She was asked if she was of any financial means to assist in her husband's legal costs.

She answered in the negative.

At the time, she had $57,000 in her possession.

I'm not sure what hair you think you're splitting here, but it's a bit too fine for me to see.

You didn't answer my questions. I responded specifically to the statements you posted. You said you wanted to have a discussion ... ignoring all my questions and telling me I am wrong about what the prosecution needs to prove is not really having a discussion.

Fair enough:

Is 'of any any financial means where you can assist' an empirical fact, or an opinion ?

Empiracal fact. She had $57,000.

Do you think the prosecution can prove SZ believed she was of financial means ?

Yes. They have bank records showing she had $57,000 when she said she did not have the financial means to assist in her husband's legal costs.

What if SZ didn't think that the money she was moving was 'hers', but she was moving it for her husband, since he couldn't.

She had $57,000 in her personal credit union account. By any legal standard, that is her money. You might as well ask "What if she didn't understand how money works?".

Is it possible SZ had discussions with MOM after the jailhouse call that you keep quoting, which contradict that jailhouse call and changed SZ opinion on what he money was for ?

Maybe. But I'm not sure how it would be relevant. She had $57,000 at the time she said she didn't have the finanacial means to assist in her husband's legal costs.


Your turn.

Please provide a hypothetical situation (or a real on if you wish) in which a person is found guilty of perjury, and explain how the prosecution was able to prove that person believed they were lying.

 

[Dan O.]

And yet you still think your interpretation of a photo trumps two officers reports ?

How are you counting two?

So, my next question is, which photo shows that the light is clearly off ?

This one ?

http://i1175.photobucket.com/albums/r632/DiwataMan/George Zimmerman Photos/DSC_0014.jpg

This one ?

http://i1175.photobucket.com/albums/r632/DiwataMan/George Zimmerman Photos/DSC_0015.jpg

This one ?

http://i1175.photobucket.com/albums/r632/DiwataMan/George Zimmerman Photos/DSC_0013.jpg

Why are you leaving one out? You should look at all of the evidence.

http://i1175.photobucket.com/albums/r632/DiwataMan/George Zimmerman Photos/DSC_0012.jpg

I say that none of the photos show that the light is on. I also say that it can be tested to determine if the photos would have shown that the light was on.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I also say that it can be tested to determine if the photos would have shown that the light was on.

Perhaps using the same magic software that was able to determine who was screaming on the 911 calls ?

 

[Dan O.]

Verry good. NBS has offered to do the test. We will await his results.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Okay, let me rephrase. I don't think the standard means what you think it means. In your opinion, how does the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant believes they (the defendant) lied?

whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true,

Well, I guess that's where the 'reasonable doubt' part comes in. I guess that's one reason why it (perjury) seems like a difficult charge get a conviction on.

She was asked if she was of any financial means to assist in her husband's legal costs.

She answered in the negative.

At the time, she had $57,000 in her possession.

I'm not sure what hair you think you're splitting here, but it's a bit too fine for me to see.

I'm arguing that 'being of financial means' is not an objective fact, it's a relative term.
IE - If I have $5, am I of financial means ?
If I have $500, am I of financial means ?
If I have $5,000, am I of financial means ?
Etc.

If she didn't believe the paypal money to be hers, then she may not think of herself as being of financial means to assist. And it was MOM asking her if she was of any financial means.
I think that's a direction the defense will go, which may or may not be useful.

I understand that you disagree, the money was not his but 'thiers' and was in her account (as outlined below), so those are all valid points against her belief.

Fair enough:
Empiracal fact. She had $57,000.
Yes. They have bank records showing she had $57,000 when she said she did not have the financial means to assist in her husband's legal costs.

She had $57,000 in her personal credit union account. By any legal standard, that is her money. You might as well ask "What if she didn't understand how money works?".

Maybe. But I'm not sure how it would be relevant. She had $57,000 at the time she said she didn't have the finanacial means to assist in her husband's legal costs.

Your turn.

Please provide a hypothetical situation (or a real on if you wish) in which a person is found guilty of perjury, and explain how the prosecution was able to prove that person believed they were lying.

Q: How much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was
A: Currently, I do not know.
Q: Who would know that?
A: That would be my brother-in-law.
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.
Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?
A: I do not.

Q: Did you ever discuss how much money was in the account ?
A: yes
Q: was it more than $10,000
A: no
If she said no, that would be perjury. It's a contrived example, but I think her discussing the amount being greater than 10,000 would make it next to impossible for to believe that it was less than 10,00 (in this example)

It's also meant to be an example of how easily BDLR could have made a much better case for perjury.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

How are you counting two?

Smith, Mead. Did I miss one ? Or is it because I said it was in the report, when it was actually in the supplemental interview...

Why are you leaving one out? You should look at all of the evidence.

http://i1175.photobucket.com/albums/r632/DiwataMan/George Zimmerman Photos/DSC_0012.jpg

I didn't leave one out, I left many out. I picked what I perceived to be a few likely examples for my list, assuming you would add if necessary, as you did.

I say that none of the photos show that the light is on. I also say that it can be tested to determine if the photos would have shown that the light was on.

Yes, but my question was:
So, my next question is, which photo shows that the light is clearly off ?

Therefor, I default to trusting officer smiths report. The only reason I can think as to why they went back and asked officer mead about the light is someone must have had doubts as to whether it was "on" or "off" - so they asked him to clarify - which he did. "on"

So unless you go back and re-create the scene and can demonstrate that if it was on, it would be clearly visible in the photos, I think sticking with "on" is the most reasonable conclusion.

 

[Mumbles]

I think everything could have happened exactly as you've just said above and if it did, I agree with you that Z appeared threatening to M. I agree with you that Martin was justified in worrying about his intentions. I'm a little shaky that he would be legally justified in hitting based on only that. However, I think under all those circumstances Zimmerman would STILL be justified in shooting someone who is banging his head on the ground. Can you agree to that?

It's not my story we're discussing here, it's Zimmerman's story. Again, this is about how everything Martin does seemed to alarm Zimmerman, but how he is oblivious to how, according to his own story and his own standards, he is actually far more threatening than Martin is. Consider, for example, that Zimmerman was in the relative safety of his car, and yet freely chose to leave his car in order to move in the same direction as the guy he supposedly found suspicious.

Now consider Martin's view. He's walking down the street, and this stranger starts staring at him, and when he leaves, this guy gets out and starts moving towards him. And when he gets close, he goes reaching for...what? In my experience (both my own and my family and friends), "weapon" is vastly more likely than "cell phone". In fact, Zimmerman would be the first person I've heard of that would do this, and then *not* pull a weapon.

Again, I don't believe Zimmerman's own story for an instant - it doesn't match up with the evidence, his injuries, witnesses,the fight location, or his own NeN recording, and there are some parts that are risible, such as the whole "he came back and circled my car and then ran oh wait skipped away" thing.

 

[Cylinder]

He's walking down the street, and this stranger starts staring at him, and when he leaves, this guy gets out and starts moving towards him. And when he gets close, he goes reaching for...what? In my experience (both my own and my family and friends), "weapon" is vastly more likely than "cell phone". In fact, Zimmerman would be the first person I've heard of that would do this, and then *not* pull a weapon.

What, you live in a 1950s western serial?

The law does not allow you to assault someone in a place they have a right to be for looking or acting suspicious. Zimmerman would have had no right to assault Martin and Martin certainly had no right to assualt Zimmerman. You're the one using the double standard here - justifying Martin's attack on Zimmerman for doing the same kind of behavior that Zimmerman observed. The key difference is that Zimmerman did what he was supposed to - tried to observe the person and call the police. Martin chose a less fortunate strategy.

 

[bookworm]

It's not my story we're discussing here, it's Zimmerman's story. Again, this is about how everything Martin does seemed to alarm Zimmerman, but how he is oblivious to how, according to his own story and his own standards, he is actually far more threatening than Martin is. Consider, for example, that Zimmerman was in the relative safety of his car, and yet freely chose to leave his car in order to move in the same direction as the guy he supposedly found suspicious.

Now consider Martin's view. He's walking down the street, and this stranger starts staring at him, and when he leaves, this guy gets out and starts moving towards him. And when he gets close, he goes reaching for...what? In my experience (both my own and my family and friends), "weapon" is vastly more likely than "cell phone". In fact, Zimmerman would be the first person I've heard of that would do this, and then *not* pull a weapon.

Again, I don't believe Zimmerman's own story for an instant - it doesn't match up with the evidence, his injuries, witnesses,the fight location, or his own NeN recording, and there are some parts that are risible, such as the whole "he came back and circled my car and then ran oh wait skipped away" thing.

See, this is what I just don't get. No matter how reasonable the argument, the Truthers just can't admit the possibility, in any way, shape or form, that Zimmerman MAY have been defending himself. Makes the whole discussion totally pointless.

 

[Cylinder]

O'Mara to challenge subpeana of medical records

Those already-released medical records show that Zimmerman had a fractured nose, cuts to the back of his head and a back injury, but Special Prosecutor Angela Corey's office has asked for more, according to O'Mara's pleading.

O'Mara says they shouldn't get it. He's asking Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester Jr. to quash the subpoena. Both sides are to be in court Friday at 8:30 a.m. Zimmerman is not expected to be there.

In court paperwork made public Monday, O'Mara wrote that those records are private and that if the doctor's office surrenders them, prosecutors will then release them to the public.

 

[johnny karate]

whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true,

Well, I guess that's where the 'reasonable doubt' part comes in. I guess that's one reason why it (perjury) seems like a difficult charge get a conviction on.

And yet somehow they still manage to get a conviction now and again.

So how do you think they were able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the convicted perjurer believed themselves to be lying?

I'm arguing that 'being of financial means' is not an objective fact, it's a relative term.
IE - If I have $5, am I of financial means ?
If I have $500, am I of financial means ?
If I have $5,000, am I of financial means ?
Etc.

And that relativity is established by "to assist with these costs".

She had $57,000. That's certainly "financial means" to assist in her husband's legal costs.

If she didn't believe the paypal money to be hers, then she may not think of herself as being of financial means to assist. And it was MOM asking her if she was of any financial means.

The money was in her account. It belonged to her. If you want to argue that it's creates "reasonable doubt" to suggest she didn't beleive the money in her possesion was hers, then you need to explain how anyone could ever be convicted of perjury using such liberal standards to define lying.

Q: How much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was
A: Currently, I do not know.
Q: Who would know that?
A: That would be my brother-in-law.
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.
Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?
A: I do not.

Q: Did you ever discuss how much money was in the account ?
A: yes
Q: was it more than $10,000
A: no
If she said no, that would be perjury. It's a contrived example, but I think her discussing the amount being greater than 10,000 would make it next to impossible for to believe that it was less than 10,00 (in this example)

It's also meant to be an example of how easily BDLR could have made a much better case for perjury.

Using your standards, I don't see how you would prove perjury in this instance.

How would you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she believed herself to be lying?

 

[Unabogie]

O'Mara to challenge subpeana of medical records

Why? If the medical records show injuries to George, then why on earth is his lawyer trying to suppress them?

Things that make you wonder, eh?

 

[Mumbles]

See, this is what I just don't get. No matter how reasonable the argument, the Truthers just can't admit the possibility, in any way, shape or form, that Zimmerman MAY have been defending himself. Makes the whole discussion totally pointless.

The funny part is, nothing I said in my prior post addressed the idea of self-defense. What I said was exclusively about how I don't believe Zimmerman's story, and that his story makes him out to be a complete fool.

 

[WildCat]

That's odd, so you agree with me? That proves you didn't read it:

I responded to this post:

WildCat, on record as thinking it is 100% believable to forget which pocket you put your cellphone in after 30 seconds.

Yes, it is quite believable. You offer nothing but personal incredulity and evidence-free speculation.

I'm the one that said, that though it is believable, we should specifically not believe his story 100%. Which you then went on to do, of course. Though now you have moved your goalpost to it merely being believable which is what I said the whole time...

I believe what the evidence leads me to believe. You like to speculate about things for which there is no evidence.