Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Unabogie]

I guess the big difference for Shellie Zimmerman is that she told a lie in order to help an accused murderer flee the country.

I'm guessing it's the added bit about the passport that really sent the SA over the edge.

I forget, are we still pretending we don't know she lied?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I guess the big difference for Shellie Zimmerman is that she told a lie in order to help an accused murderer flee the country.

Wait, what ? GZ fled the country ?

I'm guessing it's the added bit about the passport that really sent the SA over the edge.

Yes, without any evidence it would be a guess.

I forget, are we still pretending we don't know she lied?

Who was pretending they don't know she lied ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

But if simply telling a falsehood isn't enough (which we all know Shellie Zimmerman did), how was Corey ever able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the convicted perjurers believed themselves to be lying?

Good question. Too bad she won't answer it:
Corey would not comment about her perjury prosecution record

 

[Newtons Bit]

Who was pretending they don't know she lied ?

Having watched the actual hearing where she "lied", she obviously did not. Her answers were truthful responses to poorly worded questions.

 

[Unabogie]

Having watched the actual hearing where she "lied", she obviously did not. Her answers were truthful responses to poorly worded questions.

Yep, I guess we're still playing that game. I guess you never listened to the hours of recordings where Shellie and George discussed their finances and their "extra" passport. Then she took the stand and claimed that George had no money and no passport.

But go ahead and deny this all you want. To ordinary people, asking someone who has a couple hundred grand (or whatever that number was if they have any money and them saying no is easy to call to a lie).

 

[Unabogie]

Wait, what ? GZ fled the country ?

Well of course not. The cops were on to them and got his bond revoked. The Zimmermans were clearly plotting it, and it was in service of that plot that Shellie committed perjury. Now she's going to be convicted for it.

Who was pretending they don't know she lied ?

Newton's Bit, exhibit A.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Well of course not. The cops were on to them and got his bond revoked. The Zimmermans were clearly plotting it,

Oh, you meant planning to flee the country. Yes, I recall Judge Lester mistakenly arriving at that conclusion, too. Look where it got him.

and it was in service of that plot that Shellie committed perjury. Now she's going to be convicted for it.

I think you are putting the cart before the horse. It's not even a given at this point that Corey has the right to bring the charge in the first place.

Newton's Bit, exhibit A.

When Shellie isn't found guilty of perjury will you then admit you were wrong and she didn't lie to the court ?

 

[Unabogie]

Oh, you meant planning to flee the country. Yes, I recall Judge Lester mistakenly arriving at that conclusion, too. Look where it got him.

It didn't get him anywhere. Zimmerman filed for a new judge and Lester granted it to him.

I think you are putting the cart before the horse. It's not even a given at this point that Corey has the right to bring the charge in the first place.

That horse has left the barn. She's been charged and it's going to trial.

When Shellie isn't found guilty of perjury will you then admit you were wrong and she didn't lie to the court ?

Above, you claimed to agree that she lied. If you and I both know she lied, then why would failure to convict change what we both know is true?

You're all over the place with this.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Yep, I guess we're still playing that game. I guess you never listened to the hours of recordings where Shellie and George discussed their finances and their "extra" passport. Then she took the stand and claimed that George had no money and no passport.

But go ahead and deny this all you want. To ordinary people, asking someone who has a couple hundred grand (or whatever that number was if they have any money and them saying no is easy to call to a lie).

Oh no, I read those too. She didn't lie about any of that. She was asked direct questions about what her original affidavit stated, which she answered truthfully.

She was then asked about how much money the legal defense fund contained, she truthfully stated she didn't know the exact amount and referred the prosecutor to the person who did.

She won't be convicted as she didn't lie.

 

[Unabogie]

Oh no, I read those too. She didn't lie about any of that. She was asked direct questions about what her original affidavit stated, which she answered truthfully.

She was then asked about how much money the legal defense fund contained, she truthfully stated she didn't know the exact amount and referred the prosecutor to the person who did.

She won't be convicted as she didn't lie.

You should take it up with Elvis. Even he admits she lied, and he's the biggest Zimmerman apologist around. I think he'll be upset you're trying to steal his title.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It didn't get him anywhere. Zimmerman filed for a new judge and Lester granted it to him.

Wow, is that what you think actually happened ?

That horse has left the barn. She's been charged and it's going to trial.

Sorry, but again, Wow. You should try reading the article I linked to about why she is in court today.

Above, you claimed to agree that she lied.

I did no such thing. What are you talking about ?

If you and I both know she lied, then why would failure to convict change what we both know is true?

I don't know that she lied, much less committed perjury ?

Are you serious that whether or not she is convicted of perjury is irrelevant because you know she is guilty ?

You're all over the place with this.

I don't think so.

 

[Unabogie]

I don't know that she lied, much less committed perjury ?

Who was pretending they don't know she lied ?

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by that. I assumed you were agreeing that she lied. If not, then nothing will convince you of this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...arrested-george-zimmerman-wife_n_1591153.html

Just look at all of this. They spoke in code. They transferred the money back and forth between accounts. She hid a passport in a safe deposit box and George said "you hold onto that".

It's just such a cut and dried case I don't know what it would take to convince you. Maybe you can explain what elements are missing?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It didn't get him anywhere. Zimmerman filed for a new judge and Lester granted it to him.

That horse has left the barn. She's been charged and it's going to trial.

It is difficult to have a discussion with someone who doesn't know or remember the relevant facts.

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by that. I assumed you were agreeing that she lied. If not, then nothing will convince you of this.

Who was pretending they don't know she lied ?

Above is a question ... I wanted to know who you thought was pretending they didn't know she lied.
It does not mean "I agree with you, she's lying"

I can't even imagine how you got that out of my question.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...arrested-george-zimmerman-wife_n_1591153.html

Just look at all of this. They spoke in code. They transferred the money back and forth between accounts. She hid a passport in a safe deposit box and George said "you hold onto that".

Here is a link to the probable cause affadavit:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Shellie-Zimmerman-Arrest-6-12-12.pdf

Do you see anything in there about a passport ?

It's just such a cut and dried case I don't know what it would take to convince you. Maybe you can explain what elements are missing?

We already covered this back here

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Judge: Corey has authority to prosecute Shellie Zimmerman

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...an-dismissal-hearing-20130219,0,2485508.story
Today, defense attorney Kelly Sims asked Circuit Judge Marlene Alva to dismiss the perjury count. He argued that because his client's testimony happened in Seminole County – not Jacksonville, where Corey was elected - she does not have jurisdiction.

In court paperwork, her lead prosecutor in the case, John I. Guy, contends that the executive order by Gov. Rick Scott, naming Corey special prosecutor, authorizes her to investigate and prosecute "all matters pertaining to the death of Trayvon Martin."

That covers Shellie Zimmerman's statements in court, he argued.

The judge agreed. She said that because the statements being challenged happened at a bond hearing for Trayvon's killer, the governor's executive order, appointing Corey is brought enough.

 

[Unabogie]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...an-dismissal-hearing-20130219,0,2485508.story
Today, defense attorney Kelly Sims asked Circuit Judge Marlene Alva to dismiss the perjury count. He argued that because his client's testimony happened in Seminole County – not Jacksonville, where Corey was elected - she does not have jurisdiction.

In court paperwork, her lead prosecutor in the case, John I. Guy, contends that the executive order by Gov. Rick Scott, naming Corey special prosecutor, authorizes her to investigate and prosecute "all matters pertaining to the death of Trayvon Martin."

That covers Shellie Zimmerman's statements in court, he argued.

The judge agreed. She said that because the statements being challenged happened at a bond hearing for Trayvon's killer, the governor's executive order, appointing Corey is brought enough.

Yep.

 

[johnny karate]

Good question. Too bad she won't answer it:
Corey would not comment about her perjury prosecution record

I was actually asking you since you are the one splitting hairs on this issue.

At a time when Shellie Zimmerman had over $57,000 in her personal credit union account, she testified in open court that she was not of any financial means to assist in her husband's legal costs.

That's clearly a falsehood.

But according to you, that doesn't meet the reasonable doubt threshold because we can't know if Shellie Zimmerman believed she was lying when she told that lie.

So unless someone has the ability to read the mind of a liar to know that the liar believes they are lying, how can anyone, according to your standards, ever prove perjury beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

[johnny karate]

Having watched the actual hearing where she "lied", she obviously did not. Her answers were truthful responses to poorly worded questions.

Incorrect.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Incorrect.

Did she believe those were HER assets, or her husbands assets?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Did she believe those were HER assets, or her husbands assets?

Exactly, as I said here

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.

Nothing is new, nothing has changed. We just have to wait and see what the judge decides.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I was actually asking you since you are the one splitting hairs on this issue.

Well, I think you would have better luck asking an attorney.

At a time when Shellie Zimmerman had over $57,000 in her personal credit union account, she testified in open court that she was not of any financial means to assist in her husband's legal costs.

That's clearly a falsehood.

Not if she didn't believe the money was hers, etc. I already told you the problem was BDLRs poor questioning.

But according to you, that doesn't meet the reasonable doubt threshold because we can't know if Shellie Zimmerman believed she was lying when she told that lie.

So unless someone has the ability to read the mind of a liar to know that the liar believes they are lying, how can anyone, according to your standards, ever prove perjury beyond a reasonable doubt?

Again, I gave you an example here.

Really it all goes to what a reasonable doubt is .. if the state shows she kept all that money and used it for her own purposes, that would cast a reasonable doubt on her claim (belief) that it is not hers. It seems pretty clear to me that in this particular case we are discussing it's not going to be very easy to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. There are clearly other scenarios where this is not the case, and one does not have to be a mind reader, as you imply.