Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[TheL8Elvis]

I agree that he likes to pursue amusing theories, but are you not aware that he both taught and practiced criminal law?

I am aware that he no longer is licensed to practice law. I am aware that he taught law at a defunct, unaccredited school.

Still, your well poisoning was expertly played.

Thanks. What do you think of the job I did above ? That's pretty good, too, IMHO.

If he wants to come post here and defend his claims about someone riding in the truck with GZ, etc., that would be fabulous, because disagreeing with his opinions on his blog can can get you banned.

Frederick Leatherman thinks that having an immunity hearing - that George loses - so close to the trial would prejudice the jury, which is perhaps why O'Mara doesn't want to have it in April. I'm not sure how he can "combine" the immunity hearing with the trial or "wait until the jury acquits". That last part is cringeworthy, really. I thought O'Mara was supposed to be a good lawyer?

It was clear that "wait until the jury acquits" was a dig at the Judge, implying that it would be OK for Judge Nelson to rule in GZ favor because the jury had already acquitted him.

Is O'Mara basically asking for the judge to withhold her judgment on immunity until after the trial so that if George is convicted, they can ask the judge to set aside a jury verdict for murder?

That sure doesn't sound like someone who is confident in his client.

No, when you change what O'mara says, it doesn't sound like someone confident in his client.

When you use his actual words:
"She could even listen to the verdict before she makes her determination," he said, adding confidently: "I'm OK with waiting until the jury acquits."

It sure does sound like someone who is confident in his clients innocence.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Why do I have the feeling that you are being tricked into having a 6 month old argument (that didn't even make sense then) in order to throw up a smoke screen and clog the thread from discussing Monday's news?

How would we have any clue why you feel the way you do? I, for one, keep trying to tell JK we already had this discussion.

Anyone who claims Shellie didn't lie on the stand either A) doesn't know all the facts that are available B) is being dishonest and just arguing to distract, obstruct, and filibuster or C) is just not too bright.

Which overly broad bucket are you throwing me in ?

How about D) doesn't think the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed perjury

Just don't respond to the nonsense.

Let's try to focus on the actual current event:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9015584&postcount=4866

What exactly did you want to discuss about it ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You'll have to remind me where I used the word 'definitively' instead of beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise you are just mis-characterzing my position.

If you don't think they have to definitively prove she believed herself to be lying, then explain how someone who had over $57,000 in her possession collected to assist in her husband's legal costs denying not having any financial means to assist in her husband's legal costs does not meet the threshold of reasonable doubt in determining whether or not she was aware of her falsehood?

IOW, I never used the word 'definitively' instead of beyond a reasonable doubt.

She had over $57,000 in her possession collected for the purpose of assisting in her husband's legal costs.

I don't recall you offering a single reasonable explanation for how she could deny that fact without it being considered perjury.

been there, done that

Even if you want to make the pathetic argument that maybe Shellie Zimmerman didn't believe herself to be lying, it is undeniable what she said was not true.

Progress. Maybe what she said something she believed to be true, but was not.

I could tell you right now I have $0.69 in my pocket. If I empty my pocket and it turns out I actually have $0.67 ... was I lying to you ? Or did I actually believe I had $0.69 in my pocket, and believed I was telling you the truth ?

She did have the financial means to assist in her husband's legal costs. It was sitting in her credit union account. But apparently a wizard hypnotized her and she forgot.

Or, it was a poorly worded question, with multiple ways to interpret it. And she chose most favorable interpretation and answered it to the best of her beliefs.

That's not the same as willfully lying, or a telling a material falsehood.

You intentionally keep ignoring the real problem, which is that BDLR asked poor questions. If he had simply asked her "Do you have more than ten thousand dollars in your account right now, or at any time in the last 2 weeks" and she answered "no" it would be easy to demonstrate that was perjury, beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's really easy to believe that when MOM asked SZ about her means, from her perspective she would believe he wasn't referring to the donations that GZ had received, but to her personal funds and assets. Yes, that's interepreting it in the best possible light for her ... because why wouldn't she interpret the question that way ? If you word you questions carefully, it's difficult to to claim alternate interpretations are reasonable. If you ask poorly worded questions, you are going to have a difficult time getting a conviction for perjury.

 

[Unabogie]

I am aware that he no longer is licensed to practice law. I am aware that he taught law at a defunct, unaccredited school.


Thanks. What do you think of the job I did above ? That's pretty good, too, IMHO.

If he wants to come post here and defend his claims about someone riding in the truck with GZ, etc., that would be fabulous, because disagreeing with his opinions on his blog can can get you banned.

There's a reason why poisoning the well is a logical fallacy. And your posts are a great exhibit of it. He made a relatively uncontroversial point: if George loses his immunity hearing a month before trial, the publicity from that will do a lot to taint the jury pool against him. I agree with that. I think that O'Mara does as well. It seems that you'd rather discuss other things than the fact that George would be ill served by going forward with an immunity hearing so close to trial. I think that this is why O'Mara wants to combine the immunity hearing with the trial.

It was clear that "wait until the jury acquits" was a dig at the Judge, implying that it would be OK for Judge Nelson to rule in GZ favor because the jury had already acquitted him.

Right. Because sending "digs" at a judge right before trial is the hallmark of great lawyering.

No, when you change what O'mara says, it doesn't sound like someone confident in his client.

When you use his actual words:
"She could even listen to the verdict before she makes her determination," he said, adding confidently: "I'm OK with waiting until the jury acquits."

It sure does sound like someone who is confident in his clients innocence.

I read that quite clearly. He's the one asking to delay the immunity hearing. The judge wants it to happen now. Clearly, if O'Mara thought George was going to win this hearing, he'd be asking for it to happen now, while funds were still coming in and before even more money was sucked away by the security company George spent all his defense funds on. But nope, they frittered away all that money on god knows what. Who knows if the rubes will keep sending him more? And now they want to delay both the trial and the immunity hearing or "combine them". It's ridiculous.

On another note, I really don't believe that O'Mara has not even started working with any experts. If that's true, he's a worse lawyer than I can imagine. This case will be heavily influenced by forensics and O'Mara should have contracted medical experts, audio experts, and ballistics experts as his first priority.

He's not doing Georgie any favors.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

There's a reason why poisoning the well is a logical fallacy. And your posts are a great exhibit of it. He made a relatively uncontroversial point: if George loses his immunity hearing a month before trial, the publicity from that will do a lot to taint the jury pool against him. I agree with that. I think that O'Mara does as well. It seems that you'd rather discuss other things than the fact that George would be ill served by going forward with an immunity hearing so close to trial. I think that this is why O'Mara wants to combine the immunity hearing with the trial.

Or, it could be because:
a)that gives him 2 more months to prepare
b)it doesn't require him to pay expert witnesses twice
c)it doesn't tip off any strategies to the prosecution.

All of those are valid reasons to combine or delay the immunity hearing.

Right. Because sending "digs" at a judge right before trial is the hallmark of great lawyering.

It could have been an off the cuff remark that he regrets making. I could be interpreting it incorrectly.

Either way, unlike you, I don't think it is says much of anything about his skill as an attorney.

I read that quite clearly. He's the one asking to delay the immunity hearing. The judge wants it to happen now. Clearly, if O'Mara thought George was going to win this hearing, he'd be asking for it to happen now, while funds were still coming in and before even more money was sucked away by the security company George spent all his defense funds on.

If he was ready, he would go ahead with the April date, sure.

But consider he is still getting discovery from the state almost a year later ... things they have had since last march, but neglected to turn over.

But nope, they frittered away all that money on god knows what. Who knows if the rubes will keep sending him more?

Is that poisoning the well against GZ supporters, or just a plain old ad hominem attack on them ?

And now they want to delay both the trial and the immunity hearing or "combine them". It's ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous ?

On another note, I really don't believe that O'Mara has not even started working with any experts. If that's true, he's a worse lawyer than I can imagine.

And you don't believe that he is working with experts because he didn't send you his daily update emails on his activities, or why ? What reason do you have to believe that is a true statement ?

This case will be heavily influenced by forensics and O'Mara should have contracted medical experts, audio experts, and ballistics experts as his first priority.

He's not doing Georgie any favors.

And you know he hasn't contacted them, how ?

Also, did you want to go back and correct yourself on your misstatement about Judge Lester voluntarily stepping aside, or will you just continue to ignore the false statements when you make them ?

 

[Unabogie]

Or, it could be because:
a)that gives him 2 more months to prepare
b)it doesn't require him to pay expert witnesses twice
c)it doesn't tip off any strategies to the prosecution.

All of those are valid reasons to combine or delay the immunity hearing.

He's had a year to prepare. I thought Alan Derschowitz called this a slam dunk SYG defense? I guess not.

It could have been an off the cuff remark that he regrets making. I could be interpreting it incorrectly.

Yeah, great lawyers make off the cuff remarks they immediately regret.

Either way, unlike you, I don't think it is says much of anything about his skill as an attorney.

Of course you don't. You also don't think Shellie lied. You don't think anything that's actually bad for the Zimmermans is actually bad for the Zimmermans.

If he was ready, he would go ahead with the April date, sure.

But consider he is still getting discovery from the state almost a year later ... things they have had since last march, but neglected to turn over.

That's the defense's spin alright. I think you've accurately stenographed it. Well done.

Is that poisoning the well against GZ supporters, or just a plain old ad hominem attack on them ?

It's pure ad hom. They are awful people.

Why is it ridiculous ?

Because it's a transparent ploy to delay the inevitable.

And you don't believe that he is working with experts because he didn't send you his daily update emails on his activities, or why ? What reason do you have to believe that is a true statement ?

Are you calling O'Mara a liar? He lied in court when he said he hadn't hired experts yet?

And you know he hasn't contacted them, how ?

Because he said so?

Also, did you want to go back and correct yourself on your misstatement about Judge Lester voluntarily stepping aside, or will you just continue to ignore the false statements when you make them ?

Ah, I must have forgotten that, thanks for the correction.

 

[bookworm]

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

If I had $57,000.00 in the bank and that's all I had, with my husband no longer able to work, then I would feel I did NOT have the finances to pay for a defense. And I'm sure many would feel the same. Imagine the enormity of this in her mind...I imagine she would have felt completely overwhelmed by the prospect of the cost of a defense and having to keep up with their own personal bills and living expenses.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

He's had a year to prepare. I thought Alan Derschowitz called this a slam dunk SYG defense? I guess not..

What kind of non sequitur is that ? What does Alan Derschowitz have to do with anything ?

You said

if George loses his immunity hearing a month before trial, the publicity from that will do a lot to taint the jury pool against him. ... I think that this is why O'Mara wants to combine the immunity hearing with the trial.

I then gave you a number of other reasons that might explain why he is asking for a delay.

Yeah, great lawyers make off the cuff remarks they immediately regret.

So maybe MOM is a crappy lawyer, then. I don't know. I didn't call him a great lawyer, so perhpas you are just attacking a strawman ?

Of course you don't. You also don't think Shellie lied.

You don't think anything that's actually bad for the Zimmermans is actually bad for the Zimmermans.

That's the defense's spin alright. I think you've accurately stenographed it. Well done.

Spin. That' s an interesting term. Please expound, are you calling O'Mara a liar?

Did you miss where the state claims to have watched 4 hours of video, but the files they turned over to the defense in discovery were blank ?

Did you miss where the state only just turned over GPS data they have had since march, and it was somehow all there except for the 26th of February ?

It's pure ad hom. They are awful people.

And a sweeping generalization.

Because it's a transparent ploy to delay the inevitable.

If you say so.

Are you calling O'Mara a liar? He lied in court when he said he hadn't hired experts yet?
Because he said so?

I didn't know he said that in court. Did he say he
a) hadn't hired them yet ?
b) hadn't contacted them yet ?
or
c) both
An do you have a link ?

Ah, I must have forgotten that, thanks for the correction.

 

[Dan O.]

Did you miss where the state only just turned over GPS data they have had since march, and it was somehow all there except for the 26th of February ?

What relevance is the GPS data prior to the 26th?

It sounds like someone is still fishing for an excuse for killing an innocent kid.

 

[johnny karate]

IOW, I never used the word 'definitively' instead of beyond a reasonable doubt.

In others words, you continue to refuse to explain how the threshold of reasonable doubt as you see it can be met in this instance.

been there, done that

You must have missed where I used the word "reasonable". Someone claiming to not know if the money they have in their personal account for the express purpose of legal costs is money they can use for legal costs isn't very reasonable.

Progress. Maybe what she said something she believed to be true, but was not.

It is progress. I see you've finally given up claiming that what Shellie Zimmerman testified wasn't untrue. Good job.

I could tell you right now I have $0.69 in my pocket. If I empty my pocket and it turns out I actually have $0.67 ... was I lying to you ? Or did I actually believe I had $0.69 in my pocket, and believed I was telling you the truth ?

No, because that would be incredibly stupid.

However, if you had $57,000 in your pocket and told me you actually had no money at all... yes, you would be lying. But of course, I wouldn't know if you believed you were lying. Maybe someone else had put your pants on for you that morning.

Or, it was a poorly worded question, with multiple ways to interpret it. And she chose most favorable interpretation and answered it to the best of her beliefs.

No, what she said was demonstrably untrue. Semantics isn't really your best option here. You should stick with the argument that Shellie Zimmerman is too stupid to understand whether or not the things she says are lies.

That's not the same as willfully lying, or a telling a material falsehood.

And willfully lying and telling a material faslehood aren't the same thing.

We can disagree on whether Shellie Zimmerman willfully lied. But what she said was a material falsehood. That is not disputable.

You intentionally keep ignoring the real problem, which is that BDLR asked poor questions. If he had simply asked her "Do you have more than ten thousand dollars in your account right now, or at any time in the last 2 weeks" and she answered "no" it would be easy to demonstrate that was perjury, beyond a reasonable doubt.

I haven't been talking about what de la Rionda asked her, so I'm not sure why that's "the real probelm", or even a problem at all.

It's really easy to believe that when MOM asked SZ about her means, from her perspective she would believe he wasn't referring to the donations that GZ had received, but to her personal funds and assets. Yes, that's interepreting it in the best possible light for her ... because why wouldn't she interpret the question that way ? If you word you questions carefully, it's difficult to to claim alternate interpretations are reasonable. If you ask poorly worded questions, you are going to have a difficult time getting a conviction for perjury.

Again, semantics is not the best route for you to go. She was asked about her assets and financial means at a time when she had over $57,000 in her personal creit union account that was collected for the purpose of her husband's legal costs. It should also be noted that this money was siphoned off from the bulk of the fund which still remained in George's account. Kind of hard to believe that she didn't know it was her money.

There's no doubt she had the assets and financial means to assist with her husband's legal costs. Parsing words is just a silly game, and if you really think that a perjury conviction relies on such hair-splitting semantic trickery, you might be in for a suprise.

 

[johnny karate]

If I had $57,000.00 in the bank and that's all I had, with my husband no longer able to work, then I would feel I did NOT have the finances to pay for a defense. And I'm sure many would feel the same. Imagine the enormity of this in her mind...I imagine she would have felt completely overwhelmed by the prospect of the cost of a defense and having to keep up with their own personal bills and living expenses.

If the money had been collected for the purpose of legal expenses and you were aware of that fact, you'd be awaiting trial for perjury.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0113/defendants_motion_to_continue.pdf

This really makes the state appear to be playing some serious games with evidence:
(bolding mine)
p.9:
As an illustrative example, while the analysis includes GPS records for Mr. Martins phone for all of the time he was in the Sanford area, specifically absent is any such data for February 26, 2012, the date of the event.
10. Similarly, there seems to be missing entries regarding phone calls made to the phone or texts made to or from the phone in the evening hours of February 26, 2012.

That seems awfully curious. I can't wait to hear an explanation from the state.

What relevance is the GPS data prior to the 26th?

It sounds like someone is still fishing for an excuse for killing an innocent kid.

I didn't make the comment, but I would guess the relevance of the remark about all the data except the 26th would be to show that all the data was recovered and provided except for the day that was relevant.

Why wasn't data for that day provided ?

 

[Unabogie]

If I had $57,000.00 in the bank and that's all I had, with my husband no longer able to work, then I would feel I did NOT have the finances to pay for a defense. And I'm sure many would feel the same. Imagine the enormity of this in her mind...I imagine she would have felt completely overwhelmed by the prospect of the cost of a defense and having to keep up with their own personal bills and living expenses.

Yes, apparently she was overwhelmed and thought that the $57,000 in her credit union account was not nearly enough to pay for a defense.

Care to explain why she then went on to suggest that this money would give her and George "a great life"?

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/18/2855731/wife-to-zimmerman-jail-calls.html

“…People were just trying to give you, you know, words of support and kindness,” Shellie Zimmerman said.

“Good. Wow, that is awesome,” he said.

Later he told her: “I’m so happy to know that you’re gonna be okay.”

His wife assured him, “After this is all over, you’re gonna be able to just, have a great life.”

 

[TheL8Elvis]

In others words, you continue to refuse to explain how the threshold of reasonable doubt as you see it can be met in this instance. .

It probably can't be met in this instance - that's why I don't think she will be found guilty.

There's no doubt she had the assets and financial means to assist with her husband's legal costs. Parsing words is just a silly game, and if you really think that a perjury conviction relies on such hair-splitting semantic trickery, you might be in for a suprise.

And if you think the law doesn't rely on arcane procedures and hair-splitting definitions, you may be in for a surprise.

 

[Dan O.]

I didn't make the comment, but I would guess the relevance of the remark about all the data except the 26th would be to show that all the data was recovered and provided except for the day that was relevant.

Why wasn't data for that day provided ?

It sounds to me like the phone's battery suddenly died or became disconnected so the phone wasn't able to write the current buffers to nonvolatile flash.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It sounds to me like the phone's battery suddenly died or became disconnected so the phone wasn't able to write the current buffers to nonvolatile flash.

Oh, is that how it works on Android ? The OS saves all the data for the day in 'buffers' until it writes it to 'nonvolatile flash' , maybe at the end of the day ?And this process was interrupted, thereby losing all the GPS data for the entire day ?

I'll tell you what - if you provide evidence Android actually works the way you have described, I'll consider that a possibility. Good luck.

BTW, the comet runs 2.2

 

[johnny karate]

Did you miss where the state claims to have watched 4 hours of video, but the files they turned over to the defense in discovery were blank ?

Did you miss where the state only just turned over GPS data they have had since march, and it was somehow all there except for the 26th of February ?

Just out of curiosity, is there anything pro-Zimmerman you don't uncritically accept as a fact?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Just out of curiosity, is there anything pro-Zimmerman you don't uncritically accept as a fact?

How would you 'critically' examine those two claims ? MOM filed a court document that specifically says that the state needs to produce the videos because the three videos the state gave him are blank:

http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0213/discovery_demand_3_videos.pdf

The discovery presented to MOM with the missing GPS data should be released to the public (as discovery has been in the past ), and at that point we can all see whether the data is there or not.

http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/docum...o_continue.pdf
As an illustrative example, while the analysis includes GPS records for Mr. Martins phone for all of the time he was in the Sanford area, specifically absent is any such data for February 26, 2012, the date of the event.
10. Similarly, there seems to be missing entries regarding phone calls made to the phone or texts made to or from the phone in the evening hours of February 26, 2012.


Since the the state has not denied either of those claims by MOM, it seems reasonable to me to accept them as truthful claims.

If you don't accept them as truthful, please explain why.

 

[johnny karate]

How would you 'critically' examine those two claims ? MOM filed a court document that specifically says that the state needs to produce the videos because the three videos the state gave him are blank:

http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0213/discovery_demand_3_videos.pdf

The discovery presented to MOM with the missing GPS data should be released to the public (as discovery has been in the past ), and at that point we can all see whether the data is there or not.

http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/docum...o_continue.pdf
As an illustrative example, while the analysis includes GPS records for Mr. Martins phone for all of the time he was in the Sanford area, specifically absent is any such data for February 26, 2012, the date of the event.
10. Similarly, there seems to be missing entries regarding phone calls made to the phone or texts made to or from the phone in the evening hours of February 26, 2012.


Since the the state has not denied either of those claims by MOM, it seems reasonable to me to accept them as truthful claims.

If you don't accept them as truthful, please explain why.

Because the evidence you are citing to support these claims is a motion for continuance that was subsequently denied. So that tells me someone with actual legal authority and expertise heard these same claims and didn't find them particularly compelling.

Granted, that tells us nothing about the veracity of these claims, but I see absolutely no reason why someone would present them as facts unless they were predisposed to believe everything coming from the source.

And to your assertion that the state did not dispute these claims: Of course they did. They challenged the motion of which they were a part. And they won.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Because the evidence you are citing to support these claims is a motion for continuance

That's not true. The first link is not part of a motion for continuance. It is a demand for specific discovery.

Your bringing up the motion for continuance is a red herring.

And to your assertion that the state did not dispute these claims: Of course they did. They challenged the motion of which they were a part. And they won.

The state disagreed with granting the defense more time (motion to continue).

That is not the equivalent to disputing every claim listed in the motion. In fact, they specifically addressed some of the claims, and ignored others. The part about the missing data was ignored.