Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Dan O.]

1. Do you think Martin really did say "You gonna die tonight"

It's possible that somebody said it. But we only have Georges word on that.

This would be right at the time that the witness came out. And that witness doesn't report hearing such a statement. The witness is behind Trayvon and has announced his presence so the fight should be over. Trayvon is backing off of Zimmerman. giving Zimmerman the opportunity to make a move that he had been denied up to that point.

Zimmerman may not of said those words but he probably thought them as he drew his gun and fired point blank into Trayvon's chest. But in the heat of the moment, George cannot be certain that he didn't vocalize his thoughts. To cover the chance that these words were heard by the witness, George must assert that they were spoken by Trayvon.

 

[johnny karate]

To play up the whole lie about how she was TMs girlfriend, and she was so distraught she couldn't go to the funeral. Thereby keeping her away from anyone who could ask her questions that she would have to answer and would expose her.

It's an interesting conspiracy theory, but what does any of that have to do with her credibility as a witness?

You don't have to explain. Your choice to not answer says enough.

It was a ludicrous question. You'll have to ask yourself why there is a clause in the perjury law that specifically refers to material matters if every question a witness is asked pertains to material matters.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You haven't explained how it is material. It doesn't pertain to any aspect of the murder of Trayvon Martin, does it?

It bolsters her credibility as a witness. That makes it material. Explained in another post. You disagree disagree - but that's ok. It doesn't make it any less valid an argument.

Here is her entire interview with Mr. Crump:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iHSrnGPs4Qptsla_EMMR-NdhioDTHQAtAExH1OgackU/edit?pli=1

The material facts that she discusses are as follows:

1. She was on the phone with Trayvon when George started following him. This we know is true and was confirmed by the phone records.

We don't know that she was the one on the phone actually, do we ? We haven't seen the phone records, just Mr. Martins printout from t-mobile. The fact that she told BDLR "the phone should be registered in my name now" is troubling.

2. She heard them arguing. This is corroborated by other witnesses who also heard them arguing.

By arguing, do you mean TM said "why are you following me?"
And GZ said what are you doing here?"
And then she heard a little get off ?
Is that really what you mean by argument ??

3. The phone went dead at some point, early on in the scuffle. This is corroborated by the location of the phone and the flashlight, as well as another witness who saw them in that vicinity as they were arguing, as well as the location of the body.

You have no idea if TM just hung up the phone. There is no corroboration between the phone location and anything else.

4. George yelled "what are you doing around here". This is something I'd like to see him asked since the last time he was questioned the police hadn't yet interviewed Witness 8. This is where her credibility comes into play.

I already corrected this. But since you ignored that post:
BDLR: OK, what could you hear?
Dee Dee: Like a little ‘get off’ some stuff…
BDLR: You heard ‘get off’?
Dee Dee: Like a little ‘Get off’ [unintelligible]…
BDLR: Could you tell who was saying that?
Dee Dee: I couldn’ know Trayvon.
BDLR: I’m sorry.
Dee Dee: I couldn’t hear Trayvon…Trayvon.

No yelling there, is there ?

So of the four main facts she has asserted, 3 of the 4 are corroborated by other evidence and the fourth is her word against George's. Can you explain where the fact that she didn't go to the hospital is material to the other 4 and why this makes her the star witness for the state?

Explained above.

I think that by the time she takes the stand, so much of the rest of her story will be corroborated that impeaching her over this lie won't make too much difference. As I wrote on Leatherman's blog, it's not good for the SA at all, no question. But that doesn't make it material or even indicative of other lies. In fact, her version of events is tracking the other evidence far better than George's, which we've shown over and over does not match the timeline or location of evidence.

Two questions for you:

1. Do you think Martin really did say "You gonna die tonight" and "You got a problem, homie?"

The "you gonna die tonight" - no, not so much. It sounds more contrived (to me) than below.

The "you got a problem homie" - sure

2. Do you think George really did say "what are you doing around here?"

No, I think Deedee was fed lies by crump.

Would you care to explain why crump referred to her multiple times and to the public as a minor, when she clearly isn't ?

 

[Mumbles]

Nice summery, Mumbles.

I would add that I believe we have sufficient confirmation that George parked his truck at the entrance to the tee.

If we take that as a starting reference point and presume that George is running, how far can he get before ending the call with SPD? How far could he travel before the encounter with Trayvon? Could he have gone past the tee and all the way to Retreat View Circle, headed south on RVC to the next opening between the houses and then cut between the houses to the path. In this position, George would be heading North towards the tee and his truck when he reaches the location where the altercation appears to have taken place.

That's possible, but I don't think it's likely. I really don't think that Zimmerman drove all the way to where he said he was - and yes, I am aware of the witness who said she saw a shadow travelling northward.

Instead, I suspect that Zimmerman followed Martin in his car left his car to pursue on foot near the clubhouse, but stopped before entering the infamous T-Junction while on the phone with the cops. He then moves towards te T-Junction after hanging up, encounters Zimmerman, and basically assaults him. This makes more sense, given the timeline, although I won't deny the possibility that it turned out as you say.

Simply put, I don't think that Martin just suddenly turned into some crazed killer while going home from the store - but I don't really think Zimmerman flipped out while going to the store, either. I suspect that Zimmerman is more about subconscious bias, than about active hatred of black people. In other words, When he saw Martin, he wasn't thinking "I need to kill that coon in my neighborhood!", and more "wait, a black guy in a hoodie? We've had robberies, so he's suspicious!"

 

[TheL8Elvis]

My guess is that O'Mara wants to keep his client off the stand.

Hey look, we completely agree on that.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Who is "they"? And keep in mind, this whole thing started because of your unwillingness to believe that Zimmerman himself took part in the bond hearing deception.

So here's the real question for you TheL8Elvis: If O'Mara lied to the court, and Zimmerman is aware that he lied to the court, why does Zimmerman still retain O'Mara as his attorney? Why does Zimmerman trust the man who thoroughly screwed him over with his life?
and I responded:
I could speculate, but I don't know. You would have to ask GZ and his wife. Based on the recorded calls, GZ claims he told MOM about money.

I'm not seeing my "unwillingness to believe ", help me out.

If O'Mara lied about that, it was a lie in service of his client, and in a circumstance in which he wouldn't be subject to disbarment and criminal charges. Perfectly plausible.

You, however, claimed O'Mara risked disbarment and criminal charges to lie at the expense of his client, who still retains O'Mara as a lawyer despite being aware of that lie and now suffering the consequences of it. Totally irrational.

Or he ignored what GZ told him, told both GZ and SZ that their 'little Internet fund' didn't change the circumstances that they were going to be effectively indigent, and decided to file. It's not an irrational theory or belief just because you keep asserting it is.

I didn't say anything about perjury.

If other people believe Shellie Zimmerman had the financial means to assist in her husband's legal costs, is that evidence that she lied?

Why does it matter ? Are you still going on with this false equivalence between a belief of being of a financial means ( whatever that means ) and whether someone actually to the hospital as or not ?

 

[johnny karate]

It bolsters her credibility as a witness. That makes it material.

No... it doesn't. Nor did you succeed in explaining how it does.

What DeeDee did after Martin died has no bearing on how credible a witness she was on the night he was killed. Being too upset to go to his funeral doesn't suddenly make her testimony about that night more believable.

You have merely offered transparent sophistry in order to support the argument you made after you had reached your conclusion.

In other words, you threw a bunch a crap against the wall and none of it stuck.

 

[12AX7]

I hate to interrupt the current discussion, but does anyone think Zimmerman's apology to Martin's parents at his bail hearing will come back and bite him? Just curious what you all think.

 

[johnny karate]

So here's the real question for you TheL8Elvis: If O'Mara lied to the court, and Zimmerman is aware that he lied to the court, why does Zimmerman still retain O'Mara as his attorney? Why does Zimmerman trust the man who thoroughly screwed him over with his life?
and I responded:
I could speculate, but I don't know. You would have to ask GZ and his wife. Based on the recorded calls, GZ claims he told MOM about money.

I'm not seeing my "unwillingness to believe ", help me out.

This post pretty much encapsulates your ongoing sophistry on this issue.

Zimmerman deceived the court and got caught doing so. In order to avoid admitting that simple truth, you've concocted some wild fantasy about a respected and prominent defense attorney flagrantly risking his law license for no particular reason.

Or he ignored what GZ told him, told both GZ and SZ that their 'little Internet fund' didn't change the circumstances that they were going to be effectively indigent, and decided to file.

Yeah... all you're doing there is rewording the same goofy theory. O'Mara risked disbarment and criminal charges to screw over his client, who then decided to leave his life in the hands of the man who just screwed him over. No matter how much you try to downplay it, it's still irrational.

It's not an irrational theory or belief just because you keep asserting it is.

I'm not asserting it's irrational, I'm arguing that it's irrational by explaining exactly what's irrational about it.

Why does it matter ? Are you still going on with this false equivalence between a belief of being of a financial means ( whatever that means ) and whether someone actually to the hospital as or not ?

You stated that because other people believed DeeDee went to the hospital, that is evidence she lied.

By that exact same standard, if other people believed Shellie Zimmerman was of financial means to assist in her husband's legal costs, is that evidence that she lied?

 

[johnny karate]

I hate to interrupt the current discussion, but does anyone think Zimmerman's apology to Martin's parents at his bail hearing will come back and bite him? Just curious what you all think.

Was there any particular part you had in mind? Because I don't recall Zimmerman saying anything that was necessarily incriminating.

 

[Dan O.]

We don't know that she was the one on the phone actually, do we ? We haven't seen the phone records, just Mr. Martins printout from t-mobile. The fact that she told BDLR "the phone should be registered in my name now" is troubling.

You haven't thought this through have you. Assuming for the argument that DeeDee wasn't the one on the phone. We know dor a fact that somebody was on the phone with Trayvon for several hours up to just prior to the shooting. If you discard DeeDee, you still have a witness in that slot but the witness is completely untarnished.

 

[12AX7]

Was there any particular part you had in mind? Because I don't recall Zimmerman saying anything that was necessarily incriminating.

No, not really. It just seemed to me a bit odd. May be nothing to it at all.

I am enjoying this thread though. Thanks for the info you guys are putting out.

 

[KatieG]

I hate to interrupt the current discussion, but does anyone think Zimmerman's apology to Martin's parents at his bail hearing will come back and bite him? Just curious what you all think.

I'm not sure what the prosecution can do with that but in the court of public opinion, it was a miserable failure.

 

[Dan O.]

That's possible, but I don't think it's likely. I really don't think that Zimmerman drove all the way to where he said he was - and yes, I am aware of the witness who said she saw a shadow travelling northward.

Instead, I suspect that Zimmerman followed Martin in his car left his car to pursue on foot near the clubhouse, but stopped before entering the infamous T-Junction while on the phone with the cops. He then moves towards te T-Junction after hanging up, encounters Zimmerman, and basically assaults him. This makes more sense, given the timeline, although I won't deny the possibility that it turned out as you say.

Simply put, I don't think that Martin just suddenly turned into some crazed killer while going home from the store - but I don't really think Zimmerman flipped out while going to the store, either. I suspect that Zimmerman is more about subconscious bias, than about active hatred of black people. In other words, When he saw Martin, he wasn't thinking "I need to kill that coon in my neighborhood!", and more "wait, a black guy in a hoodie? We've had robberies, so he's suspicious!"

Why would George get out and walk when he is in a truck and there is a road going in the direction he needs to go? I've always thought that George should have stayed in his truck and driven around to where he could keep an eye on the back entrance and wait for the cops there. But then, I guess George just isn't that bright.

It is more likely that the assault began to the south of the tee where the cell phone and flashlight were found. George's keys could have bee dropped by the tee later when George walked back that way prior to his arrest. This allows for a number of alternate routes for George to take to try and intercept Trayvon. Going south on Twin Tree Lane before cutting between the houses is another possibility.

An item in your favor, that corner by the tee was very close to the active crime scene. Shirely should not have been able to just walk in there and drive off with the truck.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I'm not sure what the prosecution can do with that but in the court of public opinion, it was a miserable failure.

Evidence ? Did you take a poll ? Can you link to a poll ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

This post pretty much encapsulates your ongoing sophistry on this issue.

Zimmerman deceived the court and got caught doing so. In order to avoid admitting that simple truth, you've concocted some wild fantasy about a respected and prominent defense attorney flagrantly risking his law license for no particular reason.

Yeah... all you're doing there is rewording the same goofy theory. O'Mara risked disbarment and criminal charges to screw over his client, who then decided to leave his life in the hands of the man who just screwed him over. No matter how much you try to downplay it, it's still irrational.

Yes, a wild fantasy

You haven't actually demonstrated MOM risked disbarment and criminal charges. And I never claimed he did it to 'screw over his client' - that's your interpretation.

On 12 April 12th, Mark O’Mara filed for bail claiming GZ was indigent.

On 14 April George Zimmerman said on a call

GZ: Mark O’Mara is going to try and get me declared indigent. I told him that I didn’t think that was a possibility because you know there was the one possible transfer I tried to make and it got stopped, you know the $37 He said ‘well that doesn’t matter. Right now you are not working, not providing an income for your family, you are probably never going to be employable for the rest of your life. So basically they will declare you indigent.
Male: ah ah
GZ: So he knows about that. um But he …
Male: Does he know about the volume
GZ: No

So MOM is trying to HELP GZ by getting a reasonable bail. He is not risking anything, much less disbarment and criminal charges. He has complete plausible deniability. He probably intentionally didn't ask about any "Internet fundraising" specifically so he could file for indigence. Then he could actually get paid as he spent the next year of his career working on a case, instead of doing it pro-bono.

I'm not asserting it's irrational, I'm arguing that it's irrational by explaining exactly what's irrational about it.

And in doing that, you are asserting a number of things you have exactly zero evidence for.

You stated that because other people believed DeeDee went to the hospital, that is evidence she lied.

Yes.

By that exact same standard, if other people believed Shellie Zimmerman was of financial means to assist in her husband's legal costs, is that evidence that she lied?

Again, false equivalence.

 

[Unabogie]

GZ: Mark O’Mara is going to try and get me declared indigent. I told him that I didn’t think that was a possibility because you know there was the one possible transfer I tried to make and it got stopped, you know the $37 He said ‘well that doesn’t matter. Right now you are not working, not providing an income for your family, you are probably never going to be employable for the rest of your life. So basically they will declare you indigent.
Male: ah ah
GZ: So he knows about that. um But he …
Male: Does he know about the volume
GZ: No

So you're saying George hid the "volume" of how much he was raking in from the rubes from his lawyer and, by extension, the court?

Funny, that's what the judge thought as well, which is why he said that when you throw in the secret passport, it looked an awful lot like George was preparing to flee with all the money, and somewhere not in the US.

So we're back to the fact that George participated in the deception that got his wife charged with perjury. You want to excuse him by pointing to the lawyer, but even in your attempts to exonerate him you merely point out more information that incriminates him. The only reason he's not charged with his wife is because he didn't speak at his own hearing and convinced his wife to lie for him.

 

[johnny karate]

Yes, a wild fantasy

You haven't actually demonstrated MOM risked disbarment and criminal charges.

It's not my interpretation. It's the law. If a lawyer goes into court and willfully misrepresents his clients finances, that would be illegal. That lawyer would then face criminal charges (that's what happens when you do something illegal) and disbarment (that's what happens when you behave unethically in your role as a lawyer).

You claimed O'Mara lied about Zimmerman's finances.

What do you think the penalties are for doing so?

And I never claimed he did it to 'screw over his client' - that's your interpretation.

It's not about what you claimed, it's about what actually happened.

Zimmerman did get screwed over, and you seem to think it was his lawyer's fault.

On 12 April 12th, Mark O’Mara filed for bail claiming GZ was indigent.

On 14 April George Zimmerman said on a call

GZ: Mark O’Mara is going to try and get me declared indigent. I told him that I didn’t think that was a possibility because you know there was the one possible transfer I tried to make and it got stopped, you know the $37 He said ‘well that doesn’t matter. Right now you are not working, not providing an income for your family, you are probably never going to be employable for the rest of your life. So basically they will declare you indigent.
Male: ah ah
GZ: So he knows about that. um But he …
Male: Does he know about the volume
GZ: No

So MOM is trying to HELP GZ by getting a reasonable bail. He is not risking anything, much less disbarment and criminal charges. He has complete plausible deniability. He probably intentionally didn't ask about any "Internet fundraising" specifically so he could file for indigence. Then he could actually get paid as he spent the next year of his career working on a case, instead of doing it pro-bono.

Yeah, that's not what you orifinally claimed:

I disagree. I think if your lawyer knows about your finances and tells you that you are indigent anyway, then you listen to your lawyer.

So O'Mara is the liar then?

Kinda looks like it, yeah.

And by the way, even in Zimmerman's self-serving version of events that you, of course, automatically believe, he is still not acounting for almost $120,000.

Zimmerman claims he told O'Mara about $37,0000.

The Zimmermans had actually had about $155,000.

You do the math, and tell me why Zimmerman didn't bother to mention the difference to anyone while his lawyer was declaring him indigent. And then explain how that wasn't a deception.

And in doing that, you are asserting a number of things you have exactly zero evidence for.

That's insane.

Lawyers who lie to the court can be disbarred and face criminal charges.

Zimmerman did get screwed over by the bail hearing deception going south.

These are not just assertions. They're facts.

Again, false equivalence.

It's literally the exact same situation. In one you're using what other people believe as evidence of a lie, in another you're claiming "false equivalence".

DeeDee lied. Period.

Well, we can't really know if Shellie Zimmerman lied. It can't be proven.

You clearly just don't want to admit to your double-standard.

 

[johnny karate]

So you're saying George hid the "volume" of how much he was raking in from the rubes from his lawyer and, by extension, the court?

Funny, that's what the judge thought as well, which is why he said that when you throw in the secret passport, it looked an awful lot like George was preparing to flee with all the money, and somewhere not in the US.

So we're back to the fact that George participated in the deception that got his wife charged with perjury. You want to excuse him by pointing to the lawyer, but even in your attempts to exonerate him you merely point out more information that incriminates him. The only reason he's not charged with his wife is because he didn't speak at his own hearing and convinced his wife to lie for him.

Hilarious, isn't it?

In order to deny Zimmerman took part in the bond hearing deception, he puts the blame on O'Mara.

Then when I press him on that, he puts the blame back on Zimmerman.

Round and round we go.

 

[Unabogie]

Hilarious, isn't it?

In order to deny Zimmerman took part in the bond hearing deception, he puts the blame on O'Mara.

Then when I press him on that, he puts the blame back on Zimmerman.

Round and round we go.

As you pointed out previously, even if you believe he told O'Mara about $37,000, that was in no way an accurate picture of just how much money he had collected to that point. He was clearly hiding the vast majority of the money from his lawyer, even if you take everything at face value. This whole caper is just so blatant and obvious that I doubt anyone would dare argue this way if it weren't about someone they were so emotionally invested in.

And again, THIS is the guy we're supposed to believe when he describes how it came to pass that he shot and killed an unarmed kid who hadn't done anything wrong.