Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[johnny karate]

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.

Yes, but DeeDee lied. We know that for certain.

 

[Unabogie]

Yes, but DeeDee lied. We know that for certain.

Yeah, but the difference for me is that I AGREE that she lied about going to the hospital, and I AGREE that this calls her credibility into question. I have this funny ethic that says if you're a person who lies, it's hard to accept other things that you say at face value. This applies to George as well, who appears to have made up great swathes of details that paint Trayvon as some sort of ghetto predator and George as some innocent guy who just wanted to find an address. He lied about lots of things, and the evidence contradicts his basic narrative, and therefore I think we should be skeptical of his excuse for how he came to kill a 17 year old, unarmed teenager. We owe it to the victim's parents since Trayvon is not alive to defend himself against these accusations.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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? .

It doesn't matter. You said he risked those penalties. I contend the risk was nil. He had plausible deniability.

http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/can-lawyers-lie.aspx

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.

If his lawyer told him that his best move was to file for indigence for purposes of bond despite knowing he had money in an internet fund, yes.

Yeah, that's not what you orifinally claimed:

It is, I have simply expounded upon my original claim.

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

Yes, GZ apparently withheld information from MOM. Whether because:
a) MOM never explicitly asked him about those amounts
b) GZ decided not to tell him because he wanted to hide the money
c) GZ took MOM statement to imply 'don't tell me any more than I need to know'
I don't know the reason.

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.

"She, in fact, did not go to the hospital as she stated under oath," defense attorney Don West said, according to MyFoxOrlando.com. "And that [prosecutor] Mr. [John] Guy represented there would not be hospital records confirming her sworn statement, because, in fact, she lied."

Take it up with Don West. He says she lied.

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.

When you don't actually quote me, its a good indication that's not what I actually said.

It's not obvious SZ is guilty of perjury. I don't think her answers to the questions she was brought up on perjury charges for were lies.

If DeeDee told Crump, Sybrina Fulton, AC, BDLR or any of those people she had to go to the hospital, then she was lying to them.

She won't be brought up on perjury charges because BDLR asked her "to the hospital or somewhere" and I am sure she did actually go "somewhere" - her room, the store, whatever.

Perhaps Benjamin Crump simply made up the story about going to the hospital, and her age, and TM and her pretend romance, etc.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Yes, but DeeDee lied. We know that for certain.

"She, in fact, did not go to the hospital as she stated under oath," defense attorney Don West said, according to MyFoxOrlando.com. "And that [prosecutor] Mr. [John] Guy represented there would not be hospital records confirming her sworn statement, because, in fact, she lied."

Take it up with Don West. He says she lied.

 

[Unabogie]

"She, in fact, did not go to the hospital as she stated under oath," defense attorney Don West said, according to MyFoxOrlando.com. "And that [prosecutor] Mr. [John] Guy represented there would not be hospital records confirming her sworn statement, because, in fact, she lied."

Take it up with Don West. He says she lied.

Don West works for whom, again?

 

[Rare Truth]

A defense attorney lying? Well shivermetimbers. That's never happened before.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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).

A defense attorney lying? Well shivermetimbers. That's never happened before.

It never happens because of all the scary consequences. Just ask johnny karate.

 

[johnny karate]

Take it up with Don West. He says she lied.

Once you make the claim it becomes your defend.

That's why when I say Shellie Zimmerman lied, I don't cop out and say "Take it up with Angela Corey". I actually defend my postion.

She won't be brought up on perjury charges because BDLR asked her "to the hospital or somewhere" and I am sure she did actually go "somewhere" - her room, the store, whatever.

She won't be brought up on perjury charges because she didn't commit perjury. This has been explained to you.

I'm through with this conversation. At this point, your arguments are so disingenous, I doubt you even believe them yourself.

And I am perfectly content to let my arguments stand for themselves.

 

[Unabogie]

A defense attorney lying? Well shivermetimbers. That's never happened before.

Welcome back! Things are about to get rolling here.

 

[Rare Truth]

Welcome back! Things are about to get rolling here.

Thanks. Yep...

 

[johnny karate]

delete

 

[Rare Truth]

Yeah, but the difference for me is that I AGREE that she lied about going to the hospital, and I AGREE that this calls her credibility into question. I have this funny ethic that says if you're a person who lies, it's hard to accept other things that you say at face value. This applies to George as well, who appears to have made up great swathes of details that paint Trayvon as some sort of ghetto predator and George as some innocent guy who just wanted to find an address. He lied about lots of things, and the evidence contradicts his basic narrative, and therefore I think we should be skeptical of his excuse for how he came to kill a 17 year old, unarmed teenager. We owe it to the victim's parents since Trayvon is not alive to defend himself against these accusations.

I don't think we know yet for sure if she lied. The prosecution said the medical records would not be forthcoming. Does that assume there are no records period or--

possibly she went someplace else and/or there is no record of a visit? That could happen if she went to the ER with blood pulsing, in a state of shock, and basically the ER team just sees the instance of severe grief after taking her BP and basically putting her in a quiet room of sorts to counsel/comfort her. There may not always be a record of that.

Or she could have gone someplace else, same thing.

What I would like explained to me is what would be her motivation to lie about something like this?
She was obviously grief stricken. That issue is not even in question.

I think until we hear more from her, and this would be explained when is deposed by the defense.

Which leads me to another: Why in the hell hasn't the defense team deposed her yet??

 

[Rare Truth]

I saw this on a prosecution-friendly facebook page.

I will clarify what transpired, in case people missed the hearing, and you can check it out online on youtube. Use a reputable source to watch it so it is authentic.

1) Deedee told Crump she was in shock and did not feel well, therefore was unable to attend a wake. She said she went to a hospital or had to get medical attention and then the recording is unclear what she says.

2) Deedee tells Bernie, when Bernie asks if she went to the wake or funeral, that she wanted to go. Bernie asks why she could not make it. She tells him she felt ill because of the killing. Bernie asks if she went to the hospital or "somewhere". Deedee says mmm yeah, I had high blood pressure. (Note West, W8 never claimed to be hospitalized)

3) West twists what the state told the defense into claiming that the state said that she lied about going to the hospital and not attending the wake. The state simply stated to them and the court that there will be no medical records, to take her deposition, it is moot, and then if they want to bring up medical records of her after her deposition, they can have a hearing on that issue.

4) Judge agrees with the state and asks the defense to simply depose witness 8 and if medical records are necessary then they can bring it up at another hearing. My guess is she means to speak to witness 8 and clarify before making assumptions.

5) West continues accusing her of lying with no proof and asks when the state found out.

6) Guy again tells them to depose witness 8 and it is not necessary to get her medical records. Just depose witness 8 and if medical records are deemed necessary, then they can have a hearing on that issue.

7) Nelson tells the defense to depose witness 8, and if there is anything different from her original testimonies, then they can bring up the issues, as well as the medical records they seek, if it is deemed necessary after her deposition, and then they can depose her strictly on the medical records thereafter. I think Nelson was just showing witness 8 respect, so that she can decide what she is willing to give to the defense.

8) West continues accusing with no proof or confirmation from the state about lying. Guy stated that there will be no medical records, just depose her, and then perhaps we can talk about medical records. Guy is basically saying to let the witness 8 decide if she wants to discuss giving out her medical records.

9) Nelson decides the issue is moot and dismisses it without prejudice

10) West asks for witness 8's address. Nelson tells him again to depose witness 8 and get the information straight from her in a deposition.

That is basically it. I summarized it, but watch it for yourself, and decide. IMO, the state is just giving the witness the right to give what she wants to the defense. Only the defense is alleging she is lying but keeps refusing to depose her and than making up things.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink....ent_id=2777868&ref=notif&notif_t=feed_comment

​

I have yet to see the hearing from yesterday, so I don't know how close this tracks, but if it does, then it sounds like it's not at all the way it's being spun.

 

[Rare Truth]

I have another question. Can the defense just subpoena medical records of a witness like that?

Do HIPAA laws come into play here at all?

 

[johnny karate]

Welcome back! Things are about to get rolling here.

Well, sure. After we did all the heavy lifting.

 

[Rare Truth]

Well, sure. After we did all the heavy lifting.

I've been reading off and on for the last few months here. Lost interest when the thread was moderated for so long.

You guys have been doing a bang up job. Applause. Applause.

 

[12AX7]

I saw this on a prosecution-friendly facebook page.

I will clarify what transpired, in case people missed the hearing, and you can check it out online on youtube. Use a reputable source to watch it so it is authentic.

1) Deedee told Crump she was in shock and did not feel well, therefore was unable to attend a wake. She said she went to a hospital or had to get medical attention and then the recording is unclear what she says.

2) Deedee tells Bernie, when Bernie asks if she went to the wake or funeral, that she wanted to go. Bernie asks why she could not make it. She tells him she felt ill because of the killing. Bernie asks if she went to the hospital or "somewhere". Deedee says mmm yeah, I had high blood pressure. (Note West, W8 never claimed to be hospitalized)

3) West twists what the state told the defense into claiming that the state said that she lied about going to the hospital and not attending the wake. The state simply stated to them and the court that there will be no medical records, to take her deposition, it is moot, and then if they want to bring up medical records of her after her deposition, they can have a hearing on that issue.

4) Judge agrees with the state and asks the defense to simply depose witness 8 and if medical records are necessary then they can bring it up at another hearing. My guess is she means to speak to witness 8 and clarify before making assumptions.

5) West continues accusing her of lying with no proof and asks when the state found out.

6) Guy again tells them to depose witness 8 and it is not necessary to get her medical records. Just depose witness 8 and if medical records are deemed necessary, then they can have a hearing on that issue.

7) Nelson tells the defense to depose witness 8, and if there is anything different from her original testimonies, then they can bring up the issues, as well as the medical records they seek, if it is deemed necessary after her deposition, and then they can depose her strictly on the medical records thereafter. I think Nelson was just showing witness 8 respect, so that she can decide what she is willing to give to the defense.

8) West continues accusing with no proof or confirmation from the state about lying. Guy stated that there will be no medical records, just depose her, and then perhaps we can talk about medical records. Guy is basically saying to let the witness 8 decide if she wants to discuss giving out her medical records.

9) Nelson decides the issue is moot and dismisses it without prejudice

10) West asks for witness 8's address. Nelson tells him again to depose witness 8 and get the information straight from her in a deposition.

That is basically it. I summarized it, but watch it for yourself, and decide. IMO, the state is just giving the witness the right to give what she wants to the defense. Only the defense is alleging she is lying but keeps refusing to depose her and than making up things.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink....ent_id=2777868&ref=notif&notif_t=feed_comment

​

I have yet to see the hearing from yesterday, so I don't know how close this tracks, but if it does, then it sounds like it's not at all the way it's being spun.

Interesting. Thanks for posting that. If true, I'd be interested in hearing Elvis' spin take on this.

You guys have been doing a bang up job. Applause. Applause.

Agree.

 

[Cylinder]

Interesting. Thanks for posting that. If true, I'd be interested in hearing Elvis' spin take on this.

Maybe you can take the time to watch the hearing before commenting. Typical for this thread.

If you had bothered to watch the hearing, you'd find that that state made a Brady disclosure to inform Zimmerman that W8 never visited the hospital on the day of Martin's wake which, in turn, rendered the application for supeona duces tecum moot. There are no records unless you are suggesting the state pulled a Nifong here. BDLR's ASA verified this to the court. West asked the court to inquire about the circumstances, which Judge Nelson declined to do, stating that as an officer of the court, she would accept the state's version of events on its face and allow Zimmerman to depose W8 about those events and revisit the issue in court if her testimony in the deposition varied from what was disclosed.

 

[This is The End]

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.

It's almost like it's just to try and distract us from actually discussing the facts in the case isn't it??

Here is my post to you from 2 weeks ago:

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?

Just don't respond to the nonsense.

Let's try to focus on the actual current event

And yet here we are, 14 days and 14 pages later, and 80% of the posts on those pages were continued circular arguing about a 6 month argument that didn't even make sense then.

While at least 2 huge current events, and several minor ones, were discussed in the remaining posts.

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.

It's called subterfuge.

 

[This is The End]

I'm through with this conversation. At this point, your arguments are so disingenous, I doubt you even believe them yourself.

Good decision.

And I am perfectly content to let my arguments stand for themselves.

Don't worry, they do.