Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Unabogie]

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.

I tend to agree on this as the most obvious take, but I also think that West should have deposed Witness 8 quite some time ago, especially if they intended to have an immunity hearing. That they have neglected to do so means that they certainly never intended to have an immunity hearing, unless you choose to interpret this as simply being incompetent attorneys (something I'm not ruling out).

Either way, the issue of the hospital is not material to the case and tends to undermine her credibility, if true as West stated it. But it doesn't help George at all, since Witness 8 merely confirms what other evidence shows.

As we've already explained on this thread.

 

[This is The End]

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

Well, Cylinder, since you have returned to this thread would you like to tell us why you think the defense waived the immunity hearing?


Here was the August press release (and I doubt several posters want me to dig up their posts regarding it):

http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/pr...r-ground-hearing-in-the-george-zimmerman-case

Now that the State has released the majority of their discovery, the defense asserts that there is clear support for a strong claim of self-defense. Consistent with this claim of self-defense, there will be a “Stand Your Ground” hearing.

Clearly their reasoning for an immunity hearing was "there is clear support for a strong claim of self-defense". If you can read that paragraph some other way, I would be surprised... or not.

So, logically, the reason for not having one should be "there is not clear support for a strong claim of self-defense".

But they claimed, when they waived it, that they just don't have enough time and resources.

So should we believe what that claim, or the logical opposite of their original reason?

Some will say that we should believe their current claim. But wait a second. In that exact same press release they acknowledge, seven months before they waived it, that it will take "several" months (which sure sounds like seven to me) to prepare!!

Preparing for the “Stand Your Ground” hearing will require the same time and resources that would be necessary to prepare for a trial. It will take time to collect and submit reciprocal discovery, depose witnesses and experts, and identify evidence to be submitted during the hearing. We anticipate this will still take several months. Mr. O’Mara, again, urges everyone to be patient during this process and to reserve judgment until the evidence is presented in the “Stand Your Ground” hearing.

So there you have their exact same reason for waiving it...

So they announced there will be an immunity hearing. With explicit acknowledgement that it will take time and resources. With explicit claims that they have both and have fully anticipated both.

And then seven months later they waive the hearing saying they have neither.

Hoisted by their own press release.

All we are left with is the logical opposite of their original reason.

Two weeks ago I would have said the odds of a plea deal within a month are about 0.01%. Now I am thinking the odds of a plea deal are increasing. Maybe even up to 5 to 10%. (Watch several posters now try and claim that "maybe even up to 5 to 10%" means that I personally think a plea deal is likely...)

 

[Rare Truth]

Well, Cylinder, since you have returned to this thread would you like to tell us why you think the defense waived the immunity hearing?


Here was the August press release (and I doubt several posters want me to dig up their posts regarding it):

http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/pr...r-ground-hearing-in-the-george-zimmerman-case





Clearly their reasoning for an immunity hearing was "there is clear support for a strong claim of self-defense". If you can read that paragraph some other way, I would be surprised... or not.

So, logically, the reason for not having one should be "there is not clear support for a strong claim of self-defense".

But they claimed, when they waived it, that they just don't have enough time and resources.

So should we believe what that claim, or the logical opposite of their original reason?

Some will say that we should believe their current claim. But wait a second. In that exact same press release they acknowledge, seven months before they waived it, that it will take "several" months (which sure sounds like seven to me) to prepare!!



So there you have their exact same reason for waiving it...

So they announced there will be an immunity hearing. With explicit acknowledgement that it will take time and resources. With explicit claims that they have both and have fully anticipated both.

And then seven months later they waive the hearing saying they have neither.

Hoisted by their own press release.

All we are left with is the logical opposite of their original reason.

Two weeks ago I would have said the odds of a plea deal within a month are about 0.01%. Now I am thinking the odds of a plea deal are increasing. Maybe even up to 5 to 10%. (Watch several posters now try and claim that "maybe even up to 5 to 10%" means that I personally think a plea deal is likely...)

"Hoisted by their own press release."

I love it.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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.

Excellent synopsis.

It's funny - I get accused of spinning everything pro-zimmerman. And now when witness 8 is caught flat out lying, look at all the spinning coming from posters who claim that is all I do.

Before when I had questions about witness 8 and her age, she was unimportant. No one wants to explain why Crump lied about her age, the hospital, the pretend romance.

Now we should wait and see if maybe she went to a hospital where they don't keep records ? ROTFLMAO. SPIN !~

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Well, Cylinder, since you have returned to this thread would you like to tell us why you think the defense waived the immunity hearing?

Here was the August press release (and I doubt several posters want me to dig up their posts regarding it):

http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/pr...r-ground-hearing-in-the-george-zimmerman-case

Clearly their reasoning for an immunity hearing was "there is clear support for a strong claim of self-defense". If you can read that paragraph some other way, I would be surprised... or not.

So, logically, the reason for not having one should be "there is not clear support for a strong claim of self-defense".

But they claimed, when they waived it, that they just don't have enough time and resources.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt before, but I guess I was wrong to do that.

The defense has not waived their right to an immunity hearing. They simply told the judge they did not need the time she set aside.

If you think they have, please direct me to where they did it.

So should we believe what that claim, or the logical opposite of their original reason?


Some will say that we should believe their current claim. But wait a second. In that exact same press release they acknowledge, seven months before they waived it, that it will take "several" months (which sure sounds like seven to me) to prepare!!

So there you have their exact same reason for waiving it...

So they announced there will be an immunity hearing. With explicit acknowledgement that it will take time and resources. With explicit claims that they have both and have fully anticipated both.

And then seven months later they waive the hearing saying they have neither.

Hoisted by their own press release.

All we are left with is the logical opposite of their original reason.

Two weeks ago I would have said the odds of a plea deal within a month are about 0.01%. Now I am thinking the odds of a plea deal are increasing. Maybe even up to 5 to 10%. (Watch several posters now try and claim that "maybe even up to 5 to 10%" means that I personally think a plea deal is likely...)

Why would anyone be worried about numbers you made up ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

She was obviously grief stricken. That issue is not even in question.

And you know this how ?

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??

They wanted her address and social media information so they could do an investigation before they deposed her, so they could ask the appropriate questions. Which the judge granted them.

 

[Rare Truth]

And you know this how ?



They wanted her address and social media information so they could do an investigation before they deposed her, so they could ask the appropriate questions. Which the judge granted them.

1st point: are you serious?

2nd: The judge scolded the defense THREE TIMES saying they could ask that at the deposition.

She hammered them. West made a fool of himself.

 

[Unabogie]

The defense has not waived their right to an immunity hearing. They simply told the judge they did not need the time she set aside.

If you think they have, please direct me to where they did it.

The law says you have to have the immunity hearing 45 days before the trial, so how exactly will that happen if not in April? What you're describing is defense spin to separate more rubes from their money to fund the illusory hearing in which they send George on his merry way.

ETA: Here's the judge's order that any SYG hearing happen no less than 45 days before trial.

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Amended Scheduling Order.pdf

You've had this explained to you before. Just because they haven't filed a motion to waive the hearing doesn't mean they didn't do it for all practical purposes. Notice that all of the news organizations are saying he waived it. 'Cause he did.

 

[This is The End]

The law says you have to have the immunity hearing 45 days before the trial, so how exactly will that happen if not in April? What you're describing is defense spin to separate more rubes from their money to fund the illusory hearing in which they send George on his merry way.

And fall for it the rubes will.

Notice that all of the news organizations are saying he waived it. 'Cause he did.

Yeah, ABC will probably need to fix their url:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/zimmerman-stuns-court-waives-trayvon-martin-case/story?id=18656568


Either way, I'm quite sure the judge would not find it funny if they canceled the April immunity hearing and tried to schedule one for May within weeks of the judge denying them more time. They already tried one trick since then to get more time, the judge saw through it, and it failed.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

1st point: are you serious?

Yes. In case you were away for too long and forgot, when you make claims people expect you to back them up with evidence.

2nd: The judge scolded the defense THREE TIMES saying they could ask that at the deposition.

She hammered them. West made a fool of himself.

In your opinion.

Meanwhile, in reality, she signed the subpoena ordering twitter and Facebook to turn over all of TMs and witness 8 info.

 

[Unabogie]

And fall for it the rubes will.

Yeah, ABC will probably need to fix their url:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/zimmerman-stuns-court-waives-trayvon-martin-case/story?id=18656568


Either way, I'm quite sure the judge would not find it funny if they canceled the April immunity hearing and tried to schedule one for May within weeks of the judge denying them more time. They already tried one trick since then to get more time, the judge saw through it, and it failed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the reasons O'Mara asked for a continuance that he needed more time to prepare for the immunity hearing, only now he says he doesn't want it? Especially since George's immunity was supposed to be so cut and dried. SLAM (show some pictures of cuts and bruises) BAM (ask if the state could prove who hit who first) THANK YOU MA'AM (pop the champagne!)

So why on earth do they even need experts? Why on earth do they need more time?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

And fall for it the rubes will.

Yeah, ABC will probably need to fix their url:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/zimmerman-stuns-court-waives-trayvon-martin-case/story?id=18656568

Maybe you should read the article instead of focusing on the URL.

George Zimmerman's attorneys stunned court observers today by deciding to skip a "Stand Your Ground" hearing slated for April that might have led to a dismissal of the charges in the shooting death of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin.

Let me know when you find where it says he waived his right to a hearing, ok ?

Either way, I'm quite sure the judge would not find it funny if they canceled the April immunity hearing and tried to schedule one for May within weeks of the judge denying them more time. They already tried one trick since then to get more time, the judge saw through it, and it failed.

What do you mean either way ? Clearly you believe he waived his right, don't you ?

 

[Unabogie]

Yes. In case you were away for too long and forgot, when you make claims people expect you to back them up with evidence.

I agree. There's absolutely no proof that she grieved for her friend who she knew since grade school and spent several hours on the phone with the day before. Those people don't value human life like us white folk. We need evidence of this grieving!

In your opinion.

Meanwhile, in reality, she signed the subpoena ordering twitter and Facebook to turn over all of TMs and witness 8 info.

That's great. I bet you'll find lots of embarrassing stuff there that speaks directly to whether or not George murdered a 17 year old, unarmed kid. I do agree we can glean a lot from social media in this case. Like when George said he hated Mexicans and bragged how he could beat a rap if the law ever got onto him. Was that before or after he raped his cousin? I forget.

Ah, memory lane.

“I dont miss driving around scared to hit mexicans walkin on the side of the street, soft ass wanna be thugs messin with peoples cars when they aint around (what are you provin, that you can dent a car when no ones watchin) dont make you a man in my book,” the 2005 Myspace page said. “Workin 96 hours to get a decent pay check, gettin knifes pulled on you by every mexican you run into!”

Another line suggested his friends went to jail and did not rat him out. “They do a year and dont ever open thier [sic] mouth to get my ass pinched.”

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/01/2778234/myspace-page-is-latest-salvo-in.html#storylink=cpy

He fancies himself above the law, doesn't he?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The law says you have to have the immunity hearing 45 days before the trial, so how exactly will that happen if not in April?

I don't believe the law says that, and neither do you. As you point out below, Judge Nelson is the one who said that.

What you're describing is defense spin to separate more rubes from their money to fund the illusory hearing in which they send George on his merry way.

ETA: Here's the judge's order that any SYG hearing happen no less than 45 days before trial.

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Amended Scheduling Order.pdf

You've had this explained to you before. Just because they haven't filed a motion to waive the hearing doesn't mean they didn't do it for all practical purposes. Notice that all of the news organizations are saying he waived it. 'Cause he did.

You go with that then. I'm happy to wait.

 

[johnny karate]

Excellent synopsis.

It's funny - I get accused of spinning everything pro-zimmerman. And now when witness 8 is caught flat out lying, look at all the spinning coming from posters who claim that is all I do.

Before when I had questions about witness 8 and her age, she was unimportant. No one wants to explain why Crump lied about her age, the hospital, the pretend romance.

Now we should wait and see if maybe she went to a hospital where they don't keep records ? ROTFLMAO. SPIN !~

Guess what? I think DeeDee has been untruthful and that more than likely she was coached by Crump.

And you know what else? I think you spin everything pro-Zimmerman so hard, it affects the Earth's rotation.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I agree. There's absolutely no proof that she grieved for her friend who she knew since grade school and spent several hours on the phone with the day before. Those people don't value human life like us white folk. We need evidence of this grieving!

Appeal to emotion ? Appeal to racism ? Either way, it's not evidence, is it. Maybe she was so grief-stricken she had to go the hospital !!!

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1203/20/cnr.03.html
In fact, she couldn't even go to his wake she was so sick. Her mother had to take her to the hospital. She spent the night in the hospital. She is traumatized beyond anything you could imagine.

That's great. I bet you'll find lots of embarrassing stuff there that speaks directly to whether or not George murdered a 17 year old, unarmed kid. I do agree we can glean a lot from social media in this case. Like when George said he hated Mexicans and bragged how he could beat a rap if the law ever got onto him. Was that before or after he raped his cousin? I forget.

I missed those rape charges ... can you link to them ? How is that case going ?

 

[Unabogie]

Appeal to emotion ? Appeal to racism ? Either way, it's not evidence, is it. Maybe she was so grief-stricken she had to go the hospital !!!

This is the second time you've said things that are subtly racist, so sorry if I pick up on it. The first time was when you brought up all sorts of stereotypes when I asked if you knew any kids who still said "homie" (which is something years out of style). Now, you ask for proof that Trayvon's friend/girlfriend actually grieved over his death? Is there proof his parents did? How can we really believe them, anyway? How about his brother? How do we really know he felt anything at all? Sheesh, you don't even realize how awful that is.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1203/20/cnr.03.html
In fact, she couldn't even go to his wake she was so sick. Her mother had to take her to the hospital. She spent the night in the hospital. She is traumatized beyond anything you could imagine.



I missed those rape charges ... can you link to them ? How is that case going ?

Statute of limitations for old George. So he'll never be held accountable.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

This is the second time you've said things that are subtly racist, so sorry if I pick up on it.

Wait, what ?

Those people don't value human life like us white folk. ?

But I said something racist ?

The first time was when you brought up all sorts of stereotypes when I asked if you knew any kids who still said "homie" (which is something years out of style).

Please quote the 'steroetypes' I used, and you'll see every one of them is a factual statement about TM. Not stereotypes.

Now, you ask for proof that Trayvon's friend/girlfriend actually grieved over his death?

No that's not what I asked for. This forum has a quote feature. If you used it more often, you would spend less time beating strawmen.

Rare Truth said:She was obviously grief stricken. That issue is not even in question.

I want to know how he knows that she was grief stricken ? For that matter, I have no proof she was even his girlfriend - do you ?

I pointed out that we were told: In fact, she couldn't even go to his wake she was so sick. Her mother had to take her to the hospital. Which is apparently a lie. So how do you know she was grief stricken ?

Statute of limitations for old George. So he'll never be held accountable.

Nope, not statute of limitations. We covered that earlier in the thread. triforcharity in particular. No, that's not the reason there are no charges

 

[johnny karate]

But I said something racist ?

In fairness, I don't think your implication that a friend of Martin's might not have been grief-stricken by his death is racist. Just weird, and maybe a little heartless.

However, the previous comment to which Unabogie referred:

My son, his friends. And I agree, they don't say homie. They don't have fake gold teeth, they don't get suspended from school, they don't smoke dope ... they don't have much in common with an inner city youth from a dysfunctional home, so I am not sure whether they say homie or not is important.

... did strike me as slightly racist.

For starters, why are you lumping in "fake gold teeth" in a list of bad behaviors? You might as well have thrown in "rap music" and "sagging pants" while you were at it.

And I'm willing to bet your sons and their friends also don't make bigoted comments or brag about getting away with criminal activity on their social media sites. Nor do they have restraining orders against them. Nor do they get into bar fights.

So I'm not sure why you make it a point to disparage Martin based on his past, but seem to give Zimmerman a pass on his.

 

[quadraginta]

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?

They can. Otherwise Rust Limpdong would probably be doing his hate show from behind bars for Doc shopping his oxycodone habit.