Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[johnny karate]

Perhaps if you were a lawyer you would see the advantage.

Yeah, I guess it takes a lawyer to see the advantage in decreasing your client's chances for acquittal and setting him up for a civil suit.

That's funny.

The only thing funny is your lame denial of behavior I just called you out on a page ago:

I think it's probably going to be more relevant that Tracy Martin felt it necessary to lie about not recognizing the voice.

I'm not accusing Tracy Martin of lying, three SPD officers are.

To be clear, I have stated that the prosecutions lead investigator testified that the state doesn't have any evidence as to who started the fight, and to disprove that GZ was walking back to his truck when he was assaulted.

Funny, your position on the evidence didn't come across quite so nuanced in your earlier assessments:

How true ! But the beauty of the sunshine state with their sunshine laws is that we get to see all of their evidence before they get around to presenting their case. So, they can put lipstick on the pig when they present their case, but we've already seen the pig.

But I guess now that the defense has revealed the weakness of their hand, the back-pedaling begins.

I have repeatedly asked what new evidence might exist, what new evidence regarding those events was uncovered in discovery ... and get answered with silence.

It has been repeatedly explained to you that a trial is more than just a static review of the evidence.

O'Mara certainly understands this. That's why he's not putting his client on the stand.

Yes, they should.

Why exactly? Please give specifics.

How do you know they aren't going to do that ?

Call it hunch:

The real focus is going to be on getting ready for a jury trial. As you know, I've been counting. We're only at 96 days right now. So that only that only gives us time to really get ready for one hearing.

I have addressed it.

Dodging is not addressing.

I am not MOM, I am not in his head - how do you expect me to justify his actions ?

You claimed the state lacked the evidence to disprove Zimmerman's story.

You claimed the inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story are insignificant.

If those two things are true, then why isn't O'Mara going to put Zimmerman on the stand in an immunity hearing to tell his unimpeachable story?

 

[johnny karate]

Because as we've all learned in the last decade innocent people never get convicted of murder on pathetically weak cases. Prosecutors always act with nothing but the highest integrity in their seach for justice, they would never prosecute and get convictions solely for political reasons. Not in the USA!

You can't get convicted in an immunity hearing, so I have no idea what you're blathering about.

 

[This is The End]

Because as we've all learned in the last decade innocent people never get convicted of murder on pathetically weak cases. Prosecutors always act with nothing but the highest integrity in their seach for justice, they would never prosecute and get convictions solely for political reasons. Not in the USA!

So is that pretty much a guarantee that if Z is convicted you will still claim he is innocent?

What about if he takes a plea deal?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Yeah, I guess it takes a lawyer to see the advantage in decreasing your client's chances for acquittal and setting him up for a civil suit.

No, it doesn't. But you should probably wait to gloat about that until it actually happens.

The only thing funny is your lame denial of behavior I just called you out on a page ago:

You must have missed this post, then

Fine, I believe that Tracy Martin lied based on my understanding that three SPD officers have given depositions stating that they heard Tracy Martin state that the voice screaming was not the voice of his son, Trayvon, as first reported by Detective Serino, which Mr. Martin subsequently denied saying.

I don't see what difference it really makes, though. Now I suppose you want me to prove the three police officers are telling the truth ?

Funny, your position on the evidence didn't come across quite so nuanced in your earlier assessments:

Oh noes, over the course of hundreds of posts, one of them wasn't as quite nuanced as another one !

But I guess now that the defense has revealed the weakness of their hand, the back-pedaling begins.

I don't believe the defense has revealed anything.

It has been repeatedly explained to you that a trial is more than just a static review of the evidence.

O'Mara certainly understands this. That's why he's not putting his client on the stand.

You might want to check into the million dollar prize, seeing as how you know the future.

Why exactly? Please give specifics.

Because I don't believe any any judge would rule in his favor in an immunity hearing without testifying as to what happened that evening, no matter what you or I believe the preponderance of the evidence to be.

Call it hunch:
mark o'mara:The real focus is going to be on getting ready for a jury trial. As you know, I've been counting. We're only at 96 days right now. So that only that only gives us time to really get ready for one hearing.

One hearing ... one hearing ... where have I heard that before ...

Oh yeah, I said it, in a reply to you:

My guess is that they plan to combine the trial and the immunity hearing, thereby nullifying any advantage the defense might gain by having GZ testify first.

Dodging is not addressing.

What question is it you think I dodged ?

You claimed the state lacked the evidence to disprove Zimmerman's story.

You claimed the inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story are insignificant.

If those two things are true, then why isn't O'Mara going to put Zimmerman on the stand in an immunity hearing to tell his unimpeachable story?

I don't know that he isn't. I already told you I think he is going to, in a combined hearing.

What is it you are trying so hard to get me to say ?

If MOM doesn't file for immunity, I think he is doing a disservice to GZ.
I think MOM is going to file for immunity, and combine the trial with the immunity hearing.
If MOM doesn't put GZ on the stand to testify, I think he is doing a disservice to GZ.
I think MOM will put GZ on the stand.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So is that pretty much a guarantee that if Z is convicted you will still claim he is innocent?

What about if he takes a plea deal?

Did you find where MOM waived GZ right to file for immunity yet ?

Or are you going to keep ignoring that you said it, and then pointed at a URL as evidence ?

 

[johnny karate]

No, it doesn't. But you should probably wait to gloat about that until it actually happens.

No, it did happen. O'Mara cancelled the immunity hearing. As of right now, there is not going to be one.

You seem to be holding out hope he might be able to roll it into the trial, but that has yet to be determined, and the judge could very well decline the motion.

So if it is O'Mara's intention to get an immunity hearing in one form or another, he's going about in just about the dumbest way possible.

You must have missed this post, then

No, I saw it. That was your acknowledgment that you disingenuously tried to pretend someone else made an assertion instead of you.

That's what made your implied denial just a few posts later so bizarre.

I don't see what difference it really makes, though. Now I suppose you want me to prove the three police officers are telling the truth ?

No, I'd just like to see you take responsibility for and defend your own assertions instead of repeatedly offering lame cop-outs that they're really the assertions of someone else.

Oh noes, over the course of hundreds of posts, one of them wasn't as quite nuanced as another one !

It's the chronology that's important. Earlier posts were across-the-board disparagements of the prosecution's case, but now suddenly you're adding qualifiers. Like I said, back-pedaling.

I don't believe the defense has revealed anything.

Of course you don't. George could get convicted, and you'd still be offering denials.

Because I don't believe any any judge would rule in his favor in an immunity hearing without testifying as to what happened that evening, no matter what you or I believe the preponderance of the evidence to be.

I'm not sure what question you think you're answering, but this the entire exchange:

If that were true, the defense should have no problem putting Zimmerman on the stand in an immunity hearing.

Yes, they should.

Why exactly? Please give specifics.

You said the defense should have a problem with putting Zimmerman on the stand at an immunity hearing.

As someone who believes the prosecution has no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's story, and that any inconsistencies in his story are insignificant, I'm curious to know what problems you perceive.

What question is it you think I dodged ?

The question as to why O'Mara is refusing the opportunity to put his client on the stand at an immunity hearing in light of your assertions regarding the prosecution's lack of evidence and the unimportance of inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story.

I don't know that he isn't. I already told you I think he is going to, in a combined hearing.

Whether the hearings are combined isn't up to O'Mara, and they may very well not be. And yet O'Mara cancelled the original hearing before finding out if he'd be able to combine one with the trial.

I wonder why...

What is it you are trying so hard to get me to say ?

To offer your opinion as to why O'Mara is refusing the opportunity to put his client on the stand at an immunity hearing in light of your assertions regarding the prosecution's lack of evidence and the unimportance of inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story.

If MOM doesn't file for immunity, I think he is doing a disservice to GZ.
I think MOM is going to file for immunity, and combine the trial with the immunity hearing.
If MOM doesn't put GZ on the stand to testify, I think he is doing a disservice to GZ.
I think MOM will put GZ on the stand.

Then why did he refuse a chance to do just that?

 

[Dan O.]

Why ? The MA won't answer the question of what katieg's opinion is.

Im sure KatieG is well enough familiar with the membership agreement. It is you that needs a refresher course. Pay particular attention to who you are allowed to call names and who you are not.

 

[Dan O.]

Did you find where MOM waived GZ right to file for immunity yet ?

Or are you going to keep ignoring that you said it, and then pointed at a URL as evidence ?

The discussion is moving on. Please address the arguments at hand and stop badgering.

 

[KatieG]

Do you agree that calling GZ and anyone associated with him names is also stupid, wrong, and extreme ?

I will openly call GZ a killer because that's what he is. Whether or not he is a murderer remains to be seen.

 

[Rare Truth]

Didn't the judge stipulate that:

Paragraph 1.a. of the 10/29/2012 Amended Scheduling Order unequivocally states: “Any Self-Defense Immunity I Stand Your Ground motion shall be filed and heard on or before April 26, 2013, which is 45 days before trial.”


https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...Yho44H&sig=AHIEtbToBrezv8EnYo4ZBA8E6_h0urDNjw

I'm just not seeing how it can be "rolled into the trial."

 

[This is The End]

I'm just not seeing how it can be "rolled into the trial."

You're missing the obvious:

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.

 

[Rare Truth]

You're missing the obvious:

Well, that would explain it.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I will openly call GZ a killer because that's what he is. Whether or not he is a murderer remains to be seen.

That's great. And Trayvon is juvenile delinquent with a history of drug use, truancy, and who knows what else.

But you dodged the question.

Do you agree that calling GZ and anyone associated with him names is also stupid, wrong, and extreme ?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/name-calling
the use of offensive names especially to win an argument or to induce rejection or condemnation (as of a person or project) without objective consideration of the facts

Do you think name calling is stupid, wrong, and extreme when done to GZ and people associated with him ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Im sure KatieG is well enough familiar with the membership agreement.

Really, is that something you and she discuss frequently ?

It is you that needs a refresher course. Pay particular attention to who you are allowed to call names and who you are not.

I never asked about what was allowed or not allowed according to the MA. Perhaps you need to pay attention ?

 

[KatieG]

Originally Posted by KatieG View Post
I will openly call GZ a killer because that's what he is. Whether or not he is a murderer remains to be seen.


That's great. And Trayvon is juvenile delinquent with a history of drug use, truancy, and who knows what else.
No, sorry, they are not the same thing.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You're missing the obvious:

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.

I think you missed the follow up post:

P.S. I was wrong about there being a 45 day rule about this. That was just the order from Judge Nelson.

Even according to Judge Nelson, MOM still has ~ 6 weeks to file for an immunity hearing.

Unless you want to continue on with your absurd claim that he waived the right to file for immunity ? Why is it you seem so reluctant to address that claim you made ? It's very telling.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

No, it did happen. O'Mara cancelled the immunity hearing. As of right now, there is not going to be one.

You seem to be holding out hope he might be able to roll it into the trial, but that has yet to be determined, and the judge could very well decline the motion.

So if it is O'Mara's intention to get an immunity hearing in one form or another, he's going about in just about the dumbest way possible.

This is the part where I say "The legal opinion of a non-lawyer is as compelling as always" right ?

Because honestly - you have to be an attorney and know the law to understand if that was a good idea or not.

No, I saw it. That was your acknowledgment that you disingenuously tried to pretend someone else made an assertion instead of you.

That's what made your implied denial just a few posts later so bizarre.

No, I'd just like to see you take responsibility for and defend your own assertions instead of repeatedly offering lame cop-outs that they're really the assertions of someone else.

MOM said Mr. Martin was lying. He was the one who deposed the three LEOs who all claimed they also heard MR. Martin say that the voice on the recording played for him was not his son.

I wasn't there, so how would I know ? It's not like I analyzed the facts and came to this conclusion on my own. If you think it makes a difference for me to say "I believe MOM when he claims Mr. Martin lied" then I think you are just playing word games.

t's the chronology that's important. Earlier posts were across-the-board disparagements of the prosecution's case, but now suddenly you're adding qualifiers. Like I said, back-pedaling.

Of course you don't. George could get convicted, and you'd still be offering denials.

I'm not sure what question you think you're answering, but this the entire exchange:

You said the defense should have a problem with putting Zimmerman on the stand at an immunity hearing.

As someone who believes the prosecution has no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's story, and that any inconsistencies in his story are insignificant, I'm curious to know what problems you perceive.

The question as to why O'Mara is refusing the opportunity to put his client on the stand at an immunity hearing in light of your assertions regarding the prosecution's lack of evidence and the unimportance of inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story.

I've already answered that.

Whether the hearings are combined isn't up to O'Mara, and they may very well not be. And yet O'Mara cancelled the original hearing before finding out if he'd be able to combine one with the trial.

I wonder why...

Because he knows more about the law than you ?

To offer your opinion as to why O'Mara is refusing the opportunity to put his client on the stand at an immunity hearing in light of your assertions regarding the prosecution's lack of evidence and the unimportance of inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story.

Then why did he refuse a chance to do just that?

Again, I've already answered those.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by KatieG View Post
I will openly call GZ a killer because that's what he is. Whether or not he is a murderer remains to be seen.


That's great. And Trayvon is juvenile delinquent with a history of drug use, truancy, and who knows what else.
No, sorry, they are not the same thing.

Why ? Because you say so ? How are they different statements in any meaningful way ?

And you dodged the question again.

Do you agree that calling GZ and anyone associated with him names is also stupid, wrong, and extreme ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The discussion is moving on. Please address the arguments at hand and stop badgering.

The arguments at hand are about the immunity hearing. I think I am spot on topic.

 

[Unabogie]

Why ? Because you say so ? How are they different statements in any meaningful way ?

And you dodged the question again.

Did you really just ask how smoking pot and shooting someone dead are meaningfully different?