• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why can't you people just admit it was wrong??? Seriously!!!
It's been pointed out that it was not acknowledged until someone else noticed and questioned it. Can't you at least acknowledge that? Why can't you admit that it was just wrong???
Maybe if people would just acknowledge that it was wrong it could be let go?

Thanks for the flashback on the dead and buried off-topic tangent.

You let me know when you are as equally indignant over the lies told by Zimmerman defenders about an actual material issue during that same time period, and I might give your complaints some credence.
 
Motion for reconsideration and clarification of the court's order dated march 4, 2013

The following MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND CLARIFICATION OF THE COURT'S ORDER DATED MARCH 4, 2013 has been filed with the Court.

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0313/motion_for_reconsideration.pdf

MOM is asking for Judge Nelson to reconsider her order saying they could not depose crump, based on witness 8 lying, and contradicting information between what crump said in his affidavit, and what was in an ABC recording released.

There are quite a few exhibits (emails, etc) attached giving a glimpse of what is going on behind the scenes with trying to get discovery materiel.
 
Maybe if people would just acknowledge that it was wrong it could be let go?
Yow. Talk about not letting stuff go....

I note you were here when this was posted by Newtons Bit, in fact your post is right above his when he said this:

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit
Right, however I think the "deal" here is that the prosecution couldn't advance the case and get a guilty verdict. Chiefly because the complainant was dead , but also that t he complainant's behavior, similar to what GZ described when the alleged assault took police, resulted in him being shot and killed by police officers.

It's really hard to build a case around that.

In fact, your post is just above his.

A few posts after that, here he is with this:


Originally Posted by Newtons Bit
You're manufacturing your own controversy to deflect from the simple truth: the assault charge and the resisting arrest without violence charge against GZ were baseless and filed by an criminally aggressive officer who was justifiably slain by other police officers due to his own recklessness .

The "deal" was just a way for the prosecutors to save face and for GZ to save money: lawyers are expensive.
BBM

NB also said this: "[the officer] was behaving erratically, unbecoming of a police officer, and in a manner entirely consistent with GZ's claims."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8869510&postcount=4582

Then the flag was carried by L8 and a few others...and brought up again a few days ago.

And what did I uncover? That what he posted was totally made up bull crap, with even a wildly gratuitous and macabre slam at the cop who made the arrest. A cop who is very much alive, and was even nominated for Officer of the Year a few years after.

In fact the story NB posted didn't even comport with what they were saying that "he didn't identify himself" --

Right in that story, NB dragged here and said (paraphrase) "Z's story checks out" -- That is, the officer did not identify himself --

But, if you read the story, it says: : "it appeared that Jenkins did have his badge displayed - it was hanging on a lanyard around his neck. "

So, even that was totally made up, totally wrong on all counts. It took some sleuthing to uncover some of the details of Z's original arrest, AND the FBI report. Not easy to find in that mound of documentation. But I did it.

And what did I do? Made the ever so fatal mistake in all that of cutting and pasting an easier to read link that I thought was every bit of the original.

Then when I reread it later and saw the error, I was unable to edit, (JREF forum allows a precious little window in editing time.)

And what that error? The arrest (which I linked to) WITH THE CHARGE OF FELONY WITH VIOLENCE -- and the FBI report (which I linked to) actually included an editorial line at the end using the word VIOLENT, in the charging of Zimmerman with

FELONY WITH VIOLENCE.

Smelling salts, someone get the smelling salts!

It seems you were much less concerned about the TOTAL BULL CRAP STORY pushed by NB & L8 (for what 3 months?) which includes such incendiary language as "a criminally aggressive officer who was justifiably slain by other police officers due to his own recklessness."

No, what you are upset about is that I really got under your collar for pointing out a tall tale told here, and swallowed by others, and hence the need to turn the tables on Rare Truth for pointing it out, and then make that mistake 20 times bigger than it actually was because attacking the messenger is a sure fire way to remove the hinky from that bit of discomfort Z supporters experienced with that revelation.

At last, and finally, for true, we now see the violence inherent in the system!

Also. Too.

Liken it to witch hunts. Once people get scared they see the bogeyman everywhere.
Indeed

I'm talking about the evidence that has already been provided here numerous times by numerous people. The stuff we've ALL seen. I don't have the time or the patience to go back digging up posts just because people like to parse words and drag out the arguments. I remember what I've seen and I comment on it and that's just the way it is with me. If something changes my mind, I'll remember that too.

Yes indeed.

Can we put an end to this now?
 
Last edited:
The following MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND CLARIFICATION OF THE COURT'S ORDER DATED MARCH 4, 2013 has been filed with the Court.

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0313/motion_for_reconsideration.pdf

MOM is asking for Judge Nelson to reconsider her order saying they could not depose crump, based on witness 8 lying, and contradicting information between what crump said in his affidavit, and what was in an ABC recording released.

There are quite a few exhibits (emails, etc) attached giving a glimpse of what is going on behind the scenes with trying to get discovery materiel.

I don't understand this strategy. Mr. Crump has nothing to do with the state's case against George, and although this line of inquiry could help in a civil case if Crump were litigating it, a conviction in a criminal case will produce a prima facia case at a civil trial and George would lose there as well.

I have never understood the obsession with Mr. Crump and it won't help the defendant and isn't relevant. This case will rely on a clear demonstration that George lied to the cops about what happened there and that he wasn't in reasonable fear for his life and that he caused the whole incident. What Crump has to do with that I'm not sure.
 
On the newest Motion for Reconsideration.

Wow. What lying sacks of crap O'Mara and his team are.

<SNIP>

See that blank space there in the O'Mara version?

He completely dropped the "something."

Which is everything.
[/SIZE][/FONT]
Yeah. He did that.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

I'm sorry, who lied ? Who did what ? You mean witness 8 lied ? We know.
 
I don't understand this strategy. Mr. Crump has nothing to do with the state's case against George, and although this line of inquiry could help in a civil case if Crump were litigating it, a conviction in a criminal case will produce a prima facia case at a civil trial and George would lose there as well.

I have never understood the obsession with Mr. Crump and it won't help the defendant and isn't relevant. This case will rely on a clear demonstration that George lied to the cops about what happened there and that he wasn't in reasonable fear for his life and that he caused the whole incident. What Crump has to do with that I'm not sure.
Check this out, at the last hearing:

Move up to 2:00 where the medical records are discussed:


Then look how peeved the judge was with defense ...practically bopping his head with saying...

ASK THE DAMN WITNESS YOURSELF!
This is the third time I've told you this!
<---editorially embellished paraphrase
 
I don't understand this strategy. Mr. Crump has nothing to do with the state's case against George, and although this line of inquiry could help in a civil case if Crump were litigating it, a conviction in a criminal case will produce a prima facia case at a civil trial and George would lose there as well.

I have never understood the obsession with Mr. Crump and it won't help the defendant and isn't relevant. This case will rely on a clear demonstration that George lied to the cops about what happened there and that he wasn't in reasonable fear for his life and that he caused the whole incident. What Crump has to do with that I'm not sure.

Members of Zimmerman's fan club are upset with Crump because of the media firestorm he stirred up, so they want to see him punished in some manner.

That's the only reason I can think of why someone who has absolutely nothing to do with the facts of this case keeps being brought up.
 
Last edited:
Members of Zimmerman's fan club are upset with Crump because of the media firestorm he stirred up, so they want to see him punished in some manner.

That's the only reason I can think of why someone who has absolutely nothing to do with the facts of this case keeps being brought up.

Not only does he have nothing to do with the facts of the case, he's not even a participant of the criminal case. The state interviewed Witness 8 themselves and O'Mara has thus far neglected to do so for whatever reason. But Crump won't testify at the trial and he's not part of the prosecution team.

I can *speculate* as to why they obsess over him, but that would hurt some fee fees.
 
You realize, of course, someone is going to see your original post, ignore this one, and all hell is going to break loose over what a liar you are.

No they won't, since he removed it. And the second post where he doubled down even after he was corrected.
 
No they won't, since he removed it. And the second post where he doubled down even after he was corrected.

No, they will because even though Rare Truth removed the erroroneous post, it's quoted in the very next post by Unabogie in which the error was pointed out, which Rare Truth in turned acknowledged before correcting his mistake.

And all this happened before you came along.

It's deja vu all over again.
 
Right on cue...
veryfunny.gif
 
No, they will because even though Rare Truth removed the erroroneous post, it's quoted in the very next post by Unabogie in which the error was pointed out, which Rare Truth in turned acknowledged before correcting his mistake.

And all this happened before you came along.

It's deja vu all over again.
In all this Rare Truth truthiness, I should point out

Rare Truth is a chick.

A really smart, hawt chick.

icon_mrgreen_zpsef9f1d93.gif
 
No, they will because even though Rare Truth removed the erroroneous post, it's quoted in the very next post by Unabogie in which the error was pointed out, which Rare Truth in turned acknowledged before correcting his mistake.

And all this happened before you came along.

It's deja vu all over again.


Really all that happened before I came along and posted this , 2 posts before his acknowledgement ?

Are you sure ? Or are you just playing the cover-up agent for Rare Truth again ?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom