Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[johnny karate]

That statement is simply wrong on the face of it.

Although the Judge decided there were no discovery violations, she:
a) gave MOM the opportunity to submit redaction on BDLRs response if he chose
b) left open the possibility of sanctions

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Minutes from April 30 Docket Sounding.pdf
COURT RESERVES RULING AS TO MONETARY REIMBURSEMENT, IF ANY, AS TO PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES AND AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL AT A DATE TO BE SET BY THE COURT
and
COURT RESERVES RULING AT CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL AT A DATE TO BE BY THE COURT.

So aside from sanctions, which he spelled out specifically, I don't see what the " "pretty much everything else" part could even refer to ?

I'll let Unabogie respond to that last part, if he wishes. I was just offering my speculation.

As to the rest, I'm not sure what you're arguing.

There were no discovery violations.

There were no sanctions.

The defense lost.

YET.

Reimbursement =/= sanctions.

There were no discovery violations.

There were no sanctions.

The defense lost.

How about it ? That's not evidence of what was claimed.

The exchange in question was about determining the existence of discovery violations. In case you don't recall how that turned out, the defense lost.

You may object to the use of the term "shishkabobbing" but you can't deny the defense lost.

Because they did.

That there were no discovery violations. Basically because MOM and West cured them themselves prior to the trial, not necessarily because the prosecution didn't to anything wrong.Clearly, leaving open the possibility of monetary sanctions is an indication the prosecution wasn't following the spirit or the letter of the law.You don't mean to say you believe BDLR simply 'forgot' to mention lie about the hospital until the last possible moment, do you ?

What I believe is that there were no discovery violations, because that's how the judge ruled, and that's as far as this issue goes.

The defense lost.

I didn't count.

Well, maybe you should. That way we can get an accurate measure of just how victorious the defense really was. Because winning motions that are unopposed by the prosecution isn't all that impressive.

Let me know if you'd rather not, and I'll be more than happy to tally things up.

 

[This is The End]

There is no evidence that Martin was looking for an opportunity to burglarize a home the night Zimmerman killed him.

Let's say they not only find evidence that M was a burglar in the past, but they also find evidence that M was being a burglar and casing houses on the night in question.

Would it have anything at all to do with whether or not Z was in a valid self-defense situation at the moment he pulled the trigger?

 

[Cylinder]

Let's say they not only find evidence that M was a burglar in the past, but they also find evidence that M was being a burglar and casing houses on the night in question.

Would it have anything at all to do with whether or not Z was in a valid self-defense situation at the moment he pulled the trigger?

Yes. For instance, the jury could find that in your hypothetical tha Zimemrman was acting reasonably to prevent a forcible felony. Of course, in reality the "moment he pulled the trigger" is not the only consideration in charges that the state chose.

 

[johnny karate]

Let's say they not only find evidence that M was a burglar in the past, but they also find evidence that M was being a burglar and casing houses on the night in question.

Would it have anything at all to do with whether or not Z was in a valid self-defense situation at the moment he pulled the trigger?

Yes. For instance, the jury could find that in your hypothetical tha Zimemrman was acting reasonably to prevent a forcible felony. Of course, in reality the "moment he pulled the trigger" is not the only consideration in charges that the state chose.

They're not going to find any evidence that Martin was in the process of a "forcible felony" because there isn't any.

He was a teenage boy walking home from the store in light colored clothing and talking to his friend on the phone.

There exists exactly zero corroborative evidence that he was doing anything more.

 

[johnny karate]

I provided links to actual evidence, affidavits of M-DSPD admitting they covered up the crime when they found the jewelry found in TMs possession.

I'm sorry I am not more surprised that you just hand wave it away and claim it is not actual evidence without even reading it.

I didn't ask for evidence of a police cover up.

I asked for evidence of a burglary.

Conspiracy theories to hide the alleged burglary do not interest me.

As I said, I believe it will come out in the trial, if not before. I don't have a copy of the police report that may match the jewelry found on TM. I am going off the large amounts of circumstantial evidence we have.

How will it come up in trial?

At what point will the defense be allowed to speculate that Martin was a burglar (since they obviously can't prove it)?

Please cite the law that allows the defense for an accused murderer to offer slanderous speculation regarding the victim into evidence.

Someone claims TM was not a potential burglar, and was wrongly profiled, proof of his being in possession of stolen goods will be used to contradict that claim.

Who is going to claim Martin is not a burglar and why would they have to?

Since the prosecution is obviously not going to start their opening statement with "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Trayvon Martin is not a burglar" how do you imagine such speculation will find its way into the trial?

Again, why else did the Judge granted a motion for photographing and inspecting it the stolen jewelry if it is irrelevant, and will never find its way to trial ?

What makes you think that just because the judge granted that motion it means speculation regarding Martin being a burglar will be allowed into evidence?

Please cite the law that supports such an assertion.

Really ? You think MOM motion was a ruse ? And even though Judge Nelson may still sanction BDLR, that means it "blew up in his face" ?

You keep mentioning "sanctions".

There were no sanctions and there's not going to be. Because there were no discovery violations. And that's what the sanctions were supposed to be for.

From your link:

Attorney O'Mara with defense motions for sanctions against state attorney's office for discovery violations and for payment of attorney fees and costs

I've bolded and enlarged the key words.

The sanctions were specifically for the discovery violations.

There were no discovery violations.

Therefore, there will not be any sanctions.

The reimbursement is a separate issue as determined by the use of the word "and".

Conflating reimbursement with sanctions is not honest argumentation.

And yes, I think the discovery violation motions were a ruse. Because there weren't any discovery violations.

Either that, or O'Mara is too incompetent an attorney to make a successful argument to a judge.

Either way, he lost. He failed. He claimed the prosecution was behaving unethically and it turns out they weren't.

In other words, it blew up in his face.

 

[Cylinder]

They're not going to find any evidence that Martin was in the process of a "forcible felony" because there isn't any.

In reality, there's plenty of evidence Martin was in the process of a forcible felony. The part you quoted, though, was in response to a hypothetical scenario.

 

[This is The End]

In reality, there's plenty of evidence Martin was in the process of a forcible felony.

Could you name some of it?

Also, does any of that "plenty" of evidence preclude the possibility that M was merely defending himself?

 

[Dancing David]

L*Elvis,
I looked through your documents:
I want to ask you
1. What documents are there that show the list of items matching those in TM's possession?

 

[johnny karate]

In reality, there's plenty of evidence Martin was in the process of a forcible felony.

Yes, and that evidence is so plentiful and so compelling that the defense will of course be presenting it at a pretrial immunity hearing in order to avoid the cost and risk of a trial.

Oh wait...

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

At the time he described this behavior he wasn't charged with his murder. In 47 calls to the police in over a year prior, there isn't one single example of him making up supposed behavior of someone as an excuse to call police on them. Are you claiming he just started that on that night?

Why was Zimmerman calling the police on them those 47 times? You seem to be implying that he had no reason to be suspicious of anything all those times.

You'll have to prove he was lying and I don't think you can do that. Moreover the time line should show Martin did not walk directly home from the 7/11 in a timely manner.

<snip>

Are you claiming that he didn't walk home in a "timely manner" for a teenager chatting with a girl on the phone? 'Cause I'm not sure how you quantify that.

 

[Cylinder]

Yes, and that evidence is so plentiful and so compelling that the defense will of course be presenting it at a pretrial immunity hearing in order to avoid the cost and risk of a trial.

Oh wait...

No matter how many times it is repeated, it's remains Truther-grade logic. The evidence is what is is no matter what a particular party chooses to do with it.

 

[Cylinder]

State's Motion in Limine as to Appropriate Penalty or Disregard of Law

The state is seeking to prohibit testimony by witnesses or statements by attornies regarding the appropriate penalty for Zimmerman or suggesting that the law be disregarded.

State's Motion in Limine Regarding Self Serving Hearsay Statements of Defendant

The state is seeking to limit self-serving hearsay statements without proper foundation (i.e. Zimmerman testifying to them.)

State's Motion in Limine Rearding Defendant's Prior Criminal History

The state is seeking to prohibit testimony regarding Zimmerman's lack of previous felony convictions.

State's Motion to Limit/Exclude Improper Opinion Evidence

The state is seeking to prohibit statements or testimony regarding the propriatey of Zimmerman's charges or his guilt by family or law enforcement.

State's Motion in Limine Regarding Trayvon Martin

The state is seeking to prohibit testimony regarding Tayvon martin being suspended, having ever been in a fight, use of marijuana, any social media names or content, ever wearing fake gold teeth, performance in school, text messages before Feb. 26 and text messages on Feb. 26 that are not relevant.

State's Motion for Protective Order/Order in Limine Regarding Toxocology Reports

The state is seeking to prohibit testimony or statements from witnesses regarding Martin's toxicology report.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

L*Elvis,
I looked through your documents:
I want to ask you
1. What documents are there that show the list of items matching those in TM's possession?

There is not one on the Internet that I can link to. I said as much in my earlier post about it.

I assumed (wrongly at this point) that within a few days, someone would have acquired the referenced police report and posted it somewhere on the Internet, and at that point, we would be able to validate the claim for ourselves.

The representative present in the courtroom and the court order allowing the inspection and photography of the M-DSPD evidence (jewelry) was additional circumstantial evidence that lead me to believe that it may be relevant, and therefor, IMO, bolsters the claim that there was actually a police report matching the missing items that were found in TMs possession.

It still may come up in trial, although it appears that the State is moving to make sure nothing regarding TMs past is brought up....
http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/court-documents

I understand that the CTH has their own agenda, and they may be full of ****, just doing it for the LULZ, etc. But I also thought that within the context of this particular claim, it's quite possibly legitimate. Whether it will be relevant to the trial or not, I don't know. Since the charging document t claims GZ improperly profiled TM, I think this opens the door to defending GZ profiling of TM.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I'm not sure I follow.

Can you point out the "musing" that has since been admitted into evidence?

No, you are not following. It was simply meant to be funny, hence the

 

[johnny karate]

No matter how many times it is repeated, it's remains Truther-grade logic. The evidence is what is is no matter what a particular party chooses to do with it.

Yes, I'm sure that's it.

The evidence that proves Martin was in the process of a "forcible felony" is of course plentiful, and its plentiful status is irrefutable despite the fact that reality doesn't happen to be bearing that out.

Why, it's true simply because it has been asserted to be true.

 

[johnny karate]

No, you are not following. It was simply meant to be funny, hence the

My mistake.

I thought you were making an attempt to refute what I said.

And since what you posted didn't actually refute what I said, I was confused as to the puspose of your post.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You keep mentioning "sanctions".

There were no sanctions and there's not going to be. Because there were no discovery violations. And that's what the sanctions were supposed to be for.

From your link:


I've bolded and enlarged the key words.

The sanctions were specifically for the discovery violations.

There were no discovery violations.

Therefore, there will not be any sanctions.

The reimbursement is a separate issue as determined by the use of the word "and".
Conflating reimbursement with sanctions is not honest argumentation.

There is no conflation. Read past the title, and in the document you will see:

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS

...
16. As sanctions for this discovery violation, pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.220 (2)
the Defense requests that this Honorable Court enter an order requiring the State Attorney's
office to reimburse the Defense for all the time expended to seek out this information otherwise
readily available to the State Attorney's Office, and having to do so through additional letters,
conversations, inquiries, investigations, the filing of the motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum, and
other investigative efforts. An Affidavit of Attorney Fees will be presented at hearing.

 

[Cylinder]

The state trotted out Alan Riech as a voice expert. His conclusions are comical.

For example, approximately one second after the start of CALL3 , Mr. Zimmerman makes a seemingly religious proclamation, "These shall be." His speech is characterized by the low pitch and exaggerated pitch contour reminiscent of an evangelical preacher or carnival barker. The statement is challenging for the untrained listener to detect as it occurs simultaneously with Trayvon Martin's loud, high-pitched, distressed, and tremulous “I'm begging you." and the 911 Dispatcher's “Nine-one-one. " Many of Mr.
Zimmerman's "side-bar" utterances are subject to such multiple-talker masking effects and to low signal levels.

So, he's screaming like a preacher or barker, but you can't hear it unless you have a golden ear. This is pseudoscience at its worst.

 

[Darkman]

Pretty good video that i came accross elsewhere:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqDawFFDkYg

 

[Darkman]

May 13, 2013

Team Trayvon's Big Lie

By Jack Cashill

While watching George Zimmerman's immunity hearing online in late April 2013, Chip Bennett took satisfaction seeing Florida prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda flail away at the one blog that has given him fits from the beginning. "BDLR alleges that The Conservative Treehouse doxed Witness 8," Bennett commented. "Double shot!"

By "Double shot," Bennett meant "doubly cool." This was the second of three occasions on which de la Rionda would refer to the Treehouse. By "doxed" he meant, in a word, "outed." More comprehensively, the Urban Dictionary defines "doxing" as "a technique of tracing someone or gathering information about an individual using sources on the internet." The word likely derives from the Microsoft Word format "Docx."

lol......

Jack Cashill's book on this case, "If I Had a Son," will be published soon after the trial.

-----

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/team_trayvons_big_lie.html
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook