FREE TAPATALK APP

crimresearch · 14th June 2012, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by Kaosium

David, I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you. If you want to go over the evidence, we will. Let's start with the APC, that was the basis of my statement and would make an excellent model for helping determine whether she made a case 'far past her evidence' like I said. After all, that's supposed to be an example of the case they're going to make, and since this is Florida we now have access to much of the evidence and can evaluate how well the evidence supports her case, and (some of us!) can also gain some...insight...regarding just how she formulates her contentions.

I'll start with a positive. The last two paragraphs preceding the disclaimer and naming the charge are well-formulated. In a concise fashion all the information one could reasonably expect is there, and has since been supported by the additional evidence available to us. It is necessary to this charge that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin. We have an admission by GZ, evidence he had a gun on him, evidence the gun was fired, and then evidence Trayvon Martin died of a gunshot wound. Evaluating the raw evidence since disclosed has corroborated that section of the APC, as has additional evidence available through other sources. George Zimmerman has not withdrawn his admission, the physical evidence available is consistent with their claims.

The rest of the APC doesn't live up to that standard, though I'll be happy to hear your arguments on the subject. More than Trayvon being shot by George Zimmerman is required to support the murder two charge, and that part is deficient. So much so that it's obvious to a casual observer with even a passing knowledge of the subject, anyone telling you different is lying (or 'spinning'--pure pig ignorance is also a possibility!) to you, and I'll be happy to demonstrate why, I don't need to rely on authorities (though there are many who'd corroborate that of course) I can show you just why. It may take a hundred pages, but we'll get there. The actual evidence doesn't support the rest of the contentions, and the contentions themselves aren't necessarily indicative of murder.

Just start with a paragraph and see if it supports one of the necessary contentions being made, and if the totality of the evidence available to us (now) suggests that it is an accurate representation of the facts and evidence in the case. I think if you go through this you'll find out just why I am as confident of my position as I am, as if you think on it this will pretty much demonstrate why someone might be able to say 'a charge far past the evidence.'

Or you can blow me off with a snarky comment. Your call.

So anyone who believes the actual legal facts over your opinions, is lying or pig headed ignorant, because you don't need authories, you could just show them, but it would take over 100 pages to prove them wrong?

Did I get that right?

Because I'd hate to misunderstand you.

OnlyTellsTruths · 14th June 2012, 05:08 PM

Can anyone nail this down?

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

Could someone clarify the time-line on the document dump that has to happen within 15 days.

Would that make it the day of, or the day before, the next bond hearing that is on the 29th?

Cylinder · 14th June 2012, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

Can anyone nail this down?

Oririnal order dated 6-12, so 6-27 at the latest.

Cylinder · 14th June 2012, 05:53 PM

MOM filed a pleading notifying the court of his witnesses in the upcoming bond hearing, Shelley Glenn and Micheal Smith. They are the original bond agents for All Star Majic Bail Bonds.

Unabogie · 14th June 2012, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by Cylinder

MOM filed a pleading notifying the court of his witnesses in the upcoming bond hearing, Shelley Glenn and Micheal Smith. They are the original bond agents for All Star Majic Bail Bonds.

That's just weird. Any idea on what the bailbonds people could say in his defense?

GWCarver · 14th June 2012, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

That's just weird. Any idea on what the bailbonds people could say in his defense?

Jeralyn's take on it:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/14/195655/700

OnlyTellsTruths · 14th June 2012, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by Cylinder

Oririnal order dated 6-12, so 6-27 at the latest.

OK so Wed. will be the evidence dump and Fri. the bond hearing.

Unabogie · 14th June 2012, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by GWCarver

Jeralyn's take on it:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/14/195655/700

Shorter Jeralyn: he lied to the bailbonds people too?

First of all, they used the money to pay off their personal bills. Like credit cards and Sam's Club stuff! So they want the court to believe that they thought the money could go for personal bills but not bail? From the legal defense fund?

Not credible.

But second, they are on tape! They clearly discussed how to use the money for bond.

They discussed having $100 grand and "just paying the $15" if it went over that amount. They clearly knew the money could be used for this purpose. That they kept the ruse going with other people besides the court just means they are bigger liars than we thought.

GZ: If the bond is $50, pay the 15. If it's more than 15, just pay 15% to the bondsman. SZ: You want me to pay $100?
GZ: Hell no.
SZ: All right just think about it.
GZ: I will.
SZ: That's what it's for. - Source

applecorped · 14th June 2012, 06:26 PM

Free Mumia, er I mean George.

crimresearch · 14th June 2012, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by Cylinder

MOM filed a pleading notifying the court of his witnesses in the upcoming bond hearing, Shelley Glenn and Micheal Smith. They are the original bond agents for All Star Majic Bail Bonds.

Majic Bail bonds... Because if you beat this rap, it's Majic.

Noztradamus · 14th June 2012, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by applecorped

Free Mumia, er I mean George.

Get out of my mind! I've been thinking for a month that now the wingnuts have a "Da Man is railroading one of ourn own" poster boy to match the moonbats.

GWCarver · 14th June 2012, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Shorter Jeralyn: he lied to the bailbonds people too?

First of all, they used the money to pay off their personal bills. Like credit cards and Sam's Club stuff! So they want the court to believe that they thought the money could go for personal bills but not bail? From the legal defense fund?

Not credible.

But second, they are on tape! They clearly discussed how to use the money for bond.

They discussed having $100 grand and "just paying the $15" if it went over that amount. They clearly knew the money could be used for this purpose. That they kept the ruse going with other people besides the court just means they are bigger liars than we thought.

GZ: If the bond is $50, pay the 15. If it's more than 15, just pay 15% to the bondsman. SZ: You want me to pay $100?
GZ: Hell no.
SZ: All right just think about it.
GZ: I will.
SZ: That's what it's for. - Source

He ended up paying 5 dollars and still owes the bondsman 10 dollars.

I guess we will have to hear the bond agents' testimony to see what they were told. A good guess, since O'Mara is calling them to testify, is that their testimony will help Zimmerman.

ETA - Jeralyn has never had any real doubt Zimmerman will get bail again. She's less certain of the amount.

Mumbles · 14th June 2012, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by Kaosium

Have you ever seen someone pull to the side of the road to take a call on a cell phone? Do you freak out and run, even if they're looking at you which might simply be because you're moving in their field of vision?

If they've clearly pulled over in order to stare at me...well, I wouldn't run, but I'd be ready for a fight. And if that person then gets out and starts tailing me, he'll face a *very* angry Mumbles telling him in no uncertain terms to back off or get beaten.

Quote:

Zimmerman said he did so because he thought Trayvon was acting suspiciously, walking strangely and eying the houses in the neighborhood. Then when TM noticed him he took off running, which could easily be interpreted as somewhat suspicious. That TM had just gone to the store for 'tea and skittles' is rather dubious considering that according to the timestamps he must have taken 45 minutes to walk roughly a thousand yards.

Frankly, this makes Zimmerman look like an idiot. His only actual description of what martin was doing was "walking around, looking about", "looking at houses". That's a person walking down the street, period. If Martin was stumbling (in which case, how did he suddenly become an MMA Champion who can meld into shadows?), or peeping into windows, as I've already said, then Zimmerman should have said that in his phone call. He didn't.

And that's the entire point. Zimmerman had no *actual* reason to suspect Martin of anything at all. And once he had convinced himself, *anything* Martin did would be seen as "suspicious", since Zimmerman had already convinced himself that martin was some sort of villain. And we see that in his 911 call, where Zimmerman finds Martin "suspicious" because he's walking or running, looking at him or at houses, moving towards or away from him, or having his hand in his waistband.

As for the claim that martin went to the store to buy some snacks, at this point, we really have nothing at all to contradict it, and strong evidence that it's true. How long he took to walk is pretty irrelevant.

Quote:

This ended with TM administering a beating to GZ, unwilling to budge even when a bystander told him he was calling police with wounds all over GZ's face and head. The evidence suggests that TM was exactly the sort one might want to call police on, his subsequent running and eventually beating of George Zimmerman hardly justified by George pulling over to use the phone and then running after him and stopping not long afterward.

Again, no. I find Martin's suspicion of Zimmerman to be completely reasonable. And stop saying that Zimmerman "pulled over to use the phone", since it's clear that he pulled over to watch Martin. And we're assuming that Martin started the fight, which makes no sense, given that Martin was apparently not interested in any sort of confrontation, while Zimmerman was clearly angry at him.

Quote:

Think about it this way: had the police gotten there moments earlier before the shot, just what do you think would have been the outcome of this event? Probably jail time for Trayvon, and it would simply be a lesson for GZ that if you call the police on someone you think dangerous it would be best to let them handle it.

Well, Trayvon was a 17 year old black kid, and Martin was Mr. Neighborhood Watch. I'm sure that Martin would end up in legal trouble. I'm not convinced that this would be fair.

GWCarver · 14th June 2012, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Uh, no. I mean, I suppose it's possible, but that's just about the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

OK, forget about the commentary, and just concentrate on the interview. Try to picture, if you will, Bernie putting DeeDee on the stand knowing as soon as the prosecution rests, O'Mara will be questioning him under oath not only about this interview, but the original interview(s), and the testimony she has just given. Every question, all of the changes, how DeeDee, who had originally heard a "rustling sound" - a word not likely to be in her vocabulary - turned into her hearing a "bump" , which then changed into her hearing "something hit someone" 30 seconds later (after Bernie supplied that description himself) etc. He could be up there a long time, and his credibility with the jury could be severely damaged.

So, I think if DeeDee is going to testify, Bernie won't be part of the prosecution team. I don't think Corey can risk it.

ETA - I wonder if Corey had de la Rionda do this interview because Crump said he didn't trust the Sanford PD. As it turns out they were there, but apparently just as observers.

Unabogie · 14th June 2012, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by GWCarver

OK, forget about the commentary, and just concentrate on the interview. Try to picture, if you will, Bernie putting DeeDee on the stand knowing as soon as the prosecution rests, O'Mara will be questioning him under oath not only about this interview, but the original interview(s), and the testimony she has just given. Every question, all of the changes, how DeeDee, who had originally heard a "rustling sound" - a word not likely to be in her vocabulary - turned into her hearing a "bump" , which then changed into her hearing "something hit someone" 30 seconds later (after Bernie supplied that description himself) etc. He could be up there a long time, and his credibility with the jury could be severely damaged.

So, I think if DeeDee is going to testify, Bernie won't be part of the prosecution team. I don't think Corey can risk it.

ETA - I wonder if Corey had de la Rionda do this interview because Crump said he didn't trust the Sanford PD. As it turns out they were there, but apparently just as observers.

Sorry. George's lawyers will not be calling the DA as a witness. That's for the movies.

Gazpacho · 14th June 2012, 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

OK, so while I continue to think GZ is an idiot, and that his public credibility has taken a hit over this, it was actually GZ's team which notified the court. If you think about it, an argument could actually be made that shows integrity

I think there might be situations where a lawyer who catches his client lying to the court has a legal and ethical duty to bring it to the court's attention, on his own initiative.

GWCarver · 14th June 2012, 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Sorry. George's lawyers will not be calling the DA as a witness. That's for the movies.

He made himself a potential witness when he did the interview, but only if DeeDee is on the witness list. Look at this is a movie in which the State Attorney, for whatever reason, used an ASA instead of an investigator to do an interview. You wouldn't be surprised at all if Gilbreath was called for the same exact reason as de la Rionda would be called.

I can't think of any downside to O'Mara putting him on the stand. It's a win, win - discredit DeeDee and discredit Bernie. Even if he isn't on the prosecution team in court, I think he still will be called to testify about the interview, if she is called.

Unabogie · 14th June 2012, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by GWCarver

He made himself a potential witness when he did the interview, but only if DeeDee is on the witness list. Look at this is a movie in which the State Attorney, for whatever reason, used an ASA instead of an investigator to do an interview. You wouldn't be surprised at all if Gilbreath was called for the same exact reason as de la Rionda would be called.

I can't think of any downside to O'Mara putting him on the stand. It's a win, win - discredit DeeDee and discredit Bernie. Even if he isn't on the prosecution team in court, I think he still will be called to testify about the interview, if she is called.

If George doesn't plea, she will take the stand and Bernie will not. Book it.

Noztradamus · 15th June 2012, 01:09 AM

Originally Posted by Mumbles

Again, no. I find Martin's suspicion of Zimmerman to be completely reasonable. And stop saying that Zimmerman "pulled over to use the phone", since it's clear that he pulled over to watch Martin. And we're assuming that Martin started the fight, which makes no sense, given that Martin was apparently not interested in any sort of confrontation, while Zimmerman was clearly angry at him.

Quote:

Quote:
Think about it this way: had the police gotten there moments earlier before the shot, just what do you think would have been the outcome of this event? Probably jail time for Trayvon, and it would simply be a lesson for GZ that if you call the police on someone you think dangerous it would be best to let them handle it.

Well, Trayvon was a 17 year old black kid, and Martin was Mr. Neighborhood Watch. I'm sure that Martin would end up in legal trouble. I'm not convinced that this would be fair.

"This dude pulled his truck over to stare at me, chased me, told me I was in trouble because I was in the wrong 'hood, and drew a gun when I tried to get away"

Maybe the cops would still clear George and Trayvon would be in legal trouble with that story. And given that Dee Dee's version broadly supports that and George's response of "No I was reaching for my cell phone, how my gun got into my hand is a complete mystery", maybe not.

One thing certain: the 'net would still be arguing.

Dancing David · 15th June 2012, 05:16 AM

Originally Posted by Gazpacho

I think there might be situations where a lawyer who catches his client lying to the court has a legal and ethical duty to bring it to the court's attention, on his own initiative.

That would really change a lot of our legal system. How about lawyers who lie on behalf of their clients.

Mumbles · 15th June 2012, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by GWCarver

Here is a transcript of DeeDee's interview with de la Rionda, complete with commentary. Providing the author is correct in his analysis, if the state calls DeeDee, Bernie can be called by the defense to explain his interviewing technique. So, it is possible Bernie could be O'Mara's star witness.

https://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpre...erview-kaboom/

Let's call this one for good. The site you linked to references the much-linked Conservative Treehouse. This is a huge piece of evidence against them.

Conservative treehouse is a blatently racist site, period. They've calling Donald Trump's idiotic Birther nonsense "very credible",and they've engaged in all sorts of baseless and ridiculous speculation about Martin. They're also obsessed with the phony "race war" trope that the right wing is currently insistent on. And of course, this is the same sight that insists that Martin's parents are in it for the money, and not because their son was pursued and killed for...um, walking home from the local corner store.

But my favorite...after spending months howling about some idiot who stalked an unarmed teenager just walking down the street? Months of baseless speculation, attacking a dead teenager, and defending a guy who decided to pursue the teen for no apparent reason? When a video of a stepfather beating his son with a belt for not catching a ball emerges, the exact same people whine "Mind your own damn business!"!

So, basically, when I see a site refer to them and claim that they've done a good job, I automatically write the site off. It's just a disgusting site, all around, and anyone with a basic sense of morality can figure that out easily. Sites that link to it as a credible source don't deserve the time of day.

LTC8K6 · 15th June 2012, 06:01 AM

http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/pre...d-of-discovery

Yesterday, the prosecution delivered a second round of discovery to the defense. The discovery package includes 7 compact discs and hundreds of pages of documents. It includes surveillance video, police radio transmissions, crime scene photos, 911 calls Mr. Zimmerman made prior to the night of the shooting, and more. The documents include a crime scene diagram, and additional reports from the Sanford Police Department, FDLE, and the FBI. According the June 1 ruling of the Court, the defense will have 30 days to review the discovery before it is made available to the public.

The discovery process is ongoing, and we expect additional discovery to be disclosed as the case develops.

Dcdrac · 15th June 2012, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by Mumbles

Let's call this one for good. The site you linked to references the much-linked Conservative Treehouse. This is a huge piece of evidence against them.

Conservative treehouse is a blatently racist site, period. They've calling Donald Trump's idiotic Birther nonsense "very credible",and they've engaged in all sorts of baseless and ridiculous speculation about Martin. They're also obsessed with the phony "race war" trope that the right wing is currently insistent on. And of course, this is the same sight that insists that Martin's parents are in it for the money, and not because their son was pursued and killed for...um, walking home from the local corner store.

But my favorite...after spending months howling about some idiot who stalked an unarmed teenager just walking down the street? Months of baseless speculation, attacking a dead teenager, and defending a guy who decided to pursue the teen for no apparent reason? When a video of a stepfather beating his son with a belt for not catching a ball emerges, the exact same people whine "Mind your own damn business!"!

So, basically, when I see a site refer to them and claim that they've done a good job, I automatically write the site off. It's just a disgusting site, all around, and anyone with a basic sense of morality can figure that out easily. Sites that link to it as a credible source don't deserve the time of day.

Your feelings about this site and the other right wing sites pointed to, mirror mine exactly, it has been an invaluable lesson in how extreme the right seems to be becoming.

JoeTheJuggler · 15th June 2012, 07:06 AM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

If in fact you had been reading the thread, instead of pulling these drive bys, you'd see that I'm not the one claiming that the perjury charges will affect George's murder conviction.

I wonder who was, though??

Rubbish as usual.

Equivocation. You're trying to lump your claim about the prosecution having to take time away from a murder trial (which hasn't begun) to pursue the perjury charge.

My claim was that the perjury charge will affect the credibility of testimony in the murder case.

Those are two distinctly different claims.

You're now attempting to lump them into one rather than admit that you misspoke when you claimed that pursuing the perjury charge will somehow cause prosecution to take time away from the murder trial.

I stand by my claim. The perjury charge will affect the credibility of George Zimmerman, and his defense relies to a large extent on his account of the incident.

ETA: The frequency of my posts on this thread is entirely irrelevant.

ETA: FWIW, the fact that the perjury charge affects the credibility of Zimmerman's testimony is pertinent to the murder case, so it's completely reasonable for the same prosecutor to make both cases. In fact, that's probably more efficient than assigning another prosecutor to the perjury case. And I don't think just ignoring the perjury is at all appropriate.

GWCarver · 15th June 2012, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

If George doesn't plea, she will take the stand and Bernie will not. Book it.

I'm not seeing a persuasive argument here. In fact, I'm not seeing an argument at all.

KingMerv00 · 15th June 2012, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

That would really change a lot of our legal system. How about lawyers who lie on behalf of their clients.

It wouldn't change anything because that is the current rule. A lawyer may not knowing allow a witness to give false testimony. (S)he doesn't have to believe the witness but outright lies are forbidden. Naturally, lawyers aren't allowed to lie either.

See here.

GWCarver · 15th June 2012, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by Mumbles

Let's call this one for good. The site you linked to references the much-linked Conservative Treehouse. This is a huge piece of evidence against them.

Conservative treehouse is a blatently racist site, period. They've calling Donald Trump's idiotic Birther nonsense "very credible",and they've engaged in all sorts of baseless and ridiculous speculation about Martin. They're also obsessed with the phony "race war" trope that the right wing is currently insistent on. And of course, this is the same sight that insists that Martin's parents are in it for the money, and not because their son was pursued and killed for...um, walking home from the local corner store.

But my favorite...after spending months howling about some idiot who stalked an unarmed teenager just walking down the street? Months of baseless speculation, attacking a dead teenager, and defending a guy who decided to pursue the teen for no apparent reason? When a video of a stepfather beating his son with a belt for not catching a ball emerges, the exact same people whine "Mind your own damn business!"!

So, basically, when I see a site refer to them and claim that they've done a good job, I automatically write the site off. It's just a disgusting site, all around, and anyone with a basic sense of morality can figure that out easily. Sites that link to it as a credible source don't deserve the time of day.

I guess you missed the part where I suggested to just read the transcript without the commentary if you don't want to hear the analysis. They went to a lot of time and effort to put it together.

I'm sure I have a basic sense of morality, and I enjoy the Treehouse. I should warn you that liberals and progressives have called conservatives "racists" so many times, and for so long, the word really has no meaning anymore. Go ahead and imply I'm a racist, if you must, or just come out and say it. After the battle we've had here over the city's hostile takeover attempt of the county schools, I'm used to it, and the heaping pile of lies that support it. (I have a feeling most of what I've said here belongs in another topic. You can have the last word and we should move on.)

Oh, the point of that article was the narrative presented nationally didn't match what was in the video. There's a lot of that type of creative reporting going around.

Unabogie · 15th June 2012, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by GWCarver

I guess you missed the part where I suggested to just read the transcript without the commentary if you don't want to hear the analysis. They went to a lot of time and effort to put it together.

I'm sure I have a basic sense of morality, and I enjoy the Treehouse. I should warn you that liberals and progressives have called conservatives "racists" so many times, and for so long, the word really has no meaning anymore. Go ahead and imply I'm a racist, if you must, or just come out and say it. After the battle we've had here over the city's hostile takeover attempt of the county schools, I'm used to it, and the heaping pile of lies that support it. (I have a feeling most of what I've said here belongs in another topic. You can have the last word and we should move on.)

Oh, the point of that article was the narrative presented nationally didn't match what was in the video. There's a lot of that type of creative reporting going around.

From your site:

Quote:

Seiously . . . you think Barack Hussein Sotero Obama is a US citizen? I’m surprised to see your slavish devotion to anything-goes-and-the-hell-with-the-Constitution and unreasonable opinion based on illogic and lack of facts . . . oh well. All I have to say is, if Obama was successful in pulling off the biggest scam in the history of our nation, and you want to be president again as a a reward for his perpetration of a public fraud and destruction of our nation’s constitutional and legal underpinnings, then you are as depraved, vapid, and gutless as the calloused-knee sycophants in the media and the Democratic Party that applaud the every utterance of the Marxist affirmative action, white-guilt man-boy inhabitant of the White House.

Now, the fact that you can't see how that's racist doesn't mean that comment isn't racist.

By the way, my above comment about DD taking the stand and Bernie never doing so wasn't an argument. It was a prediction. Feel free to make your own and we'll see who's right.

Rare Truth · 15th June 2012, 08:57 AM

06-15-12
Redacted Second Discovery

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_...0discovery.pdf

Rare Truth · 15th June 2012, 09:08 AM

There's a bank surveilance video in the new discovery from M&I Bank, 2/26 - the day of the shooting.

Wonder what that's all about.

Rare Truth · 15th June 2012, 09:11 AM

Jeff Weiner ‏@JeffWeinerOS
Among the new #GeorgeZimmerman witnesses: Owner of Shoot Straight & employees, a private investigator, firearms instructors. #TrayvonMartin

Jeff Weiner ‏@JeffWeinerOS
Shoot Straight (gun ranges) owner tells me he had no idea he was a witness in the #GeorgeZimmerman case, doesn't want to be. #TrayvonMartin

Unabogie · 15th June 2012, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by Rare Truth

There's a bank surveilance video in the new discovery from M&I Bank, 2/26 - the day of the shooting.

Wonder what that's all about.

I can only assume it establishes the timeline or someone's path to the scene. Maybe Trayvon walked past the bank on his way home or George drove by it.

Could be mundane. I think the rules say the DA has to hand over everything they produce in their investigation on the off chance it's found to be exculpatory.

Rare Truth · 15th June 2012, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

I can only assume it establishes the timeline or someone's path to the scene. Maybe Trayvon walked past the bank on his way home or George drove by it.

Could be mundane. I think the rules say the DA has to hand over everything they produce in their investigation on the off chance it's found to be exculpatory.

The closest M&I bank is on Rheinhart, near Target - the 7-Eleven is in the other direction, so it's likely involving GZ.

Maybe an ATM stop?

The narrative of GZ and family is that he was on his way *to* an errand, not from.

However, you are right, it may not be something much, then again ??

GWCarver · 15th June 2012, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by Rare Truth

There's a bank surveilance video in the new discovery from M&I Bank, 2/26 - the day of the shooting.

Wonder what that's all about.

The bank is on Rineheart, but in the opposite direction that TM took on the way to the 7/11, so there wouldn't be any video of him walking by.

I would guess it has to do with either the Tracy/Trayvon Martin, Brandy, or the Zimmermans. The bank is real close to where they were living at the time.

eta - I take that back. TM could have stopped there on the way back to get money out of the ATM, or on the way there.

Unabogie · 15th June 2012, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by Rare Truth

The closest M&I bank is on Rheinhart, near Target - the 7-Eleven is in the other direction, so it's likely involving GZ.

Maybe an ATM stop?

The narrative of GZ and family is that he was on his way *to* an errand, not from.

However, you are right, it may not be something much, then again ??

Yeah, if George said he was on his way out of the community and a video shows him somewhere else, then it's yet another item they can use to show that George is a liar.

By the way, Ta-Nehisi Coates had an interesting case in Texas where a guy shot someone and claimed "Stand Your Ground". But...well...I'll just post the link.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...ground/258502/

crimresearch · 15th June 2012, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by GWCarver

The bank is on Rineheart, but in the opposite direction that TM took on the way to the 7/11, so there wouldn't be any video of him walking by.

I would guess it has to do with either the Tracy/Trayvon Martin, Brandy, or the Zimmermans. The bank is real close to where they were living at the time.

eta - I take that back. TM could have stopped there on the way back to get money out of the ATM, or on the way there.

Is there a time given? That could have been George's 'personal errand'.

Rare Truth · 15th June 2012, 09:38 AM

Updated Sentinel Article:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...eillance-video

GWCarver · 15th June 2012, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Is there a time given? That could have been George's 'personal errand'.

No time, just the date.

I just remembered, TM's father said he had around 20 dollars, but he was found to have 40 dollars in his pocket. Maybe it has some significance, maybe not.

Unabogie · 15th June 2012, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by Rare Truth

Updated Sentinel Article:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...eillance-video

Good comment from that article:

Quote:

This case hasn't even begun. The amount of pending evidence tells me that we've known nothing about this case all this while.

Yeah, I'd agree with this completely. It could be that those of us assuming that there's more evidence are terribly wrong and that George will appear to have been justified in killing Trayvon.

But wow, that's a lot of witnesses, most of them in law enforcement. When the DA hinted at George telling different versions to different people, this is what they were getting at.

Should be interesting when the docs are released.

GWCarver · 15th June 2012, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by Rare Truth

Updated Sentinel Article:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...eillance-video

Here is a quote from that article that passes for reporting nowadays:

"He fatally shot Trayvon, an unarmed black 17-year-old, Feb. 26 as the Miami Gardens teenager was walking back from a 7-Eleven."

14th June 2012, 04:11 PM	#13561
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by Kaosium David, I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you. If you want to go over the evidence, we will. Let's start with the APC, that was the basis of my statement and would make an excellent model for helping determine whether she made a case 'far past her evidence' like I said. After all, that's supposed to be an example of the case they're going to make, and since this is Florida we now have access to much of the evidence and can evaluate how well the evidence supports her case, and (some of us!) can also gain some...insight...regarding just how she formulates her contentions. I'll start with a positive. The last two paragraphs preceding the disclaimer and naming the charge are well-formulated. In a concise fashion all the information one could reasonably expect is there, and has since been supported by the additional evidence available to us. It is necessary to this charge that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin. We have an admission by GZ, evidence he had a gun on him, evidence the gun was fired, and then evidence Trayvon Martin died of a gunshot wound. Evaluating the raw evidence since disclosed has corroborated that section of the APC, as has additional evidence available through other sources. George Zimmerman has not withdrawn his admission, the physical evidence available is consistent with their claims. The rest of the APC doesn't live up to that standard, though I'll be happy to hear your arguments on the subject. More than Trayvon being shot by George Zimmerman is required to support the murder two charge, and that part is deficient. So much so that it's obvious to a casual observer with even a passing knowledge of the subject, anyone telling you different is lying (or 'spinning'--pure pig ignorance is also a possibility!) to you, and I'll be happy to demonstrate why, I don't need to rely on authorities (though there are many who'd corroborate that of course) I can show you just why. It may take a hundred pages, but we'll get there. The actual evidence doesn't support the rest of the contentions, and the contentions themselves aren't necessarily indicative of murder. Just start with a paragraph and see if it supports one of the necessary contentions being made, and if the totality of the evidence available to us (now) suggests that it is an accurate representation of the facts and evidence in the case. I think if you go through this you'll find out just why I am as confident of my position as I am, as if you think on it this will pretty much demonstrate why someone might be able to say 'a charge far past the evidence.' Or you can blow me off with a snarky comment. Your call. So anyone who believes the actual legal facts over your opinions, is lying or pig headed ignorant, because you don't need authories, you could just show them, but it would take over 100 pages to prove them wrong? Did I get that right? Because I'd hate to misunderstand you.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

14th June 2012, 05:08 PM	#13562
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,926	Can anyone nail this down? Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths Could someone clarify the time-line on the document dump that has to happen within 15 days. Would that make it the day of, or the day before, the next bond hearing that is on the 29th?
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,926	__________________ ________________________

14th June 2012, 05:47 PM	#13563
Cylinder Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,933	Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths Can anyone nail this down? Oririnal order dated 6-12, so 6-27 at the latest.
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

14th June 2012, 05:53 PM	#13564
Cylinder Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,933	MOM filed a pleading notifying the court of his witnesses in the upcoming bond hearing, Shelley Glenn and Micheal Smith. They are the original bond agents for All Star Majic Bail Bonds.
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

14th June 2012, 06:08 PM	#13566
GWCarver Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 652	Originally Posted by Unabogie That's just weird. Any idea on what the bailbonds people could say in his defense? Jeralyn's take on it: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/14/195655/700
GWCarver Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 652

14th June 2012, 05:57 PM	#13565
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,921	Originally Posted by Cylinder MOM filed a pleading notifying the court of his witnesses in the upcoming bond hearing, Shelley Glenn and Micheal Smith. They are the original bond agents for All Star Majic Bail Bonds. That's just weird. Any idea on what the bailbonds people could say in his defense?

14th June 2012, 06:10 PM	#13567
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,926	Originally Posted by Cylinder Oririnal order dated 6-12, so 6-27 at the latest. OK so Wed. will be the evidence dump and Fri. the bond hearing.
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,926	__________________ ________________________

14th June 2012, 06:22 PM	#13568
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,921	Originally Posted by GWCarver Jeralyn's take on it: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/14/195655/700 Shorter Jeralyn: he lied to the bailbonds people too? First of all, they used the money to pay off their personal bills. Like credit cards and Sam's Club stuff! So they want the court to believe that they thought the money could go for personal bills but not bail? From the legal defense fund? Not credible. But second, they are on tape! They clearly discussed how to use the money for bond. They discussed having $100 grand and "just paying the $15" if it went over that amount. They clearly knew the money could be used for this purpose. That they kept the ruse going with other people besides the court just means they are bigger liars than we thought. GZ: If the bond is $50, pay the 15. If it's more than 15, just pay 15% to the bondsman. SZ: You want me to pay $100? GZ: Hell no. SZ: All right just think about it. GZ: I will. SZ: That's what it's for. - Source
	Last edited by Unabogie; 14th June 2012 at 06:32 PM.

14th June 2012, 06:26 PM	#13569
applecorped Rotten to the Core Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 10,844	Free Mumia, er I mean George.
	__________________ All You Need Is Love.

14th June 2012, 07:01 PM	#13570
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by Cylinder MOM filed a pleading notifying the court of his witnesses in the upcoming bond hearing, Shelley Glenn and Micheal Smith. They are the original bond agents for All Star Majic Bail Bonds. Majic Bail bonds... Because if you beat this rap, it's Majic.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

14th June 2012, 07:15 PM	#13571
Noztradamus Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,930	Originally Posted by applecorped Free Mumia, er I mean George. Get out of my mind! I've been thinking for a month that now the wingnuts have a "Da Man is railroading one of ourn own" poster boy to match the moonbats.
	__________________ The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.

14th June 2012, 07:38 PM	#13572
GWCarver Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 652	Originally Posted by Unabogie Shorter Jeralyn: he lied to the bailbonds people too? First of all, they used the money to pay off their personal bills. Like credit cards and Sam's Club stuff! So they want the court to believe that they thought the money could go for personal bills but not bail? From the legal defense fund? Not credible. But second, they are on tape! They clearly discussed how to use the money for bond. They discussed having $100 grand and "just paying the $15" if it went over that amount. They clearly knew the money could be used for this purpose. That they kept the ruse going with other people besides the court just means they are bigger liars than we thought. GZ: If the bond is $50, pay the 15. If it's more than 15, just pay 15% to the bondsman. SZ: You want me to pay $100? GZ: Hell no. SZ: All right just think about it. GZ: I will. SZ: That's what it's for. - Source He ended up paying 5 dollars and still owes the bondsman 10 dollars. I guess we will have to hear the bond agents' testimony to see what they were told. A good guess, since O'Mara is calling them to testify, is that their testimony will help Zimmerman. ETA - Jeralyn has never had any real doubt Zimmerman will get bail again. She's less certain of the amount.
GWCarver Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 652	Last edited by GWCarver; 14th June 2012 at 07:42 PM. Reason: GZ wasn't talking to himself after all

14th June 2012, 08:42 PM	#13573
Mumbles Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 635	Originally Posted by Kaosium Have you ever seen someone pull to the side of the road to take a call on a cell phone? Do you freak out and run, even if they're looking at you which might simply be because you're moving in their field of vision? If they've clearly pulled over in order to stare at me...well, I wouldn't run, but I'd be ready for a fight. And if that person then gets out and starts tailing me, he'll face a very angry Mumbles telling him in no uncertain terms to back off or get beaten. Quote: Zimmerman said he did so because he thought Trayvon was acting suspiciously, walking strangely and eying the houses in the neighborhood. Then when TM noticed him he took off running, which could easily be interpreted as somewhat suspicious. That TM had just gone to the store for 'tea and skittles' is rather dubious considering that according to the timestamps he must have taken 45 minutes to walk roughly a thousand yards. Frankly, this makes Zimmerman look like an idiot. His only actual description of what martin was doing was "walking around, looking about", "looking at houses". That's a person walking down the street, period. If Martin was stumbling (in which case, how did he suddenly become an MMA Champion who can meld into shadows?), or peeping into windows, as I've already said, then Zimmerman should have said that in his phone call. He didn't. And that's the entire point. Zimmerman had no actual reason to suspect Martin of anything at all. And once he had convinced himself, anything Martin did would be seen as "suspicious", since Zimmerman had already convinced himself that martin was some sort of villain. And we see that in his 911 call, where Zimmerman finds Martin "suspicious" because he's walking or running, looking at him or at houses, moving towards or away from him, or having his hand in his waistband. As for the claim that martin went to the store to buy some snacks, at this point, we really have nothing at all to contradict it, and strong evidence that it's true. How long he took to walk is pretty irrelevant. Quote: This ended with TM administering a beating to GZ, unwilling to budge even when a bystander told him he was calling police with wounds all over GZ's face and head. The evidence suggests that TM was exactly the sort one might want to call police on, his subsequent running and eventually beating of George Zimmerman hardly justified by George pulling over to use the phone and then running after him and stopping not long afterward. Again, no. I find Martin's suspicion of Zimmerman to be completely reasonable. And stop saying that Zimmerman "pulled over to use the phone", since it's clear that he pulled over to watch Martin. And we're assuming that Martin started the fight, which makes no sense, given that Martin was apparently not interested in any sort of confrontation, while Zimmerman was clearly angry at him. Quote: Think about it this way: had the police gotten there moments earlier before the shot, just what do you think would have been the outcome of this event? Probably jail time for Trayvon, and it would simply be a lesson for GZ that if you call the police on someone you think dangerous it would be best to let them handle it. Well, Trayvon was a 17 year old black kid, and Martin was Mr. Neighborhood Watch. I'm sure that Martin would end up in legal trouble. I'm not convinced that this would be fair.
Mumbles Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 635

14th June 2012, 08:52 PM	#13574
GWCarver Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 652	Originally Posted by Unabogie Uh, no. I mean, I suppose it's possible, but that's just about the dumbest thing I've ever seen. OK, forget about the commentary, and just concentrate on the interview. Try to picture, if you will, Bernie putting DeeDee on the stand knowing as soon as the prosecution rests, O'Mara will be questioning him under oath not only about this interview, but the original interview(s), and the testimony she has just given. Every question, all of the changes, how DeeDee, who had originally heard a "rustling sound" - a word not likely to be in her vocabulary - turned into her hearing a "bump" , which then changed into her hearing "something hit someone" 30 seconds later (after Bernie supplied that description himself) etc. He could be up there a long time, and his credibility with the jury could be severely damaged. So, I think if DeeDee is going to testify, Bernie won't be part of the prosecution team. I don't think Corey can risk it. ETA - I wonder if Corey had de la Rionda do this interview because Crump said he didn't trust the Sanford PD. As it turns out they were there, but apparently just as observers.
GWCarver Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 652	Last edited by GWCarver; 14th June 2012 at 09:06 PM. Reason: add

14th June 2012, 10:08 PM	#13575
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,921	Originally Posted by GWCarver OK, forget about the commentary, and just concentrate on the interview. Try to picture, if you will, Bernie putting DeeDee on the stand knowing as soon as the prosecution rests, O'Mara will be questioning him under oath not only about this interview, but the original interview(s), and the testimony she has just given. Every question, all of the changes, how DeeDee, who had originally heard a "rustling sound" - a word not likely to be in her vocabulary - turned into her hearing a "bump" , which then changed into her hearing "something hit someone" 30 seconds later (after Bernie supplied that description himself) etc. He could be up there a long time, and his credibility with the jury could be severely damaged. So, I think if DeeDee is going to testify, Bernie won't be part of the prosecution team. I don't think Corey can risk it. ETA - I wonder if Corey had de la Rionda do this interview because Crump said he didn't trust the Sanford PD. As it turns out they were there, but apparently just as observers. Sorry. George's lawyers will not be calling the DA as a witness. That's for the movies.

14th June 2012, 10:47 PM	#13576
Gazpacho Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Valley Lodge, USA Posts: 2,136	Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic OK, so while I continue to think GZ is an idiot, and that his public credibility has taken a hit over this, it was actually GZ's team which notified the court. If you think about it, an argument could actually be made that shows integrity I think there might be situations where a lawyer who catches his client lying to the court has a legal and ethical duty to bring it to the court's attention, on his own initiative.
	__________________ _{Google search help}

14th June 2012, 10:47 PM	#13577
GWCarver Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 652	Originally Posted by Unabogie Sorry. George's lawyers will not be calling the DA as a witness. That's for the movies. He made himself a potential witness when he did the interview, but only if DeeDee is on the witness list. Look at this is a movie in which the State Attorney, for whatever reason, used an ASA instead of an investigator to do an interview. You wouldn't be surprised at all if Gilbreath was called for the same exact reason as de la Rionda would be called. I can't think of any downside to O'Mara putting him on the stand. It's a win, win - discredit DeeDee and discredit Bernie. Even if he isn't on the prosecution team in court, I think he still will be called to testify about the interview, if she is called.
GWCarver Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 652

14th June 2012, 10:57 PM	#13578
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,921	Originally Posted by GWCarver He made himself a potential witness when he did the interview, but only if DeeDee is on the witness list. Look at this is a movie in which the State Attorney, for whatever reason, used an ASA instead of an investigator to do an interview. You wouldn't be surprised at all if Gilbreath was called for the same exact reason as de la Rionda would be called. I can't think of any downside to O'Mara putting him on the stand. It's a win, win - discredit DeeDee and discredit Bernie. Even if he isn't on the prosecution team in court, I think he still will be called to testify about the interview, if she is called. If George doesn't plea, she will take the stand and Bernie will not. Book it.

15th June 2012, 01:09 AM	#13579
Noztradamus Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,930	Originally Posted by Mumbles Again, no. I find Martin's suspicion of Zimmerman to be completely reasonable. And stop saying that Zimmerman "pulled over to use the phone", since it's clear that he pulled over to watch Martin. And we're assuming that Martin started the fight, which makes no sense, given that Martin was apparently not interested in any sort of confrontation, while Zimmerman was clearly angry at him. Quote: Quote: Think about it this way: had the police gotten there moments earlier before the shot, just what do you think would have been the outcome of this event? Probably jail time for Trayvon, and it would simply be a lesson for GZ that if you call the police on someone you think dangerous it would be best to let them handle it. Well, Trayvon was a 17 year old black kid, and Martin was Mr. Neighborhood Watch. I'm sure that Martin would end up in legal trouble. I'm not convinced that this would be fair. "This dude pulled his truck over to stare at me, chased me, told me I was in trouble because I was in the wrong 'hood, and drew a gun when I tried to get away" Maybe the cops would still clear George and Trayvon would be in legal trouble with that story. And given that Dee Dee's version broadly supports that and George's response of "No I was reaching for my cell phone, how my gun got into my hand is a complete mystery", maybe not. One thing certain: the 'net would still be arguing.
	__________________ The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.

15th June 2012, 05:16 AM	#13580
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,931	Originally Posted by Gazpacho I think there might be situations where a lawyer who catches his client lying to the court has a legal and ethical duty to bring it to the court's attention, on his own initiative. That would really change a lot of our legal system. How about lawyers who lie on behalf of their clients.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

15th June 2012, 05:36 AM	#13581
Mumbles Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 635	Originally Posted by GWCarver Here is a transcript of DeeDee's interview with de la Rionda, complete with commentary. Providing the author is correct in his analysis, if the state calls DeeDee, Bernie can be called by the defense to explain his interviewing technique. So, it is possible Bernie could be O'Mara's star witness. https://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpre...erview-kaboom/ Let's call this one for good. The site you linked to references the much-linked Conservative Treehouse. This is a huge piece of evidence against them. Conservative treehouse is a blatently racist site, period. They've calling Donald Trump's idiotic Birther nonsense "very credible",and they've engaged in all sorts of baseless and ridiculous speculation about Martin. They're also obsessed with the phony "race war" trope that the right wing is currently insistent on. And of course, this is the same sight that insists that Martin's parents are in it for the money, and not because their son was pursued and killed for...um, walking home from the local corner store. But my favorite...after spending months howling about some idiot who stalked an unarmed teenager just walking down the street? Months of baseless speculation, attacking a dead teenager, and defending a guy who decided to pursue the teen for no apparent reason? When a video of a stepfather beating his son with a belt for not catching a ball emerges, the exact same people whine "Mind your own damn business!"! So, basically, when I see a site refer to them and claim that they've done a good job, I automatically write the site off. It's just a disgusting site, all around, and anyone with a basic sense of morality can figure that out easily. Sites that link to it as a credible source don't deserve the time of day.
Mumbles Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 635	Last edited by Mumbles; 15th June 2012 at 05:38 AM.

15th June 2012, 06:01 AM	#13582
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,755	http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/pre...d-of-discovery Yesterday, the prosecution delivered a second round of discovery to the defense. The discovery package includes 7 compact discs and hundreds of pages of documents. It includes surveillance video, police radio transmissions, crime scene photos, 911 calls Mr. Zimmerman made prior to the night of the shooting, and more. The documents include a crime scene diagram, and additional reports from the Sanford Police Department, FDLE, and the FBI. According the June 1 ruling of the Court, the defense will have 30 days to review the discovery before it is made available to the public. The discovery process is ongoing, and we expect additional discovery to be disclosed as the case develops.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

15th June 2012, 06:57 AM	#13583
Dcdrac Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,896	Originally Posted by Mumbles Let's call this one for good. The site you linked to references the much-linked Conservative Treehouse. This is a huge piece of evidence against them. Conservative treehouse is a blatently racist site, period. They've calling Donald Trump's idiotic Birther nonsense "very credible",and they've engaged in all sorts of baseless and ridiculous speculation about Martin. They're also obsessed with the phony "race war" trope that the right wing is currently insistent on. And of course, this is the same sight that insists that Martin's parents are in it for the money, and not because their son was pursued and killed for...um, walking home from the local corner store. But my favorite...after spending months howling about some idiot who stalked an unarmed teenager just walking down the street? Months of baseless speculation, attacking a dead teenager, and defending a guy who decided to pursue the teen for no apparent reason? When a video of a stepfather beating his son with a belt for not catching a ball emerges, the exact same people whine "Mind your own damn business!"! So, basically, when I see a site refer to them and claim that they've done a good job, I automatically write the site off. It's just a disgusting site, all around, and anyone with a basic sense of morality can figure that out easily. Sites that link to it as a credible source don't deserve the time of day. Your feelings about this site and the other right wing sites pointed to, mirror mine exactly, it has been an invaluable lesson in how extreme the right seems to be becoming.
Dcdrac Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,896	Last edited by Dcdrac; 15th June 2012 at 06:58 AM.

15th June 2012, 07:06 AM	#13584
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,173	Originally Posted by crimresearch If in fact you had been reading the thread, instead of pulling these drive bys, you'd see that I'm not the one claiming that the perjury charges will affect George's murder conviction. I wonder who was, though?? Rubbish as usual. Equivocation. You're trying to lump your claim about the prosecution having to take time away from a murder trial (which hasn't begun) to pursue the perjury charge. My claim was that the perjury charge will affect the credibility of testimony in the murder case. Those are two distinctly different claims. You're now attempting to lump them into one rather than admit that you misspoke when you claimed that pursuing the perjury charge will somehow cause prosecution to take time away from the murder trial. I stand by my claim. The perjury charge will affect the credibility of George Zimmerman, and his defense relies to a large extent on his account of the incident. ETA: The frequency of my posts on this thread is entirely irrelevant. ETA: FWIW, the fact that the perjury charge affects the credibility of Zimmerman's testimony is pertinent to the murder case, so it's completely reasonable for the same prosecutor to make both cases. In fact, that's probably more efficient than assigning another prosecutor to the perjury case. And I don't think just ignoring the perjury is at all appropriate.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 15th June 2012 at 07:19 AM.

15th June 2012, 07:32 AM	#13585
GWCarver Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 652	Originally Posted by Unabogie If George doesn't plea, she will take the stand and Bernie will not. Book it. I'm not seeing a persuasive argument here. In fact, I'm not seeing an argument at all.
GWCarver Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 652

15th June 2012, 07:39 AM	#13586
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by Dancing David That would really change a lot of our legal system. How about lawyers who lie on behalf of their clients. It wouldn't change anything because that is the current rule. A lawyer may not knowing allow a witness to give false testimony. (S)he doesn't have to believe the witness but outright lies are forbidden. Naturally, lawyers aren't allowed to lie either. See here.
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

15th June 2012, 08:05 AM	#13587
GWCarver Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 652	Originally Posted by Mumbles Let's call this one for good. The site you linked to references the much-linked Conservative Treehouse. This is a huge piece of evidence against them. Conservative treehouse is a blatently racist site, period. They've calling Donald Trump's idiotic Birther nonsense "very credible",and they've engaged in all sorts of baseless and ridiculous speculation about Martin. They're also obsessed with the phony "race war" trope that the right wing is currently insistent on. And of course, this is the same sight that insists that Martin's parents are in it for the money, and not because their son was pursued and killed for...um, walking home from the local corner store. But my favorite...after spending months howling about some idiot who stalked an unarmed teenager just walking down the street? Months of baseless speculation, attacking a dead teenager, and defending a guy who decided to pursue the teen for no apparent reason? When a video of a stepfather beating his son with a belt for not catching a ball emerges, the exact same people whine "Mind your own damn business!"! So, basically, when I see a site refer to them and claim that they've done a good job, I automatically write the site off. It's just a disgusting site, all around, and anyone with a basic sense of morality can figure that out easily. Sites that link to it as a credible source don't deserve the time of day. I guess you missed the part where I suggested to just read the transcript without the commentary if you don't want to hear the analysis. They went to a lot of time and effort to put it together. I'm sure I have a basic sense of morality, and I enjoy the Treehouse. I should warn you that liberals and progressives have called conservatives "racists" so many times, and for so long, the word really has no meaning anymore. Go ahead and imply I'm a racist, if you must, or just come out and say it. After the battle we've had here over the city's hostile takeover attempt of the county schools, I'm used to it, and the heaping pile of lies that support it. (I have a feeling most of what I've said here belongs in another topic. You can have the last word and we should move on.) Oh, the point of that article was the narrative presented nationally didn't match what was in the video. There's a lot of that type of creative reporting going around.
GWCarver Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 652

15th June 2012, 08:26 AM	#13588
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,921	Originally Posted by GWCarver I guess you missed the part where I suggested to just read the transcript without the commentary if you don't want to hear the analysis. They went to a lot of time and effort to put it together. I'm sure I have a basic sense of morality, and I enjoy the Treehouse. I should warn you that liberals and progressives have called conservatives "racists" so many times, and for so long, the word really has no meaning anymore. Go ahead and imply I'm a racist, if you must, or just come out and say it. After the battle we've had here over the city's hostile takeover attempt of the county schools, I'm used to it, and the heaping pile of lies that support it. (I have a feeling most of what I've said here belongs in another topic. You can have the last word and we should move on.) Oh, the point of that article was the narrative presented nationally didn't match what was in the video. There's a lot of that type of creative reporting going around. From your site: Quote: Seiously . . . you think Barack Hussein Sotero Obama is a US citizen? I’m surprised to see your slavish devotion to anything-goes-and-the-hell-with-the-Constitution and unreasonable opinion based on illogic and lack of facts . . . oh well. All I have to say is, if Obama was successful in pulling off the biggest scam in the history of our nation, and you want to be president again as a a reward for his perpetration of a public fraud and destruction of our nation’s constitutional and legal underpinnings, then you are as depraved, vapid, and gutless as the calloused-knee sycophants in the media and the Democratic Party that applaud the every utterance of the Marxist affirmative action, white-guilt man-boy inhabitant of the White House. Now, the fact that you can't see how that's racist doesn't mean that comment isn't racist. By the way, my above comment about DD taking the stand and Bernie never doing so wasn't an argument. It was a prediction. Feel free to make your own and we'll see who's right.

15th June 2012, 08:57 AM	#13589
Rare Truth Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: The road less travelled Posts: 1,296	06-15-12 Redacted Second Discovery http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_...0discovery.pdf

15th June 2012, 09:08 AM	#13590
Rare Truth Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: The road less travelled Posts: 1,296	There's a bank surveilance video in the new discovery from M&I Bank, 2/26 - the day of the shooting. Wonder what that's all about.

15th June 2012, 09:11 AM	#13591
Rare Truth Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: The road less travelled Posts: 1,296	Jeff Weiner ‏@JeffWeinerOS Among the new #GeorgeZimmerman witnesses: Owner of Shoot Straight & employees, a private investigator, firearms instructors. #TrayvonMartin Jeff Weiner ‏@JeffWeinerOS Shoot Straight (gun ranges) owner tells me he had no idea he was a witness in the #GeorgeZimmerman case, doesn't want to be. #TrayvonMartin

15th June 2012, 09:24 AM	#13592
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,921	Originally Posted by Rare Truth There's a bank surveilance video in the new discovery from M&I Bank, 2/26 - the day of the shooting. Wonder what that's all about. I can only assume it establishes the timeline or someone's path to the scene. Maybe Trayvon walked past the bank on his way home or George drove by it. Could be mundane. I think the rules say the DA has to hand over everything they produce in their investigation on the off chance it's found to be exculpatory.

15th June 2012, 09:30 AM	#13593
Rare Truth Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: The road less travelled Posts: 1,296	Originally Posted by Unabogie I can only assume it establishes the timeline or someone's path to the scene. Maybe Trayvon walked past the bank on his way home or George drove by it. Could be mundane. I think the rules say the DA has to hand over everything they produce in their investigation on the off chance it's found to be exculpatory. The closest M&I bank is on Rheinhart, near Target - the 7-Eleven is in the other direction, so it's likely involving GZ. Maybe an ATM stop? The narrative of GZ and family is that he was on his way to an errand, not from. However, you are right, it may not be something much, then again ??

15th June 2012, 09:32 AM	#13594
GWCarver Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 652	Originally Posted by Rare Truth There's a bank surveilance video in the new discovery from M&I Bank, 2/26 - the day of the shooting. Wonder what that's all about. The bank is on Rineheart, but in the opposite direction that TM took on the way to the 7/11, so there wouldn't be any video of him walking by. I would guess it has to do with either the Tracy/Trayvon Martin, Brandy, or the Zimmermans. The bank is real close to where they were living at the time. eta - I take that back. TM could have stopped there on the way back to get money out of the ATM, or on the way there.
GWCarver Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 652	Last edited by GWCarver; 15th June 2012 at 09:35 AM. Reason: eta

15th June 2012, 09:34 AM	#13595
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,921	Originally Posted by Rare Truth The closest M&I bank is on Rheinhart, near Target - the 7-Eleven is in the other direction, so it's likely involving GZ. Maybe an ATM stop? The narrative of GZ and family is that he was on his way to an errand, not from. However, you are right, it may not be something much, then again ?? Yeah, if George said he was on his way out of the community and a video shows him somewhere else, then it's yet another item they can use to show that George is a liar. By the way, Ta-Nehisi Coates had an interesting case in Texas where a guy shot someone and claimed "Stand Your Ground". But...well...I'll just post the link. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...ground/258502/