Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by Rare Truth

Wow.

A witness states with sincerity he can't be sure as he thought about it later, remarked how pitch-black it was, how it was literally a matter of mere seconds he witnessed anything, that he was in fear for his & his fiance's life (who was on crutches), (he thought a rock had been thrown at his condo) and - that (paraphrase) "his logical mind just made the assumption..." -- THAT witness is lying - LYING I say! because the witness reflected on the scenario -- But ...but...but!

The killer's wife who flat out, bald faced, horn-toad swaggled a preposterous conscious deception with a blatant perjury under oath...

eh, can't be sure about that.

I swear sometimes my eyes bleed from the things I read here.

I never said she didn't lie in court. I said I think she did. What I don't know about is if it can be turned around into something that says she didn't "legally" lie. Why can't you admit there's something shady about witnesses changing their stories?

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

That this statement:


... followed this one:


... creates a perfect singularity of irony that threatens to unmake the universe.

I'm happy for you, Johnny.

[Giz]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

Zimmermans actions to date hardly indicate an innocent.

Runs off and hdies after the intial incident

This is code for "cooperated with police as requested (without asking that a lawyer be present) during their investigation and presented himself whenever asked to by Police/Prosecutor/Court"?

It sure is hard to look guiltier than that!

[GWCarver]

Interesting Florida hoodie law:

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/876.12

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Your unsupported assertion aside, do you honestly think Zimmerman's wife should be give a pass? And if so, why?

I don't know. Perhaps a lesser/reduced charge, depending on what the story is.

It has been pointed out that their 'conspiracy' to hide their money, etc, appears to be breathtakingly stupid, so I am having a hard time imagining what exactly such a story may entail ... but it's possible it could be a realistic scenario which at least somewhat may mitigate the actions in a reasonable persons mind.

I guess part of my problem is that enforcement appears arbitrary. Like a speeding ticket where you are among dozens exceeding the speed limit, but you are singled out for punishment. You are guilty, but there is some sense of unfairness that all the other parties who were also guilty went unpunished.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

DD is hardly a neutral third party.
She has changed her story to add an additional damaging statement that she had not originally stated ('get off') During her interview with De la rionda, she basically offered up 'do you want me to say that ?' If she was correctly identified ( and I have no reason to believe she wasn't, the picture of her with TM is the same person, etc) then her story about being too distraught to go to the wake, etc. is completely at odds with her tweets. In short, her credibility appears to be no better than GZ, perhaps worse.

Unless DD is credible, I don't beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, we haven't heard GZ story yet, or seen all the evidence. But that's where I am at this point.

DD is 15 years old? I think a jury may forgive her for being a bad witness on the stand. As long as they don't get the idea she's trying to deliberately lie. And attorneys who browbeat 15 year old witnesses don't fare too well.

BTW, she didn't say she was too distraught. She said she went to the hospital. Was that a lie? If so, then yeah, she loses a lot of credibility. But if you put her word (shaky as it is) against that of a known liar like Zimmerman, who can be shown on a recording to be willing to defraud the court, I think 9 out of 10 people will take her word over his. Unless you start out with some sort of prejudice about why George should be believed above all others.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by bookworm

Why can't you admit there's something shady about witnesses changing their stories?

Because there's not.

Do you imagine follow-up interviews are an uncommon practice?

Do you imagine witnesses aren't asked to repeat their stories multiple times before taking the stand to prepare for any surprises?

Witnesses recant all the time. It's part of the process.

Both the prosecution and the defense grill their respective witnesses to insure their stories will withstand cross-examination.

If a weakness in the story is found - if the witness admits to being unsure on a particular point - that witness will most likely be taken off the witness list.

No lawyer wants to be caught off-guard during a trial by one of their witnesses suddenly admitting on the stand they can't be sure about something they previously claimed to know.

Witness #6 was given a routine follow-up interview. During the course of that interview, he admitted to being unsure about certain details from his previous statement. End of story.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

But if you put her word (shaky as it is) against that of a known liar like Zimmerman...

Don't forget he also has a "known history of violence" and a "known history of anger management". I just don't want you to miss any chance at hyperbole and pre-judgment.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Hey, I've got a question. Why wasn't GZ charged with perjury? Does anyone think perjury charges for GZ are coming soon?

[Giz]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

The way it was reported in the UK media was he ran off and hid and who issued those death threats they never meade it over here inot the media here.

A bounty was put on GZ's head (10,000 dollars IIRC). It was well covered in the USA - perhaps the BBC/Guardian isn't giving you both sides of the story?

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

The bottom line is for me I see attempts to turn the victim TM into the criminal.

Depends on what actually happened doesn't it? Possibly TM was the victim... however, it is also possible (IMHO probable) that GZ was the victim and he acted in self-defense, which would mean that certain people are now trying to railroad an innocent man who's been through a terrifying ordeal. (Bet he wont try watching out for his neighbours again!)

[Rare Truth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate
That this statement:


... followed this one:


... creates a perfect singularity of irony that threatens to unmake the universe.

Have I told you lately how much I enjoy reading your posts?

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

DD is 15 years old? I think a jury may forgive her for being a bad witness on the stand. As long as they don't get the idea she's trying to deliberately lie. And attorneys who browbeat 15 year old witnesses don't fare too well.

BTW, she didn't say she was too distraught. She said she went to the hospital. Was that a lie? If so, then yeah, she loses a lot of credibility. But if you put her word (shaky as it is) against that of a known liar like Zimmerman, who can be shown on a recording to be willing to defraud the court, I think 9 out of 10 people will take her word over his. Unless you start out with some sort of prejudice about why George should be believed above all others.

She was so distraught she went to the hospital because she has high blood pressure, or something along those lines.
However, the tweets of the person identified as DD are at odds with going to the hospital, or being distraught at all. So yes, I think the hospital might be a lie that was made up to explain why she did not go to the wake or funeral. Otherwise - why not go ?? She has known TM since kindergarten !
When I see some evidence to the contrary, I'll re-evaluate.


The difference (for me) is I think the evidence we have so far points to DD lying, and does not point to GZ lying.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

I don't know. Perhaps a lesser/reduced charge, depending on what the story is.

It has been pointed out that their 'conspiracy' to hide their money, etc, appears to be breathtakingly stupid, so I am having a hard time imagining what exactly such a story may entail ... but it's possible it could be a realistic scenario which at least somewhat may mitigate the actions in a reasonable persons mind.

I guess part of my problem is that enforcement appears arbitrary. Like a speeding ticket where you are among dozens exceeding the speed limit, but you are singled out for punishment. You are guilty, but there is some sense of unfairness that all the other parties who were also guilty went unpunished.

Sorry, but "The other kids were doing it, too!" isn't the defense of a reasonable, mature adult.

Zimmerman's got caught breaking the law, and now she has to face the consequences of her actions. That's how things work in the grown-up world.

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

Hey, I've got a question. Why wasn't GZ charged with perjury? Does anyone think perjury charges for GZ are coming soon?

Yes, perjury by omission and lying by proxy charges will be forthcoming. And conspiracy, don't forget conspiracy.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

She was so distraught she went to the hospital because she has high blood pressure, or something along those lines.
However, the tweets of the person identified as DD are at odds with going to the hospital, or being distraught at all. So yes, I think the hospital might be a lie that was made up to explain why she did not go to the wake or funeral. Otherwise - why not go ?? She has known TM since kindergarten !
When I see some evidence to the contrary, I'll re-evaluate.


The difference (for me) is I think the evidence we have so far points to DD lying, and does not point to GZ lying.

What evidence do you have that she wasn't at the hospital?

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Sorry, but "The other kids were doing it, too!" isn't the defense of a reasonable, mature adult.

SZ and GZ are reasonable, mature adults now in your estimation ?

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Zimmerman's got caught breaking the law, and now she has to face the consequences of her actions. That's how things work in the grown-up world.

Well, sometimes. Unless you are important. Or know someone. Or have political connections, or are rich, or... well, you get the idea.

[Rare Truth]

Originally Posted by GWCarver

Interesting Florida hoodie law:

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/876.12

Aww. You didn't mean to provide a half-truth with that cite on purpose, did you?

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/876.155

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Because there's not.

Do you imagine follow-up interviews are an uncommon practice?

Yes. Evidence ?

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Do you imagine witnesses aren't asked to repeat their stories multiple times before taking the stand to prepare for any surprises?

Yes, but that is called practicing, not recanting.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Witnesses recant all the time. It's part of the process.

You should read the links. The ones I read don't support what you intend to be supported - it's all about recanting because they intentionally lied.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Both the prosecution and the defense grill their respective witnesses to insure their stories will withstand cross-examination.

If a weakness in the story is found - if the witness admits to being unsure on a particular point - that witness will most likely be taken off the witness list.

No lawyer wants to be caught off-guard during a trial by one of their witnesses suddenly admitting on the stand they can't be sure about something they previously claimed to know.

Witness #6 was given a routine follow-up interview. During the course of that interview, he admitted to being unsure about certain details from his previous statement. End of story.

What makes you think it was routine ?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

SZ and GZ are reasonable, mature adults now in your estimation ?

No, and that's my point.

This particular conversation started with a question asking why Zimmerman's wife should be given a pass. The only defense offered in response so far is something akin to "Well, everybody does it".

That's nonsense, and sounds like an excuse a teenage girl would give for missing curfew.

These recent events demonstrate to me that the Zimmermans are stupid, dishonest people. But being stupid - and certainly being dishonest - are not reasonable excuses to break the law.

Shellie Zimmerman broke the law. Now she has to face the consequences.

[Rare Truth]

Just in:

Jeff Weiner ‏@JeffWeinerOS

The judge ruled that the public can see ‪#GeorgeZimmerman‬'s statements, which he said don't qualify as confessions. ‪

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

Yes, perjury by omission and lying by proxy charges will be forthcoming. And conspiracy, don't forget conspiracy.

Kidding and sarcasm aside, if they don't bring such charges, it means they don't have a case against him for perjury, no?

[Rare Truth]

Jeff Weiner ‏@JeffWeinerOS



Civilian witness names in the ‪#GeorgeZimmerman‬ case will stay secret. Judge says releasing them would threaten fair trial. ‪#TrayvonMartin

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by Rare Truth

Just in:

Jeff Weiner ‏@JeffWeinerOS

The judge ruled that the public can see ‪#GeorgeZimmerman‬'s statements, which he said don't qualify as confessions. ‪

Sweet! Any links yet to the case files?

[Rare Truth]

The shiniest doc dump of all coming up!

By Jeff Weiner, Orlando Sentinel 1:43 p.m. EDT, June 13, 2012



Within the next two weeks, the public will know exactly what George Zimmerman, in his own words, told authorities about the night he shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.
Judge Kenneth Lester on Tuesday issued an order granting, in part, a motion filed by several media companies -- including the Orlando Sentinel -- seeking to have evidence in the case released that had previously been withheld from the public.


Prosecutors argued that Zimmerman's statements to law enforcement should remain sealed, under an exemption in Florida's public records law that bars the release of confessions. Zimmerman admits to shooting the Miami Gardens tee, but says he did so in self-defense.

Zimmerman judge: Prosecutor must release Zimmerman's statements to cops

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,2174207.story

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

Yes. Evidence ?

Seriously? You honestly think witnesses are interviewed exactly one time before a murder case goes to trial?



Here are some links. But I'm not sure there's any definitive documentation, or how much evidence you are going to demand to prove something that seems fairly obvious.

Quote:

Yes, but that is called practicing, not recanting.

The point is, the witnesses are taken through their paces to determine if their stories hold water. It turns out Witness #6's didn't.

Quote:

You should read the links. The ones I read don't support what you intend to be supported - it's all about recanting because they intentionally lied.

I'll grant you that. But these are all seem to be occurrences of recanting that happened after or during a trial, and not during the investigative phase. I'm not sure how one would do such a specific search.

Quote:

What makes you think it was routine ?

What makes you think it wasn't?

You seem to be asserting that witnesses during a murder investigation are only ever interviewed a single time. Which is ridiculous on its face.

[Rare Truth]

Here is the latest order by the court on us getting to see more discovery:

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_...2061312310.pdf

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

What evidence do you have that she wasn't at the hospital?

Just what I initially wrote. It's possible she did. If you read the tweets (and they are all screenshots, and at the time I read them it was still possible for me to pull them from google cache and other sources, so no Photoshop claims, pls ) they don't mention the hospital, TM, or the funeral. This from a girl who starts her day tweeting good morning and ends it tweeting goodnight.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

Zimmermans actions to date hardly indicate an innocent.

Runs off and hdies after the intial incident, lies along with his wife at the bond hearing can you not see that blows his credability to shreds.

It was either or he and his wife are just very stupid

You've repeated that 'runs off and hides' assertion multiple times, and you've been asked to back it up... yet all you've got is imaginary 'media over here', that you can't provide any links to.

Why do you keep posting it?

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by Rare Truth

Here is the latest order by the court on us getting to see more discovery:

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_...2061312310.pdf

Finally!

[crimresearch]

Quote:

Upon an in camera review of the Defendant's statements, they do not qualify as a confession

Which means that his statements can't be shielded, but it also means that he didn't say anything that would be a slam dunk for the prosecution.

[Cylinder]

What is released:

Zimmerman's statements
Zimmerman's stress test
Already transcribed jailhouse phone calls
W9 statements
SPD Emails

What is sealed:

Cell phone records (not yet relevant)
Witness names
Photos of Martin's body

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

Just what I initially wrote. It's possible she did. If you read the tweets (and they are all screenshots, and at the time I read them it was still possible for me to pull them from google cache and other sources, so no Photoshop claims, pls ) they don't mention the hospital, TM, or the funeral. This from a girl who starts her day tweeting good morning and ends it tweeting goodnight.

So you have zero evidence to suggest she wasn't at the hospital, but instead you are going by tweets that have no official provenance nor context? If we are going by tweets and social postings, George Zimmerman is a racist who delights in "beating the rap". I'll take that over DD's missing public grief any day.

But again, since you have zero evidence she was lying aside from pure speculation, I think it's a good demonstration of confirmation bias that you assume she likely did lie. Or are under the assumption that she's a bad witness because she didn't go to the funeral. We have no idea why she didn't go to the funeral. Maybe she's afraid of death and dying? Maybe she doesn't own a nice dress and felt embarrassed? Maybe she doesn't like crying in public? Maybe she felt like she could have done more to save her friend and felt ashamed (this has some evidence behind it in that she said she was wracked with guilt).

The one assumption that you and the Treehouse people jump to is that she must be lying about Zimmerman, because if she's telling the truth, then she contradicts George and that means he's a liar.

Well, we already know he's a liar. We've seen it first hand. We know he's a liar who's willing to lie in order to cover up his tracks. We know he has no respect for the court or these proceedings. We know he isn't ethical or bright.

I'll assume he's lying and that she's telling the truth, even if she doesn't comport herself well while on the stand, until I see a reason to think he suddenly got a case of the truthies and she lies when she has no reason to.

I'll consider that Occam's Razor.

[EdG]

Originally Posted by Giz

A bounty was put on GZ's head (10,000 dollars IIRC).

Are you claiming that GZ was living openly in his own residence until the "bounty" for his capture was announced? And then, and only then, did he move to a hidden location?

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

The way it was reported in the UK media was he ran off and hid and who issued those death threats they never meade it over here inot the media here.

The bottom line is for me I see attempts to turn the victim TM into the criminal.

That's only if you see the situation as zero sum. It's not. One doesn't have to be bad for the other one to be good. In the real world, it rarely works out that way.

I am giving this from the defense's perspective and not necessarily trying to push forward that this is how it actualy was:

The defense has it that Trayvon ran and then came back to confront Zimmerman. One possible reasoning is that he didn't want to lead Zimmerman directly to his house. To him, it could have easily been standing his ground. This guy is following me, he is apparently not going anywhere because 4 minutes later, the guy is still wandering around. From his perspective, taking this guy down is probably the best option. Hell, he could have been doing it, aware of the crime in the area, thinking he was protecting his younger stepbrother. Once adrenaline takes over, any defense on Zimmerman's part, to Trayvon is seen as resistance or possibly even aggression. Personally, if I thought I was fighting for my own safety or the safety of someone else, first, I would make sure I got the first hit, then, I would not stop until my "aggressor" is completely neutralized. From my perspective, I am protecting myself. Quite possibly, from Travon's perspective, he was protecting himself. That, of course is only supposing the defense story it true. It is merely to show that Trayvon doesn't have to be on drugs, up to no good, out looking for houses to rob, for Zimmerman to be justified in using self defense.

[Cylinder]

Originally Posted by EdG

Are you claiming that GZ was living openly in his own residence until the "bounty" for his capture was announced? And then, and only then, did he move to a hidden location?

Why does that matter, exactly? Zimmerman moved from his house due to threats. Under no obligation whatsoever, he stayed in "daily contact" with the SPD and later the SAO investigators.

Do you publish your address in the Arizona Republic or something? Exactly who was Zimmerman supposed to inform? Turning yourself in on indictment kind of nixes any consciousness of guilt by fleeing argument.

[Rare Truth]

Originally Posted by Cylinder

Why does that matter, exactly? Zimmerman moved from his house due to threats. Under no obligation whatsoever, he stayed in "daily contact" with the SPD and later the SAO investigators.

Do you publish your address in the Arizona Republic or something? Exactly who was Zimmerman supposed to inform? Turning yourself in on indictment kind of nixes any consciousness of guilt by fleeing argument.

No, he moved out long before there were any threats. IIRC, he moved out within a day or two of the incident.

There had been no threats then.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by Rare Truth

No, he moved out long before there were any threats. IIRC, he moved out within a day or two of the incident.

There had been no threats then.

Just a guess but the local media was on this 24/7. It's possible that he left to avoid the reporters knocking at his door.

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

"Committed felony perjury" is a subjective statement that can be made in an incredibly objective manner. It doesn't require a court to decide. We know what the facts are. We know what the law is. She committed the crime.

Here is the law, here is the capias and Probable Cause Affidavit for her charge:

837.02 Perjury in official proceedings.—
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true, under oath in an official proceeding in regard to any material matter, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(2) Whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true, under oath in an official proceeding that relates to the prosecution of a capital felony, commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) Knowledge of the materiality of the statement is not an element of the crime of perjury under subsection (1) or subsection (2), and the defendant’s mistaken belief that the statement was not material is not a defense.
History.—s. 1, sub-ch. 6, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2561; GS 3473; RGS 5343; CGL 7477; s. 998, ch. 71-136; s. 55, ch. 74-383; s. 33, ch. 75-298; s. 3, ch. 97-90; s. 1311, ch. 97-102.

Quote:

The courts and the lawyers can decide to plea it down, sure. But that doesn't change the fact that a rational person will recognize that she committed the crime.

I disagree, it is entirely irrational to inherently assume a prosecution which has made dubious and misleading accusations is automatically correct solely because it makes another accusation, and throw out hundreds of years of due process simply on that basis. Read through that capias and APC and the statute and note that it says that not only does it have to be a false statement, but that she had to know it wasn't true.

Now, read through that APC with the knowledge that isn't the complete set of facts. For one thing they 'left out' something quite important, if I recall correctly it should have been at the end of where she's asked if she can estimate how much money is in the account. She says she can't, but then that GZ's brother can and that if they call him they can get the information they seek.

This is also temporary transfers of funds because George is in jail, and she's not the only one accessing the account on his behalf, it's not only his brother from the part the 'left out' but also in here you can see that his sister is transferring money as well. What makes you automatically assume that Shelly must believe that the money she is temporarily transferring from accounts on behalf of someone else currently in jail constitutes assets of hers? If she's one of several people accessing the account can you understand why she might be disinclined to offer an estimate and might prefer to direct questions to the person who could give them an accurate estimate?

Also, at this moment they have serious expenses, not only bills to pay but they have to prepare for their new life as hunted animals living in a (hopefully!) secure undisclosed location--perhaps for years. What kind of money might that take when they know they might well have to pay several times what was in the paypal account in legal and other fees? Do you suppose they might want to have rent money? Living expenses? If she's in the process of spending that money (George gets out of jail a few days later) to do that, do you suppose she thinks she all of a sudden has assets? Or does she have some money in her account that's about to be spent to simply survive?


What evidence do you see in that APC that leads you to conclude that Shelly knowingly made a false statement and that there is no explanation that would cause you to reconsider that she is guilty beyond all doubt? Or is it the case that you're not a reasonable person, which is what condemning people out of hand because someone cherry-picked a few conversations from court and phone records would suggest?

Look at it this way: do you suppose someone could go parsing through your posts (on any issue) and take things out of context to 'prove' you lied? Does the APC on the murder charge include statements from George's 911 call that seem a little out of context to you? What makes you think this APC would be any different, especially being as they (appear to have) snipped off the part where she tells them where to go for an estimate of the funds in the paypal account?

Lastly does this make any sense? That she knowingly lied about it despite (as pointed out in the APC) being aware that they knew the statements were being recorded and that the prosecution was aware of the paypal account? What would be the point? George was going to get bail, they knew that wouldn't consume all that money, and they ended up putting the balance in an account they didn't have direct access to a few days after George got out of bail.

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

So you have zero evidence to suggest she wasn't at the hospital, but instead you are going by tweets that have no official provenance nor context?

Why do I need official provenance to read her tweets and draw a conclusion any more than people do about GZ, or anyone else ?
You wonder about GZ prescription meds, but I am the one wandering into the land of speculation with no context ??

Originally Posted by Unabogie

If we are going by tweets and social postings, George Zimmerman is a racist who delights in "beating the rap". I'll take that over DD's missing public grief any day.

OK. You obviously didn't read her tweets or really understand the context since your comparison is not accurate, but that's fine.

Originally Posted by Unabogie

But again, since you have zero evidence she was lying aside from pure speculation, I think it's a good demonstration of confirmation bias that you assume she likely did lie.

Along with her offering to lie to DLR and her changing her story, no evidence.

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Or are under the assumption that she's a bad witness because she didn't go to the funeral. We have no idea why she didn't go to the funeral. Maybe she's afraid of death and dying? Maybe she doesn't own a nice dress and felt embarrassed? Maybe she doesn't like crying in public? Maybe she felt like she could have done more to save her friend and felt ashamed (this has some evidence behind it in that she said she was wracked with guilt).

When did she say the hilited part ?

Originally Posted by Unabogie

The one assumption that you and the Treehouse people jump to is that she must be lying about Zimmerman, because if she's telling the truth, then she contradicts George and that means he's a liar.

If that's what you want to assume.

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Well, we already know he's a liar.

So where are the perjury charges ? What lie did he tell ?

Originally Posted by Unabogie

We've seen it first hand. We know he's a liar who's willing to lie in order to cover up his tracks. We know he has no respect for the court or these proceedings. We know he isn't ethical or bright.

I'll assume he's lying and that she's telling the truth, even if she doesn't comport herself well while on the stand, until I see a reason to think he suddenly got a case of the truthies and she lies when she has no reason to.

I'll consider that Occam's Razor.

OK. You asked a question, I answered it. Sorry you don't like my answer.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

What evidence do you see in that APC that leads you to conclude that Shelly knowingly made a false statement and that there is no explanation that would cause you to reconsider that she is guilty beyond all doubt?

This exchange:

Quote:

De la Rionda: Okay. And you mentioned also, in terms of the ability of your husband to make a bond amount, that you all had no money, is that correct?

Zimmerman: To my knowledge, that's correct.

She knew about the money. The transcripts from her conversations with her husband prove that.

She committed perjury.

Game over.