home

Will Zimmerman Get Bond Again?

George Zimmerman will get a hearing on the revocation of his bond , after he turns himself in. I think the judge will give him bond again.

Once he is re-bonded , this will become a minor footnote. It's just a distraction. I suggest people look at the available evidence. It either supports the state's case or it doesn't. In my view , the evidence does not defeat self -defense , which is what the state must do at trial . Other witnesses and physical evidence support that Zimmerman was attacked . Zimmerman still has a strong claim of self-defense. Keep your eyes on the big picture. This sideshow of coded calls with his wife about money won't change or undo what other evidence establishes happened. Focus on W6, W12 and W13, W11 and W20.

< Saturday Morning Peacock: Open Thread | Sunday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I think you are wrong Jeralyn (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 02:17:49 PM EST
    This will be no minor footnote.  The only thing GZ had was his credibility, he has shot that all to hell now.

    Yeah, that and all of the physical evidence. (none / 0) (#31)
    by jpe on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 05:28:33 PM EST
    "Minor footnote" (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by ks on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 02:46:33 PM EST
    IMO, that's wishful thinking.  Having your bail revoked because you got caught making "material misrepresentations", aka lying, to the same judge that's going to hear your SYG claim (if there is one) is a big deal.  He might get bail again at some point and it's not the end all but it's not a minor footnote either.  Especially in a case in which it looks like credibility is going to matter a lot.

    the judge doesn't decide (none / 0) (#43)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 06:23:24 PM EST
    a jury trial. And his statements are hardly the only evidence.

    Parent
    What if GZ had declared an estimate? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by EL seattle on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 03:10:00 PM EST
    If the goal of setting the bail was to punish George Zimmerman, I don't know if setting it at a higher price would have accomplished much.

    I mean, at the original bail hearing, what if someone from George Zimmerman's team had said something like:

    "Well your Honor, we don't know exactly how much is in that PayPal account today, but I'm guessing that it might be about $200,000 by now. If you want to set bail in such a  way that it would tie up that whole defense fund amount, that would be okay, I guess. Once your official bail decision is announced by Drudge and Breitbart and the internet bloggy thingies, the PayPal defense fund will probably start receiving a lot more money right away. Cause celebre and all that. Or maybe you could hold Mr. Zimmerman without bail.  That would suck for him personally, but in terms of long term funding for his defense, um, well... ka-ching, ya know?"

    What if...? (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by ks on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 03:39:08 PM EST
    But they didn't and the goal of setting bail was not to "punish" Zimmerman.  In fact, based on the representations made to the court, he got a very reasonable bail.  The problem is that those representations look to be false.  That's the issue and it's why get got his bail revoked.  

    Parent
    The damaged credibility of Zimmerman (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 03:29:27 PM EST
    owing to the "material falsehoods" resulting in Zimmerman's revocation of bond should be limited to any future hearing for re-bonding, and if concerns continue and are not explained to the satisfaction of the judge, bond should be denied or set at an appropriately high level.

    However, the "material falsehoods" should not contaminate the judge's analysis and ruling in a SYG hearing, an appeal,  or in a subsequent trial, if there is to be one.  Of course, credibility will likely be a consideration in future judicial steps, but it behooves all involved in the judicial process to discern facts, and even material falsehoods.

    While totally different cases and circumstances, a fresh example of a jury's ability to discern, was that of John Edwards--indeed,  charges of falsehoods in campaign finances were defended by the need for lies to cover an extramarital affair and child becoming known to his wife and the public.  

    SYG hearing (none / 0) (#65)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 09:26:20 PM EST
    does not involve a jury, only the judge.

    Parent
    True, (none / 0) (#129)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 10:58:15 AM EST
    regrets if I implied otherwise.

    Parent
    Personally, I think the Z-Man ... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 04:03:00 PM EST
    ... and his wife potentially compromised whatever integrity he had with this judge, which is too bad since he's also scheduled to hear the defense motion to dismiss charges on the basis of the "Stand Your Ground" statute.

    All George Zimmerman had was his word, and since Trayvon Martin is not around to offer his side of the story, Zimmerman's own testimony that he was fighting for his life is at the heart of the motion to dismiss. And right now, because of this latest development, that may not be good enough anymore to keep this case from going to trial.

    One thing's for sure, though -- Mark O'Mara certainly has his work cut out for him.

    All George Zimmerman had was his word... (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Redbrow on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 04:12:35 PM EST
    and all the corroborating physical evidence and witnesses.

    Shelly is the one being labeled 'liar'. George was just a 'potted plant' who supposed to jump up, out if his chains and yell out the truth or something.

    Parent

    He also has his 'story' and it is yet to be seen (none / 0) (#32)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 05:29:10 PM EST
    whether or not there are inconsistencies among his official statements.  If there are inconsistencies then his credibility is about all he might have to rely upon since there are currently no known witnesses to the start of the struggle.  I believe that who started the struggle is the key to the entire case.  If Zimmerman is not believable then his goose is cooked.  

    Parent
    Even if Zimmerman is not believable (none / 0) (#67)
    by Darby on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 09:44:58 PM EST
    Why is his goose cooked? He is innocent until proven guilty and  there isn't any proof that z started the fight. ( which I don't
     think us the pivotal question anyways).

    Parent
    Not the pivotal question unless we know the answer (none / 0) (#88)
    by unitron on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 06:38:41 AM EST
    Who first laid hands on whom is, unfortunately, something that may never be know in this case, but if there actually is real evidence of it, that's gonna matter big time.

    Parent
    Because Zimmerman's credibility ... (none / 0) (#125)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 10:36:30 AM EST
    ... is critical.

    The questioning of Zimmerman's truthfulness by the judge on Friday could undermine the defendant's credibility if it is brought up at trial. It also may complicate how his defense presents him as a witness, said Orlando-area attorney Randy McClean, a former prosecutor.

    "The other key witness, unfortunately, is deceased," McClean said. "Basically, Zimmerman is going to be asking the jury to believe his version of the facts. ... As the case stands now, his credibility is absolutely critical to the case."

    ...

    Zimmerman's credibility would be important if his attorney, Mark O'Mara, tries to get a judge without the jury to dismiss the charges based on the law, said Orlando defense attorney David Hill.

    "If he was in on something that was not truthfully revealed to the judge, when there is a 'stand your ground' hearing, of course you're going to second-guess him," Hill said.

    Stating that Zimmerman's "goose is cooked" may be overstating the case somewhat, but his credibility is absolutely critical, and he's damaged it badly.

    Parent

    Damaging your credibility (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Darby on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 04:27:14 PM EST
    Doesnt mean the prosecutor doesn't have to prove its case.

    I just heard three jurors in the Edwards case state they believe edwards is guilty. But v to acquit because of lack of evidence.  That is the way it should be.

    Parent

    Never said ... (none / 0) (#203)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 04:52:51 PM EST
    Doesnt mean the prosecutor doesn't have to prove its case.

    ... it did.

    Parent

    but (none / 0) (#55)
    by desmoinesdem on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 07:45:55 PM EST
    even if he can't get the charges dismissed under Stand Your Ground (having damaged his credibility with the judge), he could still be acquitted at trial on the self-defense claim.

    If he testifies at trial, can the prosecutors bring up this stuff about the money and passport on cross-examination?

    Parent

    Yes, they can cross-examine on it, (none / 0) (#147)
    by Peter G on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 12:17:01 PM EST
    DMD, as extensively discussed in the last two threads on this topic.

    Parent
    Maybe.... (none / 0) (#166)
    by bmaz on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 01:06:55 PM EST
    ...but it seems that that may be curbed somewhat by the fact Zimmerman himself did not give any testimony, nor make any personal statements on the issue of the money in the account, nor financial circumstances for release conditions determination, at the hearing.  Unless he filled out and signed some type of form personally in relation to the bail determination hearing (quite possible; though I have no recollection of such) then he may not be as easy to impeach on all this as many are assuming.

    Now, Shellie Zimmerman may have some real issues depending on how her explanation is constructed. It is still early in this and a lot left to be fleshed out. Be interested in your thoughts on the above paragraph and any recollection as to whether or not GZ did, in fact, fill out a release questionnaire.

    Parent

    New question: may (none / 0) (#167)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 01:13:35 PM EST
    The court compelling Mr. Zimmerman to testify at the next bail hearing?

    Parent
    Absolutely not (none / 0) (#191)
    by Peter G on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 03:35:35 PM EST
    See U.S. Constitution, Amendment Five, Self-Incrimination Clause, and Florida Constitution, Declaration of Rights (article 1), section 9.

    Parent
    Agree, Peter (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 12:30:24 AM EST
    but oddly the judge at the end of the hearing told O'Mara he could move for bond again so Zimmerman could explain, "and at this time it would be important for him to testify as to what transpired." (About 49 minutes in, here.)

    Parent
    The more suspicious part of my (none / 0) (#229)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 11:23:03 AM EST
    brain thinks the prosecutors are more interested in smoking Zimmerman out and having him make public statements than they are in the substance of this bail issue.

    Parent
    There's a lot about this whole thing (5.00 / 1) (#231)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 12:11:48 PM EST
    that I just don't get.  

    Zimmerman set up the website, and news of it hit the media around April 9/10; his lawyers at the time confirmed that at the same time they announced they were resigning as his counsel.

    This was all over the news.

    So, I don't get why, if the website and PayPal account were in existence before O'Mara was even involved, and news of the website was all over the blogs and the media when it happened, someone in O'Mara's office wasn't on top of it; do they not Google?  Was there no, "Hey, George, I see you have this website soliciting donations for your living expenses - what's the status of that?  Have you raised any money - if so, how much?  Have you spent any of it - if so, how much and for what?"

    How is that not a conversation between a defendant and the lawyer who's going to go into court and make representations in an effort to get that defendant out on bond?

    I don't get why, even if O'Mara had discussed Zimmerman's finances with him in advance of the original bond hearing, he wouldn't have also had Zimmerman or his wife provide him with copies of bank statements, etc. so he has proof that what he's about to represent to the court is accurate and truthful.  

    I just don't see someone of O'Mara's experience and reputation not having procedures in place for getting to the bottom of everything, not just so he can provide the best representation possible, but because he's also running a business, and that business has to be protected.  

    For the record, I'm not making any accusations of anything by anyone - I've just been mulling all of this over the last couple of days, and there are things about it that just don't make sense to me.  Maybe we will know more when the new bond hearing takes place, and all of this will make sense to me; right now, it just doesn't.


    Parent

    I doubt it can be used (none / 0) (#250)
    by MJW on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 05:12:06 PM EST
    for cross-examination, except in the unlikely event he's tried and convicted of perjury or violating section 903.035, prior to the murder trial.

    Florida is quite restrictive in the use of character evidence.  There is:

    90.609 Character of witness as impeachment.--A party may attack or support the credibility of a witness, including an accused, by evidence in the form of reputation, except that:
    (1) The evidence may refer only to character relating to truthfulness.
    (2) Evidence of a truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked by reputation evidence.

    It might seem, therefore, that the situation could be used against Zimmerman, since it relates to truthfulness.  However, that section must be read in conjunction with 90.405.

    Larzelere v. State, 676 So. 2d 394 - Fla: Supreme Court 1996:

    Under section 90.609, Florida Statutes (1991), a party may attack the credibility of a person by introducing character evidence in the form of reputation provided that the evidence relates only to the person's reputation for truthfulness. Section 90.405 governs the type of evidence that may be used to prove reputation.

    According to section 90.405:

    90.405 Methods of proving character.--
    (1) REPUTATION.--When evidence of the character of a person or of a trait of that person's character is admissible, proof may be made by testimony about that person's reputation.
    (2) SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF CONDUCT.--When character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, proof may be made of specific instances of that person's conduct.

    In general, only evidence of a reputation for untruthfulness is allowed.  Specific conduct is excluded except when truthfulness is "an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense."

    Florida courts interpret that phrase narrowly. As the state supreme court said in Pantoja v. State, 59 So. 3d 1092 (2011):

    It is a rare occurrence that character is an essential element of a claim or defense. "Were this court to expand the narrow application of section 90.405(2)'s character at issue provision to all cases in which the veracity of a witness is pertinent to the proceedings, section 90.610's confinement of impeachment evidence to only prior convictions would be rendered meaningless." Roebuck, 953 So.2d at 44.

    Just how narrow the exception is can be seen in Pantoja.  In a case involving a witness's accusations of sexual abuse, the court held that evidence of a previous false accusation of sexual abuse against someone else by that witness wasn't admissible as evidence of untruthfulness.  The court said:

    We have held that "evidence of particular acts of ethical misconduct cannot be introduced to impeach the credibility of a witness. The only proper inquiry into a witness's character for impeachment purposes goes to the witness's reputation for truth and veracity." Fernandez v. State, 730 So.2d 277, 282 (Fla.1999). In so holding, we have explained, "Allowing this testimony would violate sections 90.608, 90.609, and 90.610, Florida Statutes (1993), which prohibit impeachment by reference to specific bad acts other than convictions for felonies or misdemeanors involving dishonesty." Fernandez, 730 So.2d at 282-83. In accordance with this, we have repeatedly interpreted section 90.610 to permit impeachment of a witness's credibility only by felony conviction or by a conviction involving a crime of dishonesty or false statement.


    Parent
    Rain (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 04:06:01 PM EST
    De la Rionda for some reason asked Dee Dee if the rain was still falling in the last moments before the 'confrontation'. (10:09) -

    De la Rionda: Could you - and you may not have been able to - could you hear whether it was raining at that time or not?

    Dee Dee: It was not raining.


    W-20 (0:50) -

    All of a sudden, it kind of sounded like to the back left of the unit - and it was raining outside, but we heard kind of a scuffle, or kind of just ruffling around in the bushes.

    W-11 (8:24) -

    And it was weird that - it was - it's been raining all night. You know what I mean. For there even to be people out - We were kind of like, 'What are these people doing?'

    W-18, 911 call (5:30) -

    I heard people talking out there, and I was kinda like, oh gosh, where they - you know, it's pouring rain, why would they be outside? I figure walking their dog or something.



    Dee Dee has (3.00 / 2) (#202)
    by lousy1 on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 04:33:24 PM EST
    a phenomenally well developed capacity to discriminate audio sounds and their sources.

    Perhaps it this power developed in compensation for other intellectual challenges but that is speculation.

    Remember she is not only able to discern the sound of a push but also determine who was pushing. Dee Dee is also able to identify the sound of a cell found as it slides through the grass.

    Who you gonna believe Dee Dee's magic ears or the weather channel?


    Parent

    "for some reason" is right (none / 0) (#253)
    by MJW on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 05:35:03 PM EST
    I thought is was very odd that de la Rionda  asked this, seemingly out of the clear blue (or the cloudy gray, as it were).  I though it was even odder that DeeDee so definitively said it wasn't.  Somehow that suggests it's a significant point, though I can't see why it would be.  Wasn't it "dripping" just minutes before, causing Martin to put his hood up?

    Parent
    I think the passport issue is almost as (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 05:51:17 PM EST
    significant as the money issue when considering his credibility.  How can you forget you have two passports, especially when you've had a conversation with your wife about it only days before the bond hearing?  And then let your attorney - in court while you're there in person - turn over the passport and make the statement that it is the defendant's only passport.  (see item #5 of motion)

    No Backup (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 06:53:52 PM EST
    O'Mara has records to show that Zimmerman gave him the passport soon after he was released. He took the blame for the delay in handing it over. So it hasn't been available to Zimmerman as a 'backup'. It has been in the custody of an officer of the court.

    on CNN (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by ding7777 on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 07:08:06 PM EST
    O'mara said GZ FedX the 2nd passport on 4/26 - and that it was O'mara who failed/forgot to disclose it at the bond hearing

    Definitely illegal to have (none / 0) (#59)
    by the capstan on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 08:15:54 PM EST
    2 passports: if you replace a lost one and then find it, you have committed yourself to return the original to the agency immediately.  

    Actually, the original passport became invalid at an official passport checkpoint once the replacement was issued.  Could be used as ID within the US in most cases, tho.

    Parent

    AP article via USA Today re (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 07:13:45 PM EST
    issue of Zimmerman's credibility:

    link

    That (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 07:37:25 PM EST
    does not look good for Zimmerman at all.

    Parent
    FedEx receipt, predated pleading, directory list (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Cylinder on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 07:58:01 PM EST
    And what would those records consist of?

    Along with the passport, O'Mara submitted his original pre-dated notice, the FedEx receipt and the directory listing showing when the notice was drafted.

    Oh yea, and his word - which Judge Lester noted was sufficient in itself.

    How were the Zimmerman's to know (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Redbrow on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 11:18:01 PM EST
    if the donations could be used for bail when Judge Lester himself was no even sure according to this article from April 27?

    But the judge said he would delay ruling on the request, in part because he does not know if he has authority to say how the money can be used.


    Apparently they figured it out (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 07:17:18 AM EST
    The question of whether the judge had the legal authority to control how the money could be used is entirely separate from whether the Zimmerman's believed they had the authority to use it.  The Zimmerman's themselves apparently believed the use of the money was within their discretion, as they spent @ $50,000 of it before they even told O'Mara about it.  They used the $50,000 to pay Zimmerman's bond, Paypal fees, personal debts, phone cards, living expenses and prison commissary expenses.  Moreover, they were specifically discussing how much of it to use to pay for his bond in their recorded phone calls:

    GZ:  "If the bond is more than 15, pay the 15.  If more than 15, pat the 10 percent to the bondsman.

    SZ:  "You don't want me to pay $100?"

    GZ:  "I don't know"

    SZ:  "All right, just think about it."

    GZ:  "I will"

    SZ:  "That's what it's for".

    Parent

    That dollar sign... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by unitron on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 07:29:58 AM EST
    That dollar sign in front of the 100 may not have been in the actual audio.

    She may have just said "one hundred", possibly meaning one hundred thousand.

    The idea that it was some sneaky divide by ten super spy code is a bit much.

    If Zimmerman's lawyer told him the state was going to try for a bail of five hundred thousand dollars but he was going to try to get it down to one fifty, does anyone seriously think that would have meant one dollar and fifty cents?

    It's just the informal way people talk about money.

    Parent

    I doubt the "$" was there (none / 0) (#95)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 07:35:42 AM EST
    The idea that it was some sneaky divide by ten super spy code is a bit much.

    It is.  Of course, no one was claiming that it was, just that it was a code.  Even if you reject the idea that it was a code, the Zimmerman's knew about the money, had no issue spending it, were discussing spending it for bond, and SZ lied about it at the bond hearing.

    Parent

    jail call transcripts (none / 0) (#121)
    by lawstudent on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 10:05:19 AM EST
    Since the "transcript" of the jail calls was attached to the prosecutor's motion papers, and the prosecutor is arguing that it is the precise language used in that call that suggests the Zimmerman's were speaking in "code," I would bet that the inclusion/omission of any dollar signs is intentional and spoken on the tape.  Granted, transcriptions are often inaccurate, but a big part of this motion is the precise words spoken between GZ and SZ.  Why would there be material (such as dollar signs) added that did not exist?  Wouldn't it be more "code-like" if there were no dollar signs at all?

    Parent
    Because people don't use ... (none / 0) (#123)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 10:27:00 AM EST
    ... the term "dollar sign" in conversation.  She probably said either "one hundred" - meaning one hundred thousand dollars and they inserted the dollar sign, or "one hundred dollars", which would be transcribed with the dollar sign.

    The point is that no one was claiming it was some "super secret spy code".

    Parent

    transcripts (none / 0) (#134)
    by labrat on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 11:28:11 AM EST
    I hope O'Mara asks to listen to the actual tapes and doesn't rely on the prosecution's transcripts. The prosecution truncated the bond hearing testimony to make SZ look worse - who knows what they left out of the jailhouse transcripts? Context maybe? I don't trust anyone in this case.

    Parent
    Prosecutor Corey Pulls a NBC Zimmeredit (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Raoul on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 12:37:58 PM EST
    That's not an "NBC Zimmeredit" (none / 0) (#158)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 12:51:17 PM EST
    The same judge presided over the first bail hearing - he knew that Mrs. Zimmerman claimed the brother-in-law was managing the account, and that she stated "I'm sure that we could probably get him (the brother-in-law) on the phone".  Her statement that they could "probably get him on the phone" doesn't change the fact that she did have an idea of how much money was in the account, she did have other assets (the Paypal account) to pay for bond and legal expenses, and she lied to the court when she testified otherwise.

    Parent
    Was she a professional actuary? (none / 0) (#168)
    by Redbrow on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 01:19:32 PM EST
    How was she qualified to make estimates and projections? The amount was in constant flux. For all she knew the amount could have doubled, so she answered she could not give an accurate estimate at that time.

    What if she said 135 but it turned out to be 250 or more? She would still be labeled a liar.

    O'Mara himself was shocked at how much was raised in such a short period of time when he found out. His professional experience made a couple grand seem like it would be a reasonable amount to have been raised, but he ended up being way off.

    Parent

    She could have said, (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 01:23:21 PM EST
    "Well, there was approximately $130,000 based on my last conversation with XYZ.  I know we had transferred $xxx amount to my credit union account, and GZ had approximately $xxx in his account."  I mean, SZ and GZ were discussing the money on the recorded phone conversation just three days prior.    

    Parent
    "Professional Actuary"?!?! - hehehehe (none / 0) (#186)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 02:49:10 PM EST
    No.

    She was not being asked to testify as an expert witness.  She was being asked about her personal knowledge of any assets which could be used to pay legal expenses and/or post bond.  She didn't just deny knowing actual/precise amounts or (the latest red herring) projected balances, she denied knowledge of any assets which they could use to pay for bond or legal expenses.


    Q: "Do you own the home that you live or lived in?"

    A:  "No, sir."

    Q: "Other major assets that you have which you can liquidate reasonably to assist in coming up with money for a bond?"

    A:  "None that I know of."

    Q:  "I discussed with you the pending motion to have your husband, George, declared indigent for cost, have I not?"

    A:  "Yes, you have."

    Q:  "And is, - are you of any financial means where you can assist in those costs?"

    A:  "Uhm, not ... not that I'm aware of"

    ...

    Q:  "Do you have any estimate as to how much money has been obtained or collected?"

    A:  "I do not."

    She could very easily have been honest and said that - while she didn't have the current balance (if that was true), as of the last time she checked or was made aware of the balance, it was approximately $___ amount.  Instead, she chose to attempt to deceive the court.

    Parent

    I'm sure he will (none / 0) (#137)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 11:35:14 AM EST
    He's got to figure out some way to explain this ... as best he can.  His tact so far seems to be that the Zimmermans didn't realize they could use the Paypal money, and therefore didn't feel the need to disclose it at the bond hearing.

    Good luck with that.

    Parent

    Manufacturing contempt (none / 0) (#172)
    by Rojas on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 01:24:14 PM EST
    It's what prosecutors do. You can trust them to do just that. The context will be that wich is least favorable to the accused.

    Parent
    As someone (none / 0) (#176)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 01:36:27 PM EST
    who does this for a living, I can tell you that unless that person was a very bad transcriber, you do NOT put a $ in front of a number unless the person says the word "dollars"

    Parent
    How did they figure it out (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Redbrow on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 12:53:40 PM EST
    when the judge could not figure it out?

    This was a highly unusual and unprecedented situation. Nobody informed them if the donations could definitely be used for bail because apparently nobody was certain including the ultimate authority, the judge.

    Shelly Zimmerman was asked precise questions which she could not give a definite answer to.

    O'MARA: Do you own the home that you live or lived in?
    S. ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

    O'MARA: Other major assets that you have which you can liquidate reasonably to assist in coming up with money for a bond?

    S. ZIMMERMAN: None that I know of.

    O'MARA: I discussed with you the pending motion to have your husband, George, declared indigent for cost, have I not?

    S. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, you have.

    O'MARA: Are you of any financial means where you could assist in those costs?

    S. ZIMMERMAN: Not that I'm aware of.


    Parent

    I believe this was a website and PayPal account (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 01:00:03 PM EST
    set up by George Zimmerman himself.  How would he not have access to those funds, especially if they had been deposited into his personal banking or credit union account and then transferred to his wife's account?  At the time of the bond hearing they were apparently the only people (with other family members) who were aware those funds existed and how much had been donated.  And in a recorded conversation SZ even says something to the effect that paying for the bond is what those funds are for!  Also, how could the court be in control of those funds or have any jurisdiction when it was a private, personal account?  Go ahead and plug your ears if it makes you feel better.

    Parent
    Did the zimmerman's have access (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Redbrow on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 01:25:09 PM EST
    to a computer with internet access in the court room?

    Shelly Zimmerman informed them who the person in charge was who could give the exact amount and how to contact them.

    They chose not to follow up.

    Parent

    The Zimmerman's had no trouble ... (none / 0) (#188)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 03:04:33 PM EST
    ... "figuring out" whether they were able to use the funds.  In fact, they were specifically discussing using those funds to pay his bond during their phone calls:

    GZ:  "If the bond is more than 15, pay the 15.  If more than 15, pat the 10 percent to the bondsman.

    SZ:  "You don't want me to pay $100?"

    GZ:  "I don't know"

    SZ:  "All right, just think about it."

    GZ:  "I will"

    SZ:  "That's what it's for".

    Not to mention the fact that they managed to spend @ $50,000 of it before they told O'Mara about it.  They used the $50,000 to pay his bond, Paypal fees, personal debts, phone cards, living expenses and prison commissary expenses.

    BTW - The issue of whether the judge believed he had legal authority to control the money is a completely different issue from whether the Zimmerman's could use the money they had raised through their own website.

    Parent

    Blood evidence suggests it wasn't gun kickback (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Kyreth on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 12:43:41 AM EST
    that broke his nose.  Trayvon had Zimmerman's blood on his sleeve, which is much more suggestive of Trayvon having broken it IMO.

    So that said, he managed to get his head banged twice, his nose broken, his face covered in blood, with the guy on top of him keeping him from getting away.  That's a very compelling situation to be in fear of imminent bodily harm or death.  Keep in mind it doesn't matter how serious the first two blows to the head are, when all it takes is one good blow to fracture a skull or cause brain damage.  

    Head Bangin? (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by miloh on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 10:53:46 AM EST
    Again, John and other eye witnesses saw no head banging.  Not much movement at all.

    GZ thought TM had a gun?  Then why did he get out of his vehicle and follow him?

    Parent

    the extent (none / 0) (#80)
    by Clara Bow Again on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 01:52:57 AM EST
    of GZ's injuries have those who think they were severe & those who think they were minor. It actually comes down to a matter of opinion & what a jury will think of his injuries.

    How "real" was the appearance of danger to GZ that night? I believe it was very real to GZ which is why he shot Trayvon.

    However, the reason the appearance of danger was so real to GZ, was not because of the fight that was occurring but because he feared Trayvon was armed.

    During the hearing in which GZ apologized to the Martins he concluded with:
    "I did not know if he was armed or not."

    GZ was not afraid of TM because of their hand to hand combat - he was afraid TM also had a gun.

    Parent

    Zimmerman's apology (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by unitron on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 07:11:42 AM EST
    I think Zimmerman's apology was in answer to the stuff being said by Trayvon's family and associates of the family.

    You know people go on about how someone was killed for only 3 dollars, or something like that, when there's very little chance the assailant knew beforehand how little money their victim was carrying and was probably expecting a much larger amount?

    Well, people were going on about how Trayvon was only 17 and was unarmed, as though there were a big neon sign proclaiming that floating over his head everywhere he went for Zimmerman and the rest of the world to see.

    (I don't fault them for that, they were dealing with a tragic loss)

    Zimmerman was trying to answer those questions, and explain that he didn't and couldn't know.

    Parent

    you may be right (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by lawstudent on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 09:59:36 AM EST
    I think Zimmerman's apology was in answer to the stuff being said by Trayvon's family and associates of the family.

    Your post is good closing argument material, but he said what he said, and his attorneys will have to convince a jury that explanation is the correct one.  

    He also said at the bond hearing "I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am."  Yet, on the 911 tape, when asked, "How old would you say he is?" He responds: "He's got something on his shirt. About like his late teens."  He also refers to him as a "kid."  So it seems he has a few inconsistencies in there that will need to be explained.

    Parent

    Zimmmerman's only what, 28? (none / 0) (#226)
    by unitron on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 12:52:34 AM EST
    Probably still thinks of himself as young, instead of nearly 30, next stop middle aged, and before you know it decades disappear.

    So late teens, which is almost 20 to 21, might be, to him, a little bit younger.

    Parent

    "I did not know if he was armed or not." (none / 0) (#83)
    by WentAway on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 05:34:16 AM EST
    "However, the reason the appearance of danger was so real to GZ, was not because of the fight that was occurring but because he feared Trayvon was armed."

    I don't understand the strategy of "I did not know if he was armed or not."  Was it CYA?    

    Parent

    I wonder if that will come back to haunt him (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by Karl Baden on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 06:31:25 AM EST
    if he is ever cross-examined. What was that supposed to mean? That he shot him because of that possibility and wouldn't have if he had known that Trayvon wasn't armed? That he did whatever he did earlier because he thought Trayvon might be armed? Obviously he would have to come up with something better.

    Parent
    Better than blood evidence (none / 0) (#102)
    by unitron on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 08:45:03 AM EST
    For the gun to have hit Zimmerman in the nose, Martin's nipples would have had to have been directly above Zimmerman's eyes, which would be a poor position in which to have the leverage to keep Zimmerman pinned.

    Parent
    that comment was deleted (none / 0) (#224)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 12:47:45 AM EST
    for misrepresenting opinion as fact. The judge or jury, not that commenter, will decide whether GZ committed a crime or has a legal defense or prosecution is barred.

    Parent
    no fracture required to cause brain trauma (none / 0) (#244)
    by lily on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 04:08:00 PM EST
    or death

    all that is required is for the brain to bounce  side to side causing internal bleeding and swelling

    death can happened within minutes without a single visible scratch

    a friend died from brain injury after hitting the pavement hard, he was 27 years old. The only sign of injury was blood coming from his ears within the first few minutes following brain injury.

    Parent

    There is strong evidence (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Juan on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 01:58:27 AM EST
     GZ was assaulted. There is no evidence of a "fight" that you keep referring to. No injuries to TM at the hands of another "fighter". Beside the  gunshot wound, an injury to his knuckle. No evidence of receiving any blows. No injuries to GZ that indicates he had delivered any blows. Evidence of several injuries to GZ incurred from an assault that he could reasonably believe it was necessary to use lethal force to prevent death or great bodily harm.

    But that evidence... (none / 0) (#89)
    by unitron on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 06:51:49 AM EST
    But that evidence might well be exactly the same if Zimmerman grabbed Martin to hold him for the police (without bothering to explain himself) and Martin struck in self defense.

    And if Martin had any awareness of the gun prior to that last second or three, that would go along way towards explaining any perceived severity of his "attack" or "assault".

    The pristine condition of Zimmerman's hands does make me wonder what he was doing for over 60 seconds before firing his gun.

    Did his doctor make note of any forearm bruising or other defensive wounds?

    Parent

    there is no evidence (none / 0) (#225)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 12:51:51 AM EST
    GZ grabbed Martin first. There's nothing to suggest that happened. You know there are no witnesses to the beginning of the struggle so please don't make up stuff. I'm not going to host unsupported speculation as to guilt.

    Parent
    unitrron's comments in (none / 0) (#266)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 10:03:09 PM EST
    response to this deleted. Speculation here must be derived from the evidence, not made up and then claimed they are supported because of a lack of evidence to show otherwise. That's like saying a third person shot TM because there's no evidence a third party wasn't present. Sorry, you can't do that here.

    Parent
    that comment was deleted (none / 0) (#221)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 12:40:55 AM EST
    for containing false information

    Parent
    Not So Clearly (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 07:52:51 AM EST
    GZ clearly told his wife to hang onto the 2nd passport.

    I've already pointed out that de la Rionda didn't even claim this at the hearing.

    Your smoking gun is like one of those optical illusions that disappears when you look straight at it.

    Zimmerman referred to 'my passport', suggesting he knew of only one. His wife's reply was oddly worded, but doesn't clearly show she believed there was more than one passport.

    Zimmerman said 'You hold onto that', not 'that one'. 'Hold onto that' can be a colloquialism for 'don't lose it'.

    John (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 08:08:43 AM EST
    I've been waiting for the "talking point" crafted to negate the testimony of Witness John--John the Accursed.  His interrogators just couldn't muddle his testimony that the figure dressed in black was on top, just before he heard the gunshot.  Then cue the contemporaneous outcries on the 911 recordings.  There is fear and panic in those shouts.  So those were uttered by a terrified Trayvon?  But what about Zimmerman's battered noggin?  Oh, I see--Trayvon was somehow "provoked," acquiring the right to beat Zimmerman to death, should that be his good pleasure.  

    What webs we weave, trying to validate our preconceptions.

    Don't hold your breath waiting (none / 0) (#105)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 08:57:38 AM EST
    I can't remember the last time someone on this blog said they were absolutely sure it was Martin calling for help.

    Once the fight got started, the pertinent question is whether deadly force was justified. Was that the only option GZ had to save his life? I believe that if the gun was not so readily handy he would have found another way and no one would have died.

    Parent

    Officer Of The Court (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 08:45:20 AM EST
    O'Mara doesn't need Zimmerman to back him up. He is an officer of the court. The court will take his word unless there is contrary evidence.

    The prosecutors aren't claiming such evidence. Have you listened to the hearing? De la Rionda didn't want to come within a mile of imputing any impropriety to O'Mara.

    not only that (none / 0) (#222)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 12:42:17 AM EST
    the judge said O'Mara has always been completely forthright. He went out of his way to praise O'Mara's candor and integrity.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 0) (#138)
    by CommonSenseForChange on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 11:35:58 AM EST
    I think a reasonable jury will never buy the story that Zimmerman was punched to the ground at the Tee and then somehow ended up at a location so far down the path.  Would've had to be one hell of a punch, wouldn't say?

    I don't think we have heard zimmermans story (none / 0) (#197)
    by Darby on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 04:20:36 PM EST
    In it's entirety, have we?  The summary I have heard is that they exchanged words and then Trayvon punched him. But it isn't the full accounting from z as far as I know

    Parent
    wasn't "so far down the T" (none / 0) (#265)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 09:51:06 PM EST
    It was the second house off the T, look at the maps. If the punch was in the backyard of 1211 TTL and they ended up at 1221 TTL, that's hardly far at all-- it's right next door.

    Parent
    Using the concrete squares to judge (none / 0) (#268)
    by lily on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 12:38:11 AM EST
    the distance it is about 12-16'ft, which is about the size of the average living room.
    Hardly far at all.

    Parent
    I think it's farther than that. (none / 0) (#271)
    by MJW on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 01:54:40 AM EST
    Martin's body was, I believe, located a few feet west of the sidewalk square that's just north of the northernmost of the two closely-spaced utility covers.  Starting at the top of the T and going south, the first cover is 10 feet from the top of the T, the next 30 feet, and the one just south of Martin's body, 50 feet.  I believe the key chain was found about 8 feet from the top of the T.

    Parent
    Manner Of Speaking (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 03:27:11 PM EST
    She might have meant it was one of two in the box, one for her and one for her husband.

    Anyway, people speak oddly sometimes. What matters is that she said nothing that clearly shows that she knew there was a second passport.

    it does look like the Zimmerman's original intent was to withhold it.

    I disagree. There is no evidence they knew there was more than one passport at that time.


    I deleted the comment (none / 0) (#212)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 10:41:36 PM EST
    you are replying to. The judge dismissed the passport issue, there was absolutely no suggestion he intentionally hid it.

    Parent
    Deletion (none / 0) (#223)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 12:45:32 AM EST
    Jeralyn, when you delete something I reply to, I don't mind if you want to delete my comment as well, unless there is something in it you feel is worth keeping.

    Parent
    The "hostility" you mention isn't (5.00 / 2) (#240)
    by Angel on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 07:34:08 AM EST
    one-sided.  And if you think  GZ's comment about "...those (blank) always get away..." isn't reflective of some sort of hostility on his part then you aren't being honest.

    This was in response to whitecap's comment #239 (none / 0) (#241)
    by Angel on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 07:35:52 AM EST
    Trayvon Martin wasn't the local burglar. (5.00 / 2) (#246)
    by Angel on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 04:43:03 PM EST
    He was a teenager walking home from the store.  

    don't forget, he is also the teen who (1.00 / 1) (#260)
    by Darby on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 07:53:48 PM EST
    went to the store and assaulted the neighborhood watchman.

    Parent
    No one is "canonizing" Trayvon Martin (5.00 / 1) (#255)
    by Mary2012 on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 06:09:14 PM EST
    but there's a big difference between being out to burglarize someone's house and walking to & from a store.

    What is it about this case that so many on the GZ (5.00 / 1) (#257)
    by Mary2012 on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 06:24:15 PM EST
    side feel a need to, imo, make TM into some kind of scary, threatening criminal?

    Was GZ justified or not in shooting TM? If he's justified, why can't you all leave it at that: a mistaken initial criminal profiling of TM by GZ that (in your eyes) somehow turned into a justifiable shooting?

    Why is it that some of you feel a need to endlessly bring up your own neighborhoods to justify GZ's actions?  Shouldn't this current case stand on it's own? IF not then maybe you ought to ask yourselves why not??  

    Scary (none / 0) (#258)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 06:54:26 PM EST
    Have you listened to the first 911 call, with 45 seconds of screaming and begging for help?

    The person who made another person scream like that, is scary to me.

    Parent

    We have statements re the voice and who is (none / 0) (#263)
    by Mary2012 on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 08:09:23 PM EST
    screaming but we really don't have scientific proof, do we?  We don't even know if the voice we heard was caused by stress alone or anything else about the voice.

    It seems to me someone (I think a pro-GZ poster) here just recently laid out a speculative scenario where perhaps TM was only holding GZ down pinning the gun down with him at the same time.  IF that turns out to be the case (and no one is saying it is) that voice might well be TM's after all. Just supposing it does -- then what will you say? (rhetorical question)

    The point is none of us KNOWS what happened. If you think for one minute that GZ -- just based on what we do "know" of his record of recent years/ recent history -- can't be made out to be "scary" and more, not to mention his current predicament, you need to think again.

    The point is: NO ONE here knows what actually happened.  

    Parent

    Eight Sentences (none / 0) (#267)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 11:27:58 PM EST
    You wouldn't spare one to answer my not rhetorical question. Have you, with your own ears, even once listened to that recording?

    Parent
    Of course I have -- why do you ask? (none / 0) (#269)
    by Mary2012 on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 12:42:30 AM EST
    context (none / 0) (#261)
    by lily on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 08:05:40 PM EST
    Mary, the reference was in context to the comment by Angel about the meaning of the statement
    "those assh.... always get away with it"


    Parent
    Straw. You really need to take off the blinders (5.00 / 2) (#264)
    by Angel on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 08:26:50 PM EST
    and try to comprehend the comments posted in their entire context, beginning with my original comment, which by the way wasn't addressed to you.  It was a response to a comment made by someone else and essentially said the hostile comments on these threads about GZ are not one-sided, which was the poster's insinuation.  I added that GZ's comment about "those (blank) always getting away" was hostile.  My opinion.  And anyone being honest would admit it likely and not automatically try to change the conversation by making derogatory comments about the dead victim, which is what happened.  But you certainly proved that there are a lot of hostile comments being put forth.

    Parent
    Probably for the same reason (none / 0) (#262)
    by Darby on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 08:09:14 PM EST
    that those on the Trayvon side don't just leave it at a kid who acted stupidly by assaulting and terrorizing someone with a lethal weapon.

    Parent
    We don't know what happened (5.00 / 0) (#270)
    by Mary2012 on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 01:08:48 AM EST
    We don't know whether or not GZ was somehow managing to hold on to TM, keeping him from getting up and/ or getting away, we don't even know what exactly was going on at the time GZ fired his gun.

    We do know TM wasn't on the verge of burglarizing the neighborhood and we do know GZ fired the shot.  

    Pretty much other than that, imo, we really don't know what happened.

    Parent

    How do you know TM wasn't on the verge of (none / 0) (#272)
    by Darby on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 02:39:22 AM EST
    burglarizing the neighborhood?  

    No evidence so far to indicate it, but we don't know what Zimmerman's statements are.

    There is evidence from Zimmerman,eyewitness and injuries that Martin assaulted Zimmerman.

    Parent

    No, Thanks (2.00 / 1) (#120)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 10:04:18 AM EST
    I don't believe there are any such people, except for a few of the usual fringe characters. If you think there are, you probably misinterpreted something. I'm not wasting my time going through endless 'early threads' trying to guess at what you may have misinterpreted.

    she misunderstood (none / 0) (#214)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 11:24:46 PM EST
    and those comments have been deleted.

    No one here said there should be no investigation. It was an arrest, not an investigation, that was the issue. The investigation began the night TM was shot and the family lawyers were demanding an arrest even though the investigation hadn't been completed and initial reports supported GZ's assertion of self-defense.

    Also, her comment was deleted for stating it was "clear" who was the aggressor. Probably a benign misunderstanding of what aggressor means under the law, but I'm not going to allow this site to be used to spread misinformation. Those kinds of misunderstandings stated as fact require deletion.

    Sorry, MT.

    Parent

    He should get re-bonded (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 01:31:28 PM EST
    I don't think the kind of protective (read solitary) custody he would have to be placed in would serve anyone's interests, certainly not Zimmerman's mental health interests, which are sort of essential for him to get a fair trial.  That said, J, I think it is almost axiomatic that this episode will have some negative impact on GZ's credibility before a jury.  How could it not?  Will it be THE credibility turning point. Highly doubtful.  Will it completely turn the case. Uh, I doubt it.  Just another piece. And like some others have mentioned, it ain't like the prosecution is pure as the driven snow here.  Hardly.  Have a good weekend.

    Immunity Hearing (none / 0) (#2)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 01:35:13 PM EST
    I'm more interested in the immunity hearing than the trial. The immunity hearing comes first, and there's a good chance there will be no trial.

    If there is an immunity hearing and a trial, I expect the trial to be anti-climactic. It will re-hash the same evidence as the hearing.

    Once the immunity hearing shows how weak the prosecution's case is, I think few will be surprised if there is no conviction. I fear that a hung jury is more likely than an acquittal.


    Mrs. Zimmerman's deception pales (none / 0) (#3)
    by Redbrow on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 01:51:30 PM EST
    in comparison to the prosecution's deception in general and specifically on 4/20 during the very same hearing.

    The lead investigator denied any knowledge of Zimmerman's medical records but we later found out the prosecution had a copy of those records at the time of the hearing. I find it hard the LEAD investigator would not have had knowledge of Zimmerman's documented injuries.

    They also cited a witness who saw one shadow chasing another when that witness had actually already changed her story to one shadow, maybe, not wearing contacts, etc. by the time of the hearing.

    The prosecution stated Zimmerman 'confronted' Martin but then admitted they actually have no evidence to support that claim.

    If the prosecution had not deliberately deceived the court, Zimmerman may not have had to post bail at all.

    Evidence? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 03:11:33 PM EST
    You keep making these claims about the prosecution lying.  Where's the evidence?  Where's the evidence that the investigator knew that this witness had changed her story?  (Presumably O'Mara didn't know either, as he didn't challenge that part of the testimony at all).  Where's the evidence that Gilbreath had seen Zimmerman's medical records before the bond hearing?

    Accusations without the slightest bit of evidence are worthless.

    Parent

    It is all in the discovery (none / 0) (#16)
    by Redbrow on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 03:23:30 PM EST
    O'Mara did not have access to any discovery at the time of the hearing on 4/20. Of course he would have raised serious objections if he had the evidence he has now.

    The prosecution DID have access to all that evidence, well before the hearing, and they are obligated to tell the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth.

    It seems as though you have not been following this case closely at all or have been relying on some misinformed biased source to spoon-feed you what little you seem to know.

    Parent

    My IMO... (none / 0) (#109)
    by DebFrmHell on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 09:19:45 AM EST
    This is precisely the reason that Corey could not go to a Grand Jury.  If the State had used what they used in their Probable Cause before a Grand Jury, I believe it would have come back as a No Billed.

    I don't think that would have served in her best polictical interest nor that of her bosses for that to happen.

    They say a Grand Jury will indict a "ham sandwich" but I have yet to see one indict just 2 slices of bread.

    Parent

    Why do (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 02:05:19 PM EST
    you think the judge will give him bond again? Does the judge think it's not safe for him in jail or something? I don't know this judge but I would think that the judge would be awfully ticked at him lying about the money he had in the Paypal account.

    perhaps you could wait (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 06:22:06 PM EST
    until there is a hearing at which he gets to present his explanation.

    Parent
    Wait for evidence? (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by unitron on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 06:27:00 AM EST
    Where's the fun in that?

    : - )

    (you have to admit it does seem like a radical concept to many online to base one's beliefs on the facts instead of the other way around)

    Parent

    Are you psychic? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Redbrow on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 02:10:34 PM EST
    I guess O'Mara should not waste his time and resources deposing 50 witnesses when he could just consult you and your amazing ability to predict the future with such certainty.

    O'Mara said he expects to call on 50 witnesses who need to be deposed before he decides whether to file a "stand your ground" motion which would ask for a hearing before a judge without a jury. At the hearing, Zimmerman would argue self-defense under the Florida law which gives wide latitude to use deadly force rather than retreat in a fight if people believe they are in danger of being killed or seriously injured.


    that comment by (none / 0) (#41)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 06:20:48 PM EST
    my left mind has been deleted.

    Parent
    Correct (none / 0) (#9)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 02:41:31 PM EST
    The prosecutors were not the ones applying for bail.

    They're just trying to convict someone of second degree murder.

    that comment was deleted (none / 0) (#216)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 11:34:11 PM EST
    Lead Investigator (none / 0) (#13)
    by Redbrow on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 03:05:25 PM EST
    Gailbreath was likely playing the plausible deniability game.

    However, Corey and de La Rionda did sit there like potted plants and allow Gailbreath to lead the court down the primrose path, thus destroying all future credibility.

    Hopefully there actions will be investigated by the FL Bar.

    Sorry (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by ks on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 03:28:51 PM EST
    Their actions or more accurately, your repetitive complaints, will not be investigated by the FL Bar.

    Though it's amusing that you are using the language the judge used to describe Zimmerman "sit there like potted plants and allow..." on the prosecutors.  

    Parent

    ks, your repetitive (none / 0) (#213)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 10:43:06 PM EST
    and sarcastic responses to every comment supporting Zimmerman have now resulted in you becoming a chatterer and you are now limited to four comments a day on Zimmerman.

    Parent
    At yesterday's hearing (none / 0) (#20)
    by Dilbert By Day on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 03:39:25 PM EST
    judge Lester expressed his surprise that the state hadn't already initiated an action against Shelly Z., specifically, based upon the strength of the evidence which indicates that her testimony at the bond hearing was deceptive. If the state ultimately files, would the charge be perjury?

    If she were tried on charges related to her husband's ongoing murder case, the resulting media circus could keep the issue of GZs credibility on the front burner for an uncomfortable length of time.

    *Retired concrete contractor talking law.

    Plenty of time to file perjury charges on the wife (none / 0) (#38)
    by rhbrandon on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 06:03:33 PM EST
    Florida has a three-year SOL on felonies other than capital felonies, life-sentence felonies, felonies resulting in a death (the three of which have no SOL), or first-degree felonies (which have limits of four years).

    The prosecutor has a bit on her plate right now.

    Zimmerman's credibility is shot whenever he would take the stand, at hearing or at trial. What I do expect soon is the recusal of the current judge, since Zimmerman is now liable himself for a perjury charge and the judge is now a witness.

    Wouldn't be surprised if his former bond is reinstated.

    Parent

    I am not 'claiming' anything (none / 0) (#22)
    by Redbrow on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 04:01:38 PM EST
    It is a simple fact. They had Zimmerman's medical record well before the hearing. Since you don't believe me, maybe you will believe Jeralyn.

    Also on page 42, Serino says he received Zimmerman's medical records confirming his fractured nose on March 9. (So unbeknownst to O'Mara, they had them long before the bail hearing and the records made no difference to their charging decision.)

    As for the phone conversation recordings, I have not cracked the 'secret code' yet and the prosecution has not offered the key, so who really knows what the heck they are really talking about?

    SPD had the records (none / 0) (#219)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 11:57:04 PM EST
    on March 9, six weeks before the bond hearing.

    Don't take it from me, here's the statement of lead Sanford investigator Chris Serino, which I've posted before.

    It's page 8 of Serino's  13 page report dated 3/13/12 that was sent to the State's Attorney's office as part of the capias reequest. It is page 42 of the 183 page discovery.

    Gilbreath, as the attorney for the state investigator's office, who was one of the affiants for the arrest warrant affidavit, may not have seen the medical report but he certainly read Serino's report and knew about it.


    Parent

    I remember Jeralyn mentioning (none / 0) (#28)
    by Kyreth on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 04:17:00 PM EST
    that DeeDee's testimony had inconsistencies.  I was kinda wondering what were the specific ones that some might have picked up on...there was only one that I think I spotted.

    Outcome (none / 0) (#29)
    by whitecap333 on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 04:42:36 PM EST
    This case will be won or lost by juror selection.  Jurors who share Zimmerman's beliefs and values will not vote to convict.  Those who thirst for Zimmerman's blood on the reasoning that "This was avoidable" and "He shoudda stayed in the truck" will not vote to acquit.  As for the latter, you couldn't extract a civil negligence action from such flapdoodle, without risk of court-imposed sanctions.

     

    Please explain: (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 05:34:46 PM EST
    As for the latter, you couldn't extract a civil negligence action from such flapdoodle, without risk of court-imposed sanctions.


    Parent
    Passport Is Red Herring (none / 0) (#37)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 05:53:37 PM EST
    At the June 1 hearing (27:00) de la Rionda said they were talking about one passport, and he didn't claim to know which one it was.

    There is no evidence the Zimmermans knew about the second passport until after Zimmerman was released, just before they gave it to O'Mara.

    Earlier comment.

    yes, the passport issue is dead (none / 0) (#211)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 10:39:22 PM EST
    he gave it to O'Mara on April 26 and the judge said he was satisfied with O'Mara's explanation.

    Parent
    Hasn't It Already? (none / 0) (#47)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 06:44:38 PM EST
    I thought O'Mara handed it over at the June 1 hearing.

    Paramedic Moved Beverage Can (none / 0) (#52)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 07:26:12 PM EST
    The beverage can was removed from a front pocket and set aside by Paramedic #2. She confirms the location of the can reported by Sgt. Raimondo (p. 16).

    Listen to the hearing (none / 0) (#66)
    by Cylinder on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 09:36:32 PM EST
    In the hearing, O'Mara explained that Zimmerman reported the passport when it was found and sent it to him via FedEx. O'Mara received it, drafted a notice to the court but failed to file it.

    When the issue was raised on Friday, O'Mara brought the passport, original notice, FedEx receipt and - to show the date the file was created.

    jharp's comments (none / 0) (#218)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 11:46:15 PM EST
    on the passport are being deleted. All he/she had to do was listen to the hearing audio and instead he/she kept making accusations despite the judge's clear statement he was satisfied there was no misconduct on the passport.

    Readers: When the answers are right in front of you, are undisputed, and you continue to falsely represent them, I don't care whether it's out of ignorance or laziness or whether you are deliberately trying to mislead people. The effect is the same, you are using this site to spread misinformation. The first time might be innocent, but after being corrected and pointed to the audio of the hearing, you continue to misstate the facts and falsely accuse GZ of something, it's not going to remain on this site.

    Parent

    So putting all of this (none / 0) (#68)
    by DebFrmHell on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 09:54:22 PM EST
    hoopla aside for a few minutes, I went back and read the actual Second Degree Murder Charge against Zimmerman.

    ...during the commision of the aforementioned Second Degree Murder, the said George Zimmerman did carry, display, use, threaten to use or attempt to use a firearm and did actually possess and dischage a firearm and as a result of the discharge, death or great bodily harm was inflicted upon any person, contrary to the provisions of Sections 782.04(2), 775.087(1), and 775.087(2), Flordia Statues.

    Okay, he admitted to firing the weapon.  He had a legal concealed weapon permit so carrying is not at issue.  But where are they getting the "display" and the  "threaten to use" if not one witness has come forward to say that they actually saw him with any weapon of any kind, much less the Kel Tec?  Even with the changes to their testimony...no gun.

    (Frankly, I think the passport is a non-issue.  The money is the immediate problem.)

    BTW, I suck at typing... (none / 0) (#70)
    by DebFrmHell on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 09:56:14 PM EST
    I kan spels real gud tho.

    Parent
    Firearm enhancement (none / 0) (#71)
    by Cylinder on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 10:03:00 PM EST
    That's just the statutory elements for the firearm enhancement - not neccessarily the state's theory. Notice the or.

    No witnesses repot ever seeing Zimmerman's firearm.

    Parent

    Thank you. (none / 0) (#74)
    by DebFrmHell on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 10:20:58 PM EST
    I hadn't read the charge in a long time.  

    Parent
    Well apparently the judge sees things differently (none / 0) (#73)
    by Darby on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 10:11:49 PM EST
    Than you.  If o'mara were so willing to lie to the court and risk disbarment why we he have gone public about the funds in zimmermans account.  But for that disclosure. Nobody would know when the funds were raised.


    Orlando News jail watch.... (none / 0) (#87)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 06:37:27 AM EST
    GZ not surrendered yet,....

    Clarification (none / 0) (#100)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 08:09:43 AM EST
    As I've said elsewhere, I'm not confident that Zimmerman will be acquitted in fact. Conviction seems unlikely, but a hung jury seems somewhat more likely that outright acquittal.

    Non-7-11 video (none / 0) (#104)
    by unitron on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 08:56:39 AM EST
    Didn't Corey say or write something about the 7-11 and other video?

    Anybody know or hear anything about this other video?

    Is it anything more than Trayvon walking past some other store's parking lot or something relatively uninformative like that?

    Clubhouse Video (none / 0) (#107)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 09:02:34 AM EST
    I don't what statement by Corey you have in mind. I know there has been mention of video from the clubhouse.

    maybe clubhouse video (none / 0) (#111)
    by unitron on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 09:24:45 AM EST
    I forget exactly where I saw it, and I don't remember if she specifically said clubhouse video or just other video, and I've seen mention by a poster or two somewhere online about clubhouse video, but patiently waiting for something about its contents to leak has proved fruitless.

    Parent
    Clubhouse videos (none / 0) (#119)
    by lawstudent on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 10:03:30 AM EST
    There are a bunch of additional videos posted here, but the youtube user offers a bit too much commentary for my tastes, and he's clearly motivated to make all the evidence fit his theory.  

    That said, the clubhouse and related videos (westpool, lounge, gameroom, etc.) are all pretty innocuous stuff.  Just 45 minutes of video that apparently show nothing (although I confess I have not watched them all in full).  There are a few commenters who suggest you can see movement at certain points in some of the videos, but I don't know how helpful any of that is in the grand scheme of things.

    Parent

    Thanks For The Link. (none / 0) (#234)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:26:01 PM EST

    If the HOA sprang for a camera in nearly every room and two for the pool, I think they covered the rest of the exterior also. The mail kiosk likely has a dedicated camera.

    Parent

    Zimmerman In Florida (none / 0) (#128)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 10:57:46 AM EST
    Zimmerman in Florida, preparing to surrender by 2:30 deadline.

    Exactly.. (none / 0) (#135)
    by CommonSenseForChange on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 11:28:27 AM EST
    I wish Jeralyn would expound on why she keeps claiming that there is evidence that Zimmerman was  attacked and which witnesses claimed that.  I haven't seen anything that backs up an attack on Zimmerman.

    I also would like to know why Jeralyn disregards DeeDee's statements that Trayvon Martin was pushed by the guy following him around.  

    YGBSM (none / 0) (#141)
    by Cylinder on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 11:47:56 AM EST
    I wish Jeralyn would expound on why she keeps claiming that there is evidence that Zimmerman was  attacked and which witnesses claimed that.

    She's done just that throughout her (excellent) coverage of this case. Which part do you find lacking?

    Parent

    Where is it? (none / 0) (#179)
    by CommonSenseForChange on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 01:48:31 PM EST
    I haven't seen it and I've been reading it for a few weeks now.

    I am specifically trying to understand what "evidence" she refers to call the altercation and "attack".

    Parent

    There are too many to point out (none / 0) (#217)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 11:37:45 PM EST
    You can easily find the details, both in my posts and in the comment threads. Here are all the Zimmerman posts. Again, it's been gone over time and again.

    Parent
    DeeDee wasn't there (none / 0) (#194)
    by friendofinnocence on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 04:03:25 PM EST
    She doesn't know what happened.

    Parent
    The thing is (none / 0) (#143)
    by jbindc on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 11:57:08 AM EST
    There WAS an investigation going on the entire time.  It was just not going fast enough for some people.

    Not so.. (none / 0) (#145)
    by CommonSenseForChange on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 12:07:16 PM EST
    O'mara was asked about the new fundraising website prior to the bond hearing in one of his many televised interviews announcing he was George Zimmerman's new lawyer. It was right after his first set of attorneys quit.

    I think Angel was ... (5.00 / 0) (#148)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 12:20:31 PM EST
    ... talking about the Paypal account, as opposed to the website.  Are you saying O'Mara knew about the Paypal account?

    Parent
    Talking about the original PayPal account ... (none / 0) (#156)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 12:44:58 PM EST
    I believe this is a correct statement.  

    "At the bond hearing O'Mara didn't know of the PayPal account, but he found out about it the next week..."

    Parent

    Wait (none / 0) (#157)
    by jbindc on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 12:47:57 PM EST
    If you know about a paypal website, how do you not know about a linked account?

    Parent
    Here. (none / 0) (#159)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 12:52:51 PM EST
    "At a court hearing Friday morning, O'Mara told the judge that he found out about the funds after last week's bond hearing. Zimmerman was released from jail less than 72 hours later."

    http://tinyurl.com/6uaxr9s


    Parent

    My point is (none / 0) (#161)
    by jbindc on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 12:57:39 PM EST
    There's a courtroom full of people talking about this Paypal website and NO ONE thinks to discuss the linked accounts? SZ testified that the brother-in-law was handling it and would know about the money - did no one ask him?

    Parent
    My original comment was regarding the second (none / 0) (#164)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 01:05:24 PM EST
    passport and how I think it came to be that GZ turned it in to O'Mara.  O'Mara's not knowing about the funds in the PayPal account are part of that narrative, and O'Mara has acknowledged that he didn't know of the PayPal funds at the bond hearing.  How and why not you'd have to ask him.  At the time I thought everyone knew GZ had set up the website with PayPal donation link and found it strange that his own attorney didn't know.  

    Parent
    Then what account (none / 0) (#174)
    by jbindc on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 01:26:29 PM EST
    Was the prosecutor asking SZ about at the bond hearing? The one she testified her brother-in-law was managing?  Wasn't that the Paypal account?  

    Parent
    They were asking about assets, and the (none / 0) (#182)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 02:30:00 PM EST
    PayPal account had not been disclosed.  That's why it's an issue.

    Parent
    There was another paypal account set up (none / 0) (#183)
    by Darby on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 02:41:58 PM EST
    by I believe his neighbor Taffe. It had been reported by Taffee that account had something like $300.00. O'Mara said at the time of the bond hearing that his assumption was that was about the size of the donations to date.

    Parent
    We aren't discussing the other website or PayPal (none / 0) (#185)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 02:48:39 PM EST
    account by Taffe, if it existed, and you know that.  We are discussing the PayPal account in question from the motion - the one GZ set up for himself and which apparently was not disclosed to his attorney until after the bond hearing when SZ was questioned about any assets they might have.  

    Parent
    The brother-in-law ... (none / 0) (#187)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 02:53:41 PM EST
    ... wasn't at the hearing, or on the phone, as Sheila Zimmerman was.  In hindsight, maybe they should have requested an adjournment to try to contact the brother-in-law and get him under oath, but they made the mistake of assuming she was testifying truthfully.

    Parent
    Seems like the media prevailed at hearing (none / 0) (#150)
    by willisnewton on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 12:30:09 PM EST
     I did not see the hearing on Friday but from what I've heard the judge felt that Florida sunshine laws trump many requests for  censoring / sealing public records in this case.  Was Lester more specific than that?  what's the correct terminology here? Censor, seal, redact etc must have legal definitions...  iANAL

    When is the defense likely to get GZ's statements to Sangord PD investigators?  It's my current understanding that they do not yet have these materials but that they will be shared with the defense before trial  - but would they have to be shared before a pre trial hearing such as a SYG type motion is filed?  I'd assume the defense would need these but what are the legalities here?  How long can the prosecution drag out full discovery sharing?  I got the impression that Lester is saying whatever the defense gets, the media will get, too in a broad sense.   Is this how others saw the judge's words?  

    I also got the impression that  o'Mara wants some kind of review period...  And was possibly granted this but did that mean he will get more materials before the media does or not?  He didn't seem to enjoy that privilege previously.  

    Floodgates open (none / 0) (#154)
    by Cylinder on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 12:36:40 PM EST
    Judge Lester was clear that his desire was to grant protective orders in this case but, in his words, "the law is against us."

    As far as Zimmerman's statements, Lester seemed dubious that they would meet the threshold as a confession for the purposes of the Sunshine Law. That was the part where he posited that the state would ague them as inculpatory and assured O'Mara that he would argue them exculpatory.

    I really appears after his 30-day review that the floodgates will open.

    Parent

    Hearing On Discovery (none / 0) (#165)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 01:06:31 PM EST
    Audio of June 1 hearing.

    Lester agreed with the media lawyers that he (Lester) should personally go through it all and decide what to redact.

    The media lawyers argued that statute and case law say a statement isn't a 'confession' unless it admits all elements of the crime. Lester agreed. I think that means anything redacted from Zimmerman's statements will be for some other reason.

    W-9, who accuses Zimmerman of racism, was mentioned as a candidate for heavy redaction.

    That's all I remember.

    an audio interview of her (none / 0) (#177)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 01:42:05 PM EST
    is in the discovery. It's obvious who she is, why she hates Zimmerman and her info is uncorroborated and years old. Since she doesn't pertain to bond but witness redaction, please leave her for another thread. She has no information on this case and doesn't claim to.

    Parent
    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#230)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 12:05:28 PM EST
    Because of the last sentence of your post I thought witness statements were also on topic for the thread. That's why I posted #24 and #52. I've saved them both. If you want to delete them I can repost them on a more appropriate thread.

    Parent
    I think that Z (none / 0) (#181)
    by DizzyMissL on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 02:18:50 PM EST
    would have a bruise on his hand from breaking his nose due to kickback.

    Found when packing (none / 0) (#193)
    by friendofinnocence on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 04:00:39 PM EST
    It was found when Z was packing to go into hiding.

    Wasn't that the non emergency police dispatcher (none / 0) (#196)
    by Darby on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 04:18:19 PM EST
    Comforting a highly distraught caller.?  Hardly part of the investigation

    that comment was deleted (none / 0) (#215)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 11:30:39 PM EST
    it stated opinion as fact and it not accurate.

    Parent
    W-18 Called 911 (none / 0) (#233)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 01:01:34 PM EST
    Of the calls on the night of the shooting whose recordings were released by the city of Sanford, only Zimmerman's was non-emergency. The other seven were 911 calls, including W-18's.

    The 911 dispatchers relayed information to the callers about the arrival of police, but not about the investigation. Of course there's no reason for information about the investigation to be sent to the dispatchers.

    Bottom line, if you listen to the recording of W-18's 911 call, you'll find the dispatcher did not express an opinion about who was screaming.

    It was Chris Serino who did. W-18's account of the matter is on p. 93 of the evidence documents. She said the investigator was named 'Chris'. Serino's brief account of interviewing her is on pp. 37-38.

    Parent

    Re gun kickback and the broken nose (none / 0) (#210)
    by TerryMann on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 09:51:56 PM EST
    Anyone who has ever shot a handgun would know that the assertion that "gun kickback" from a handgun could have resulted in a broken nose is incredibly far-fetched. In my 30+ years of shooting, the only time I've ever heard of a shooter sustaining any type of similar injury is from a rifle that misfired--a rifle, where  your cheek is right up against the gun when it is fired. A handgun is completely different, and a 9mm is, frankly, not even a very big handgun.

    When Zimmerman Reached for his Gun (none / 0) (#232)
    by RickyJim on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 12:42:05 PM EST
    is the key element in determining Zimmerman's guilt.  Why do I say that?  The earlier he reached for it, the more likely Zimmerman was the aggressor and Martin was trying to save himself from being shot.  The later it came into play the more likely Martin was the aggressor and Zimmerman reached for it to save himself.  There is nothing in the physical evidence or witness testimony to give us insight into this.  John, in his 10 seconds of viewing the fight, was in no position to tell if Z had the gun out or not.  He wasn't even sure if M was raining down blows MMA style or just trying to keep Zimmerman's arms pinned down, which is what you would expect if the gun was in Z's hand.  What witnesses thought they heard and the yells on the 911 calls are worth nothing.

    We only have Zimmerman's account of how his drawing of the gun related to his head getting banged in determining if he acted reasonably.  If I understand Judge Lester correctly, we may know soon what Zimmerman's account is.

    Black eyes (none / 0) (#235)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 04:27:31 PM EST
    I've had 'em. When one is laying on the ground and one is punched, one's head has no where to go. It can't snap back absorb some of the blow.
    One tends to suffer broken facial bones. The black eye one gets from tends to make until your eye is shut and it lasts for awhile.   Have you seen the video of GZ climbing the stairs at SFD three days after the shooting? GZ does not have black eyes. I would guess that is why the footage is in the evidence dump. He doesn't look like he'd taken a beating three days before.

    I wish I could edit and/or type. (none / 0) (#236)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 04:32:07 PM EST
    Black eyes/ especially from the type of beating Zimmie says TM administered can appear quickly and last a long time. Obviously the prosecution thinks GZ's lack of bruising a mear 3 days after 2/26 casts doubt on his story.

    Parent
    Please quit spouting off disinformation (none / 0) (#237)
    by Redbrow on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 07:01:29 PM EST
    that contradicts medical professional.

    Symptoms
    By Mayo Clinic staff
    Signs and symptoms of a broken nose may appear immediately or may take up to three days to develop. Signs and symptoms may include:

    Pain or tenderness, especially when touching your nose
    Swelling of your nose and surrounding areas
    Bleeding from your nose
    Bruising around your nose or eyes
    Crooked or misshapen nose
    Difficulty breathing through your nose
    Discharge of mucus from your nose (rhinorrhea)
    Feeling that one or both of your nasal passages are blocked

    A grainy low resolution video taken from a distance at an indirect angle proves nothing.

    Parent

    I'd like to see a photo of his black eyes. (none / 0) (#238)
    by ZtoA on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 07:40:24 PM EST
    Link?

    Parent
    What misinformation? (none / 0) (#274)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 04:33:21 PM EST
    Three days.......like 2/29?
    The video isn't all that grainy.
    I hope GZ took photos of his shiners.


    Parent
    Agree with almost everything but........... (none / 0) (#242)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 01:00:58 PM EST
    I don't see any injuries to GZ's lips.
    How important are the extent of Z's injuries
    to the self defense claim?

    please get back to bond (none / 0) (#273)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 04:28:11 AM EST
    we only have a few comments left in this thread.