Zimmerman - The Video

A new evidence dump at GZLegalCase.com  includes the video of George Zimmerman re-enacting his account of the fatal incident to the Sanford police.

Zimmerman's written statement is here. No big surprises, but he begins with the August home invasion and claims the intruders "attempted to atack" resident and her child. my *recollection* from the police report is that the woman hid in the upstairs bathroom and I don't recall an attempted attack, but it has been a long spring. Not to mention, it hardly matters - the woman was surely terrified, so Zimmerman had that right.

WHERE HAS THE LOVE GONE? When you have lost the Times... Lizette Alvarez and Timothy Williams review the evidence dump and come away with this:

As Mr. Zimmerman retells his version of events in the days after the shooting, the story remains essentially consistent, although some of the language varies.

Oops. At the Zimmerman bond hearing the state had led us to believe that Zimmerman's multiple statements contradicted each other.  Well, they had more time to study that than the Times did.  Or something.

Here is a bit of the hearing; I presume the speaker is State prosecutor Bernie De la Rionda:

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But -- and I'm going to get into every little contradiction but wouldn't you agree that a lot of his statements can be contradicted by the evidence either witnesses or just based on what he says himself?

And let me add - that was very shrewd of Zimmerman to repeatedly claim that he had screamed for help. I guess he was anticipating a few earwitnesses, but he never could have guessed a 911 caller would also get the screaming on tape.

I guess the prosecution theory is that Zimmerman was so cool in the moments after the scuffle that he recognized and acted upon the need to concoct a story that would explain Martin's screaming. Really? And re-told the invented story on multiple occasions? And was lucky enough to have a witness ('John') see Zimmerman screaming?

Now, as of April we have pretty clear evidence (based on the bank/bond scam) that Zimmerman had a reduced faith in the criminal justice system. But where is the evidence that on Feb 26 Zimmerman had no confidence in the law?

Comments

[Cecil Turner]

No big surprises is right. Practically verbatim from the earlier statements/releases/leaks. I don't know what the supposed "inconsistencies" are in his story, but there doesn't appear to be much here to work with.

[rse]

OT already-I am going to cross-post before returning to cubby hole. I have found the document describing what fits everything--ed, bo's aspirations, Rio+20, new eco vision. Must get back to writing in its margin what each sentence clearly links to. And some of it is clearly what organizations like Purple America or ed lobbying groups with the new motto "A change in behavior begins with a change in the heart" are aiming us for.

Porch-Red and I saw that broadcast because I wanted to see the F&F treatment. Not only was it the lead, there were several stories. All with visuals designed so that anyone watching would feel sweaty themselves unless they were watching from a freezer. And they went on about the hot spring. And the corn plants not as tall as they should be.

Thick.

Kim-I saw this morning that Bain has acknowledged it is social science and desired public policy govts want to put in place driving the entire debate. That "denier" is essentially those impeding adoption of what is hoped for by the collectivist scheming set of statists. Just as I have been screaming. It's not about the physical sciences. In fact they are being destroyed by STEM in K-12 and by discipline-based education research if it keeps getting pushed in higher ed. As academic disciplines they are insufficiently flexible to political ideology. Lysenko lives.

And Frau. Welcome back.

[NK]

OT-- apologies for starting OT. Today further decisions will be released by the SCOTUS. Personally, I doubt Obamacare is in the batch today, but SCOTUSBLOG is the place to get real time reports. LOUSY LOUSY 1st time jobless claims report released today, 387K. Quite a week for 'Bam- 'Bam wanders around sucking on nicorette and being ignored by evey national leader, Holder will be held in contrmpt by the House, Bam has to invoke Exec Priv, the SCOTUS may overturn Obamacare, the courts will revoke the EP claim, and unemployment continues to suck. November can't come soon enough for the country.

[henry]

rse, Maurice Strong is living it up in Rio. Nothing like a corrupt socialist to drive the agenda.

[Rick Ballard]

Cecil,

Zimmerman mentions looking for a street sign. There were no street signs to be found in the area where the incident occurred and no street signs anywhere near. He includes the instruction not to follow by the dispatcher.

He did nothing wrong AFAICT but "looking for street signs where none exist" appears to be grounds for a 2nd degree murder charge in Coreyville.

[NK]

RickB-- "street signs"? Did GZ mean Townhouse #s?

[narciso]

Now ,rse, that makes no sense, wouldn't the cold retard corn growth, wasn't that the whole of the 'orange crop report', honestly one feels like Mogatu sometimes,

[Rick Ballard]

NK,

I doubt it. It would be unusual for house numbers to be placed on the back of units facing a common area walkway. I have no idea what Zimmerman intended to convey by "street signs".

[NK]

RickB-- OK.

Here's a link to the undecided cases at SCOTUS. My guess, the 4 crim decisions released today, the federal policy/constitutional cases including Obamacare released Monday. SCOTUS convenes 10:00am today: http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/remaining-merits-cases-in-plain-english-2/

[narciso]

Did they vet this fellow, they replaced Chief Lee with;

http://www.gazette.com/articles/chief-126102-myers-colorado.html

[rse]

Thank you henry.

Strong reminded us why our favorite vendor is so on board with all this.

That Stockholm conference was more important than is usually appreciated.

[Danube of Thought]

Minus 14 at Raz today.

Trails Romney by 4.

Folks, the incumbent president is getting 43% in a matchup with Romney, barely four months out from the election.

[Jack is Back!]

OT: SCOTUS blog is live-blogging Supreme Court decisions today.

[cboldt]

I think it would be grand if SCOTUS was to announce the health care case today. I think though, it has at least anther week left to go in this term.

[NK]

SCOTUS decisions start coming down in 5 minutes. Numbers, 'Bam at 43%, Oil at $80/Bar. , No QE3 bond buying, Dollar stable-- IF IF we get Conserv/Repub Congress and POTUS and a sane budget and Entitlement reform? The US economy will respond in 2013-- spectacularly: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-21/oil-futures-drop-below-80-for-first-time-in-eight-months.html

[pagar]

The future of the elderly under Obamacare.

Socialized Medicine Euthanizes 130,000 Old People per Year in UK

The way the leftists get all excited about killing inconvenient children, this ought to be really, really exciting.

http://moonbattery.com/?p=13119

[narciso]

Right too many strikes to the head,

http://babalublog.com/2012/06/forget-ozzie-guillen-meet-wade-boggs/

[Jack is Back!]

Only two decisions so far from SCOTUS - Southern Union and Knox v. SEIU. Knox was an overturn of (are you ready?) ninth circuit (who could care less since they are sipping Mai-Tai's in Maui).

[NK]

SCOTUS-- my guess crapped out. So far 1 crim and 1 union decision. BTW in the union case SEIU lost and the 9th circuit reversed. Sotomayer and Ginsburg support union members' 1st amendment rights to opt out of union dues going to political activity with which they disagree.

[Jack is Back!]

Mean't to add that the Knox decision could be significant according to Scotus blog. According to them:

The union dues case may be quite significant -- there is not only the dissent but a narrower concurring opinion that says that "[t]he majority thus decides, for the very first time, that the First Amendment does require an opt-in system in some circumstances [for union dues]: the levying of a special assessment or dues increase."

[NK]

A second crim case decided today. Statutory interpretation. BTW the union case was closely decided because of concurring opinions, basically 5-4. More to come.

[pagar]

"Sotomayer and Ginsburg support union members' 1st amendment rights to opt out of union dues going to political activity with which they disagree."

I never would have believed it.

[Jack is Back!]

NK,

Can you explain in plain english your 10:22 because I read on Scotus blog that it was a 7-2 decision.

[Sue]

FCC v Fox is next case released. I don't know what it was but it was vacated and remanded.

[NK]

Pagar- I have to take a mulligan, that's provisional-- there were concuring opinions that differed from the majority rationale, so we'll have to read later how Sotomayer and Ginsburg carried the union's water in concurring opinions.

[bgates]

I just updated the narcisolator, because the screaming in the last thread gave me a headache.

As a reminder, there's an extension called Blank Canvas for those who want to use Greasemonkey scripts like the narcisolator in Chrome.

[narciso]

This is what happens when the infinite chimps
at the 9th Circuit, stop with their Hamlet project,

[Sue]

FCC v Fox was about indecency.

[Sue]

No healthcare or immigration ruling today.

[NK]

JiB-- concurring opinions reaching the result, but difering rationales. We'll have to read the concurring opinions, but it looks like Sotomayor and Ginsburg carried the union's water even though they joined the majority result. i.e., they may have voted to reverse the 9th circuit mootness rult, but, did not reach the 1st amendment result on the merits.

[pagar]

NK, thanks, Sotomayor and Ginsburg support for freeing Americans from union slavery goes against everything I have heard about them.

[NK]

SCOTUS-- the remaining decisions are a mortgage case, a crim case, a 1st amendment case (false military medals), Arizona immigration and Obamacare. Mortgages, crim, 1st amendment (plus San Diego crucifix cert grant) on Monday, Arizona and Obamacare next Thursday? That's my guess.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

FCC v Fox was about indecency.

Accidental dirty words.

[narciso]

So, does this mean, there are any standards at all.

[Sue]

Narciso,

They didn't rule on that, just on whether the notice was timely given. If my brief read of the summary is right.

[dublindave]

"No healthcare or immigration ruling today."

Sigh.I told you,it's next Friday and the court has found the enitire law Constitutional.Looks like Boehne had to throw the crazy right a bigger bone with Holders contempt vote.Jesus,John,this is costing you big time.

****breaking news*****house Repubicans getting closer to uncovering Eric holder's plan to murder innocent Americans so he could crack down on 2nd Amendment freedoms.Rep.Daryl Issa said,"We believe that the entire Administration was involved in a calculated plan to murder thousands of innocent people so that they could justify introducing tighter gun restrictions.Now that we have the entire country's attention and the attention of single news media outlet as well all the late night comics..... we plan to tell the American people about this evil plan in painstaking detail over the course of the next five months leading up to the election."When asked is he had evidence to substantiate his claim Rep Issa said,"Huh?What are you talking about?Coo coo.Go away space aliens.Rumina rumina rumina rumina coo coo".

[narciso]

It's sort of a rhetorical argument, Sue, but you look at the lineup of precedents, and there are few grounds for any kind of standards,

[maryrose]

I am happy Healthcare and Arizona are next week. I like this drip,drip.drip' of bad news for Obama stretching out throughout the summer. Jobs report did not surprise me at all. They have been covering up this bad news with false numbers for months.. The economy will not recover in time. Obama is done, put a fork in him.

[jwest]

I watched a genius analyst on MSNBC this morning say the Zimmerman video helps the prosecution, because his story was “a little too good”.

You can’t find that kind of expert opinion just anywhere.

[NK]

there is a simple code to DD.... he is drunk all of the time. never sobers up.

[Chubby]

((Today further decisions will be released by the SCOTUS))

they must be aware that the nation is on tenterhooks waiting for the Obamacare decision. so why not make that one public first? seems like some childish powergameplaying going on even there to keep everyone in suspense. It is irritating.

[narciso]

Funny how the MerrygoRound turns eh;

http://twitchy.com/2012/06/21/flashback-to-2007-new-york-times-urged-congress-to-use-all-contempt-powers-at-its-disposal/

[Jack is Back!]

DuDa,

While you're waiting until Friday for the decisions on Health Care and Immigration the rest of us will be smiling on Thursday since that is only day other than Monday that they read decions and it was added on to the calendar because of the load this session.

[Ignatz]

It would be delicious irony if Sotomayor turned out to be Barry's Souter and by that I mean the opposite of suitor.
Unlikely, but it's fun to think about.

[narciso]

Of course, they would rely on Brinkley, whose track record is dubious;

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/06/21/washpost-unloads-both-barrels-ed-kleins-anti-obama-book

[dublindave]

While you're waiting until Friday for the decisions on Health Care and Immigration the rest of us will be smiling on Thursday since that is only day other than Monday that they read decions and it was added on to the calendar because of the load this session.

My source always gets the dates messed up.

[Ignatz]

--Zimmerman mentions looking for a street sign. There were no street signs to be found in the area where the incident occurred--

Hence his searching.
If there was one right in front of him he wouldn't have had to search, right?

[Ignatz]

--My source always gets the dates messed up.--

You should consult someone besides "the voices".

[narciso]

I think Sorkin is following Blutarski's advice all too readily;

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2012/06/21/sorkin-sees-not-liberal-bias-bias-toward-fairness-his-hbo-newsroom-will

[NK]

DD's 'source'-- hmm?... I wonder if it's more like Harvey the friendly giant rabbit, or the sinister bat that kills the mouse in Lost Weekend. The DTs cause wildly different delusions. That's why DD is always drunk, the DTs happen as he starts to sober up.

[narciso]

Projection, and that french proverb;

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/06/stoprush-was-infiltrated-audio-recordings-and-others-evidence-released/

[Clarice]

Perhaps it's just silliness to suggest it, but I wonder if Sotomayor and Ginsberg weren't influenced by SEIU's lawless behavior in Wisconsin and the voters' reaction/

[Rick Ballard]

Ignatz,

The "looking for a street sign" was the only item I could find which did not fit. There was no reason to go between the units in search of a street sign. He was actually responding to the dispatcher's request for further ID details on Grillntats.

I've listened to the first interview (Part 1 - Singleton) and his written statement was probably done immediately after the interview because it is an almost exact reiteration of what he said.

Part 2 - Singleton provides details which do not appear in the written statement. The discussion involves a sketch of the area around the scene - a review of the aerial photograph prior to listening will be helpful.

I attach no meaning whatsoever to "looking for a sign" but I'm not Angela Javert.

[Captain Hate]

I think Sorkin is following Blutarski's advice all too readily

Like using Barbarella?

[Ranger]

Well, this is a bad sign for Assad:

Syrian fighter pilot defects to Jordan

A Syrian fighter plane has landed at a military air base in the north of Jordan and the pilot has been granted political asylum, officials say.

Jordan's information minister said the MiG-21 pilot, an air force colonel, was being debriefed.

It looks like confidence in the regime is craking just a bit.

[Captain Hate]

O/T We have a nest of cardinals right outside our front window. I have no idea when they built it because the parents had been flitting around but I didn't see anything until I heard one of the nestlings twittering about.

[Ignatz]

--I attach no meaning whatsoever to "looking for a sign" but I'm not Angela Javert.--

Didn't mean to imply you were, Rick, only that if he's in an area where there aren't any signs or numbers he would have to do something like go between the units to get to an area where there were some.

[Porchlight]

Cap'n, my parents had a cardinal couple in their yard for years. They would sometimes peck at the windows if they saw anyone inside. We have a couple, too, but I don't think they actually live in our yard since we only see them every once in awhile.

Saw some curious yellow and black birds frolicking in some landscaping near the bank yesterday. The male was more yellow than a cedar waxwing (and it's not the season for their migration), but they were larger than goldfinches and with a blue jay type shape. I don't know what they were.

[derwill]

Via Althouse's blog--Chris Cuomo thinks Zimmerman's reenactment "may be too perfect." So . . .

Inconsistencies in one's statement to the police prove you're guilty.

A lack of inconsistencies in one's statement to the police prove you're guilty.

As Corey would say, Winning!

[Ignatz]

--O/T We have a nest of cardinals right outside our front window.--

Cool Cap. We don't have Cardinals out here in CA but we had a nest of these guys;

Stellar's jays, right outside the front door this year.
Fledged and graduated four little dudes already.

[Rick Ballard]

Listen to the Serino interviews. His first interview is reasonably sympathetic, in the second, Serino is using fairly clever techniques to elicit acknowledgement of a level of responsibility that could be construed as overreaction. Serino had contact with the Martin family prior to the second interview and has their view of the angelic Grillantats in mind.

[Jim,MtnView,Ca,USA]

Stellar's Jays have perhaps the most ugly sounding squawk in the avian world....nice photo.

[narciso]

There were 400 calls from that complex, in one year, isn't it likely that Zimmerman had a reasonable expectation, they wouldn't show.

[cboldt]

Zimmerman said, in the stress test that it seemed like an eternity, why hadn't the police arrived yet. In both the walk through and the stress test, he says he was expecting the police to show up, and told W6 to not call the cops, but to come help him restrain Martin. The first flashlight on the scene was not police, and Zimmerman asked the person if they were police.

[windansea]

Servino got tricky and tried to imply that Trayvon's cell had video of the confrontation

Zimmerman's response was basically please let this be true.

[Steve]

So why did O'Mara not press the investigators more at the bail hearing? Get them to state what the inconsistencies there were in Zimmerman's statements to the police. Get them to state their opinion on the investigation by the Sanford police.

[Sara]

Servino got tricky and tried to imply that Trayvon's cell had video of the confrontation

Zimmerman's response was basically please let this be true.

Yep. They tried to tell me they recorded everything that went on the morning of my attack. My reaction was, "Good, then your Captain will hear the truth." That was the last we heard of any recording over the six years the case dragged on.

[Sara]

Steve: He probably hadn't heard or read the interviews yet. Either that, or he is not very competent. Since, so far, I haven't been all that impressed with O'M, the choice is up in the air.

[Ranger]

IIRC, the statements were withheld from the defense under the premise that they constituted a confession. The judge reviewed them an ruled that they didn't, so they were then released.

[Steve]

"... the statements were withheld from the defense under the premise that they constituted a confession. ..."

that is incredible to me that O'Mara would go to the bail hearing and question the investigators without knowing everything that they knew.

[Rick Ballard]

I hope people take the time to listen to Servino doing his job. It's the best evidence one could hope for in support of "Not a word without a lawyer present."

Servino's shift from his first cursory "dead punk" review the night of the shooting to his "oh shit, there's politics involved" questioning three days later is great theater and would make a decent fact set for a plot for a novella.

[cboldt]

-- IRC, the statements were withheld from the defense under the premise that they constituted a confession. The judge reviewed them an ruled that they didn't, so they were then released. --

The "confession" angle is used to withhold from the public, not from the defense. The state withheld from the defense for a few weeks, just because it could.

O'Mara's remarks at the bail hearing were in the nature of undermining the case for murder. That coincidentally helps self defense, but it isn't arguing directly from self defense.

[Steve]

"... O'Mara's remarks at the bail hearing were in the nature of undermining the case for murder. ..."

But why not press further at the bail hearing? When the prosecutor said that baloney about there being contradictions in Zimmerman's statements ask the investigators what they thought those contractions were.

Pressure the judge to state whether he thinks the charges are justified by the evidence.

O'Mara appears to be making things worse for his client. He knew there was paypal money and he should have reviewed its status with both Zimmermans. And he should have been pressing from the day he saw the reenactment video to have the case thrown out.

[cboldt]

-- But why not press further at the bail hearing? --

If he gets bail, and he did, there is no rush to undermine the prosecution. As long as he establishes that the state's case isn't airtight, he's crossed the Arthur hurdle, and can move to flight risk, danger to community, and risk to integrity of the judicial process.

He can get to the "inconsistency" assertion later, after he has an opportunity to pore over the evidence himself.

I do agree that he could have said that he doesn't believe the affidavit supports finding probable cause, and I wish he would have.

-- O'Mara appears to be making things worse for his client. He knew there was paypal money and he should have reviewed its status with both Zimmermans. --

I agree with that too, but he had no reason to think Shellie would be less than forthcoming, and I don't think O'Mara suspected there was over a hundred grand involved.

I'm not impressed that O'Mara accepted the judge's opinion and order revoking bail as being in compliance with the relevant law. We'll see, when he files the motion for bail, if he's willing to challenge legal error. I have a feeling that O'Mara is working with the state to keep this case alive for an extended period.

[Have Blue]

Porchlight at 1159 - Sounds like they might be Evening Grosbeaks. Where are you located? They tend to range in northern New England in the east but are widespread breeders in the mountains out west.

[Tom Perkins]

"I agree with that too, but he had no reason to think Shellie would be less than forthcoming,"

I haven't seen any evidence she was not forthcoming, but instead invited the state to find out to the penny what was in the account--and the state didn't follow up.

Not her bad.

[Steve]

The only doubts I have remaining about Zimmerman is because of the actions of his lawyer. O'Mara is being too cautious, focusing too much on GZ being found not guilty instead of innocent. Someone who is completely innocent should not settle for being shackled, having to pay huge legal fees, having to post an expensive bail, being imprisoned for an extended period before trial, waiting multiple months for trial, having your wife arrested and having a bounty on your head from significant
segments of society.

If I was innocent of causing a death in all ways and had just been trying to help my community, had cooperated fully with the police investigation and was being punished as Zimmerman has. I would be pretty disappointed with my lawyer.

[cboldt]

-- I haven't seen any evidence she was not forthcoming ... --

The absence of a remark that the website had drawn upwards of a hundred grand is evidence of being less than forthcoming. That said, 1) my remark was more to excuse O'Mara (I disagree that it is O'Mara's fault that things are worse for his client for want of court awareness of the amount of donations), and 2) I don't find Shellie to have committed perjury - largely for the reason you cite, she offered a source for the information. It's not her fault that the court didn't follow up, and taken in totality, she did not aim to deceive the court.

[Aye]

Missus Z clearly had information related to the funds generated by the fundraising website(s).

While she may, or may not, have had knowledge of the dollars which were actually in the PayPal account (the landing point of all donations), she clearly and undeniably knew about the funds once they were transferred to the credit union accounts. Knowledge of the PayPal account info is where the brother in law enters, and exits, the picture.

Furthermore, Mrs Z spent an inordinate amount of time moving those funds about from one account to another, stashing some in the safe deposit box, moving things around again, redepositing.

There's a long string of inculpatory behavior there.

Combine that documented behavior with the jailhouse telephone conversations and it's clear that not only did Mrs Z know first hand about the money, so did her husband.

When Mrs Z told the Court that a) there were no financial assets whereby bail could be paid and b) that she couldn't even provide an estimate as to the dollar amounts raised, she perjured herself.

[cboldt]

-- When Mrs Z told the Court that a) there were no financial assets whereby bail could be paid and b) that she couldn't even provide an estimate as to the dollar amounts raised, she perjured herself. --

You don't have enough evidence to draw that conclusion; and Shellie's statements in totality includes an offer to get up to date information.

On the first point you raise, you have to establish that Shellie saw those funds as useful or allowed to be used for bail. I'm not saying she did or didn't view them as unavailable, but her belief on that point matters. There is a good argument that public goodwill is not a substitute for the personal financial risk associated with bail; and that bail is not an expense (if you put up all the money, you get it all back).

On the question of an estimate, it's easy in hindsight to produce an answer that we think will draw approval from the court; but the accuracy of an "estimate" is a question unto itself. If you ask me to estimate the value of a house +/- 50%, I can do so. If you ask for an estimate within $10,000, maybe, if you ask within $1,000, no way. We don't know what sort of precision Shellie imputed to the request for an estimate, and we can't substitute our hindsight for her state of mind.

You won't get your perjury conviction. The state's case is weak, it relies on cherry-picking statements (the prosecution even attempts to mislead the court by performing an NBC style editing job on Shellie's testimony), and the jury won't be taking kindly to Corey by the time Shellie has an opportunity to defend herself.

[Porchlight]

Hi HaveBlue,

Thanks. I'm in Austin, Texas! Any chance they migrate south? It still doesn't seem like the right time.

[tdperk]

Where in the phone call transcripts do the Zimmermans discuss dollar figures?

[Have Blue]

Porchlight - Would be a possibility in winter. Irregularly they irrupt south wards in winter, usually but not always in bad winters, as far south as Southern Texas. Can't find my copy of Peterson's Texas Field Guide. (Texas tends to get a lot of birds from Mexico and Central America that do not appear anywhere else in the US.)

[Aye]

tdperk,

Have you listened to the audio of the phone calls?

Have you read the transcripts those calls?

Have you viewed the banking records?

Have you read the capias in which Mrs Z was charged with perjury?

The answer to your question is contained in all of those things.

[Aye]

cboldt,

You don't have enough evidence to draw that conclusion; and Shellie's statements in totality includes an offer to get up to date information.

Actually there is more than ample evidence to prove both of those points. And her offer to get up to date information is ultimately irrelevant to what she has herself in a pinch over. She's not in trouble over the PayPal account or her knowledge/lack of knowledge of that account.

What she's in trouble over is a) the denial of assets and b) her false statement regarding being able to provide an estimate to the Court.

On the first point you raise, you have to establish that Shellie saw those funds as useful or allowed to be used for bail. I'm not saying she did or didn't view them as unavailable, but her belief on that point matters.

You're right. Her belief regarding the intent of the funds is likely to be a foundational issue in her defense. The problem is that the telephone audio makes it clear that she believes the funds to be available for bail. She said plainly to her husband: "That's what it's for."

There is a good argument that public goodwill is not a substitute for the personal financial risk associated with bail; and that bail is not an expense (if you put up all the money, you get it all back).

Well, good luck with that argument since the Zimmermans have clearly established that was not their thought process.

On the question of an estimate, it's easy in hindsight to produce an answer that we think will draw approval from the court; but the accuracy of an "estimate" is a question unto itself...We don't know what sort of precision Shellie imputed to the request for an estimate, and we can't substitute our hindsight for her state of mind.

Mrs Z wasn't asked for an exact dollar amount. She was asked if she could estimate. She said she could not.

Upon review of the phone calls and the banking records it is very clear that Mrs Z was intimately involved with the money after it had been moved from PayPal to the credit union.

She was intimately involved in multiple transfers of funds from one account to another, always in increments of less than $10K. She was intimately involved in pulling out cash and stashing it in a safe deposit box.

There can be no other fair, objective, and reasonable interpretation of the phone conversations and the banking records.

When those pieces of evidence are placed alongside the Court testimony it is crystal clear why Mrs Z is guilty of perjury.

[Aye]

Oh, almost forgot....

The exclusion of her statements regarding the brother in law from the capias is irrelevant.

She's not in hot water over that portion of her testimony.

Nor is that portion of her testimony exculpatory.

Furthermore, Judge Lester sat and listened to all of the bond hearing testimony. He's well aware of what happened in his own courtroom.

You do realize that, at the revocation hearing, Lester expressed surprise that Mrs Z had not been already been charged right?

[Ignatz]

I'd have to go with Ave (Aye? Hard to tell which) having the stronger argument here.
I think she pretty clearly intended to deceive the court. The question is were the prosecutor's questions sloppy enough and the lack of follow up meager enough to let her skate? 50/50 I'd guess.
And of course none of this goes to the credibility of Zimmerman's story re shooting Martin, which more and more seems pretty ironclad when compared with the known physical and witness evidence.

[Steve]

A potential problem for Zimmerman is the jury is not going to be told what type of person Trayvon was. It makes no sense that a 17 year old in a strange neighborhood would first circle someones car and then start beating on that person. The concern is that political correctness will limit the info given to the jury and that jury will then reach an out of context judgement.

[cboldt]

The jury knows, without being told. If this goes to a jury, it will be the reverse of the O.J. Simpson case. Liberals and blacks will be inclined to vote guilty. It won't be about the evidence. Still, Corey won't be able to get a conviction. She won't be able to seat a jury that is 100% liberals and blacks.

We can have a nice clinical and legal discussion here, but at the end of the day, it's mental masturbation. The legal system is a failure in this case, already. There is no reason to think it will correct itself, or that it will follow the law.

[Tom Perkins]

Aye, it should be easy to point out a factually incorrect statement either Mrs. or Mr. Zimmerman made.

Your struggling to do so, and haven't yet.

[Tom Perkins]

"You do realize that, at the revocation hearing, Lester expressed surprise that Mrs Z had not been already been charged right?"

And considering that, inasmuch as the charge against Mr. Zimmerman hasn't already been dismissed with prejudice, I'm not inclined to think much of Lester's opinion.

[Sara]

If the brother-in-law was in charge of the PayPal funds and the logistics of transferring them into accounts easier to draw upon, then Shellie may have been no more aware than passing instructions from George to the b-i-l. The dollar amounts was a PayPal limit on unverified bank accounts, so I would read nothing into those amounts.

O'M has made everything worse, IMHO. And who knows what kind of whacky advice the Zs were getting from those first two bozos.

And to try to make George and Shellie Zimmerman out to be any kind of mastermind legal manipulators and financial wizards is just bizarre. These two were in panic mode, Zimmerman was described early on by both friends and family as being immobilized by depression. They didn't know who to trust, they were uprooted from their home and suddenly under death threat. But somehow some think they were like some master criminals, bankers, and escape artists. It is Corey's bullsh!t!!!!

[Aye]

Aye, it should be easy to point out a factually incorrect statement either Mrs. or Mr. Zimmerman made.

Absolutely. Very easy as a matter of fact:

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.

[snip]

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

S. ZIMMERMAN: Not that I’m aware of.

[snip]

BDLR: You mentioned also, in terms of the ability of your husband to make a bond amount, that you had no money, is that correct?

S. ZIMMERMAN: To my knowledge, that’s correct.

[snip]

BDLR: Do you have an estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?

S. ZIMMERMAN: I do not.

There's what she testified to in court.

When one examines the audio of the telephone calls as well as the banking records a clear picture of her knowledge comes into focus.

She did not meet the obligations of her oath to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

[Aye]

If the brother-in-law was in charge of the PayPal funds and the logistics of transferring them into accounts easier to draw upon, then Shellie may have been no more aware than passing instructions from George to the b-i-l. The dollar amounts was a PayPal limit on unverified bank accounts, so I would read nothing into those amounts.

Sara,

The movement of funds from their PayPal origination point is irrelevant to the perjury charge against Mrs Z.

What she's in hot water over is that she a) denied the existence of the financial assets and b) denied knowledge regarding the dollar amounts that she clearly knew had already been collected and moved to the credit union accounts.

In the telephone conversations she and her husband clearly discuss moving money around from one credit union account to another as well as putting some cash in a safe deposit box. In one of the conversations, Mrs Z is actually at the credit union conducting banking business while her husband is on the phone.

It's clear, from the telephone conversations as well as the banking records, that Mrs Z personally orchestrated the shell game of money transfers. She then went into court and testified under oath that she had no knowledge of the money she had been fondling.

There is no defending the indefensible.

[Ignatz]

--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.--

I think she'd skate on this one since liquidating an asset usually refers to selling a tangible asset not removing liquid funds from an account.

--BDLR: Do you have an estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?

S. ZIMMERMAN: I do not.--

He didn't ask her if she could make one for him or if she could come up with one but rather if she already had one. She may not have if she hadn't sat down and totaled things up.

The other two questions are also very poorly worded. Did this prosecutor actually go to law school?
I think she clearly intended to deceive the court but still peg it at 50/50 she'd be convicted just because of how ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations the questions are.
If that prosecutor was my attorney I'd fire him.

[Steve]

on the paypal money questions at the bond hearing it still comes down to terrible lawyering by O'Mara. What kind of lawyer is going to stand there in court while the wife of his client comes anywhere close to perjuring herself? If he has any thought that she might be misunderstanding the question he has to pipe up and ask the judge for some private time with his client.

[wetmore333]

What I'm still waiting for is an explanation how, consistent with the most elemental concepts of justice and fair play, the judge could threaten Zimmerman with judicial expropriation of his defense/living expense fund, leaving him facing a monstrous prosecution flat broke.

[cboldt]

When he learned that the public had contributed 200 grand to Zimmerman's defense, Judge Lester said he wasn't sure he could even reach the money, and implied that the money wasn't a factor in setting the amount of bail. He denied the prosecution motion to modify or revoke bail, at the April 27 hearing.

So, Lester's justification for revocation wasn't the amount of money. It was "the lies."

Lester's revocation order does not recite findings + any of the legal tests that support bail revocation; and is also self-contradictory on critical findings. He fabricated a legal test out of thin air, to justify revoking bail. He's erred as a matter of law.

We'll have considerably more insight to the situation following O'Mara's motion to reinstate bail. We'll know if O'Mara is willing to assert the legal basis for denial of bail; and if the judge accepts the controlling legal authority for denial of bail.

If the judge follows the law, he will either deny bail by finding Zimmerman to be a flight risk, danger to the community, or able to somehow influence the outcome of the trial by intimidating or otherwise affecting the testimony of witnesses; or he will grant reasonable bail.

O'Mara has signaled his strategy of proving Zimmerman is not a flight risk, by calling bailbondsmen to the stand. They would not grant a bond if they thought Zimmerman would flee or otherwise avoid process.

[narciso]

Facts, have been few and far between, insinuations have swarmed like locusts though;

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/22/143156/459

[wetmore333]

And in that "Lester said he wasn't sure" lurks an enormous gulf of uncertainty. Sure sounds like "I'll do it if I can" to me.