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

[wetmore333]

But please: don't let me distract you from the magnificent job you've been doing "over there."

[Tom Perkins]

@Aye "here's what she testified to in court."

And if she didn't think she could put the money to the bond "readily", then she didn't lie.

Her indication she was willing to get an exact "estimate" is perfectly exculpatory.

"(the prosecution even attempts to mislead the court by performing an NBC style editing job on Shellie's testimony)"

And the fact Lester seems to be unaware of that means Lester is asleep at the switch. Or down with railroading Zimmerman.

[Aye]

And if she didn't think she could put the money to the bond "readily", then she didn't lie.

Now, Tom, you and I both know that you're making a big stretch there.

The money was in the credit union accounts. Mrs Z had already been moving it 'round in shell game fashion. The money was undeniably easily and, as you say, "readily" accessible.

Just a matter of writing a check or running down to the credit union to make a withdrawal.

We both know that Mr and Mrs Z both found the money "readily" accessible enough to pay off the AMEX bill and the Sam's Club card as well as other things.

We also both know that Mrs Z demonstrated a thought process indicating that the donated money was for bail, telling her husband "That's what it's for" when discussing using the donations for bail.

Her indication she was willing to get an exact "estimate" is perfectly exculpatory.

The offer to try and get an estimate is related strictly to the website itself and the dollars contained in the associated PayPal account.

The offer to have her brother in law testify has nothing...zip, zero, zilch, nada...to do with the funds in the credit union and in the safe deposit box that she had personal knowledge of.

Her denial of knowledge, which is what she's in hot water over, has everything to do with funds that she was indeed undeniably and intimately familiar with.

"(the prosecution even attempts to mislead the court by performing an NBC style editing job on Shellie's testimony)"

And the fact Lester seems to be unaware of that means Lester is asleep at the switch. Or down with railroading Zimmerman.

Judge Lester was in the courtroom during the bond hearing. He heard the entire testimony. He also has the the entire transcript from the hearing at his fingertips so the exclusion is really moot at most.

The portion of the transcript excluded from the capias is irrelevant to what Mrs Z is charged with. It matters not one iota what the brother in law knew or didn't know.

What matters is what the evidence shows that Mrs Z knew in comparison to what she testified to having knowledge of.

[Sara]

We get it, Aye, you think the Zimmermans are scumbag con artists. But what the hell does any of this have to do with George being attacked and having to defend himself with lethal force? Nada, Zilch, not a GD thing!

[wetmore333]

Yeah, I can just imagine George thinking "This money was donated to me so the judge could dedicate it to a higher amount of bail."

[Tom Maguire]

We also both know that Mrs Z demonstrated a thought process indicating that the donated money was for bail, telling her husband "That's what it's for" when discussing using the donations for bail.

Let me toss in the rebuttal of someone who noted that the jail transcript provides a snapshot of her thinking at *that* moment in time. GZim says he want to think about it, and in subsequent discussions Ms. Zim's thinking may have evolved.

Well - she may wriggle out of a perjury conviction, but I do think she had made up her mind to be disingenuous on that topic.

However, even if Ms. Z (and Mr. Z) had acquired a dim attitude about cooperating with the legal system by late April, it does not immediately follow that GZim had a low opinion of cooperating in late Feb.

For all we know he had spent two months listening to "You're being a knucklehead, these cops are out to screw you" from his wife, and she had spent two months hearing "it will all work out if we play it straight" from him.

I am very intrigued by cboldt's analysis of the bail requirements. Will Lester being arguing that GZIm is a flight risk because his wife is not trustworthy and GZim is a bad listener or "potted plant" in a courtroom?

[Porchlight]

For all we know he had spent two months listening to "You're being a knucklehead, these cops are out to screw you" from his wife, and she had spent two months hearing "it will all work out if we play it straight" from him.

Very insightful, TM. I wouldn't at all be surprised if that's how it went between them.

[Aye]

Well, Tom, one cannot very successfully argue that their thought process regarding the money "evolved" away from being available for use toward bail when they...wait for it...used a portion of the donated funds to pay for bail.

While it's an interesting argument, it's not supported by the facts as they are plainly laid out before us.

[cboldt]

If Lester finds Zimmerman to be a flight risk, he'll just attach that to sitting like a potted palm. The rationale would be a simple connection, like "If Zimmerman won't correct the record on April 20, knowing he has a duty to fully inform the court, it is reasonable to infer that he will not respond to other aspects of the judicial process. Bail denied because Zimmerman is a flight risk."

The rationale doesn't have to be sound, it just has to be asserted in a conclusory fashion.

[Aye]

cboldt,

Doesn't the judge have the right to determine his bail decision based on the strength of the evidence as related to the charge?

Seems I recall reading that.

[cboldt]

No, the judge may not deny bail based on the strength of the evidence, with one threshold of strength of the evidence being the exception; and even if that threshold exception exists, the judge may grant bail at his discretion.

The threshold is described in State v. Arthur, 390 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1980). If the state's case is airtight, then (in a life sentence or capital crime) defendant is not entitled to bail as a matter of right. If the defendant has a self defense argument, if the state's case is not airtight, if there is absence of "proof evident or presumption great" (better evidence than beyond a reasonable doubt), then defendant is entitled to bail as a matter of right.

The factors that apply to justify pretrial detention to a defendant entitled to bail as a matter of right is defined in Article I, section 14 of the Florida Constitution, Florida statutory law, and applied following Florida Supreme Court precedent. See
State v. Paul, 783 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 2001) and State v. Blair, 39 So.3d 1190 (Fla. 2010)

.

[wetmore333]

Holding back on a judge, to avert being despoiled of what is rightfully yours cannot be likened to holding back to obtain something you're not entitled to. The judge was out of line. I've no doubt that he's an avid New York Times reader anyway, and would have cut Zimmerman little slack on close calls, even after making him destitute.

[Aye]

wetmore,

Everything Mr and Mrs Z posses in terms of material things such as money, house, cars, furnishings, jewelry, etc, etc are things that are "rightfully" theirs unless they were obtained thru some nefarious means.

Assuming that all of those things were earned, gifted, or inherited they all "rightfully" belong to the Zimmermans.

Even the donations are "rightfully" theirs.

To say that one can selectively disclose one group of assets to a judge while concealing others in an effort to selectively shield those things has no legal or ethical basis.

Just as one cannot legally hide assets from a civil judgement, one cannot legally hide assets from a judge when he is considering bail.

[wetmore333]

Perhaps I've been too subtle: I'm saying it was unjust for the judge to contemplate diverting donations for defense and living expenses to bail money. You want I should quote some Aristotle or something?

[Aye]

Perhaps I've been too subtle: It's not our place to decide what the judge gets to choose or evaluate in terms of a bail decision.

The law is the law and it should be applied as written until such point as it's changed by the legislative authority which handles such things.

And attempting to argue that a judge is going to leave a defendant destitute and unable to afford to carry on with daily life due to the burden of making bail is absurd.

[cboldt]

Bail is a surety, in principle. It can't leave anybody any more destitute than they were to begin with. If you show up, you get bail back.

Purchase of a bond is voluntary. What the law requires be affordable is the bail.

I don't know any precedent where the amount of bail varied depending on immediate show of public goodwill.

[wetmore333]

Come to think of it, I could probably find something in Sacred Writ. Let's see--isn't there something about "rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's"? But what do you do when Caesar demands every sesterce? Well, if you get caught holding back, Caesar will have his pound of flesh, and I don't doubt that Lester is whetting his knife. Meanwhile, Zimmerman has now got his fund into a proper trust where it will be difficult for the court to deplete it.

In short, I do not regard the legal and ethical yardsticks you are measuring Zimmerman by to be the end-alls and be-alls of the moral universe. Trying to lather this incident into proof that Zimmerman is incapable of truth is sophistry. And no one can claim to know just what Lester would have done to Zimmerman's ability to mount an adequate defense, had he known all.

[Ignatz]

--Trying to lather this incident into proof that Zimmerman is incapable of truth is sophistry.--

Has Aye done that? I don't think anyone aside from a troll or two has.

[Sara]

Has Aye done that? I don't think anyone aside from a troll or two has.

Ignatz: Have you been reading Aye? He has Shellie and George as the Bonnie and Clyde of bail money. He thinks they are lowlife scheming scum. I am surprised he hasn't tried to foist on us the theory that Z shot Trayvon so he could start a PayPal fund to assure himself a life of leisure and opulence.

[Aye]

Sara,

Feel free to dispute anything I've written here. You'll quickly discover that every word is backed by the evidence.

If you don't like the fact that Mrs Z moved money around from one credit union account to another as well as placing cash in a safe deposit box in "shell game" fashion, well, I can't help you much on that.

The facts are what they are. And, if they're distasteful to you, well, there's not much that can be done about that either.

My arguments have all been based on the bond hearing testimony, the jailhouse conversations, and the banking records.

If you want to present facts which support some theory other than mine, or if you wish to attempt to refute my conclusions, feel free to have at it.

I'm not in any way afraid to argue my positions and defend my conclusions.

[Ignatz]

--Ignatz: Have you been reading Aye?--

Yes. I haven't seen him say that anything that occurred re the bail money or hearing has any bearing on Zimmerman's account of the shooting.
If he has then he's extrapolating beyond the known evidence.

[wetmore333]

George and Shellie went on a tear
Hoovering up donations,
Feting themselves with Dom Perignon
And glittering vacations.

[Tom Perkins]

"The money was in the credit union accounts."

Which has nothing at all to do with what uses she felt it could be put.

[Aye]

Nice disingenuous quoting out of context there Tom.

For the sake of those who are reading here is the original point from Tom that I was responding to:

And if she didn't think she could put the money to the bond "readily", then she didn't lie.

And here's my entire response with the portion Tom selectively quoted in italics.

*******

Now, Tom, you and I both know that you're making a big stretch there.

The money was in the credit union accounts. Mrs Z had already been moving it 'round in shell game fashion. The money was undeniably easily and, as you say, "readily" accessible.

Just a matter of writing a check or running down to the credit union to make a withdrawal.

We both know that Mr and Mrs Z both found the money "readily" accessible enough to pay off the AMEX bill and the Sam's Club card as well as other things.

We also both know that Mrs Z demonstrated a thought process indicating that the donated money was for bail, telling her husband "That's what it's for" when discussing using the donations for bail.

*******

Tom, you shouldn't attempt to pull bits and pieces out of context like that.

It just makes you look silly.

[boris]

Less silly than the petty animus on display from you.

[Aye]

Pot, kettle boris.

Pot. Kettle.

It's interesting to me that when people find that they cannot effectively or successfully argue facts they resort to ad hominem ad nauseum.

[boris]

One question ... "just makes you look silly" ... is that arguing facts or ad hominem?

Cuz you don't seem to know what those big words mean.

[Aye]

It's a fact that selectively, and disingenuously, pulling a snippet from one section of a person's response and attempting to apply them to an unrelated portion of that response does indeed make the offender look silly.

Especially when it's plainly apparent, and easily demonstrable, what is going on.

Thanks for asking.

[boris]

"and disingenuously"

Indicates your statement is opinion rather than fact, hence "silly" is ad hominem and you don't know what the big words mean.

[narciso]

He was talking about having his wife and lawyer get bullet proof vests, that's the real issue.

[Aye]

Boris, perhaps you should actually consult a dictionary regarding what the "big words" mean.

Once again, I see you engaging in ad hominem ad nauseum rather than discussing the facts of the issue at hand.

Are the facts regarding Mrs. Z and the perjury charge simply too cumbersome for you to handle?

[boris]

Perhaps you haven't noticed that the only issue under discussion between us is your use of words you don't understand.

[IgnatiusjDonnelly]

Pot, kettle boris.

Pot. Kettle.

It's interesting to me that when people find that they cannot effectively or successfully argue facts they resort to ad hominem ad nauseum.

Posted by:
Aye

Usually they email the site administrator to suggest they ban you. The Treehouse pulled that one on me. Here I'm shunned,LOL!