The prosecution Motion To Revoke states that at the Media Hearing on 4/27 O’Mara “mentioned” the family had access to the funds at the Bond Hearing on 4/20. The Court then requested an accounting of all funds obtained through the website and the Paypal account, which O’Mara provided on 5/18.
From the 4/20 transcript there’s a bit of wiggle left from O’Mara’s questions. But de la Rionda specifically asks about the website funds. And the Mrs. plays dumb....
I suppose the Zimmermans could say that they had assigned the funds for attorney/trial costs, and not for bail/bond. So technically they were honest. But, oh man. It still stinks.
Thanks for that audio link.
Anyway, that's totally off the subject we were discussing, just found it interesting.
I'd like to hear the totality of the jailhouse calls. I suspect de la Rionda cherry-picked, context-free, in a way to make his case.
-- I suppose the Zimmermans could say that they had assigned the funds for attorney/trial costs, and not for bail/bond. So technically they were honest. --
They don't get to set the technicalities, but I understand your point - if they consider the funds unavailable, then they figure they have no need to mention them. E.g., why not hang them for failing to mention any vested Social Security rights, or pensions?
-- But, oh man. It still stinks. --
It makes a real bad first impression, indeed. I don't blame them for not trusting the state, and it's probably a leap of faith for them to put any trust in the judge. But, that's the jam they are in, and Corey and de la Rionda are not ethical - probably not so far over the line that anything can be done about it, but they are demonstrably mean spirited and dishonest.