The sheriff is near...
Posted on 06/18/2012 5:47:29 PM PDT by Red in Blue PA
ORLANDO, Fla. – The former neighborhood watch volunteer who killed Trayvon Martin told his wife to buy bulletproof vests for them and for his attorney, according to jailhouse calls released Monday.
"As uncomfortable as it is, I want you wearing one," George Zimmerman told his wife. Zimmerman was wearing a bulletproof vest when he left jail after posting bond. His attorney, Mark O'Mara, has reported receiving threats.
The calls, released by prosecutors, also detail how Zimmerman instructed his wife to transfer money from bank accounts and could play a crucial role in his second bond hearing next week.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
<>You can say that the prosecution over-reacted, but based on what we now know, there doesn’t appear to be any question at all that they lied.<>
I wouldn’t say that:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2895056/posts
I didn’t say they committed criminal perjury. I pretty specifically said I did not believe the prosecution could get a conviction for that, and laid out some reasons why. (See Post 33 on this thread.)
But they did deceive the court, and I think that may be extremely damaging to George Zimmerman’s defense because his credibility is so important to that defense.
That’s a good way to apply pressure on him. Plead guilty or well convict your wife.
The sheriff is near...
If she deceived the court, then she committed perjury. If she didn't commit perjury, then she didn't deceive the court. It's both or neither. But if the court was deceived and she didn't commit perjury, then the court has only itself to blame for not asking the right questions.
Well said. I agree completely with you.
Very simply. By reading the sign over the phone, knowing that the KopKorps and Prosecutor were listening in.
If the question was "Do you know what time it is?" and Shellie's answer was "No." that is not a lie. If the question, substantively, was: "Do you know how much money has been given you?" and the answer is "No" that is not a lie.
If the direct question, procedurally and substantively was: "Are you attempting to hide from this court the amount of donations you have received as of (give a particular date and time)?" and the answer is "No" -- neither need that be a lie.
What's the problem here? What am I missing?
If someone asks me:"Do you know what time it is?" and I say "Yes." and say on no more, have I failed to give up any key information that was requested?
You would think that the prosecution or the judge would be smart enough to ask a direct response that their lawyer(s) could respond to directly, or else say, "My clients choose not to participate in their own conviction of an offense."
There is also no question that these transfers were discussed and planned between Zimmerman and his wife.
Notice the secrecy and tone of voice.
In collect phone calls from jail, George Zimmerman and his wife, Shellie, used what prosecutors said is coded language to discuss hiding money from an online defense fund. THE AUDIOS here. April 17 = passport/money tranfers. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/18/transcripts-of-conversations-between-zimmermans-are-released/?hp Some BANK STATEMENTS http://www.wesh.com/blob/view/-/15141060/data/2/-/jcvd58z/-/BankStatements.pdf
It’s obvious the prosecutor is trying to drain any funding Zimmerman has so he won’t be able to defend himself.
That's not necessarily so, as even the blog you linked to earlier argues. And I'm not sure why you are trying to defend this. Back when Clinton was parsing the definition of "is" to show he had not technically lied, it seemed clear to most people that he'd been deliberately deceptive. He wasn't charged with perjury, either.
Your discussion is quite similar to what I offered in explaining that I doubt they could get a perjury conviction. But that doesn’t mean they did not deceive the court.
Back when Clinton was parsing the meaning of “is” in order to show he had not technically lied, most people understood that he had done exactly that. Yet Clinton wasn’t charged with perjury, either.
And yes, it is quite obvious they knew they were being recorded - that’s why they spoke in their clumsy and obvious code about the various transfers of funds about which they later claimed ignorance.
Did the prosecutor over-react by charging perjury? I think so. Is part of that gamesmanship for the “real” trial? I’m sure it is.
But this is a case where George Zimmerman’s freedom depends to a large degree on his own credibility, which he has now, inexplicably, chosen to damage. It’s really mind-boggling.
Zimmerman is NOT a convicted criminal. He has not been indicted. In fact, he was originally cleared.
This case appears to be a combo of Richard Jewell and Nifong.
What a farce....another BLACK farce....and don't kid yourself....Obama is controlling this. He'll have all HIS PEOPLE aroused at the end of October....and voting for justice!!!!!!!
Very true. It’s just mind-boggling to me that they could think this would benefit them in any way - much less that they could get away with the deception. Why not talk to your lawyer about the money, and how to use it?
I understand that they thought if the $130,000 (or so) was known, the bond may have been set at a million. But even if it were, and all that money were posted as bond, isn’t that better than going to prison? Because deceiving the court, in a trial in which your freedom depends to a very large extent on your own credibility, will damage your credibility and raise the chances you’ll be convicted. That’s pretty simple math, to me.
Yes and no. The events that night are already a matter of record verified by the forensic evidence. He doesn't need to say another word about those events. And even though it is not admissable in court, he did take and passed a lie detector test. So the statements that he gave that night will have their own credibility.
The problem with all the other evidence is that for the most part it corroborates Zimmerman’s account only to the extent that it does not contradict it. The only living witness to the shooting and to the start of the fight is George Zimmerman.
Self-defense is an affirmative defense, so his prior statements will have to be entered. Whether he is testifying live or his words are being read from the record, it’s still his word and credibility on the line, and this incident does not help his credibility.
This was a totally unforced error that will make his attorney’s job more difficult, i would think.
I'm wondering if politics might dictate that they let Zimmerman walk on a technicality.
Can you imagine the rioting?
OTOH, isn't that just what Obama wants? Total chaos in South Florida during an election would suite him just fine. A whole nation focusing on a burning state rather than his failures would make him slap happy.
Because the State had a;ready broken the silly code and already knew what was in the account and since they already knew they weren't deceived. They are putting on a big act to deceive the people. They were going after the perjury charge and stopped when they thought they had it. They didn't ask the BiL because then there wouldn't be any perjury charge. The other prison tapes, for the four days before the hearing, have many exonerating snippets including doubts about how the money should be treated, and as the blog says:
I don’t believe Shellie will be convicted on the sham “perjury” charges as the above comes out and it is shown she answered truthfully to the question of the balances “right now". She testified she didn’t know the current balances but her brother-in-law did and was available to give that information. And the State made it perfectly clear it never wanted those amounts in the first place.
The State was not deceived.
She told them where they could get the information. How is that lying? Or is it one of those “it depends on what the meaning of is is” things?
He was NEVER asked about it. How could he be lying when there was never a question?
I wonder did they record all the conversations with zimmerman’s lawyer too?
did they have a warrent or is this a routine practice to record warrentless?
is this to prevent escapes or to snoop for fishing expeditions?
Was zimmerman warned about the recordings? any inmate?
Why was the prosecutor sorting through security audio?
corey is trying to scare the defendant into a plea deal.
make you wonder what happens EVERY DAY to other defendants.
plea or get destroyed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.