When your ENTIRE case rests heavily on your credability, and you testify under oath that you are penniless while knowing you have over $100,000 available in an on-line account - you are, in fact, demonstrating that you have do not respect the law.
When you are in jail, and you know your phone calls are monitored, and you use code like “What should we do with the $100” ($100 = $100,000 - that’s one tough code, eh?) you have just furnished proof that your word is worthless.
Zimmerman was an utter fool to do this - he now has given the Prosecution the best weapon they could possibly have hoped for, “reasonable doubt”.
The paypal proceeds from public donations for Zimmerman’s defense was widely known and reported in the media prior to that time, so how could there have been an intent to cover this up?
>>and you testify under oath that you are penniless <<
And when, exactly, did George testify that he was penniless?
??? Prosecution doesn’t have resonable doubt as a standard. They have to prove their case.
It is of course extremely important to know which media reports to believe, isn’t it?
Just believe anything that supports “Zimmerman is GUILTY”.
Yeah... that’s the ticket.
Your understanding of "reasonable doubt" evidently comes form bizarro world.
If there is reasonable doubt of Zimmerman's guilt, a juror must vote to acquit.
I don't have any idea what your "reasonable doubt" is about.
I don't believe you do, either.
All that political hijinks over the bail is inadmissible in a criminal case about Trayvon's little accident. It's ridiculous to have asked for bond at all, on a defendant who kept in touch with the prosecutrix's office and turned himself in voluntarily when she charged him based on her fantasies.
The guy deserves a medal, not a bunch of craven, dishonest bureaucrats competing to see who can abuse the victim more.
Why is "don't know what I'm allowed to do with those funds" not sufficient?
Zimmerman did not know what to do with the money in the Paypal account. It was given for his defense, not for his bail. If he used it improperly, he would have committed a crime.
Besides, if the bail is set, and the bond is paid, what the heck is the difference to the judge?
Is the judge saying, if I knew you had more money, I would have set the bail higher? That is totally BS.
The judge and prosecutor are corrupt, and need to be changed. I have never seen such a travesty of justice since OJ.
I have not read the order yet, I would think the primary issue is the passport. The money was explained after the fact by the lawyer so that could be excused. the intentional misrepresenting ITSELF is an issue.
If the wife lied or intentionally mislead, then there is no free pass to keep the bond.
If the judge treats this defendant like other defendants, he will let him stew for a few days and let him out at the next bond hearing. (perhaps at a higher bond)
The judge will, again if the same as other defendants, will not let STATE special prosecutor corey play her own games. The judge should be doing to her what the duke judge did to nifong.
Your analysis was great until you said reasonable doubt was a weapon for the prosecutor. It is in fact a sheild for the defendant. Zimmerman did hurt his credibility IF this is allowed in at his trial and IF he testifies.
Reasonable doubt is in favor of the defendant. The prosecution has the responsibility to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
I’d love to see the case in which the prosecutor is using reasonable doubt as a weapon. If the defendant is found guilty it must be beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ahem, that means the defendant would use the reasonable doubt to obtain a verdict of not guilty.
If you mean you would reasonably doubt the defendant’s version of events because he misrepresented something, then you would also need to look at the motives for him to be able to leave the area pending trial, since the vigilantes and “regulators” were offering rewards to kill him before the proof comes out in the trial.
I reasonably doubt the Prosecutor’s case.
“he now has given the Prosecution the best weapon they could possibly have hoped for, ‘reasonable doubt’”
Huh? The burden of proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt is on the prosecution, not the defense. If Zimmerman has no respect for law you have no knowledge of law.
Huh?
“Zimmerman was an utter fool to do this - he now has given the Prosecution the best weapon they could possibly have hoped for, ‘reasonable doubt’.”
It seems he got what he deserved in terms of his bond but there’s no way this is part of the trial.
“When you are in jail, and you know your phone calls are monitored, and you use code like “What should we do with the $100” ($100 = $100,000 - that’s one tough code, eh?)...”
Sure, if Capt. Zimmerman were a Secret Agent Man, like James Bond, working to save the USA from the USSR, he might have insisted on a better code that would have been more difficult to decipher.
However, there was no way that Zimmerman could have known that the Sanford PD would have the advanced CIA technology available to them needed to break that code.
Actually, it is quite scary that a small town PD would have the power, the technology, the array of Supercomputers and the wherewithal required to decipher a code that just a few years ago would have taken the CIA years to break.
If it did, you may have a "credable" point. Physical evidence and known forensics, support George.
"When you are in jail, and you know your phone calls are monitored, and you use code like “What should we do with the $100” ($100 = $100,000 - that’s one tough code, eh?)..."
The transcriptions show they knew they were being recorded. Using an elementary "code" and KNOWING you're being recorded just doesn't track with trying to hide anything. I'd be looking for other possible explanations, like George not wanting some to overheard by some of the other jail guests.
All that aside. O'Mara should have disclosed this information. I find it VERY unlikely the subject wasn't explored thoroughly before the bail hearing.
Usually, you must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
He was the one attacked.