Replies

Somebody earlier gave a quote by Judge Lester, basically saying that those who believe Zimmerman is racist will pounce on this and those who don’t won’t believe it anyway.

So yes, he did sign off on this stuff being released. The question I have is this: Who is ever gonna talk to the police candidly about anything, if everything that gets said to the police can be paraded around in the national media?

This gal may have just been giving her gut-level thoughts to the police; she said flat-out that she never saw him exhibiting racist behavior. But at this point what’s being done is libel, within a legal context. Could Zimmerman sue her for libel?

At this point it seems to me that the JUDGE and PROSECUTOR are engaging in libel by releasing what appears to be totally baseless accusations.

Next is Judge Lester going to let the public hear everything that a battered wife says to the police about her husband - (never mind whether her husband will find out and kill her for talking; consequences be damned, right, Judge Lester?)? How about interviews where rape victims give the gory details of the rape? Is all that public information - and totally acceptable in the eyes of a judge because people are going to believe what they want to believe anyway?

Nobody can see the records which show whether or not multiple government offices at both state and federal levels have actually committed fraud, perjury, forgery, and misprision of a bunch of different felonies involving Obama’s records - all because of some phony interest in “privacy” - and yet this crapola judge allows unsubstantiated claims to be aired all over the country so that an accused man will NEVER be able to get a fair trial.

I thought it was impossible for me to feel more contempt for our lawless judicial system than I already do but alas, the system is going farther into negative territory than I thought even existed.

"In a statement released earlier, witness 9 told Sanford, Fla., police that Zimmerman does not like blacks. In the audio-recorded interview released today, she reiterated that, without providing specifics.
Had she seen George Zimmerman disparage blacks or act as if he hated blacks, she was asked.

No, she said."

Next is Judge Lester going to let the public hear everything that a battered wife says to the police about her husband - (never mind whether her husband will find out and kill her for talking; consequences be damned, right, Judge Lester?)? How about interviews where rape victims give the gory details of the rape? Is all that public information - and totally acceptable in the eyes of a judge because people are going to believe what they want to believe anyway?

And they released the audio, which means that the anonymity of "Witness 9" goes out the window as soon as her friends recognize her voice.

Somebody earlier gave a quote by Judge Lester, basically saying that those who believe Zimmerman is racist will pounce on this and those who don’t won’t believe it anyway.

Well, he did sign off on this specific witness, Witness # 9. I don't understand what compelling need there was for the community to hear something that wasn't actionable, and was unsubstantiated. How would the judge view some witness saying his wife was a whore? Would he feel compelled to release that to the media as well?

So yes, he did sign off on this stuff being released. The question I have is this: Who is ever gonna talk to the police candidly about anything, if everything that gets said to the police can be paraded around in the national media?

Yes he did. Your question seems a reasonable one. I don't have an answer. If he is releasing this information in a manner that information is generally released, I would have to state that it mustn't be causing the problems you and I would expect. Not that that is a valid enough reason to do it. Why not release the information after the trial. What's the hurry. This case has seen so much information dump. It was my take that the prosecution generally held things close to the vest until after the trial. Evidently I was wrong.

This gal may have just been giving her gut-level thoughts to the police; she said flat-out that she never saw him exhibiting racist behavior. But at this point what’s being done is libel, within a legal context. Could Zimmerman sue her for libel?

I don't know. It certainly seems to me he should have some recourse. It also seems to me that the judge and prosecuting attorney should share in the responsibility for that libel. There was no compelling reason to release this to the public.

At this point it seems to me that the JUDGE and PROSECUTOR are engaging in libel by releasing what appears to be totally baseless accusations.

Yes, we're on the same page with regard to that. I agree.

Next is Judge Lester going to let the public hear everything that a battered wife says to the police about her husband - (never mind whether her husband will find out and kill her for talking; consequences be damned, right, Judge Lester?)? How about interviews where rape victims give the gory details of the rape? Is all that public information - and totally acceptable in the eyes of a judge because people are going to believe what they want to believe anyway?

I doubt that every detail of rapes are reported. Further, some details for high crimes are sometimes kept secret so that the authorities can verify that a suspect is the actual killer. Should all judges now feel compelled to reveal that information too? I mean the public has a right to know, and that seems to trump every other concern.

Nobody can see the records which show whether or not multiple government offices at both state and federal levels have actually committed fraud, perjury, forgery, and misprision of a bunch of different felonies involving Obama’s records - all because of some phony interest in “privacy” - and yet this crapola judge allows unsubstantiated claims to be aired all over the country so that an accused man will NEVER be able to get a fair trial.

I agree. It also fails the sniff test when the information is totally unrelated to the case the information was gleaned for. What if a witness protection person was interviewed? Should the public get the name and information and whereabouts of that person too? There are all sorts of reasons to withhold information that is tainted, unproven, and just merely an accusation.

I thought it was impossible for me to feel more contempt for our lawless judicial system than I already do but alas, the system is going farther into negative territory than I thought even existed.

Some of this may be your and my misunderstanding of what normally takes place. This may in fact not be that out of line at all. I think it's a flawed policy. I may be right and I might be wrong.

I don't see the rational reason for releasing this neighbor's story. I don't want to mischaracterize it, but it just stinks IMO.

Thanks for the comments.

<>Somebody earlier gave a quote by Judge Lester, basically saying that those who believe Zimmerman is racist will pounce on this and those who don’t won’t believe it anyway.<>

Right here from Lester’s Order releasing Witness#9’s statement:

“In this Court’s opinion, application of the McCrary test requires the disclosure of this statement. The public discussion relating to this case indicates that the Defendant’s attitude towards race may be an issue at trial. Adding this statement to the discourse will simply be another piece of the puzzle to be relied upon by those who want to believe that there was a racial motive to the shooting, and will be dismissed by those who claim there is no such motive.”

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/order%20denying%20reconsideration%20of%20release.pdf