Jun 14 2012
What Does Judge Lester Know About George Zimmerman We Don’t Know?
I have been crystal clear about why I think George Zimmerman is guilty of at least manslaughter when he gunned down an unarmed Travyon Martin (and for all those who wanted to see the evil teenager who needed to be killed, I oblige above with a picture to haunt your souls). The early indications we had from the first sketchy information was that either this 17 old kid went berserk on Skittles, or George Zimmerman (GZ) was lying about what played out that night.
IF the latter is true (and I laid my bet early on that it would turn out to be true, based on personal experience with many other like-minded, vigilante types who get off on playing hero – with guns to embolden them) then I wagered Zimmerman was unaware of all the evidence around him. Especially the fact that a young lady was on the phone at the time of the incident and could speak to Zimmerman’s actions as she heard them, and as they were relayed DIRECTLY to her by Trayvon Martin himself. Without full knowledge of the perjury traps surrounding him, GZ was almost 100% likely to screw himself over while trying to gold plate his alibi.
We are close to seeing if my early observations do pan out, because now we are going to get the statements (but not necessarily a link to the contradictory evidence) that has given the State of Florida high confidence in a conviction of not just Manslaughter, but Murder 2.
This yet to be publicized evidence has been seen by both legal teams. The prosecution wanted it to remain out of the public because it would tip their hand before trial. And the defense wanted it out of the public because it would make his client look even worse than he does.
And then there was Judge Lester – who recently noted the evidence is ‘strong’.
There is some strange confusion as to how Judge Lester made this determination, but it would seem obvious in such a case like this with heated media attenti0n and hot heads on both sides. The likely event that exposed the prosecutors case to the judge (and defense team) would appear to be a pretrial conference of some kind:
Generally, the substance of a pretrial conference for a criminal case is the same as that for a civil case. At the conference the judge or magistrate may make rulings on motions, eliminate repetitive evidence, and set schedules.
…
Criminal defendants must raise some issues before trial in a pretrial motion. Pretrial motions are specific requests for favorable orders from the court on particular issues. Under the Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure, a set of model rules written by the American Law Institute and adopted by many jurisdictions, a defendant should lose the opportunity to raise the following issues if they are not raised prior to trial: defenses and objections based on defects in the indictment or formal charging instrument; requests regarding discovery, or disclosure of evidence; requests to suppress or exclude from trial potential testimony or other evidence; requests for severing the trial in cases involving codefendants; requests for the dismissal of the case; and requests for transfer of the case to another jurisdiction.
Similar requirements are imposed on prosecutors. The prosecution must tell the defendant prior to trial of its intention to use certain evidence, such as evidence obtained as a result of a search or seizure, wiretap, or other Electronic Surveillance mechanism; evidence culled from a confession, admission, or statement made by the defendant; and evidence relating to a lineup, show-up, picture, or voice identification of the defendant (Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure 422(a)(1)).
It seems very likely that in discussing the withholding of this evidence from the public, the judge had to review said evidence in detail. Thus we can answer some marginal questions such as this:
Interestingly, he [Lester] writes for the first time that the state’s evidence is “strong.” The state chose not to present evidence on the facts of the case at the April 20 bond hearing, relying instead on its affidavit. The only testimony at the hearing on the facts of the case came from the state investigator, called by the defense, who acknowledged weaknesses in the state’s case. The state’s affidavit of probable cause, which as has been endlessly discussed, was a one-sided portrayal with factual inaccuracies and no mention defendant’s claim of self-defense. It didn’t contain evidence of the elements of second degree murder.
No, it did not. And that is because both legal teams have clearly been pushing from day one for the hard evidence against Zimmerman (his own words) to be kept out of the public light. It happens, not all the evidence is public.
Florida statutes, rules and case law provide that the accused has a right to bail unless the state establishes at the hearing that “the proof of guilt is evident and the presumption great.” If the state fails to meet its burden, the judge must set bail. If the state meets is burden, the judge still has discretion (as opposed to the duty) to grant bail. Judge Lester seems to be making a finding now that he didn’t make at the April 20 hearing — that the state met its burden under the Arthur standard of establishing that the proof of guilt is evident and the presumption great.
…
Judge Lester made no such finding in April (you can watch the video of closing arguments and his ruling here), and the State never presented evidence other than its affidavit to meet that burden.
This argument against Judge Lester’s decision is handicapped by severe blinders. If both sides want to keep evidence from being made public, the Judge has to go along until he has the opportunity to do the research and make a decision on the motion(s). So, to operate within the request to hold back evidence normally made public, the obvious process is not to expose it during open trial events.
I mean – duh!
The argument being presented actually proves how bad this really is for GZ by explaining how unprecedented things are, and what the conditions must be for them to be proper – and unprecedented:
Case law in Florida since the 1950’s has held that the state is unlikely to be able to meet such a burden in homicide cases where self-defense is raised. An accused’s version of the manner by which a homicide occurred (such as self-defense) is generally accepted for the purpose of determining whether the proof of his guilt was evident or the presumption great.
…
Defendant’s version of the homicide can not be ignored where there is an absence of other evidence legally sufficient to contradict his explanation.
I am assuming everyone here is acting in good faith and within the normal parameters of the law (being seasoned legal professionals of the criminal judicial system). Which means that the reason Judge Lester is coming down hard on GZ and able to take the positions he has is because there is evidence legally sufficient to contradict GZ’s self-defense explanation.
Imagine that. Clear evidence that GZ’s story was rapidly and awkwardly concocted on the spot to cover up his aggressive and criminal decisions and actions.
Those who support GZ without question or thought will be tested very soon. Myself, if the evidence is weak I can switch positions in a second. I am not emotionally hooked to any outcome. My position has been to go to trial and let the process work – for the real victim here. A dead 17 year old American kid with so much ahead of him. The only reason I stand pat is as details have emerged, they have supported and not contradicted my initial assessment. It happens.
Only until I see proof beyond a reasonable doubt Trayvon was a mortal threat to GZ (instead of his stalked victim) I am not buying this self defense crap. TM had a right to stand his ground too. And that included not going home and hiding from a vigilante. Sadly, that would have been the better decision for the young man, but if he thought the coast was clear and began going about is business. That is not a crime.
And that is not an decision worth being killed over.
GZ stalked, confronted and likely initiated the physical altercation. That is my guess based on the character of Zimmerman and how he builds his lies and alibis. He looks to be the kind who lies easily (like in bail hearings where we now have two lies recorded regarding TM’s apparent age and his financial situation – where the coward had his wife lie for him), and he looks to build these lies by twisting events that actually occurred to his view. I truly wonder who came up to whom from behind and began this deadly dance.
I will end with this observation:
If the state wants bail rejected on June 29, it seems to me it has to file a written motion for pre-trial detention under the pre-trial detention rule, 3.132, and both produce non-hearsay evidence in support of the charges and prove there are no conditions that would reasonable assure Zimmerman’s appearance at trial or the safety of the community. If it doesn’t do that, then the court is still proceeding under the pre-trial release rule, 3.131, which requires the state to produce far more evidence, hearsay or otherwise, than it did in April, to establish Zimmerman is guilty of the charged offense.
Is it really a coincidence new evidence is becoming public over the objections of both legal teams? Not if the judge wants to free his hands in this situation. The judge rightfully noted GZ admitted to killing TM, so there is no issue with releasing more evidence of same. The question is how did this come about, and we may get some answers very soon.
Yes, gcotharn, they can. #2 has nothing to do with the elements of the charge. And I do have to say, as much as I’ve spent in these threads, repeating myself over and over as to the charges, it gives me a smile to see you repeat it…. finally. Even if you still don’t get it.
Well, now… it’s going to be tough to convince a jury that a fleeing Martin was a “lethal threat” to a pursuing Zimmerman, don’t you think?
Had Zimmerman, upon the suggestions of the dispatcher, opted to return to his vehicle *immediately* and head for the mailboxes to meet the LEO, and TM came behind him and attacked, you may have a point.
Unfortunately for Zimmerman, the documented timeline of call logs doesn’t support that even being a possibility. Hanging up on that call at 7:13:5x pm, and the confrontation happening at 7:16:xx doesn’t much show an immediate compliance with the dispatcher’s suggestions, does it?
The only time he *may*… and only *may*… be considered a lethal threat is at the point they were entwined in not so mortal combat, but for Zimmerman’s use of a gun. But if that moment arrives due to Zimmerman’s responsibility, in the jury’s eyes, he’s still toast.
AJ didn’t say that, gcotharn. That is your erroneous translation of what you *think* he said. It is a case of “a failure to communicate”. I seem to be having that problem with quite a few myself of late… LOL I try to put it differently and get the point thru, but it’s like everyone just pivots, stubbornly refusing to leave their spot parked on Zimmerman’s head banging.
Correction, #1 (believing GZ had no recourse but to kill) has nothing to do with the charge. I never think in “numbers”… sorry.
If TM had killed GZ, it is possible he might have faced a charge. But a dead GZ with a gun in his belt would be more likely that TM would walk free. Combat in the sphere of the terrain is not an unreasonable response to an armed opponent.
Mata,
This is A.J.’s quote:
“You cannot create or initiate the incident that then causes you to fear for your life and invoke self defense.”
I disagree with A.J.’s interpretation of the law.
John Doe may create or initiate an incident which evolves to a place where John Doe’s use of lethal force is justified.
I have used an example of a normal bar fight in which John Doe initiates an incident, and John Doe is then knocked to the ground, and John Doe is unable to arise or to physically defend himself, and Bill Smith begins using his boot to kick John Doe in the head.
Bill Smith has now begun what I consider a new incident: an attack upon a helpless John Doe; an attack which carries a significant risk of being lethal to John Doe.
John Doe would then be legally justified in shooting Bill Smith.
John Doe would have created or initiated an incident which evolved to a place in which John Doe’s use of lethal force was justified.
Agree?
Do you see how John Doe would not have committed a crime, would not have committed an unlawful killing, and would not have acted with a depraved mind? Therefore, the elements of Murder 2 were not in place.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When I speak of the chance of Trayvon having been a “legally significant lethal threat”, I am specifically speaking of the alleged moments in which Trayvon was mounted on GZ and punching/slamming GZ’s head into concrete. Absent Trayvon being mounted on GZ, then neither I nor anyone else believes Trayvon was a significant lethal threat, and probably all of us would then believe GZ would be a murderer. Anything short of having been mounted, and GZ would then be guilty guilty guilty.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think you and I are in almost exact agreement that, after GZ hung up the phone, GZ likely hung around the complex and hunted around in hopes of again catching sight of Trayvon. You and I do not have a dispute in this area.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is unlikely that Trayvon entered into a fight in which Trayvon had preknowledge that GZ had a gun in his belt. Trayvon likely would have run. Trayvon had multiple escape routes, and Trayvon was obviously a faster runner than the obviously poorly conditioned GZ.
No, I don’t… and thousands of court precedents for manslaughter don’t either. I keep mentioning reasonable and proportionate response. Think of it as the old adage, you don’t bring a knife to a gun fight… mismatched advantages.
If Joe Doe, after starting the fight, were shot at, he might have a better chance at not being charged when he shot back. But even that’s not a guarantee, depending upon the situation.
Too bad for Zimmerman that murder two isn’t trying him for imperfect self defense, but for what he chose to do prior to his head banging. As AJ has told you, Martin was not a threat, was retreating, and GZ was searching, following, and not demonstrating a lick of common sense. Since words were exchange prior to any physical altercation, a polite GZ could again have defused the situation by identifying himself politely as the neighborhood watch.
Irrelevant again. And it’s also unlikely that he plotted an attack while chit chatting on the phone with the gal pal… not exactly a premediated moment to go into a brawl, is it?
If you are in agreement that GZ hunted around for Zimmerman, and that at that precise moment TM was not a threat and (per GZ himself) retreating, you will now realize what an uphill battle the defense has against the elements of murder two.
AJ: chuckle….
“I have to admit your gyrations demonstrate without a doubt you know very, very little about how the judicial process works. As Mata has pointed out many times, your reactions to standard processes and procedures prove your naivette.”
gyrations? my gyrations are different somehow from your gyrations? Are you going to begin demonstrating that you have a special knowledge of judicial processes? Please let me know when you do.
As I understand it, you acquired this through osmosis by being related to someone that went to law school. or something….
Well, if that’s the case maybe we all need to find a convention of lawyers and sit near all of them and suck up all this ‘osmosis’ business.
Suppose I told you my wife, my mother, my father, both my children and all my grandparents were lawyers? would you then concede that all that osmosis floating around had surely made me very knowledgeable on judicial processes? I wouldn’t, now will I concede that it has given you any special insight? maybe it has, but you just don’t know how to demonstrate it.
You seem to have the ability to not understand what anyone is telling you about this case (except mata, and she does do a good job of seeing it about as you do).
An example of this was just above where I said to her that the prosecutor can’t spring a surprise on the defense in a trial and she then proceeded to tell me that what I said can’t be true because the prosecutor is not allowed to spring a surprise on the defense because they have to reveal it in discovery. She took exactly my position and then explained why I was wrong because of the position I had which was exactly the same as hers.
For some reason, you and she both do not grasp the fact that there was two, or more, incidents that culminated in TM’s death. The last and final event, (which you don’t get) is when TM started pounding GZ’s head onto the concrete sidewalk. and no, that is not a fist fight. fists are attached to human arms, they are not a part of a concrete sidewalk. Even us ignorant ones know where fists are attached.
Your main argument now seems to be that all us perry mason wannabees don’t see it like you do so we must be ignorant. Your persuasion seems to be referring to us as ignorant. You may be right. You probably aren’t. You definitely are not even close on this TM/GZ case.
Mata,
You and I, here, are not fighting about whether or not Trayvon was a significant lethal threat. We both know we disagree about the current evidence regarding that.
Instead, you and I are disagreeing about what the verdict will hinge upon.
You think GZ’s actions, prior to the head banging, will determine the questions of crime, unlawful killing, and depraved mind.
I think those issues will hinge upon the question of whether or not Trayvon was a significant lethal threat to GZ.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sometimes, I wonder if you and A.J. are reasoning like this:
Everybody knows Trayvon was not a lethal threat. These crazy commenters are arguing that Trayvon was not a lethal threat AND that GZ is still innocent.
But, we crazy commenters are not arguing that. Instead, we are arguing that Trayvon was a lethal threat. If Trayvon was not a lethal threat, then we think GZ was guilty of something.
mata:
“A judge’s fiduciary duty *is* to examine evidence, and make assessments as to their strength or weakness.”
you say this as if you don’t think I understand it or agree with it. Well, that’s not the point. I agree with it one hundred percent. but that’s not even the subject.
The subject is: Once a judge has “A judge’s fiduciary duty *is* to examine evidence, and make assessments as to their strength or weakness. ” does he then have the ‘right’ to go out and speak publicly to the jury pool and give them his ‘opinion’ that they will be wasting their time sitting on a jury in this matter because he clearly is guilty as hell. That’s the subject, talk about that.
Well, as AJ has pointed out, he has a bunch of relatives that are lawyers or knows some lawyers. .. or something but I am not so unfortunate as to have a bunch of relatives that are lawyers so maybe I can’t grasp the concept of why it is OK to pollute the jury pool. So, let’s not cloud the issue, don’t talk about other subjects, just this one question: Is it okay for a presiding judge to tell his potential jury pool that the defendant is clearly guilty?
That’s what this judge did. I say that’s impeachable.
mata said: “This was an order of bond revocation because of misrepresentation of the financial means.”
I don’t agree. GZ’s wife is the one that misrepresented the financial situation. she was not under a bond so it couldn’t be revoked.
GZ did not lie, he in fact did not utter a word.. remember that little ditty? he has the right to remain silent. This completely unqualified(apparently) judge revoked a bond on a defendant because of what ‘his’ wife said. Now we are creating whole new standards.
Geez, maybe I should’ve made my brother get a law degree so I would have more osmosis sources.
If I ever get under bond, I’m darn sure gonna make sure all my relatives tell the truth so I don’t get my bond revoked.
Is this a new standard? should it be a new standard?
Away for a while and boy… did I miss some gyrations. I’ve always has a few questions, important questions, which we don’t yet have definitive answers to.
1. Did TM double back and confront GZ, i.e. did he turn from the pursued into the pursuer?
2. Did TM, after confronting GZ, turn into the aggressor?
3. Did TM mount GZ and begin pounding his head into the sidewalk? (as opposed to rolling around on the ground fighting)
Is it so hard to believe that TMs mindset was along the line: “Who the hell is the MFer following me around? I’m gonna teach that SOB not to mess with me?
That is pure conjecture/speculation but is not inconsistent with the facts as we know them now. If any of this can be proved or at least made to seem plausible then GZ will walk.
All you great legal minds will have to wait until the facts come out. Only then will your opinions/speculation be found to hold water or fall apart.
gcotharn, I agree with you 100%. obviously you don’t have to many lawyers that you are related to.
Clearly there are two separate incidents in the events you describe.
AJ used an example: that you can’t leave a fight and go home and get a gun and come back and shoot the other person. We all agree.
That is exactly identical to your example. Two guys get into a fight in a bar, Bob knocks John unconscious. let’s stretch it out a little… then Bob goes home and changes his boots and dons his ‘stomping’ boots and comes back and stomps John to death. Murder? sure.
compress the time a little. Bob knocks John unconscious. Bob goes to the locker room and dons shoes and comes back. still guilty? sure
Compress a little more Bob stops, takes a sip of beer then comes back and resumes stomping. still guilty? sure.
Compress a little more: Bob stomps, looks at him, decides he’s unconscious and no threat, stomps him. Still guilty? sure.
If there is any break in the attack, and then a resumption, then he’s still guilty. at any point, John would be justified, if he opened his eyes and saw ‘stomping boots’ aimed at his head, in pulling his gun and preventing his demise.
That’s what this case was. At any time, TM had GZ completely subdued and could have stopped his attack with no further harm to himself. GZ was completely justified to stop the slamming of his head (stomping by boots) onto the concrete.
TM? guilty of deadly attack? absolutely.
GZ? guilty of defending himself from being dead? Nope.
“Had Zimmerman, upon the suggestions of the dispatcher, opted to return to his vehicle *immediately* and head for the mailboxes to meet the LEO, and TM came behind him and attacked, you may have a point. ”
Exactly…. that is exactly what happened. As soon as the dispatcher said it, GZ stopped, turned around, headed back and was attacked.
Well, it’s good we all now agree…
mata said: ‘Martin was not a threat, was retreating, and GZ was searching,”
you have said the incident occurred 109 yards from TM’s father’s girlfriends apartment door. We all know based on the completely reliable story by DD that TM was ‘at’ that apartment door.
My question: if Martin was retreating? where was he retreating from? and where was he retreating to? If he was standing at the apartment door and he knew GZ was up at the spot 109 yards away then he must have been ‘retreating’ from the apartment door? and retreating to a ‘point of safety’? where GZ was?
now, i’d guess we’d all agree that it’s a free country and TM was free to retreat from where and to where he wanted to, but you don’t normally retreat to a spot where you are afraid for your safety. Do you?
gcotharn, I just re-read that whole soliloquy that AJ wrote about this case and I swear, I think he is talking about something else entirely. He makes so many ‘factual’ statements that bear no resemblance to reality.
example: “Was the fool (GZ) in mortal peril? Hell no. He was walking around the scene afterwards. He was talking clearly. His head injuries were superficial. He was in a fist fight – and that does not warrant a self defense killing. ” what? where is any evidence of a ‘fist fight’?
“And the fact GZ was beginning to slightly lose the battle was also not in doubt. ”
I can see where this ‘osmosis’ business comes in handy. beginning to ‘slightly’ lose. think about that,, beginning to ‘slightly’ lose. Hmmm…
“But GZ did much more than kill someone because he was losing a fist fight (again, only slightly losing one).” in case you missed it ” (again, only slightly losing one)” very slightly? hmmmm…..
“This is simpleton case law my friends. ” well, thank goodness, it’s ‘simpleton’ so we don’t have to use osmosis… or something.
“TM tried to flee the confrontation.” was that when he was running toward the back door of the apartment as DD said he did? or was it while he was running back to the spot 109 yards away, back up near where GZ’s truck was parked? Oh, I get it, he thought he had lured GZ away from his truck so by going back toward GZ’s truck he was ‘most likely to avoid GZ’ oh yeah, I get it…. that’s probably when he was ‘fleeing’
“When he defied directions from the police and went after TM (well away from the path to his truck) ” Are we still on the TM/GZ case? defied directions? from the police? huh?
“But where TM was killed was nowhere near the path back to GZ’s truck.” Hey, this is the TM/GZ case, you’ve been looking at the wrong map, obviously….. put a straight edge on the spot where GZ went to and his truck and see if it is ‘near the path’. If it’s not, you’re looking at the wrong map.
“Got it yet? GZ follows TM and TM flees. GZ is directed to stand back. GZ goes after TM anyway, ”
Hey, this is the Trayvon Martin case. come back to it. Didn’t TM walk by GZ’s suv and GZ was on the phone to police and he told them that TM started running? then GZ got out and started to follow and police recommended not following and he terminated his following and walked back to his truck. The next attack was TM jumping onto GZ. That’s the case we’re on here. where did that other stuff come from? Osmosis, all those lawyer relatives I guess.
This is just a few examples, there are dozens more, but the point is, I’m not sure AJ has really read up on the case. He just does not have a grasp of the facts….
Where’s Perry Mason when we need him? or something…
RT, if you want impeachment for a judge using language that states evidence is strong, then why are you lobbying for FL’s Judge Vinson for using that same language INRE O’healthcare?
It is a defined statement that the State has met it’s heavy burden of proof to bring the charges.
You’d think you’d notice that none of the legal beagles are screaming impeachment, nor even hinting that this taints a jury pool. O’Mara, himself, has the option of filing a motion that Lester recuse himself. He’s not done so to day, and doesn’t say a word about it.
Like I said, you seem to be more outraged because of your perception than any of the legal minds. That should lend some clues that you’re barking up an fake potted plant.
No where in Dee’s testimony does she say that TM was “at that apartment door”. She said he wasn’t going to run because he was “right by his father’s house”, but what does that mean? That’s followed by him telling her GZ’s getting closer and shortly thereafter she hears the voices before the cut off.
We know where the fight and death took place. It was not at Greene’s door, but two buildings up the path at the tee. So the proximity to Greene’s house isn’t known based on that statement. What does she consider “by the house”? We know what you consider it means… that doesn’t make you correct. Nor does it jive with where the site of death occurred.
But it’s interesting that you now want to use the “hearsay” evidence that you’ve spent a great deal of time dismissing prior to this. In which case GZ following, getting close after he’s made efforts to lose him isn’t going to be any bonus points for the defense.
I’ve said this before. I think Dee’s testimony will have limited value… to potential establish TM’s state of mind and feeling of threat from the man following him, and to further establish the time line and call logs when constructing wht happened… which brings me to your comment….
LOL! Keep your day job, RT. In the dispatch call, and after getting out of his SUV, Zimmerman moved 24 seconds away from his vehicle, stopped and finished the call. To return “immediately”, it would be approx the same time to return, or not a tad longer if he went at a slower pace.
Problem is from the time that Zimmerman hung up to the meeting up with Trayvon was two minutes, give or take a few seconds either direction. What ya gonna do with that missing minute and a half or so, guy? ooops… big hole in that theory, dude.
OMG… surely you don’t want to be the fish in the barrel, do you? The only “deadly attack” was a single shot, squeezed out by GZ. pffft…. I tell you, if you consider GZ’s minor injuries a “deadly attack”, you’ve got to be one wuss. Thank heavens you don’t have to endure child birth…you’d die! :0)
You are really confused, RT. What kind of psycho babble is that?
Maybe you need to read Judge Lester’s order of revocation (for GZ, since you seem to be so addled with details) again,… especially in the two places where it plainly states that GZ did give limited testimony that day, and he did not alert the court to the misinformation, nor contradict or supplement his wife’s testimony.
His silence on the finances not only doesn’t give him a pass, it did him in.
GZ’s omission, combined with the documented proof that both not only discussed the funds, but moved them around, gave Lester the authority to either revoke, or modify the bond. He chose revocation because of the disrespect the Zimmerman’s showed the court, as well as the seriousness of the charge.
There’s quite a few legal Freudian slips in there that are revealing of your mindset here, RT.
First Freudian slip: this is not the TM case. It is Zimmerman who is on trial and not TM. But this does explain your constant attempts to refocus away from GZ’s actions that warranted the charge of murder two.
Second Freudian slip: Sticking with the TM jumping GZ story when all witnesses note there was discussion/arguments prior. GZ was not caught unaware.
Now you say you *know* Martin’s path with certainty, and that he passed by GZ while he was in the phone, talking to the dispatcher? While this is entirely possible, it is GZ’s worst nightmare scenario, IMHO. He had the perfect opportunity to defuse the situation and discover Martin’s present in the neighborhood by simply rolling down the window, identifying himself as the neighborhood watch and politely asking Martin what he felt he needed to ask…. all from the safety of his car, and with a police dispatcher right there on the line.
Did he? Nope. Nor does Zimmerman state that TM walked right by him, and one would think that would be noted. After all, he was pretty much giving a TM play by play there… starting at me, checking me out, looks like he’s on drugs or something (he wasn’t)… how the heck to do miss a “he walked by my car” movement?
Letting a missed opportunity go like that is not a demonstration of good judgement. And had the evil Martin attacked Zimmerman in his car, and he shot in, he wouldn’t be on trial today.
The extremely obvious fact that GZ did not terminate his search by the time elapsed, and substantiated by GZ himself – refusing to meet the LEO at the mailboxes and telling them he’d call later with his location – totally discounts your fantasy.
mata: “No where in Dee’s testimony does she say that TM was “at that apartment door”.
you need to go back and listen again. She clearly did state that. It’s on the recording that is public. I’ve mentioned that to you more than once and you’ve ignored it each time. If you are in the position that what DD said is true, then you must accept that portion of her statement as well.
“RT, if you want impeachment for a judge using language that states evidence is strong,”
again, you missed my question.. I have no problem with a judge saying that evidence is strong. That’s NOT what this judge did. What this judge did is ‘state that the evidence against GZ was strong’ maybe the evidence was strong that GZ did exactly what he said he did and that he is completely innocent. The jury is supposed to try that. The same jury that the judge just told that he is ‘guilty’. Had he simply made a statement that the evidence was strong,, that would be fine, but when he said which direction the evidence was strong in, that was an impeachable offense.
I clearly understand lawyer types not calling for impeachment in many cases. As in the SCOTUS case you mentioned. Tho I wouldn’t say it is an impeachable offense, but when judges decide that a citizen of this country does not have standing to bring an action against a person that is directly impacting his complete living standards then they are just completely shirking their duty. and just because other lawyers ignore it, doesn’t increase their imminence. And we don’t really need them passing this to anyone, thru osmosis or otherwise… Makes me glad I’m not related to a whole bunch of lawyers.
“But it’s interesting that you now want to use the “hearsay” evidence that you’ve spent a great deal of time dismissing prior to this” huh? I did not and have not recommended using this hearsay evidence. I said that if YOU believe what she said, that you should believe either all of it or none of it. Maybe I can’t write sentences and statements clearly. You have a knack for answering the question you thought I was asking rather than the question I was actually asking. And my point was that DD said he was at the apartment. and since he was there and he was ‘fleeing’ why or how did he end up further away from where he should have been fleeting ‘to’? 109 yards further away, by google earth measurements provided by you.
“especially in the two places where it plainly states that GZ did give limited testimony that day, and he did not alert the court to the misinformation, nor contradict or supplement his wife’s testimony. ”
now I’m confused. Are you saying that GZ was obligated to ‘not remain silentl’ are you saying he was obligated to ‘incriminate himself’ It was his wife that provided the erroneous info. GZ had no obligation to make any statement about that information. well, at least that’s the way the constitution intended it. but you are clearly stating that it ‘was his wife’s testimony that was not correct and not GZ’s testimony. And I’m gonna maintain it was ‘his right to remain silent’. That may be some ” kind of psycho babble ” but I’ll stick with it and let you make the statement that GZ ‘is’ obligated to incriminate himself. Your turn.
I listened to the entire 22 minute recording multiple times and have notes on pertinent comments. In the entire statement, there only three times any location is mentioned for any reason.
At 15’18” she mentiones the mailboxes, at 19’42” she confirms he was at the store, and at 9’10 thru 9’20” she talks about urging him to run when he was walking because he thought he lost Zimmerman. That’s when she says the “right by his father’s house” comment. But then goes on to talk about him still walking and GZ behind him again.
Now, if you’d like to point out what you think I missed, here’s the the link to the 22 minute statement. Please feel free to point out the time in that audio to substantiate your statement that she “clearly stated” he was “at the apartment door. Certainly it’s not impossible I missed it, but I’m sure not going to take your word for it when I’ve reviewed that statement specifically to find where she said any such thing.
If you want to assert that as fact, then you need to prove what you say is true, and I’ve provided the link so that you can do that easily. I’ve documented my observations. I expect you to do the same. If you don’t, then I’ll just discount your interpretations as more fantasy.
INRE “by his father’s house”. and considering that TM was still walking, that GZ was still following, and that the site of the fight and altercation was two buildings away, it would be a desperate leap to interpret “right by his father’s house” as “at the apartment door.” So “by” would be a subjective proximity and doesn’t indicate where he is except that he is in the nearby area of the condo, and that he is still attempting to elude GZ at least a second time at that point.
Ultimately, the statement cannot be used to define a path because she didn’t get a play by play route description from TM. Only his state of mind, and that he was aware of GZ’s unwanted presence and focus.
Judges determining whether evidence is strong or weak, and that includes stating their findings, is their job. Doing their jobs, is hardly an impeachable offense. NOT doing their job may be. So you find it okay for Judge Vinson to use those words for O’healthcare, but not okay for Judge Lester? That’s the indication of an emotional and political call.
I’ll say this again, and hope that it sinks in. (right….) At best the statement can be a reason for the defense to file a motion for his recusal for bias, if they so choose. That option has not even been considered, let alone done. As you can see, those most affected by that language – the defense and Zimmerman – are not even blinking while you are whipping yourself up into an indignant frenzy because of your erroneous perceptions.
And if you think O’Mara is “shirking his duty” by not requesting recusal, please feel free to write him and give him your opinion of his inferior defense capabilities. I’m sure it will end up in the trash pile, but perhaps you’ll feel better.
I don’t have to say anything, RT. The top of the food chain, the presiding Judge, says it all. Yes, he was obligated to correct misinformation about the matters pertinent to the subject of the hearing. The bond hearing was to determine bond and the amount, of which disclosure of their financial means was a deciding factor. Disclosing the funds they knew about is not “incriminating” themselves. It’s not a crime to have those funds… it’s a crime to not disclose those funds. sigh…
As the Judge clearly states, GZ had the obligation to correct, contradict or supplement known misinformation. That he dodged the subject doesn’t give him a pass when it was later proved that he knew of the funds as well as SZ. Therefore, the Judge has full authority to do what he did.
Again, none of your iconic legal beagles are crying foul at the bond revocation because they all recognize that the Judge was within his authority. Other than you, they are not fool enough to go there but instead argue the Zimmerman’s were “confused” as to how they could use their funds. Of course, they weren’t so confused when they used $5000 of those funds for bond, so I guess they were just confused as to how much of those funds they could use for that purpose.
And again, if you want to write the Judge and tell him you know his authority better that he does, feel free. You will, again, be wrong. More barking up that fake potted plant. But hey… perhaps you’ll feel better when you tell all these professionals that aren’t doing their jobs to your satisfaction.
Here’s another rub… had GZ corrected, contradicted or supplemented SZ’s false statement about the estimated amount of funds they knew they had collected/obtained/transferred to date, she would not be charged with perjury because the law disallows for for the State to pursue charges if the information is corrected within the proceeding… even if not by SZ herself. Ergo, GZ’s silent aiding and abetting of misinformation contributed to SZ’s charges.
Correction, SZ would also have to recant her misinformation following GZ’s correction to get her free and clear. That could have been easily accomplished by GZ disclosing the funds they handled, then O’Mara could have recalled SZ so that she could also explain her “confusion”. The State would then have little justification of a charge of perjury because it was all done within the same proceeding, and there was no legal impact as a result of their misinformation.
Mata,
I admire your diligence, but you have to realize some of my readers are as clueless as GZ, and are ripe for getting themselves and their families also caught up in serious lega trouble. They think just as naively as GZ did when he concocted his silly self dense excuse.
I look at it this way, anyone dumb enough to think they can go around my neighborhood armed, challenging and spooking my kids, getting into a fight with them and killing one of them is so dangerously delusional I would prefer they get locked away instead of roaming free where they can hurt others with their self righteous foolishness.
Yuppers, AJ… I’m noticing the fall out of this case extends to both extremes. Both sides almost gleefully predicting race riots. A newly renewed venom for our judicial process and procedures, which really ain’t healthy in the long run… losing faith in the Founding Fathers’ system. And people aggressively forcing confrontations, with a video cam in hand, and threats to shoot specifically citing “I’m standing my ground!”
Knuckleheads like this, and Mr. Watch Captain Zimmerman, is what gives responsible gun owners a bad name. Thus the reason the NRA talking heads aren’t out there, defending Mr. Zimmerman’s actions as reasonable self-defense.
Bottom line, if someone is not prepared to accept the legal consequences that may come into play when they use their firearm, don’t carry the damn thing…