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.
mata, so let me get this correct. “He be right by his fathers house” means something other than ‘he be right by his fathers house’? Okay, so they were talking in code? or what? my language is English, and in English, I understand ‘he be right by his father’s house’ to mean that ‘he be right by his father’s house’. If it does not mean that, kindly tell me what you think it means.
mata: again, I’m sorry to have to inform you that we live in the USA, now I’ve been relatively sure you knew this but when you say: “Yes, he was obligated to correct misinformation about the matters pertinent to the subject of the hearing.” I just have to wonder. So, you believe that a person IS obligated to speak and to incriminate himself.
I’m sure you don’t care, but I’m never going to agree with that. I’m always going to believe that a person ‘has the right to not incriminate himself and has a right to remain silent.’ you might want to google miranda rights and read up a little.
mata: don’t you think this is a strange statement by AJ “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” I mean it was just recently on a thread where he talked about how he knew all about people like GZ because of a lot of personal experiences he has had. What do you think he meant by that? I mean, he has a lot of personal experiences? If I did, I would move.. I’ve never seen a gun waving wanna be vigilante. AJ has a lot of personal experiences with them, he said. Strange indeed.
I think you fully understand that GZ’s wife made erroneous statements, not GZ himself. Give me any kind of precedent where you think one person is legally obligated to take the blame for someone else’s problem? Nevermind, you can’t because there isn’t one.
Let’s be sure we’re talking same scenario here. Bond hearing for GZ, he does not open his mouth, does not take the 5th, says not a word. Wife makes a false statement. bond is granted. later judge ‘thinks’ wife made a false statement. penalizes GZ for it.
US legal system? not in my lifetime.
let’s see, how would that charge read? GZ, I am going to put you on trial because your wife committed a crime and you didn’t tell us about it. What would the charge be. remaining silent and not incriminating yourself while other person lied? sounds good. that about right?
“Martin was not a threat, was retreating,”
let me get this straight. Martin was sitting on top of GZ slamming his head onto the concrete while simultaneously ‘retreating’ ? just how does that work? Does he slam it once then take a step back and then slam it again and take two steps back, etc? That’s an interesting concept. how many steps ‘away’ would you say he has to achieve before you could definitely say he ‘had retreated’? oh, I forgot, and he was also engaged in a fist fight which he was ‘slightly losing’ but, bear in mind, ‘only very slightly losing’ I’m not sure now which one it was that was ‘very slightly losing’ but since it was only ‘very slightly’ I’m sure it didn’t really matter. Would it?
For the record, I’m not predicting race riots. Apathy will set in. no one will really give a damn no matter which way it turns out.
mata: ” Knuckleheads like this, and Mr. Watch Captain Zimmerman, “, why the need to assign a name to GZ? do you, or do you not, believe that president of the homeowners association that said that GZ was the head of their neighborhood watch? I didn’t see where they had ‘given him a title’. Why call him a knucklehead? how does that enhance any argument about him? I’m not even sure what a knucklehead is anyhow. I do know that harley has an engine called a knucklehead. Is GZ that good, or that bad? depends on whether a knucklehead is a good thing or a bad thing. Why not refer to him as GZ or the defendant. Is he, or is he not, innocent until proven guilty?
mata: ” RT, if you want impeachment for a judge using language that states evidence is strong, ” sigh…… I’ll say this again. I have no problem with a judge saying the evidence is strong. I have one helluva big problem with him ‘publicly stating to a jury pool that the defendant IS GUILTY and the evidence is very strong.’ Isn’t that the function of the jury? you again avoided my question and only answered the question you wished to answer which did not even remotely resemble the question I asked. I don’t really care if you answer the question because I’m not sure you understand the distinction between what I’m asking and what you are answering.
Let me ask you a theoretical question. during jury selection, suppose the potential juror were asked this question? Have you formed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant? and he answered ‘yes sir, I have’ and He were then asked why he had formed an opinion and he answered ‘ well, yore honor, I heard you giving a speech and you said the defendant is guilty as hell and the evidence is iron clad against him and if you think so, I sure as hell ain’t gonna disagree with you in yore own courtroom’ by cracky.
Would you allow this potential juror on the jury if you were the defendant?
Would you allow this potential juror on the jury if you were the prosecutor?
This is where we are. looking forward to you avoiding the question again.
“It is unlikely that Trayvon entered into a fight in which Trayvon had preknowledge that GZ had a gun in his belt.”
wait a minute, wasn’t this a wild eyed gun waving wannabee vigilante? No self respecting ” wild eyed gun waving wannabee vigilante” would have his gun in his belt? what… and no one know he had it? that would be a waste…
Where, precisely, did the judge say that?
Where is it? Cite it please.
You might find that pronunciation from the judge right next to Dee Dee’s statement that Martin was “at the apartment door”.
You claim that both of those statements exist…maybe they’re hanging out right next to one another.
Then again, maybe not.
Dang, RT… six “duh” comments in a row?
1: She didn’t say “he be by his father’s house”. She said he told her he isn’t running because “he’s by his father’s house”. Do you deliberately insert ebonics not used in order to demean the girl? As far as what it means, you don’t know how that translates to proximity any more than I do.. or anyone else will. In fact, we don’t know if that was actually the word that TM used. So it’s pretty much nothing to hang your hat on as a map marker. Nice try…
So I take it you’ll be recanting your “she said he was *at* the apartment door” BS now? I sure didn’t see any minutes/seconds for you to direct me to your claim.
2 AND 3: Miranda rights? Taking the “blame” for someone else? LOL You talk about miranda in a bond hearing where GZ was sworn in and actually testified?? And you think a judge is so unbelievablely stupid as to revoke bond with authority in a State when everything but when he takes a dump is in the pubic domain? Not to mention not a single person who has a modicum grasp of the process doesn’t agree with you?
You know, RT, I’m sorry to inform you that you have attempted an incredibly dumb argument that it isn’t worth addressing. Guess you’ll have to hope that one of your iconic legal beagle pundits picks up on your hysteria, and tries to convince the world that Judge Lester acted outside his authority.
I repeat… don’t hold your breath.
4: Not sure what you questions to be about AJ are. I don’t pretend to know, and it’s not my business. But I know a lot of people whose groins, wagger, personal self esteem and confidence are directly related either to a Harley throttle or a weapon as well. The small personal parts/long barrel is not an unusual character trait.
So what’s your point? Never mind… don’t really care. LOL
5: I see you still believe the sands of time only begin with head banging. Can’t help you there. Not wasting any more time. You’ll just have to figure it out when the trial and O’Mara’s defense tactic isn’t going quite the way you planned. You seem like a nice enough guy…:0) Please tell your family to keep all sharp objects out of reach when the trial starts.
6: Mr Watch Captain Zimmerman is now an personal insult or name calling in your book? My heavens… it seems we must really tiptoe around you. But yes… he’s a knucklehead. As a matter of fact I don’t know another single gun owner that doesn’t think he’s an irresponsible knucklehead because of his choices.
I also notice the deathly silence of Marion Hammer… who’s never deathly silent when it comes to self defense or SYG. Wonder why that is? /sarc button off
7: You have a problem with a judge “publicly stating” evidence review in a ruling as strong? Dang, RT… where the heck do you think other judges have used that term, but in rulings? It’s not the fault of the judicial system if you slap your own interpretations on that phrase… a definition not even shared by the defendant’s own lawyer.
seriously, RT, give it a break. You needn’t keep trying to reword your hyperbole and expect a different result. No matter how many times you try, it’s still going to come down to the same. It’s not a premature verdict of guilty, it is a statement on the strength of the evidence. And if O’Mara doesn’t like it, he can file for recusal. End of story.
8: I don’t do “theoretical” or “hypothetical” with people of your mindset. Got a few of those over at the hometown, and they do the same thing you do… they don’t like the hypothetical they get, then they start whining off on off tangent, non related issues. I can only be amused so long with such worthless cat/mouse play.
However jury selection isn’t theoretical. Either defense or State can bust out a juror. Are you clueless as to how they are picked? It’s a non issue.
9: I’m not sure why you are quoting yourself about TM and the gun in the belt…. What *I* said was:
and…
I’m not sure if you’re in love with your own scenario, or just trying to combine two distinctly separate comments of mine into one.
But since you brung it up, in that vast omnipotence you have thus far demonstrated, how would you know if TM were, or were not aware of the gun?
Do you know if GZ’s jacket was zipped/snapped at that moment, or open? I don’t. The only two who would know if the gun were visible is GZ and TM, and the later can’t speak for himself anymore because of GZ’s lethal threat by squeezing off a round into his chest.
oh wait… the “unlikely that Trayvon entered into a fight in which Trayvon had preknowledge that GZ had a gun in his belt.” comment was an observation gem that was uttered by gcotharn. Your battle about a gun wavin’ vigilante is with him.
But I can see where you confused gotharn with me… I mean we think so much alike, right? :0)
mata: is Dershowitz iconic or not? “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.” He has certainly stated on the record that GZ was not obligated to say a word or to incriminate himself. Will you quote someone more iconic that specifically stated that he ‘is obligated to incriminate himself’. I’m guessing I’m gonna be waiting a while for that quote.
Let’s see, how would this be stated? Mr. Zimmerman, you do know that you do not have the right to remain silent, you do have the obligation to incriminate yourself. you are aware that if you know that someone is guilty you are required to inform on them voluntarily.
what do we call this, the Miranda UNrights?
Do you think Dershowitz would agree that he is not an iconic legal beagle?
mata: the quote:(“he be by his father’s house”. She said he told her he isn’t running because “he’s by his father’s house”. Do you deliberately insert ebonics not used in order to demean the girl?) is an exactly quoted verbatim quote as recorded on that very recording that you provided a link to. If you can’t listen to a recording and quote words directly from it, then there really is not much need in attempting to carry on a conversation.
I do understand why you think it’s a waste of time when you find it impossible to read a question and then actually answer that question rather than reframing it in your mind to what you ‘wish’ I had asked and then answering that ‘concocted’ question. I’m not sure how that problem develops, but I’m sure it is frustrating.
I will admit that I made an assumption that the apartment that he was right by had a door and that when someone generally states that they are at their home that you can assume that there is a door there. My home actually has 8 exterior doors, so if I’m right by my house, I’m right by the door to my house. I’m sorry your house apparently does not have doors for reference, or well, for entrance either.
So, when you state that you are right by something, it is all relative as in the same state, or country or something? If I say I’m right by my car, it means I’m within about 5 to 10 feet of it. It’s hard to believe that someone that says they are right by their apartment would be saying that if they were over 109 yards away (as measured by google earth).
I really don’t care if you respond to this comment. It is getting tiresome, as I told you from day one, you came in late to the story when it all had been rehashed numerous times and you brought nothing new to the table but the same old song and dance AJ had been trying unsuccessfully to peddle. At the time you came, he had one devotee, now he has two.
And just as some of AJ’s readers are “as clueless as GZ” there are other readers and even a blog owner who refuse to even consider the possibility that GZ acted in self-defense. Both sides routinely grab ahold of any morsel that comes out to bolster their side and denigrate the other.
And the thing that really gets me is that both sides, but especially the blog owner, resort to name calling and insults to shore up their arguements.
I grew up being taught that once you start down the path of ad hominem attacks that is a confession that your position is precariously weak.
Sorry AJ, but if the slipper fits…
mata; I’d kinda like for you to tell me what a ‘duh’ comment is. I see others on this blog that use that and I have no idea how that gets into someones vocabulary. I’ve never had occasion or need to use the term(word?). I’m not sure if it’s supposed to be a word, or an ‘expression’ but I can guess.
It seems as if you use it in the context of ” that’s a stupid question” , now I realize that words don’t mean the same to you as they do to me, for example, ‘near by’ means ‘near by’ to me. While you imply that it means somewhere in the proximity of the world to you. But, if I were gonna use it as you seem to be using it, I would take it to mean literally: Well, he’s asked a damn question I don’t know the answer to or don’t want to answer so I’m gonna pretend it’s a dumb question in an attempt to blow smoke and act as ‘well, everybody but you already knows the answer to that question but me so I’m gonna play like you asked me a dumb question and say ‘duh’. Is that about it?
you can just say ‘duh’ and I’ll understand.
Layman: “Sorry AJ, but if the slipper fits…”
priceless……
RedTeam, if you are going to say you are quoting Dershowitz, it would be more credible if you provided a link to back up what you say. I think we’ve already been thru your attempts to push somethere here as fact, only to have it blown out of the water. So my suggestion is if you want to attribute some opinion or words to Dershowitz, please provide the link to where he said it. Unfortunately, your credibility has been somewhat undermined in the fact department.
And since you ask, no I don’t consider Dershowitz iconic… save in his own mind. Don’t get me wrong. I love reading his stuff because he’s entertaining… the Howard Stern of the judicial world, so to speak. Or, as I like to think of him, a one man community organizer in the legal world.
The majority of his career has been spent on campus as a professor, in the media, and authoring books. His actual criminal defense career has primarily been as a consultant or adviser for the appellate stage of criminal defense… not the initial trial stage. His latest consulting media gig in the courts was advising Julian Assange on how to win his extradition appeal in the British Supreme Court. Didn’t work, and Assange will be headed to Sweden, a place very anxious to welcome him into their court system. OJ? He was i nthe capacity as an adviser to the Dream Team as it related to any possible appeal which, as we all know, wasn’t needed. If you’ll notice, these stages tend to be specialized, and the same attorneys are not always the ones following it thru. And it also depends upon what they are appealing.
Now if I want to pay attention to a judicial reformer over a loveable and entertaining shock jock like Dershowitz, I’ll take Harry I. Subin.. a man less consumed with his own ego. Subin wrote the intro to Dershowitz’s 1982 book, The Best Defense. Even he pointed out that liking Dershowitz is an emotional battle of the extremes… loving his skilled narrative and being equally repelled by his egomania. But then, Dershowitz loves the depths of controversy and fire, so it was an intro from heaven for him.
Maybe he’s out of practice, but when he started playing on the GZ/TM discontent band wagon by assaulting the affidavit because they didn’t include mention of GZ’s injuries, I could see he was out for media hype and not educating the public as to the elements of murder two. But it does make for good fodder and lots of talking head line bookings…. which is Dershowitz’s first quest.
Ultimately, Dershowitz is just another talking head, not in possession of the evidence, who’s making a fine living firing up all you easy listeners for his own PR. It’s a pity because now most of you are convinced that this case is going to revolve around GZ’s head banging.
You know, I could say the same about someone who is unable to “listen”… in more ways than one. So speaking of late to the story, when it’s already months old, and not being well informed… uh, isn’t that what you say to me when you get readvised with facts… I’ll help you clean the wax out of your ears… Transcription below, for you, starting at 9’10”
Turn up the sound, follow the bouncing ball while you listen and you’ll find that your ebonics is not present. No Rhodes scholar, certainly. But that was a pretty questionable translation you opted to use, knowing very well that it’s a trigger for a negative reflection on the speaker. Fortunately, there are links… of which I provided and correct the incorrect impression you wanted to make.
So I guess you can store that bogus claim in the same unsunny spot where you’re storing your “at the apartment door” and Judge Lester’s telling a “jury pool” that GZ is guilty stories…. etc etc. I believe I started out with a laundry list somewhere in the beginning.
For all the huffin’ and puffin’ you did about Dee and hearsay – something else you had to be corrected upon by BGG – now you’re going to put a push pin in a map based on her words about TM’s actual location? Don’t think she can be that exact via a phone conversation, RT. She could certainly know his mood, and whether he was aware of GZ’s presence and movements. But she sure as heck can’t pin point him on a map… and neither can you. And again, we don’t know if that is what Martin actually said. It could be her translation.
Now I apologize for telling you I think your remarks are stupid. But I agree… it’s tiresome you keep going back to the same ol’ same ol’ and resist any factual (not emotional) counterpoint made… or that you still refuse to back check your own assertions with credible source links. Instead, when you called on the factual carpet, you just make some new crap up, throw out how uninformed AJ, myself or BGG are, and we’re off trying to get you up to speed on what a murder two trial entails. I’ve provide links, provide plenty of data for you to check out INRE the legal realities, but you demonstrate absolutely no interest in learning because it seems to interfere with what you want to happen.
Ya know… I don’t care you simply don’t want to know. But I’ve watched the majority of this crowd blast AJ since the start up of all this, and I have to say you’ve all been on really shaky ground when it comes to legal realities. I’d really rather see you get up to speed on what’s really going to happen, but if you prefer to desperately cling to fantasies, hey… who am I to argue. But I’m not going to wander thru, see some of the idiotic naivete about the legal procedures, and not point out that you are placing all your defense eggs in a basket that’s not going to be delivered on Easter.
Lastly… “duh” is Internet slang for “of course”… in this case sarcastically applied for the predictable and still stubbornly irrelevant and erroneous observations you made above… again and again.
RedTeam, let me give you an example of a dumb argument you continue to make:
This is simple:
1: Miranda rights are not read in the court room… they are done before an arrest. In the court room, remaining silent would be exercising your 5th Amendment rights… aka “taking the 5th”.
Zimmerman had already testified and was still under oath. Yes, he has the obligation not to correct misinformation. If he doesn’t, he pays the penalty… like getting his bond revoked.
Secondly, please let this sink in. Read it slow. Having the money is not “incriminating”. Telling the court you have the money is not incriminating. What is incriminating is knowing you have money, and NOT telling the court in a bond hearing.
I’ll be waiting for that Dershowitz link that says Zimmerman should not be disclosing his financial means, or correcting misinformation about his financing means in bail bond hearing.
Layman, no one disagrees that Zimmerman felt he had to shoot Martin in self defense…. altho thousands of manslaughter cases would label that an imperfect and unreasonable response. You suggesting that AJ, myself – or anyone else that believes there is a case for murder two – can’t see that is either a complete mental blank on what we’ve said about that charge. Or you are simply applying a different form of “ad hominem” yourself, and will have to have your house dog fetch the slippers for your own use.
But Zimmerman is not on trial for executing an unreasonable, imperfect and inappropriate self-defense… that would be manslaughter. He is on trial for murder two, where the State could care less about his self defense because they are going to try to prove his head being banged is because of his own actions.
mata: “that it’s a trigger for a negative reflection on the speaker. Fortunately, ” LOL. you listened to that recording and think I could add anything that could possibly be more negative than what she herself says. Not worth a comment. just re-read the exact quote you gave me just above. Nothing further need be said.
“if you are going to say you are quoting Dershowitz, it would be more credible if you provided a link ” pardon me, I thought you saw all and knew all. I’m surprised to hear there has been something said about this case that you are not up on. anyone that can find the distance from the apartment without a door to the spot of a killing 109 yards away by using Google Earth, certainly should be able to find Dershowitz’s statement. If after 3 minutes on Google you haven’t found it, let me know. This wasn’t one of those ‘duh’ questions was it?
“And since you ask, no I don’t consider Dershowitz iconic” then why would you want to see a quote from him?
“Judge Lester’s telling a “jury pool” that GZ is guilty stories” geez, there you go again. You need to get up to date on this case. You imply that you are, but there sure are a lot of things you have ‘never heard of’. That’s what happens when you arrive at the party late.
“Now I apologize for telling you I think your remarks are stupid.”
I’m gonna quote Layman from just above: “I grew up being taught that once you start down the path of ad hominem attacks that is a confession that your position is precariously weak.”
You will not find anyplace in any of my writings where I have stated or insinuated that you are stupid or ignorant, as you do constantly. You need to re-evaluate your precariously weak position.
“and I have to say you’ve all been on really shaky ground when it comes to legal realities.”
talking about ‘tired of’ You have no knowledge at all about my education level, training in the law, how many neighbors I have that are lawyers that I get legal knowledge from through osmosis as you and AJ do. I may be a judge in a Superior Court. I may have been practicing law for 50 years. I have seen absolutely zero competence in legal affairs from anything that you have said. As far as I can tell, you have never read a legal brief, or even know what one is. The other observation is that you have very little ability to assess other persons knowledge or qualifications from their writings on a blog. At least, you have not demonstrated that you do. Just because you read something on the internet does not make it true. Now, you will come back and state that I don’t know anything about the law. But one thing you have clearly demonstrated is your inability to read a simple question and answer that same simple question. You may be the most brilliant person in the world, but I would never know it by what you write and that inability to answer a question. Have you always had that problem or is a recent development (that’s a simple question). I do not intend that to be an insult, just a truth.
mata: “This is simple:
1: Miranda rights are not read in the court room… they are done before an arrest. In the court room, remaining silent would be exercising your 5th Amendment rights… aka “taking the 5th”.
Geez, did you learn this today? would you tell me where I said the Miranda rights are read in a court room? (hint, that’s a ‘simple’ question)
thanks for telling me that 5th Amendment rights are aka ‘taking the 5th’. (I guess someone sprung that on you today) I’ve probably known it more years than you’ve been alive.
I don’t think you meant to say this:. “Yes, he has the obligation not to correct misinformation. ” but for the record, he does not have any obligation to correct misinformation that SOMEONE ELSE gave.
mata: seriously, I think you’re really trying but: “Secondly, please let this sink in. Read it slow. Having the money is not “incriminating”. Telling the court you have the money is not incriminating. What is incriminating is knowing you have money, and NOT telling the court in a bond hearing.” But, and get this, BUT it is not incriminating to GZ if he knows he had the money and HIS WIFE does not tell the truth. GZ is not obligated to say a word. ever hear of ‘taking the 5th’ I learned about it long ago. Now did you read this slowly enough for it to sink in? (hint, simple question)
chuckle:….”going to try to prove his head being banged is because of his own actions.” I’d like to see a film of him banging his own head onto a concrete sidewalk. Even if he did, it likely would not be deadly because he would likely become unconscious. However if TM were doing it, he might not stop just because of becoming unconscious. so you’ll never make me believe GZ was banging his own head on concrete. Now, I do realize that is not the actions of GZ that you were referring to, but it is the only ones that would be pertinent to this case.
“I’ll be waiting for that Dershowitz link” you weren’t able to find it? I guess not having a door is a handicap.
Hey RT…
It’s been a few hours. Any luck finding the Dee Dee quote where she says “at the apartment door”?
How about the Dershowitz quotes regarding Zimmerman’s bond revocation?
How about the ever elusive quote from the judge in which he supposedly pronounced Zimmerman “guilty” and stated that the evidence was strong?
Seems to me that if you’d spend less time needling other folks about the shortcomings your perceive in them you might actually be able to cite sources that would back up your claims.
Unless, of course, your claims have no validity.
Unless, of course, your claims have no foundation whatsoever in fact or reality.
Unless, of course, you’re just making stuff up. I won’t call you a liar. Yet.
Let’s see if you have any luck producing, after you’ve been asked yet again, any source material at all which will support your wild claims first.
Hey RT, Mata:
Think we can get away from the 14 paragraph posts? I know you all want to make your points but it is a bit tedious and you lose your audience. And breaking it down into two consecutive 7 paragraph posts doesn’t work either. Try to condense the salient points to the minimal space and you’ll have a clearer arguement.