Detective in Zimmerman case said he was pressured to file charges

[Sheik Yerbuti]

That is an example of how ludicrous your accusations are.
Most people, but NOT you, understand that a DEFENDANT WITH AN ATTORNEY MUST SIT QUIETLY IN THE COURTROOM IF HE HAS AN ATTORNEY.

What you assert Zimmerman should have done is totally absurd and everyone rational knows it. You assert he should have interrupted the court proceedings, suddenly declaring his attorney was fired, and then demanded to cross examine his wife to prove she is lying. How absurd and desperate in personal attacks can you get?

No, the absurdities are all yours. I assert Zimmerman should have informed his attorney at the very moment he heard his wife agree that they had "no money" for George to make bond and inform him they actually did have the money. His attorney, at that point, could have asked for a sidebar to claim the wife's confusion over their finances. But Zimmerman didn't. He just sat there quietly, and like a *****, let his wife take the fall for him.

And there is this concept you don't realize that almost most people do - a husband is NEVER required to testify against or impeach his wife.

Who said anything about George testifying against his wife? It appears you have no idea what I'm talking about.

Contrary to what you think, women really are NOT the slaves of men and women really are NOT required to post bond for men, including their own husbands.

Yet more incoherent blabbering.

It took the judge nearly a week to decide if that money could have been used for bond. Yet his wife not knowing the exact answer - when not even asked how much money was in the bank account or how much donated by the very publicized Paypal account - constituted "lying" when it is no such thing.

Zimmerman's wife believed the money could be used to make bond -- she was caught saying exactly that on a recorded phone call.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

What lie is that?

The one I mentioned in my post. Didn't you understand what I posted?

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Detective in Zimmerman case said he was pressured to file charges - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com

One of the officers pressuring Serino was a Sgt. Barns a buddy of Tracy Martin

Nah, the article you reference does not actually say what you seem to think it says.

You would know this if you knew the difference between an adverb and a noun.

:lol::lol::lol:

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

wait, the judge sat there and listed to shelly zimmerman tell him she did not know the current amount of that web site's account
that judge heard zimmerman's wife identify who was handling that web site's account and where that person was located so that individual (her brother in law) could be contacted by the court to learn information about that account
and the judge ignored her information and went onto other things...

She was asked if it was true that they had "no money" for George to make bond.

She said that was true.

No brother-in-law was required to answer that question honestly for her, she had the ability to do that herself. She decided to lie instead.

zimmerman was not given an opportunity by the judge to confirm or deny his spouse's testimony, or to offer his own, independent of hers

WTF? Zimmerman is allowed to communicate to his attorney at that time to convey they actually did have the money.

and we know the state had recordings of the zimmermans' telephone conversations while george was imprisoned, which information was known to the state previous to that bail hearing. so, the state had an abundant basis to probe the zimmermans to determine the facts
and the incompetent judge chose not to do so

What does that even mean? Because the state knew they had the money, they shouldn't have even asked her? I'm not sure the judge ever even heard those tapes prior to the prosecution bringing her lies to his attention?

now let's examine a couple of your own assertions:
you want us to believe that GEORGE zimmerman lied by omission
even if that were a possibility - it is not - GEORGE zimmerman was never asked any questions by the judge to confirm or deny shelly zimmerman's sworn testimony
he was not given an opportunity to lie - or to tell the truth
any omission committed was that of the judge. the judge failed to do his job

Now you're playing the same stupid games Zimmerman was playing with the court. Yes, he lied by omission. Zimmerman heard his wife's testimony. He knew it was false, but he let his wife lie for him anyway. His attorney also acted on his behalf as though Zimmerman were indigent. The attorney possibly didn't know the truth -- but Zimmerman did. He let the attorney and his own wife paint a picture of poverty for the court even as they sat on a 6 figure bank account.

You can play the same stupid games that Zimmerman tried with the court, but it didn't work out so well for him. His bond was revoked ... he went back to jail ... he had a new bond set at $1,000,000 ... his wife got arrested for lying under oath ... and his wife is now facing jail time like he is.

 

[Furiounova]

BS. It has nothing to do with being reported. She was asked if it was true that they had "no money" to make bond and she confirmed it was true ... while she had a 6 figure bank account. She lied and Zimmerman sat quietly in the courtroom while she lied and while his attorney also painted the false picture that George was indigent.

I gotta say man, we are complete idiots for continuing to debate this aspect because everyone knows he lied which is why his bail was revoked. We are letting them distract us from the more pressing issues of GZ's contradictory statements, witnesses, and physical evidence.

To me, anyone still trying to claim GZ didn't lie is incapable of basic honesty.

 

[joko104]

No, the absurdities are all yours. I assert Zimmerman should have informed his attorney at the very moment he heard his wife agree that they had "no money" for George to make bond and inform him they actually did have the money. His attorney, at that point, could have asked for a sidebar to claim the wife's confusion over their finances. But Zimmerman didn't. He just sat there quietly, and like a *****, let his wife take the fall for him.


Who said anything about George testifying against his wife? It appears you have no idea what I'm talking about.


Yet more incoherent blabbering.


Zimmerman's wife believed the money could be used to make bond -- she was caught saying exactly that on a recorded phone call.

So what you are saying is that George Zimmerman should have indirectly testified against his wife via his attorney - poking his attorney in the arm saying "she's lying! She's lying!" to his attorney?

How do you know he didn't tell his attorney exactly everything? Not only are some attorneys notorious liars, their questions do not constitute statements of fact and - amazing to you it seems - GZ's attorney's job isn't to work for the prosecution, not to impeach his own witnesses nor to present all facts or any kind.

For all we know, GZ's attorney never even looked at the case file before the hearing.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

So what you are saying is that George Zimmerman should have indirectly testified against his wife via his attorney - poking his attorney in the arm saying "she's lying! She's lying!" to his attorney?

How do you know he didn't tell his attorney exactly everything? Not only are some attorneys notorious liars, their questions do not constitute statements of fact and - amazing to you it seems - GZ's attorney's job isn't to work for the prosecution, not to impeach his own witnesses nor to present all facts or any kind.

For all we know, GZ's attorney never even looked at the case file before the hearing.

It appears you still have no idea what I posted.

Oh, well, can't say I didn't try. :shrug:

 

[ric27]

No, once again you are blowing smoke out of your ass. A talent of yours which never tires. The ironic part of your post is that Deedee's recollection of events is more consistent than Zimmerman's.

She claims she heard Trayvon ask Zimmerman, "what are you following me for," and Zimmerman responding, "what are you doing here?"

Zimmerman adamantly denies this.

But there's another witness who also said she heard the verbal altercation just prior to the fight and heard something like, "... what are you doing ..."

Seems there's corroboration of Deedee's account.

A lot of blah, blah, blah and no evidence. You need more, and you don't seem to have it and to just to throw you a bone....

Even *if* Z were the aggressor merely for following M for no good reason, Z would STILL be entitled to claim self-defense after M physically attacked him because Z could not retreat. Z was pinned to the ground with no option to escape.

W-6 maintains that Z was struggling to get up and out from under M, right before the round went off

Don't waste my ****ing time!!

 

[Furiounova]

A lot of blah, blah, blah and no evidence. You need more, and you don't seem to have it and to just to throw you a bone....

Even *if* Z were the aggressor merely for following M for no good reason, Z would STILL be entitled to claim self-defense after M physically attacked him because Z could not retreat. Z was pinned to the ground with no option to escape.

W-6 maintains that Z was struggling to get up and out from under M, right before the round went off

Don't waste my ****ing time!!

Give us a link to W6 currently making that statement

You obviously don't know Florida law because the person who provokes the confrontation cannot claim self defense after doing so and the State has said at each bond hearing GZ provoked the confrontation.

I don't don't think you guys realize GZ has not yet successfully proven he qualifies to use self defense at the trial.

 

[vendur]

Those witnesses help prove GZ lied because he claimed there was no argument before the fight.

apparently that proves deedee lied, too, then. Ya?

 

[Furiounova]

apparently that proves deedee lied, too, then. Ya?

she said the same thing the witnesses said.....words were exchanged before the fight. The only difference is the call was cut off before the actual fight began as proven by the phone records.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

A lot of blah, blah, blah and no evidence. You need more, and you don't seem to have it and to just to throw you a bone....

Even *if* Z were the aggressor merely for following M for no good reason, Z would STILL be entitled to claim self-defense after M physically attacked him because Z could not retreat. Z was pinned to the ground with no option to escape.

W-6 maintains that Z was struggling to get up and out from under M, right before the round went off

Don't waste my ****ing time!!

You're free to stop wasting your time any time you like. That aside, to what effort did Zimmerman try to get away?

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

A lot of blah, blah, blah and no evidence. You need more, and you don't seem to have it and to just to throw you a bone....

Even *if* Z were the aggressor merely for following M for no good reason, Z would STILL be entitled to claim self-defense after M physically attacked him because Z could not retreat. Z was pinned to the ground with no option to escape.

W-6 maintains that Z was struggling to get up and out from under M, right before the round went off

Don't waste my ****ing time!!

You're free to stop wasting your time any time you like. That aside, to what effort did Zimmerman try to get away?

 

[joko104]

she said the same thing the witnesses said.....words were exchanged before the fight. The only difference is the call was cut off before the actual fight began as proven by the phone records.

Which of her contradictory statements are you referring to?

 

[joko104]

You're free to stop wasting your time any time you like. That aside, to what effort did Zimmerman try to get away?

That's easy to answer. He fired one round into TM. That got him out from under TM.

 

[Furiounova]

That's easy to answer. He fired one round into TM. That got him out from under TM.

The GSR test, bullet trajectory, and other physical evidence prove TM was not on top when the gun was fired. At least two witnesses prove GZ lied that TM was on top of him the whole time.

 

[mike2810]

The GSR test, bullet trajectory, and other physical evidence prove TM was not on top when the gun was fired. At least two witnesses prove GZ lied that TM was on top of him the whole time.

where was GZ then?

 

[Furiounova]

where was GZ then?

Nobody can say for 100% but we can say where he wasn't. Since the first witnesses saw GZ on top seconds after the gunshot and since the trajectory was directly front to back, and since the GSR test showed only one lead particle on GZ's upper right back sleeve, it shows TM was to his right and probably both were on the ground but TM was trying to get away when GZ fired.

There simply wasn't enough time for GZ to get out from underneath TM and then get on top in the couple of seconds it took the first witness to see them after the gunshot. Also, two different witnesses confirm they saw only one person on the ground after the fight began but before the gunshot proving TM was not on top of GZ the entire time as GZ claimed.

 

[ric27]

Nobody can say for 100% but we can say where he wasn't.

Really! lol



Are you going to argue there's no evidence M was still beating, the **** out of Z when Z busted a cap on him?

Z walks

 

[mike2810]

Nobody can say for 100% but we can say where he wasn't. Since the first witnesses saw GZ on top seconds after the gunshot and since the trajectory was directly front to back, and since the GSR test showed only one lead particle on GZ's upper right back sleeve, it shows TM was to his right and probably both were on the ground but TM was trying to get away when GZ fired.

There simply wasn't enough time for GZ to get out from underneath TM and then get on top in the couple of seconds it took the first witness to see them after the gunshot. Also, two different witnesses confirm they saw only one person on the ground after the fight began but before the gunshot proving TM was not on top of GZ the entire time as GZ claimed.

Is this what the investigation says (bold) or your speculation?
I read a few of the reports and didn't see the conclusion you presented.

 

[Excon]

She was asked if it was true that they had "no money" for George to make bond.

She said that was true.

No brother-in-law was required to answer that question honestly for her, she had the ability to do that herself. She decided to lie instead.


WTF? Zimmerman is allowed to communicate to his attorney at that time to convey they actually did have the money.


What does that even mean? Because the state knew they had the money, they shouldn't have even asked her? I'm not sure the judge ever even heard those tapes prior to the prosecution bringing her lies to his attention?


Now you're playing the same stupid games Zimmerman was playing with the court. Yes, he lied by omission. Zimmerman heard his wife's testimony. He knew it was false, but he let his wife lie for him anyway. His attorney also acted on his behalf as though Zimmerman were indigent. The attorney possibly didn't know the truth -- but Zimmerman did. He let the attorney and his own wife paint a picture of poverty for the court even as they sat on a 6 figure bank account.

You can play the same stupid games that Zimmerman tried with the court, but it didn't work out so well for him. His bond was revoked ... he went back to jail ... he had a new bond set at $1,000,000 ... his wife got arrested for lying under oath ... and his wife is now facing jail time like he is.

You are playing a game.

If they did not believe it was reportable it was not a lie.

To me, anyone still trying to claim GZ didn't lie is incapable of basic honesty.

To me, anyone who does not know that there is a difference between a lie and an untruth, is incapable of honesty, let alone basic honesty.

Nobody can say for 100% but we can say where he wasn't. Since the first witnesses saw GZ on top seconds after the gunshot and since the trajectory was directly front to back, and since the GSR test showed only one lead particle on GZ's upper right back sleeve, it shows TM was to his right and probably both were on the ground but TM was trying to get away when GZ fired.

There simply wasn't enough time for GZ to get out from underneath TM and then get on top in the couple of seconds it took the first witness to see them after the gunshot. Also, two different witnesses confirm they saw only one person on the ground after the fight began but before the gunshot proving TM was not on top of GZ the entire time as GZ claimed.

You live in a truly magical kingdom.

Your conclusions fly in the face of the evidence. They are nothing but a fight of fancy.

 

[sharon]

Really! lol



Are you going to argue there's no evidence M was still beating, the **** out of Z when Z busted a cap on him?

Z walks

GZ claims that Trayvon punched him in the face 25 times and repeatedly bashed his head on the sidewalk.

You have seen the medical evidence, do you believe George?

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

You are playing a game.

If they did not believe it was reportable it was not a lie.

If they didn't, but they did. His wife said she did and they used some of that money to pay for some of the bond.

 

[Excon]

If they didn't, but they did.

Bs!

His wife said she did and they used some of that money to pay for some of the bond.

Reported in the News once, but never repeated.
Later never mentioned as being used for such, when a detail of what the funds were used for came out.


Secondly, a spoken belief in being able to use it for bond does not indicate that they believed it needed to be reported as an asset.
Thirdly, her spoken belief made at one time does not mean that she came to a different understanding later.


Bottom line is that they may have believed it wasn't reportable.
So stop playing games.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

If they didn't, but they did.

Bs!

The BS is all yours. She said the money could be used for bond. Barring any evidence that she changed her mind over the next 4 days, that's sufficient evidence that she lied.

Reported in the News once, but never repeated.
Later never mentioned as being used for such, when a detail of what the funds were used for came out.

More BS from you... the detailed list of funds used you speak of absolutely mentioned it, despite your desperate denials...

What Happened to the Money Already Raised?

The week of April 23, we disclosed that the PayPal account Mr. Zimmerman had opened before his arrest collected approximately $204,000. That account has been closed, and approximately $150,000 of that money is being transferred to the new independently administered trust account. Approximately 3.5% of the money raised was consumed by PayPal fees. Of the balance $5,000 went to bond, a little more than $1,000 was put into telephone and commissary accounts at the jail. Much of the rest was used to address the considerable expense of closing existing financial obligations, attending to his security and secured transportation and setting up new, secure living quarters where he can safely await trial. Roughly a third of the balance remains liquid and in Mr. Zimmerman’s possession for living expenses for the next few months. So far, none of the funds have been applied to legal expenses.

Secondly, a spoken belief in being able to use it for bond does not indicate that they believed it needed to be reported as an asset.

More BS from you. I'm not talking about her neglecting to report it as an asset and you very well know that. I'm talking about her agreeing that it was true they didn't have the money to make bond, which we now know they did. And we know she believed that money could be used towards the bond because she said so herself. Furthoremore, despite your desperate denials to the contrary, they did use some of that money to pay for some of the bond.

She's ****ed. Her only chance to stay out of jail now will come if the prosecution offers Zimmerman a package deal for a plea.

It'll be a bargain for him, two for the price of one!

:lamo:lamo:lamo

Thirdly, her spoken belief made at one time does not mean that she came to a different understanding later.

Like I said, unless there's evidence that she changed her mind in those few days before she perjured herself, she's ****ed because she admitted she believed the money could be used for bond and unless there's evidence that she protested spending that money on bond after the [first] bond hearing.

What evidence do you have that she changed her mind?

Bottom line is that they may have believed it wasn't reportable.
So stop playing games.

Again, the games are yours as you are trying, and failing, to switch this to being about the money being reportable. It's about her lying by claiming they didn't have the money to make bond as they sat on a 6 figure bank account.