Prosecutor altered Shellie Zimmerman's statement....

[Lutherf]

.....in the Probable Cause Affidavit charging her with felony perjury.

Perjury charge against Shellie Zimmerman raises more questions of prosecutorial overreaching (Update: Prosecution misleadingly edited transcript)

Update: Per a commenter, it appears that the above testimony was selectively edited by the prosecution to leave out the following exchange (deleted testimony in bold):

Q: How much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was —
A: Currently, I do not know.
Q: Who would know that?
A: That would be my brother-in-law.
Q: And is he — I know he’s not in the same room as you, but is he available so we can speak to him, too, or the Court can inquire through the State or the Defense?
A: I’m sure that we could probably get him on the phone.
Q: Okay. So he’s not there now.
A: No, he is not, sir.
Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?
A: I do not.
​

The deleted transcript language certainly gives a very different context to the issue of whether Shellie knew how much was available or had an “estimate.” She offered to get the person who knew on the phone, but the prosecution didn’t take her up on that.
Note that in the Affidavit of Probable Cause the prosecution did not use an ellipsis or any other indication to show that words were omitted.

One more example of the dirtball tactics Corey used in this case. The woman should be behind bars for her behavior.

 

[ttwtt78640]

.....in the Probable Cause Affidavit charging her with felony perjury.

Perjury charge against Shellie Zimmerman raises more questions of prosecutorial overreaching (Update: Prosecution misleadingly edited transcript)



One more example of the dirtball tactics Corey used in this case. The woman should be behind bars for her behavior.

This political precendent was set by NBC (and it got them sued) by making it appear that Zimmerman spontaneously volunteered (stressed?) the fact that Martin was black when, in fact, he simply answered a multiple choice question posed to him.

Careful ommision can make it appear that things, taken out of context, are far different from reality.

 

[Diogenes]

One more example of the dirtball tactics Corey used in this case. The woman should be behind bars for her behavior.

Well said. I agree.

 

[PirateMk1]

.....in the Probable Cause Affidavit charging her with felony perjury.

Perjury charge against Shellie Zimmerman raises more questions of prosecutorial overreaching (Update: Prosecution misleadingly edited transcript)





One more example of the dirtball tactics Corey used in this case. The woman should be behind bars for her behavior.

Which leads me to this question, why isn't she being prosecuted or sanctioned?

 

[Excon]

This info was noted long ago.

 

[What if...?]

.....in the Probable Cause Affidavit charging her with felony perjury.

Perjury charge against Shellie Zimmerman raises more questions of prosecutorial overreaching (Update: Prosecution misleadingly edited transcript)



One more example of the dirtball tactics Corey used in this case. The woman should be behind bars for her behavior.

Of course the jail call transcripts pretty clearly prove she was clearing any accounts in Zs name on a regular basis, so she was being intentionally obtuse at best.

She was going with not knowing how much was in the account at the moment of the question, knowing full well tens of thousands pf dollars had been salted across several accounts, including hos sister apparently.

And they directly discussed using the fund as well. "That's what its for".

 

[joko104]

Of course the jail call transcripts pretty clearly prove she was clearing any accounts in Zs name on a regular basis, so she was being intentionally obtuse at best.

She was going with not knowing how much was in the account at the moment of the question, knowing full well tens of thousands pf dollars had been salted across several accounts, including hos sister apparently.

And they directly discussed using the fund as well. "That's what its for".

Being obtuse isn't perjury, is it?

There is no perjury on "I don't have an estimate." Perjury requires a very clear and specific deliberate false statement.

 

[joko104]

Well said. I agree.

She should be disbarred:

1. Having 2 officers swear an affidavit she wrote, for which each officer later stated they were told it was the other officer who knew certain facts - when neither had such personal knowledge.
2. Sending out press packages with George Zimmerman's school records, which was illegal to release.
3. Deleting language from a transcipt without the known practice when doing so to obtain an warrant.
4. Leave out exculpatory facts in obtaining the arrest warrant for George Zimmerman.

Those are what immediately come to mind.

 

[What if...?]

Being obtuse isn't perjury, is it?

There is no perjury on "I don't have an estimate." Perjury requires a very clear and specific deliberate false statement.

The judge also asked if she was aware of any monies that could be used for bail. Which she certainly was.

 

[What if...?]

Being obtuse isn't perjury, is it?

There is no perjury on "I don't have an estimate." Perjury requires a very clear and specific deliberate false statement.

She had been routinely moving the money out of the defense fund.

So she had "any" estimate. She knew EXACTLY how much had been moved.

 

[Excon]

Of course the jail call transcripts pretty clearly prove she was clearing any accounts in Zs name on a regular basis, so she was being intentionally obtuse at best.

Meaningless drivel.

She was going with not knowing how much was in the account at the moment of the question, knowing full well tens of thousands pf dollars had been salted across several accounts, including hos sister apparently.

And?
They are not the same thing.
Knowing that you moved thousands from one account to another, does not mean you have an estimate of how much the fund contained.

And they directly discussed using the fund as well. "That's what its for".

Meaningless.
Unless you have something that says she knew exactly how much was donated at that point, you have nothing.
Unless you can show she knew those donated funds were reportable for bond purposes, you got nothing.

Being obtuse isn't perjury, is it?

There is no perjury on "I don't have an estimate." Perjury requires a very clear and specific deliberate false statement.

The judge also asked if she was aware of any monies that could be used for bail. Which she certainly was.

:doh
And you still can not show she knew monies, donated for a specific purpose, were reportable for purposes of bond.
So stop with the bs.

She had been routinely moving the money out of the defense fund.

So she had "any" estimate. She knew EXACTLY how much had been moved.

Utter absurdity.
Moving funds at the direction of another person, does not say you know anything other than you knew there were funds, and that you moved some of them.
It is not an indication that you knew the total of the fund, and unless you specifically kept track of what you moved, you wouldn't know that either.


What we do know, is that she wasn't trying to be deceptive and offered to get the person who knew.

 

[What if...?]

Meaningless drivel.


And?
They are not the same thing.
Knowing that you moved thousands from one account to another, does not mean you have an estimate of how much the fund contained.


Meaningless.
Unless you have something that says she knew exactly how much was donated at that point, you have nothing.
Unless you can show she knew those donated funds were reportable for bond purposes, you got nothing.


:doh
And you still can not show she knew monies, donated for a specific purpose, were reportable for purposes of bond.
So stop with the bs.


Utter absurdity.
Moving funds at the direction of another person, does not say you know anything other than you knew there were funds, and that you moved some of them.
It is not an indication that you knew the total of the fund, and unless you specifically kept track of what you moved, you wouldn't know that either.


What we do know, is that she wasn't trying to be deceptive and offered to get the person who knew.

Dude, she HAD an estimate as she had been clearing thw defense fund.

And they both were quite clear they knew the money could be used as bail. If it could be USED as bail, it was reportable as useable for bail.

They did NOT ask her for a specific amount, just "any estimate".

Your love for the Zimmermans is clouding your reason.

They deliberately decieved the court and got caught. Deal with it

 

[Excon]

Your love for the Zimmermans is clouding your reason.

Love? Knock off the bs.

No! It is your bias that causes you to have an inability to see the facts for what they are, and your need to assume and speculate that clouds yours.

Dude, she HAD an estimate as she had been clearing thw defense fund.

That is your assumption that her withdrawals lead her to an estimate.
You have no idea if she knew how much she had withdrew and/or moved around.

As I already said:

Knowing that you moved thousands from one account to another, does not mean you have an estimate of how much the fund contained.​

Nor does it indication how much it does contain, nor enable one to make an estimate when they don't know.


The only evidence that exists, is that she didn't know.

Your assumption is a fail.

And they both were quite clear they knew the money could be used as bail. If it could be USED as bail, it was reportable as useable for bail.

There you go again.
Because of your bias you read that which is not there.

As already stated.

And you still can not show she knew monies, donated for a specific purpose, were reportable for purposes of bond.​

Being able to be used for bond, is not the same as knowing if those funds were reportable for purposes of bond.
Or do you really not know the difference between the two?

They did NOT ask her for a specific amount, just "any estimate".

Q: How much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was —
A: Currently, I do not know.

[...]

Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?
A: I do not.​

The first question was a specific. She didn't know the exact amount.

The second is asking if she had an estimate on how much has already been obtained or collected. That would be an estimate of the total.
At that time, she did not have an estimate.

The questions were adequately, and appropriately, answered.

They deliberately decieved the court and got caught. Deal with it

Wrong!
That is your bias speaking.
She clearly showed no intent to deceive as she told them who knew the exact amounts and offered to get him.

 

[year2late]

Isn't it all moot?

Shellie herself acknowledged she committed a crime.

Shellie Zimmerman plea: George Zimmerman's wife to get probation in plea deal - Orlando Sentinel

She did not apologize in court, but in a letter to Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester Jr., the judge to whom she was untruthful, she wrote, "By lying under oath, I let my God down, I let your Honor and the court down, I let my family and my friends down, and most of all, I let myself down. In the future, no matter what the consequences, I will tell the truth because in the end all you have is your integrity."

 

[Excon]

Isn't it all moot?

Shellie herself acknowledged she committed a crime.

Shellie Zimmerman plea: George Zimmerman's wife to get probation in plea deal - Orlando Sentinel

Yes. It is now!

Most folks will understand the distinction.

 

[Lutherf]

Isn't it all moot?

Shellie herself acknowledged she committed a crime.

Shellie Zimmerman plea: George Zimmerman's wife to get probation in plea deal - Orlando Sentinel

Yeah...your lawyer comes to you and says "We've got a deal here where you'll get just probation, no jail time, no court, no trial, no nothing. All you have to do is say 'I did it'". I'd take that deal too.

 

[year2late]

Yeah...your lawyer comes to you and says "We've got a deal here where you'll get just probation, no jail time, no court, no trial, no nothing. All you have to do is say 'I did it'". I'd take that deal too.

She did more than say "I did it". She was pretty emphatic.

 

[year2late]

Yes. It is now!

Most folks will understand the distinction.

Dude. She did the deed. She emphatically apologized to the judge, God, etc.

Seriously. :lol:

 

[Excon]

Dude. She did the deed. She emphatically apologized to the judge, God, etc.

Seriously.
What did you not understand about the reply?

Yes. It is now!

Most folks will understand the distinction.​

 

[year2late]

Seriously.
What did you not understand about the reply?

Yes. It is now!

Most folks will understand the distinction.​

I get that the distinction still has your panties in a wad. She should be a felon. They cut her slack. Just not shedding any tears, here, She screwed up. She is accepting the consequences. That is a good thing.

 

[Excon]

I get that the distinction still has your panties in a wad. She should be a felon.

:naughty
No, your statement that she should be a felon says your panties are still in a wad.

They cut her slack. Just not shedding any tears, here, She screwed up. She is accepting the consequences. That is a good thing.

They likely would not have gotten a plea unless they allowed her to walk away basically unscathed.
She can later apply for it to be expunged.
What's cheaper?
Fighting it, or later having it expunged?



But as I stated.
Yes she did plea.
Which makes any argument that she didn't lie now moot as you stated.

Most folks will understand the distinction.

 

[year2late]

Yup, she lied to a judge, admitted it and was lucky to get a misdemeanor.

She even threw God in her apology as well.

 

[Excon]

Yup, she lied to a judge, admitted it and was lucky to get a misdemeanor.

She even threw God in her apology as well.

So what you are saying is that you do not understand the distinction.
Good to know!


Lucky to get a misdemeanor?
Her lawyer has already indicated she could have defended the felony charge.
So no! It is the prosecutor who is lucky they could get her to plea to a reduced charge of only a misdemeanor.



What I find funny about this are those who claim she is a liar but want to believe her when she says she did lie. That makes no sense.