George Zimmerman's bloody head

[beagle9]

That's a piss-poor excuse. It does not matter why he broke the law. The fact remains that Zimmerman willingly deceived the court. Why should the court believe that Zimmerman will appear, when he's already lied once so that he could get out of jail?

His lie got him out of jail ?

Are you paying attention? How can you not already know that? Zimmerman was arrested and was in custody. He had a bail hearing, and his deceit helped secure him a relatively low bail amount, which he was all too willing to pay, without having to dip significantly into his available funds.

No what I'm saying, is you mean to tell me that he was able to lie himself out of jail, or was it that he met the demands the court had set for him enough so, in which did get him out of jail, and this besides the lie that was found out about later on, in which he was trying his darndest I guess, not to tell about all the money he had, in order to hold on to enough of it outside of the "vulture game" that he is in, to somehow get him and his wife a new start I'm guessing, and long away from this mess that he has gotten himself into somehow... I agree it was defintely not a smart move on him and his wifes part to lie, but somewhat understandable that they took the chance when they have come from where it is that they have come from since.. However, the phone calls will be interesting stuff.. Hey didn't our new supreme court appointment Sata Mynora (spelling), get her nomination based upon that big ole word empathy, so where is all that empathy influence now ? Oh it is no where to be found in this case, because this man has already been deemed and found guilty by the media due the pressures found within it all, so it's probably good bye Zimmerman, even if he may have been innocent in the original case or investigation that was then formed under the law against him at first.

He has got to be tried now though, in order to get to the truth I'm thinking, so lets hope that happens soon or next. Hey if he is guilty I am for him swinging for comitting murder like this, but only if he is guilty, but if found innocent, then he should be on his way, and no one should say a word about it afterwards, unless the parents want to file a wrongful death suit against him maybe, just like they did on OJ, but that will be up to them. Trust me, I am for justice to prevail always, and this I always want no matter what or who is involved always..

 

[paperview]

Pretty clear from those phone calls they were obviously plotting to hide cash and his passport.

Flight risk and the means.

I wonder how a judge considering rebonding would look at that.

 

[beagle9]

Pretty clear from those phone calls they were obviously plotting to hide cash and his passport.

Flight risk and the means.

I wonder how a judge considering rebonding would look at that.

Could be (or) it could be a stash until all was said and done, so who knows really ?

The passport is interesting however, do those things have an expiration date on them?

 

[Ariux]

1. There are times when hearsay is admissible. The fact that you don't know this proves that you don't know even an inkling as much about the law as you pretend to know.

2. It wouldn't be hearsay if Zimmerman testifies.

3. Also, it could be deemed to not be hearsay if the g/f testifies about what Martin said, since Martin is unavailable due to death.

4. It would not be hearsay if the girlfriend does not attempt to identify Zimmerman.

1. Never said it wasn't.
2. Zimmerman WAS NOT on the phone dumb ass! So how could his testimony have anything to do with hearsay argument about phone conversations HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN?
3. You are ignorant.
4. " " " ".
Stick to your " Do you want fries with that?" gig.[/QUOTE]

Unless the judge wants to piss on justice, he won't allow the girl to testify to what Trayvon told her. It's hearsay, with nothing to counter that the girl is 100% biased and can make up anything she wants, especially given that she didn't come to police in a timely manner.

There are some reasons to allow hearsay in the courtroom. One example is Declaration against interest, such as if this girl claims Trayvon said something that is against the interests of the girl. But, that exception, nor any other exception, applies here.

 

[Contumacious]

Pretty clear from those phone calls they were obviously plotting to hide cash and his passport.

Flight risk and the means.

I wonder how a judge considering rebonding would look at that.

Excuse me , Angie.

Clarify a point for moi.

When he was directed to report back to jail did he do so without a problem or was he picked up at the US-Mexico Border?

.

 

[paperview]

Yes. The State of Florida GPS jewelry around his ankle and vigilante ...I mean vigilant monitoring might have had a little something to do with it.

 

[Ariux]

When he was directed to report back to jail did he do so without a problem or was he picked up at the US-Mexico Border?

Zimmerman surrendered a May 2002 (now expired) passport. But, a phone conversation from jail indicated that Zimmerman has another passport (the 2004, valid for 10 years) in a safety deposit box.

It looks like Zimmerman was keeping his options open, even if he turned himself in rather the fleeing, when his bond was revoked. Even though the murder trial is bogus, Zimmerman looks to me like a flight risk.

 

[Againsheila]

Yes. The State of Florida GPS jewelry around his ankle and vigilante ...I mean vigilant monitoring might have had a little something to do with it.

Really? When did they start putting ankle monitors on people out on Bond?

 

[paperview]

Yes. The State of Florida GPS jewelry around his ankle and vigilante ...I mean vigilant monitoring might have had a little something to do with it.

Really? When did they start putting ankle monitors on people out on Bond?

If you didn't know Georgie was wearing an GPS ankle bracelet aka State of Florida monitoring device when he was out on Bond, you obviously haven't been following the case.

Bond hearing. You know, the first time we saw him suited up in shackles? Judge ordered then: GPS electronic monitoring, has a curfew, no alcohol, no gun possession...a few other orders.

People out on Bond are still under arrest, you know.

 

[Ravi]

Doesn't look good for either one of them. Why on earth would you say such stupid things from jail?

Zimmerman, who was wearing a vest when he was released on bond, also discusses a possible escape route and renting two cars to throw off the media, possibly driving into a hotel with an attached garage or heading to an airport to fly to "heaven."

In one conversation as the two are planning a possible escape route if he receives bail, Zimmerman talks about going to a hotel like the Western he stayed at in Tampa, and that if he is in a car he could wear "his hoodie" and lie down as they are driving away.

George Zimmerman Urged Wife to Buy Bulletproof Vest in Jailhouse Calls - ABC News

 

[bodecea]

Pretty clear from those phone calls they were obviously plotting to hide cash and his passport.

Flight risk and the means.

I wonder how a judge considering rebonding would look at that.

Could be (or) it could be a stash until all was said and done, so who knows really ?

The passport is interesting however, do those things have an expiration date on them?

Yes...I believe 5 years.

 

[bodecea]

Doesn't look good for either one of them. Why on earth would you say such stupid things from jail?

Zimmerman, who was wearing a vest when he was released on bond, also discusses a possible escape route and renting two cars to throw off the media, possibly driving into a hotel with an attached garage or heading to an airport to fly to "heaven."

In one conversation as the two are planning a possible escape route if he receives bail, Zimmerman talks about going to a hotel like the Western he stayed at in Tampa, and that if he is in a car he could wear "his hoodie" and lie down as they are driving away.

George Zimmerman Urged Wife to Buy Bulletproof Vest in Jailhouse Calls - ABC News

Because......he's stupid?

 

[Ravi]

I agree but is any of that worth what she is subject to cross on?

The questioning during cross examination must be relevant to the topics of direct examination.



The prosecution would object and likely be sustained since Martin's past usage of mariguana would be irrelevant to the fact that the phone call occurred and what the witness heard over the phone.

And the amount of THC in Martin's blood was reported from the toxicology portion of the autopsy as a trace amount of 1.5 ng/mL (equivalent to one joint 10-12 hours prior to that evening) which means that Martin was not under the influence of marijuana at the time of the call.




Again the prosecution would object for two reasons, one it is again no relevant to the witness testimony regarding the phone call during the event and secondly it is a leading and incorrect statement. School officials and police researched the incident and determined that the jewelry matched no description of stolen jewelry and Martin was never charged with anything.




Again the prosecution would object to that line of questioning during cross as it has nothing to do with the phone call.




None of those character assassination leading questions would be relevant to the phone call during cross.

They called her and the second the prosecution asks one question about that call and any conversations with him ALL conversations with him are open for the defense to question her about.
She is a low contribution, high risk witness for the prosecution.

Actually she is a low risk witness and high contribution witness depending on Zimmerman's story given to police that night when he (presumably) didn't know Martin was on the telephone with someone else. If her testimony is in direct conflict with Zimmerman's account (such as saying that Martin was in hiding and jumped him from the rear) - then that would be bad for Zimmerman.



>>>>

You should well know the scope of cross examination is far, far greater on leading questions during cross than direct. All of Martin's discussions with her are open if they discuss one conversation. How do we know if ALL of that conversation was about Zimmerman following him? If you allow part of the conversation in with Martin you have to allow ALL of that conversation and that opens the door to ALL other conversations by phone. No way to get around that.
Under Florida statute a defendant can not be limited to his cross examination that mirrors the inquiry of direct examination. IOW, that gives them wide latitude.
The Sixth Amendment GUARANTEES the right of the accused to attack witness' credibility by means of cross examination directed toward revealing possible biases or ulterior motives of the witness as they may relate to the case in hand. And the theory of the defense is self defense and that Zimmerman was attacked by an aggressive, out of control young man that has had history of problems in and out of school. Federal case law is clear on this "a trial court may not prohibit cross examination when the facts sought to be elicited are germane to that witness' testimony and plausibly relevant to the theory of the defense." Martin's history is OPEN the second she takes the stand and answers one question about that call. Oh, the prosecution will certainly file a Motion in Limine to ban that line of questioning before the trial but the appellate rulings in Florida are clear on this. It all gets in. They fit under the theory of the defense case law.

The questions you've pretended would matter wouldn't be attacking the witness's credibility, they would be questions trying to demonize a kid that was killed. If he did any of the things you claimed, i.e. smoked weed, would have as much relevance to the case as if he liked the teletubbies as a child.

 

[Ravi]

Pretty clear from those phone calls they were obviously plotting to hide cash and his passport.

Flight risk and the means.

I wonder how a judge considering rebonding would look at that.

Could be (or) it could be a stash until all was said and done, so who knows really ?

The passport is interesting however, do those things have an expiration date on them?

Yes...I believe 5 years.

10 years.

 

[beagle9]

Doesn't look good for either one of them. Why on earth would you say such stupid things from jail?

Zimmerman, who was wearing a vest when he was released on bond, also discusses a possible escape route and renting two cars to throw off the media, possibly driving into a hotel with an attached garage or heading to an airport to fly to "heaven."

In one conversation as the two are planning a possible escape route if he receives bail, Zimmerman talks about going to a hotel like the Western he stayed at in Tampa, and that if he is in a car he could wear "his hoodie" and lie down as they are driving away.

George Zimmerman Urged Wife to Buy Bulletproof Vest in Jailhouse Calls - ABC News

Because......he's stupid?

Could this have been just consideration of all options considered by the two, enlight of him getting bail ? Remember that this is a man that feels like he is a marked man by those who feel that he is a racist killer, so every precaution seems to have been looked over or entertained while on the inside, for when he would be finally out on bond, but to become a flight risk could be a stretch of our imagination enlight of everything that has taken place against them, in which would just seem to be more of him and her trying to stay alive while he is out on bond, than to take flight at this junction.

 

[beagle9]

Because......he's stupid?

Maybe not....

Could this have been just consideration of all options considered by the two, enlight of him getting bail ? Remember that this is a man that feels like he is a marked man by those who feel that he is a racist killer, so every precaution seems to have been looked over or entertained while on the inside, for when he would be finally out on bond, but to become a flight risk could be a stretch of our imagination enlight of everything that has taken place against them, in which would just seem to be more of him and her trying to stay alive while he is out on bond, than to take flight at this junction.

 

[taichiliberal]

Man, the Zimmerman Zombies are STILL at it? And with Georgie's honesty of character looking more and more dubious. If this stuff ever gets to trial, it's going to be REAL interesting.

 

[Contumacious]

Man, the Zimmerman Zombies are STILL at it? And with Georgie's honesty of character looking more and more dubious. If this stuff ever gets to trial, it's going to be REAL interesting.

Man, Angela Corey zombies are STILL at it? And with Angela's honesty of character looking more and more dubious. If this stuff ever gets to trial, it's going to be REAL interesting.

.

 

[Gadawg73]

Yes. The State of Florida GPS jewelry around his ankle and vigilante ...I mean vigilant monitoring might have had a little something to do with it.

Really? When did they start putting ankle monitors on people out on Bond?

They do it all the time. Expensive for the defendant.

 

[Gadawg73]

The questioning during cross examination must be relevant to the topics of direct examination.



The prosecution would object and likely be sustained since Martin's past usage of mariguana would be irrelevant to the fact that the phone call occurred and what the witness heard over the phone.

And the amount of THC in Martin's blood was reported from the toxicology portion of the autopsy as a trace amount of 1.5 ng/mL (equivalent to one joint 10-12 hours prior to that evening) which means that Martin was not under the influence of marijuana at the time of the call.




Again the prosecution would object for two reasons, one it is again no relevant to the witness testimony regarding the phone call during the event and secondly it is a leading and incorrect statement. School officials and police researched the incident and determined that the jewelry matched no description of stolen jewelry and Martin was never charged with anything.




Again the prosecution would object to that line of questioning during cross as it has nothing to do with the phone call.




None of those character assassination leading questions would be relevant to the phone call during cross.





Actually she is a low risk witness and high contribution witness depending on Zimmerman's story given to police that night when he (presumably) didn't know Martin was on the telephone with someone else. If her testimony is in direct conflict with Zimmerman's account (such as saying that Martin was in hiding and jumped him from the rear) - then that would be bad for Zimmerman.



>>>>

You should well know the scope of cross examination is far, far greater on leading questions during cross than direct. All of Martin's discussions with her are open if they discuss one conversation. How do we know if ALL of that conversation was about Zimmerman following him? If you allow part of the conversation in with Martin you have to allow ALL of that conversation and that opens the door to ALL other conversations by phone. No way to get around that.
Under Florida statute a defendant can not be limited to his cross examination that mirrors the inquiry of direct examination. IOW, that gives them wide latitude.
The Sixth Amendment GUARANTEES the right of the accused to attack witness' credibility by means of cross examination directed toward revealing possible biases or ulterior motives of the witness as they may relate to the case in hand. And the theory of the defense is self defense and that Zimmerman was attacked by an aggressive, out of control young man that has had history of problems in and out of school. Federal case law is clear on this "a trial court may not prohibit cross examination when the facts sought to be elicited are germane to that witness' testimony and plausibly relevant to the theory of the defense." Martin's history is OPEN the second she takes the stand and answers one question about that call. Oh, the prosecution will certainly file a Motion in Limine to ban that line of questioning before the trial but the appellate rulings in Florida are clear on this. It all gets in. They fit under the theory of the defense case law.

The questions you've pretended would matter wouldn't be attacking the witness's credibility, they would be questions trying to demonize a kid that was killed. If he did any of the things you claimed, i.e. smoked weed, would have as much relevance to the case as if he liked the teletubbies as a child.

If you do not know that it is the defense attorney's job to attack Martin as much as he can then please quit posting on this subject.