Scruit Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/12/justice/florida-zimmerman-wife/index.htmlProsecutors allege she knew they paypal donations were 135k when she told the judge they were penniless. Has no bearing on the murder case (maybe a credibility problem) but not doing them any favors. I wonder what reason they can argue explains why they claimed to be indigent despite sitting on over a hundred large...If i was her lawyeri would go with "i thought that money was for the legal defense only and and it would be illegal to use it for something else. I thought it was set aside and supposed to pay the court fees and lawers, and we should not consider it our own money to do with as we want. When you asked if WE had any money, and my honest belief was that no, we have a defense fund, but no money that is ours alone to spent on anything we want. We have 401ksa but didn't list those either because that money is not ours to spend willy nilly."Might work, might not. Or they may have an explanation for the prison visit conversation that the prosecutors allege was "code" for discussing the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imprez55 Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 I was thinking the same thing for a defense. It really depends upon what those who donated would have assumed the funds would be used for. If it was a casual "help us" cry then I doubt that defense would work, but if it was slightly changed to "help us fight" then it would be assumed it would be for legal defense and a plea of ignorance might fly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 Better article here: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/south/view/20120613george_zimmermans_wife_arrested_charged_with_perjury/srvc=home&position=recentFrom the article, it looks like the hardest part of perjury is proving that there was intent to lie under oath. Now that they have phone conversations and the bank statements that corroborate them, proving that becomes a shit-ton easier. Although this is a completely separate thing from the murder case, all this guy has in the world right now are (to borrow a phrase) his word and his balls, and getting his credibility trashed at this point isn't going to help him in trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kawi kid Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 Shouldn't be a trial to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r1crusher Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 Shouldn't be a trial to begin with.qft 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buildit Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 The problem is that Zimmerman isn't on trial as much as race relations, stereotypes and a news media who is after ratings, not truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokey Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 the problem is that zimmerman isn't on trial as much as race relations, stereotypes and a news media who is after ratings, not truth.bingo!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 The problem is that Zimmerman isn't on trial as much as race relations, stereotypes and a news media who is after ratings, not truth.and the whole fact that he, you know, killed a guy and his story was such that left lingering doubt about his self-defense claim. So far, he hasn't proven himself to be the bastion of truth and honesty he was leading everyone to believe.Keep fuckin' that chicken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 If it helps clear things up, I know I only lie when it's to my benefit.Otherwise I'm honest. Maybe Zimmerman is like that too - "Otherwise honest"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buildit Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 and the whole fact that he, you know, killed a guy and his story was such that left lingering doubt about his self-defense claim. So far, he hasn't proven himself to be the bastion of truth and honesty he was leading everyone to believe.Keep fuckin' that chicken.And the media is right there with Jessy Jackson and the politicians needing a few more voters to ram their "facts" down our throats every evening on the news. Keep stiring that pot, you'll get something good to rise to the top sooner or later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 I thought you were going to throw Soros in for good measure. Look, as I said before, I'm not going to debate the media spin on this case as I'll freely admit, it's fucking atrocious. The bottom line is that Zimmerman killed a guy, and the evidence that was brought to bear (that you and I both haven't seen yet in its entirety, if you want to debate "facts") shows that there was a reasonable cause to charge Zimmerman with murder. Hindsight being as it is, we can now see that Zimmerman isn't the paragon of truth and justice that he was selling himself to be earlier, and that some cracks are starting to develop in his credibility which (opinion ahoy!) might have prompted the DA to level the charges in the first place, since she saw in the evidence what we couldn't (and haven't!) yet.Removing all that for a second, I have not a fuck to give for whatever the hell Jesse Sharpton wants to do or say. The "voters" that matter in this don't give a fuck either, since they are only 12 people that aren't seeing any of it anyway. So if you want to rage on the media circus that's fine, just understand that some of us here are intelligent enough to either not watch it at all or separate the objective reporting from the bloviating assholes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buildit Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 That's fine Cheech, just remember the media is supplying or not all the "FACTS" you or I have in the case. So I totally agree that until the 13 people (12 jurers and 1 alternate) decide what really happened we are both speculating. However, given the fact this was a non issue till the media and left wing majority jumped up and down with hooded protests and women crying about him being just like there kids, I choose to think it is a joke and that justice is unlikely to be truly served. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baptizo Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 The problem is that Zimmerman isn't on trial as much as race relations, stereotypes and a news media who is after ratings, not truth.Troof! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 I'm okay with having a trial when one party is no longer alive to give his or her version of the events. That's the purpose of a jury: to be the finder of facts. You can't be defending yourself unless you're attacked. The attacker can never (validly) claim self-defense. The question of who was the aggressor should absolutely go to trial.As for Zimmerman's wife, if she continues to lie in the necessary manner, she'll probably get off without much more than a slap on the wrist. Prove I knew something last week, or last year. Now if there are log-in records of her checking the balance from their home computer the day before she said they were broke under-oath, then she's screwed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 I'm okay with having a trial when one party is no longer alive to give his or her version of the events. That's the purpose of a jury: to be the finder of facts. You can't be defending yourself unless you're attacked. The attacker can never (validly) claim self-defense. The question of who was the aggressor should absolutely go to trial.As for Zimmerman's wife, if she continues to lie in the necessary manner, she'll probably get off without much more than a slap on the wrist. Prove I knew something last week, or last year. Now if there are log-in records of her checking the balance from their home computer the day before she said they were broke under-oath, then she's screwed.My understanding from the Herald article was they were discussing the bank account balances and moving large amounts of funds (but always under the 10K threshold) a week or so before the bond hearing. Read that Herald article I posted, it really looks like there's enough there to nail her pretty good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crb Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 Damn it cheech I actually find myself agreeing with you. This is scary.Zimmeran and his wife are not doing zimmerman any favors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buildit Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 If they are morons then they will cook themselves upon the heat provided by the media grilling. Reguardless it would be a real moron of a lawyer who wouldn't have addressed the fund long before the hearing. Cause aren't lawyers supposed to provide legal advice in a case like this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 If they are morons then they will cook themselves upon the heat provided by the media grilling. Reguardless it would be a real moron of a lawyer who wouldn't have addressed the fund long before the hearing. Cause aren't lawyers supposed to provide legal advice in a case like this?They are, assuming that the lawyers themselves knew about the fund prior to the bond hearing. It's entirely possible that they lied to the lawyers as well.Either way, she's in jail now too, so unless someone else in the family is now pulling the strings of the bank accounts, all the money is at rest and free for the prosecution to subpoena to figure out what went where and when. I don't think she can do much more damage to herself (or George) at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buildit Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 How did the lawyer NOT know? I knew they had set up a pay pal account before the hearing because it was on the news. They even showed the online address to use to find it. Dam, now I'm using the media as a source of information. I found several new reports going back to early April about the site.. therealgeorgezimmerman.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 I know, that's why I said it was possible, not likely. As I recall, about the time the website went up was about the time that Zimmerman went into hiding so deep that it prompted his lawyers to call a presser to ask him to check in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buildit Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 I know, that's why I said it was possible, not likely. As I recall, about the time the website went up was about the time that Zimmerman went into hiding so deep that it prompted his lawyers to call a presser to ask him to check in.Yep, Not sure if they remained his lawyers or if he got new ones at that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted June 14, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 I thought he changed lawyers around that time. Accused of going "off the reservation". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.