Zimmermans Bond Revoked

So the cuts on Zimmerman's head and abrasion on Trayvon's hand are just figments of everybody's imaginations? As for Zimmerman's credibility, I don't care if he calls himself the Dalai (*)(*)(*)(*)ing Lama, that does not change the actual physical evidence that has been entered in to the case.

 

There is no way in hell Z will get bail again as long as Lester is the trial judge. I think it's awesome people are finally starting to admit be lied but I would rather have him out of jail so he doesn't have anything to fall on as a scapegoat.

 

The cuts on GZ head are very minor.. and he was punched in the face by a teenager that he was stalking.

The question is how culpable is GZ in the death of Trayvon?

Do you see personality and character problems re: GZ?

I do.. a long list of them.. and that reckless disregard he exhibits goes to the heart of the matter.

 

Sorry to dash your hopes on the rocks like so much flotsam (actually, I'm not - but it sounds good), but...

Florida Law states --

Zimmerman's wife cannot be forced to testify against him, period.

 

Crump is the face for the Martin family. Crump is to Trayvon what Johnny Cochran was to OJ.

 

Read what you just wrote.

Trayvon Martin is not accused of any crime.

 

She doesn't have to testify.. They have her recorded phone call about the money .

 

Those injuries prove Z did not need to shoot in self defense and the ME's report proves it is unlikely T ever had his hands on Z's face or head. There was no blood collected from the sidewalk that I have seen, but I do know they collected blood samples from the grass and Z's flashlight that was on the ground, had his own blood on it. That is probably how he got the laceration.

 

I didn't say she would be forced to testify against him. Next straw man.

 

I was thinking prosecution would call her to show the jury she is not a reliable witness. Using her perjury as a backdrop, the jury would be suspect of anything she says in favor of Z.

 

Which they may be able to admit as evidence in a trial for perjury.

As to whether the fact of a perjury trial could be admitted into evidence during the murder trial - that's a different story.

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand the law - evidence of a previous conviction cannot be admitted by the prosecution as evidence. If the defendant takes the stand and testifies, the prior conviction can be brought out by the prosecution, but the prosecution cannot arbitrarily decide to introduce the prior conviction into evidence.

In other words - if Zimmerman takes the stand, the prosecution can introduce the perjury conviction (assuming, of course, that there is one) into their line of cross-examination, but the prosecution cannot just introduce his prior criminal record as evidence.

I knew all these years of watching Law and Order would pay off some day!

 

LOLOL.

What would she testify to? She wasn't out the night that Trayvon was shot.

No the damage is done.. Lester all but called GZ a liar. and untrustworthy.

 

I love watching you squirm when you get your ass handed to you on a platter - it brings a smile to my face!

Remember this statement, not a few posts ago?

What do witnesses do? Think... c'mon, you can do it... witnesses do what? Witnesses testify?

That's absolutely correct! Witnesses testify in court proceedings!

But, since Florida law contains the spousal privilege clause - Zimmerman's wife cannot be compelled to testify against him! Ergo, there is no reason for the prosecution to call Mrs. Zimmerman to the stand, as anything she could testify to cannot be used against her husband.

"I have no doubt the prosecution will call her as a witness, but I never said she would be forced to testify against him..."

You should really consider a career writing comedy for Leno, Letterman, Jon Stewart, your unintentional humor is hilarious!

 

Emphasis on the word "but". There is still enough evidence to support Zimmerman's claim of self-defense and that a fight occurred. There is no argument against this. Zimmerman can lie all he wants to from this point onward; the evidence is what it is.

 

Mrs. Zimmerman cannot testify against Mr. Zimmerman in a perjury trial - assuming that there is one.

The prosecution cannot introduce conviction at a prior perjury trial into evidence unless George Zimmerman takes the stand, and I'm not sure that they can even then.

 

The records reportedly show Zimmerman making inconsistent statements about the night he shot Trayvon.

 

I doubt that there will be a perjury trial.. We don't take perjury that seriously in the US.

 

I don't give a rat's ass about the inconsistency of his statements. The EVIDENCE itself is consistent that a fight occurred. It takes at least two people to make a fight.

 

There 's much more involved here that GZ being punched in the nose.

 

You still don't get it and you celebrate things that are nothing but illusions in your head. Apparently you are still upset I completely slammed your claim that Z would have done the same things even if T was a white guy.

Since she didn't see anything, do you think it makes sense to assume I was saying she would be called as a witness for the shooting? You should try to understand posts before responding.

 

Or one sociopath with a crappy attitude.

 

What I'm taking away from reading this, is that it isn't Zimmerman who lied to the court, it was his wife Shellie when she testified they were indigent.

One thing I will admit though - this doesn't benefit Zimmerman in the least.

It just gets curiouser and curiouser!

 

The excuse here is that there had been burglaries in the complex... and GZ probably believes that.

And I agree that GZ is a sociopath.

 

Didn't she testify over the phone?

I have a couple of random thought here.

I think GZ is going to spend the next 8 months in jail since he waived his right to a speedy trial.

I also think GZ is enjoying his celebrity.

 

He needs to convince a jury he is telling the truth. That will be hard to do since h lied in his first court appearance.

For some odd reason you think the physical evidence leans in Z's favor but it does not. His injuries could very well have been the result of him trying to grab T then losing the wrestling match.

You really should try to understand the physical evidence and ME's report to dispel the notion those reports support Z's claim.