Weed, fights and guns: Trayvon Martin’s text messages released

[Guest nra37922]

......

 

I suspect the big defense prosecution surprise will be girl on the phone with TM before the incident. Don't be surprised if she "remembers" something that she left out in her statement to the police... something that implicates GZ.  Then, she gets invited to The View and gets a book deal.

Something like 'I'sa member that Big T, thats what I'sa colded em sayen Leezee he gat a gun and he gonan cap me'

[TripleDigitRide]

Have you perjured yourself in a courtroom under oath? He has, and I doubt if his attorney’s will put him on the stand for that reason. He has zero credibility. Does it make him guilty of murder? No, but If they suspect him of being a liar; they have to throw out everything he says.

I see what you're saying there. So, if I understand correctly, in the court's eyes, it's okay for him to lie, as long as he doesn't take the stand in his own defense?

[RichardR]

That perjury charge was bogus IMHO.

How was Zimmerman suppose to claim a 3rd party's money? Even though it was "raised for his defense" He had no actual control over any of that money as far as I am aware.

[RobertNashville]

That perjury charge was bogus IMHO.

How was Zimmerman suppose to claim a 3rd party's money? Even though it was "raised for his defense" He had no actual control over any of that money as far as I am aware.

I don't know that I would have said money being donated to my defense was "my money" or part of "my assets" either, which was part of the questioning.  More importantly, GZ did not perjure himself (which probably explains why he isn't charged with perjury). His wife is charged but many feel that the questions she allegedly lied about were so ambiguous that the perjury charge won't hold up (assuming they aren't just dismissed outright).

 

And let's not forget that it was Judge Lester who ended up getting removed because of how he handled that particular situation which the appeals court decided demonstrated a lack of impartiality.

 

But hey; lets just forget what happened and focus on how we feel about it. ;)

Edited June 25, 2013 by RobertNashville

[DaveTN]

I see what you're saying there. So, if I understand correctly, in the court's eyes, it's okay for him to lie, as long as he doesn't take the stand in his own defense?

No, perjury is a crime; not a big deal when you are facing murder charges. An attorney putting a client on the stand knowing that he is going to lie is a crime; it’s called subornation of perjury.

O.J wasn’t acquitted because the prosecution didn’t do their job.(okay, that was part of it) But he was acquitted because three Police Officers took the stand that weren’t believable; so they threw out all their testimony. They were left with very little evidence.

Zimmerman doesn’t run a big risk by testifying; even if they throw out his testimony. But maybe a lawyer here can answer this for sure; if he takes the stand voluntarily can the prosecution ask him if he has ever lied under oath? We know the answer to that and if the jury has heard about this case; they do too.

[TrickyNicky]

Something like 'I'sa member that Big T, thats what I'sa colded em sayen Leezee he gat a gun and he gonan cap me'

Wow. Quite possibly the most... Just wow.

[DaveTN]

That perjury charge was bogus IMHO.

How was Zimmerman suppose to claim a 3rd party's money? Even though it was "raised for his defense" He had no actual control over any of that money as far as I am aware.

It went farther than that. He had control over the money and had it only been that he might have been alright. But he conspired with his wife to keep it away from the court. His attorneys as much as admitted that. But I think they can ask him if he ever lied under oath.

[RobertNashville]

It went farther than that. He had control over the money and had it only been that he might have been alright. But he conspired with his wife to keep it away from the court. His attorneys as much as admitted that. But I think they can ask him if he ever lied under oath.

Except he didn't lie under oath nor is he or has he ever been charged with perjury. The prosecution "accused" him of "misleading the court" according to the documents; an accusation which went no where and ultimately resulted in that judge being removed by the appeals court.

Edited June 25, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RichardR]

Except he didn't lie under oath nor is he or has he ever been charged with perjury. The prosecution "accused" him of "misleading the court" according to the documents; an accusation which went no where and ultimately resulted in that judge being removed by the appeals court.

Yup, it was an attempted "gotcha!" move that backfired, well except in the eyes of the true J4T fans like Dave who'll cling to anything that will make Z look guilty of something..

[DaveS]

Have you perjured yourself in a courtroom under oath? He has, and I doubt if his attorney’s will put him on the stand for that reason. He has zero credibility. Does it make him guilty of murder? No, but If they suspect him of being a liar; they have to throw out everything he says.

I think putting him on the stand would be a big mistake, because he can't tell the same lie twice. He changes his story every time he opens his pie hole! ellers

Just my OPINION fell'ers!

 

DaveS

Edited June 25, 2013 by DaveS

[DaveTN]

Except he didn't lie under oath nor is he or has he ever been charged with perjury. The prosecution "accused" him of "misleading the court" according to the documents; an accusation which went no where and ultimately resulted in that judge being removed by the appeals court.

Why would they charge him when it would serve no purpose and if they did so would not allow them to call him to testify at her trial? Now they have a co-conspirator they can use.

Charges may be dropped. But for now they are still going forward. What about the $57K she had in her credit union the day she testified she didn’t have any money? They both lied.

I’m just thinking it would be the first question I ask as soon as he was sworn in.

[DaveS]

Something like 'I'sa member that Big T, thats what I'sa colded em sayen Leezee he gat a gun and he gonan cap me'

WOW.... 

[RobertNashville]

Why would they charge him when it would serve no purpose and if they did so would not allow them to call him to testify at her trial? Now they have a co-conspirator they can use.

Charges may be dropped. But for now they are still going forward. What about the $57K she had in her credit union the day she testified she didn’t have any money? They both lied.

I’m just thinking it would be the first question I ask as soon as he was sworn in.

 

It might be the first question but being accused of "misleading the court" is not perjury...people can be accused of anything but accusations, like assertions, are worthless without substance behind them.  Substance in this instance would be following up the accusation with an actual charge.

 

Given the lack of a charge coupled with the impropriety of Lester, mostly surrounding that bail hearing episode, that the appeals court found questionable enough to removed him from the trial and replaced him; I suspect they didn't charge him because they had nothing that actually constituted perjury.

 

I have no special insight into his or her/their finances but since I have not read anything that would indicate that they were normally flush with cash on a regular basis I presume what cash they had was all tied to the donations coming in to help them with their expenses/defense. 

 

I suspect both Zimmerman and his wife were confused by the questions and the whole situation more so than either was trying to get away with anything...had some non-profit group stepped in and agreed to accept donations for Zimmerman's defense fund I suspect the whole thing would have been a non-issue. People donating to his defense fund were donating to his defense fund; not trying to inflate his net worth and push up his bail amount. 

Edited June 25, 2013 by RobertNashville

[TMF]

Wow. Quite possibly the most... Just wow.

I'm sure that was just satirical comic relief and not serious, so let me also contribute to lighten the mood:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-case-for-and-against-george-zimmerman,32941/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=Status:1:Default

[TrickyNicky]

I'm sure that was just satirical comic relief and not serious, so let me also contribute to lighten the mood:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-case-for-and-against-george-zimmerman,32941/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=Status:1:Default

Haha, thanks for the link, I needed the laugh.

As to the comment, your probably right. Lord knows my day has not been going well thus far and I am on edge. Apologies to NRA37922 for jumping to conclusions.

[TMF]

Haha, thanks for the link, I needed the laugh.
As to the comment, your probably right. Lord knows my day has not been going well thus far and I am on edge. Apologies to NRA37922 for jumping to conclusions.

That graphic made my day. I think you can leave the mat out though. I'm pretty sure his Jarjar Binks impression was meant to be serious. I'm poking fun at the presumptuous racist attack on someone's 16 year old daughter.

[TrickyNicky]

That graphic made my day. I think you can leave the mat out though. I'm pretty sure his Jarjar Binks impression was meant to be serious. I'm poking fun at the presumptuous racist attack on someone's 16 year old daughter.

Well now I don't know what to believe?! 8) ;) Edited June 25, 2013 by TrickyNicky

[Links2k]

Wow. Quite possibly the most... Just wow.

Please don't tell me that you were surprised. Edited June 25, 2013 by LINKS2K

[Links2k]

I'm sure that was just satirical comic relief and not serious, so let me also contribute to lighten the mood:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-case-for-and-against-george-zimmerman,32941/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=Status:1:Default

Good one.

[Erik88]

I beleive very little he says. He's been caught in too many lies now. I know, I know...prove it.... 

 

DaveS

 

Dave, this is an honest question because nothing is coming to mind. What exactly has GZ been caught lying about? 

 

I realize his wife was charged with perjury about the money the raised. What am I missing about GZ?

[Erik88]

I have an honest question for Link, DaveS, and TMF. You guys seem to be somewhat sure that GZ is guilty but you've yet to say(unless I missed it) how exactly you think the events unfolded that night.

 

I was able to listen to a portion of live testimony yesterday but not all of it. Did they cover the wounds that Martin had? From what I heard previously, Martin's only wound was the gunshot, did they confirm this?

 

I'm just trying to understand what it would take for Zimmerman to be guilty and the only scenario I can come up with is that Zman followed Martin, assaulted him first, and then shot him after he started getting his ass kicked. If that's how it unfolded then I would absolutely say he deserves to be found guilty.

 

However, if Martin had zero wounds other than the gunshot it should be fairly obvious that it didn't go down that way.

 

Also, do you guys honestly think Zman would request police presence and then walk up and assault Martin? Surely he's not THAT stupid. 

 

So I will ask you guys, what am I missing? We already know that following someone is not a crime but I missed the part yesterday that explained whether or not he was actually following him.

 

Help me out here.

[DaveS]

I have an honest question for Link, DaveS, and TMF. You guys seem to be somewhat sure that GZ is guilty but you've yet to say(unless I missed it) how exactly you think the events unfolded that night.

 

I was able to listen to a portion of live testimony yesterday but not all of it. Did they cover the wounds that Martin had? From what I heard previously, Martin's only wound was the gunshot, did they confirm this?

 

I'm just trying to understand what it would take for Zimmerman to be guilty and the only scenario I can come up with is that Zman followed Martin, assaulted him first, and then shot him after he started getting his ass kicked. If that's how it unfolded then I would absolutely say he deserves to be found guilty.

 

However, if Martin had zero wounds other than the gunshot it should be fairly obvious that it didn't go down that way.

 

Also, do you guys honestly think Zman would request police presence and then walk up and assault Martin? Surely he's not THAT stupid. 

 

So I will ask you guys, what am I missing? We already know that following someone is not a crime but I missed the part yesterday that explained whether or not he was actually following him.

 

Help me out here.

TM had an abrasion on the back of his finger, probably from punching Zman in the face. Zman had no defensive wounds, and TM had no DNA of Zman's on his hands or under his nails. I actually find that hard to beleive. 

 

As far as followingTM they really didn't get into that outside what the Prosecutor and 911 operator said. The only other thing that really came out yesterday, was Zman was heard on tape...calling or reffering to TM as a "F***ing Punk" . I'd never heard that before. That's the "F" bomb the Prosecution threw out there. If memory serves me right it was used "F*****g Punk, these A**holes always get away". They have that on tape. Like I said, I'd not heard that before.

 

And don't tell Knock Knock jokes! LMAO!!!

 

Dave S

[mikegideon]

TM had an abrasion on the back of his finger, probably from punching Zman in the face. Zman had no defensive wounds, and TM had no DNA of Zman's on his hands or under his nails. I actually find that hard to beleive. 

 

As far as followingTM they really didn't get into that outside what the Prosecutor and 911 operator said. The only other thing that really came out yesterday, was Zman was heard on tape...calling or reffering to TM as a "F***ing Punk" . I'd never heard that before. That's the "F" bomb the Prosecution threw out there. If memory serves me right it was used "F*****g Punk, these A**holes always get away". They have that on tape. Like I said, I'd not heard that before.

 

And don't tell Knock Knock jokes! LMAO!!!

 

Dave S

 

Those statements were in Z's call to the police. If you haven't heard it until now, then you have been listening to the wrong version of the tape.

[DaveS]

Those statements were in Z's call to the police. If you haven't heard it until now, then you have been listening to the wrong version of the tape.

Could be. How many "versions" is there considering it was the same 911 call? 

 

DaveS

[DaveS]

Those statements were in Z's call to the police. If you haven't heard it until now, then you have been listening to the wrong version of the tape.

I guess I found the right one now. Zman says "F****** Coon" and not punk. Damn...just Damn!!! 

 

Dave S