Through Paranoid Eyes (The Clincher)
Friday, June 29, 2012 at 1:29AM And his own words that are nothing but lies
In the last post, I wrote about the inconsistencies in George Zimmerman’s stories about what transpired the night of the shooting. The following 8 photos are video screen shots taken from his reenactment. Below it will be an overhead view of the location, according to George, of where the fight and gunshot took place.
Approximate area where Trayvon stood according to Zimmerman.
The above photos show George’s reenactment positions during the confrontation. I have several problems with that. One, where was Trayvon hiding? The sidewalk paths are open except for the spindly trees — certainly no place to hide. Two, Trayvon was positioned southeast of George, who said he was heading back to his vehicle. In order for this fight to have occurred where George said, it meant he would have had to go to Trayvon. If it was the other way around, the fight would have taken place where George stood, on the sidewalk heading west. The third problem with the scenario George gave was that Trayvon shouted out to him. I’m not a fighter, but common sense tells me that if I am going to surprise someone with a punch, I am not going to say a word beforehand, which would give my opponent a warning first. I’d hit him and then ask him why he was following me.
Do you understand the problem? George would have to have turned toward Trayvon and walked to him. That’s all there is to it. Of course, there’s one more thing that makes absolutely no sense at all, and one of the commenters, CherokeeNative, brought light to it last night, before I had a chance to put this post up. THIS IS THE CLINCHER. To those of you who don’t read the comments, you can see from the next image why there’s a major, major problem with George’s account of the events the night of February 26. Had George been walking back to his truck like he said he was, from east to west, then why was Trayvon’s body found much farther south?
George must have surprised Trayvon, and that means he was never walking back to his truck from checking house numbers, like he said in his reenactment. Nor was he ever asked by the dispatcher to do such a thing.
Dave Knechel | in Angela Corey, Benjamin Crump, Bernie De la Rionda, Dave Knechel, David B. Knechel, David Knechel, Judge Kenneth R. Lester, Jr., Marinade Dave, Marinade Dave Knechel, Mark O'Mara, Neighborhood Watch, Sanford Police Department, Seminole County, Slimm v. Zimm, Stand Your Ground, State Attorney Angela Corey, Trayvon Martin, Zimm v. Slimm, marinadedave | Share Article | 2 References 
LEGAL NOTICE
©David B. Knechel. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this site can be reproduced in it's entirety or in part without expressed written permission by the owner/administrator of this site in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Section 512(c)(3) of the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §512(c)(3). The charges against defendants are mere accusations and the subjects are presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law.
Reader Comments (245)
You guys have been up partying all night! Does anyone sleep around here?
I wish I could have watched the hearing, but I was busy with work yesterday. I only saw a brief snippet. Is it online anywhere?
Porky, this confused me:
"I think Natalie Holloway's explanation explains the fiasco with the "accountant". "
Isn't Natalie Holloway the young woman who disappeared? No caffeine yet, so maybe I'm missing a clever reference.
Molly. No sleep must have began to set in when I typed that lol. I meant Natalie Jackson the family attorney. You are supposed to kick me under the table, not show everyone that I goofed :) Good catch
Consider yourself kicked, Porky! (No one else read this...)
Snoops re wit9 yes she is either GZ ex girl freind or wife not sure,,,,So although her allegations would not be hear say I M O the defence could spin the bitter ex card.
G Z i m o thought the money was going to roll in big time .He thought he could become the poster boy for S Y G..LAW..An do the talkshow circut bookdeals ect...This is why he waived the right to speedy trial...How ever the bus lady whom was in trouble with the law raised six hundred an fifty thousan in just 3 DAYS...Compared to her over whelming support GZ contributers is barely a trickle...He though more time till trial more money raised...B T W the only reason we have an acurate account of the cash raised is because it went through PP an cheqeing acounts..If it had been possable for them to raise cash in habd an no banking history paper trail.We would only have been aware of what G an S Zimmerman wanted to disclose wich would have been a fraction of true amount..M O M makes it sound like ....Hey thease records show all the moneys where abouts an whom got what ect..There was no deception re the mobey raised yad a yadda yadda...This is only because they had no option to hide the moneys paper trail if they could have they would have m o o...Now if I had a client in G Z SHOES an I wasnt a media hangry type..I would say to him ..We have to go for a quick trial within 6 months.Put all the pressure on the prossecution to get there case ready quicksmart...An then offer a plea to manslaughter with a ten year max sentance...George would serve say 5 or seven years be out in his mid thirtys an have a life...However I dont think GZ woiuld go for that scenario....Will we get to see any jailhouse visits in the future?
To NewPuppy,
Exactly. At least one medic said GZ had dried blood on his cheeks. That means his head must have been hanging forward at one point, causing blood to pool onto his cheeks.. gee, I wonder on what occasion could George's head have been hanging forward?
If I recall correctly, there was GZ blood on Trayvon's inner light grey shirt, but not on the outer hoodie jacket. I thought that was odd, since only a narrow band of the light grey shirt was visible at the hem of the hoodie when Trayvon was in the 7Eleven. His hoodie was zipped up to the neck while in the store. Of course, the blood spot diagram hasn't been released, so I can't say where on the shirt the blood appears.
Yeah, you'd think seeing a real doctor would be priority number one, right? I think George didn't want an actual doctor to assess him, and maybe write up a blood requisition.
Ecossie~~I doubt if the media will go after jail visits unless Z and the visitor discuss things pert to the case.
I believe Judge Lester will be informing O'Mara and the prosecution via email re his decision on the bond. Some legal pundits have estimated the bond will be set around $500K or a million that the prosecution requested.
I do not know the exact balance in the Fund account to date but it doesn't take long for legal fees to chew up a lot of it. Mark charges $400 per hour and he has another attorney on the defense team now plus his staff has to be paid and transcripts etc etc. O'Mara has to take a lot of depositions and it all adds up.
So we wait to hear Judge Lesters decision and then Shellies arraignment is at the end of this month... If O'Mara goes for the immunity, that will be closer to the trial date yet to be set. It has crossed my mind that if Z doesn't make bond, will we see a plea and try to go for manslaughter??
Re Wit9, yup an ex or she owns a pitt bull who tried to nibble on Z at one time.
We are celebrating Canada Day this weekend...
Do other defendants get their attorney fees factored into bail? Help me out Snoopy, I have never seen that.
Dave~~ this is a very good post Richard Hornsby put up re the bond hearing plus.. a few excerpts follow...
(In a million years, I would never believe a person who thought they were guilty would willingly scream help for police so they could get voice samples).
However in George Zimmerman’s case, the judge explicitly made findings of fraud. And so even if George Zimmerman admits his failure to come clean at the initial bond hearing was “wrong” and he “accepts responsibility” (does he have a choice), I believe Judge Lester would be well within his rights to deny George Zimmerman a bond based upon he and his wife’s collusion.
Might Mark O’Mara Secretly Hope Lester Denies Bond
First, Mark O’Mara is one of the most professional and ethical attorneys I am acquainted with, so I discuss this more for hypothetical sake than anything.
(the rest of this article is very interesting and informative)
such as...So you can bet your bottom dollar that George Zimmerman is not going to hesitate using his donated money to get his butt out of jail as quickly as he can; and there is nothing Mark O’Mara can do or say to stop him from using the defense fund money to pay the Bail-Bond premium.
Poor George wants a Bond
Dave ~~I was doing a little sleuthing and see that O'Mara has made a correction re the Zimmerman fund.
Are donations to the George Zimmerman Legal Defense Fund taxable?
Donations for the George Zimmerman Legal Defense Fund are not tax deductible to the donor as they are gifts and are similarly not taxable to George Zimmerman.
When O'Mara first put up the site, he said the funds was taxable income and I could never figure that one out. If anyone donates over $13K, the donor has to pay the taxes even if it is a gift. Most donors who contribute the larger amounts keep it around $10K. I may be wrong but any interest earned on the fund acct would be taxable (interest income) ...well it would be here in Can.
I also checked out a link at Richard H's ...bottom of his post... Ahem!
Good post Dave, and great comments. Everyone's saying what I'm thinking so I wasn't even going to post. Then I saw the remark about what George expected with all that money rolling in. It reminded me of the one thing striking I caught during the mini-trial. It was MOM saying George and Shelly Zimmerman had been living off of other people's money because they didn't have any. Then all this money came in and they paid their expenses with it. My first thought was "they're STILL living off of other people's money!" What ever happened to working? They said she paid 200 something to the school she goes to. If you've ever been in college or had a child that went you know that's basically -probably books. That's all it'll cover. Even if she's going full time that's what? 4 hours a day? If her husband can't hold down a job she really needs to be working to help out. Now they're relying on donations to live on, just like they have for a while now. I wouldn't be one bit surprised if they didn't resent MOM for charging them a fee when they were "indigent".
I really REALLY resented MOM putting Zimmerman's dad on the stand to say if he thought that was his son calling for help on the phone call when they didn't put TM's mother on there to counter act it. The "mini trials" MOM keeps coming up with are highly aggravating to me. He seems to want to get everything out in the pre-trials so all he'll have to do is put his client on the stand.
As for where could TM be hiding when there were no trees around, I see white patio walls all up and down that area. He probably went to his home and just stood there waiting to see if that creep that was following him would figure out where he lived. I know I would. I wouldn't go inside until I was sure he was gone. I can see him then stepping out to ask what he wanted. He's a kid. They think they're invincible - it comes with the age.
Ok I know enough about ammo to know that hollow points explode on contact with their target and make a big mess inside. So that one shot to the heart did massive damage. How could the kid have said anything?!
If you take race out of it like MOM and a lot of other people are wanting you STILL have a grown man basically terrorizing a kid.
For anyone who missed the hearing yesterday.... I use Chrome as my browser to view it as IE wont play the video...
Video-Second Bond Hearing Partial-51:23min
FYI~~ The audio is terrible in the bond hearing video... I tried 3 different browsers... I will search for something better
Snoopy, this is from page one:
"The reason for the transfers from paypal being under the $10,000 is a rule of Paypal and was well explained by the forensic accountant."
The Paypal limit is 10K exactly per transaction, not under, so if the forensic accountant said it was under he was wrong (I watched it live and can't find it on the net to check). There's no reason for them to make it $9999 and $9900 etc. from Paypal to their accounts.
"What is PayPal's transaction limit?
The maximum amount allowed for a single transaction is $10,000 USD by a PayPal member."
Going back to finish the whole thread now. lol
RebeccaB~~I thought that Shellie tried to get $10K transferred from Paypal and got a notice that she was over the limit so started making the transfers $9990 etc. I could be mistaken. Let me know if you find out anything different. When I clecked the bank statement all the transfers were under the $10k limit.
REBECA .,,.The Paypal limit is 10K exactly per transaction, not under, so if the forensic accountant said it was under he was wrong (I watched it live and can't find it on the net to check). There's no reason for them to make it $9999 and $9900 etc. from Paypal to their accounts. ...pAY pAL IS A BUISNESS NOT A CHARITY ..i Assume never used it? Anyway ten grand withdrawls may well be a nessesity / rule..Im guessing they wouldnt receive ten grand though more like 9 thousand an 9 something as PP take a cut/ commision out of the transaction..This is how they make there money.
Ecossie~~dang, I can't find any more videos of the bond hearing. I remember the forensic accountant saying that you don't have to notify the IRS for bank transfers of $10K. I can't remember if he mentioned that it was Paypal's policy to not allow $10K transfers. I will see what google has to offer in the way of videos of Mr Magill the FA...
FYI~~ I need to make a Correction... This is what I posted after the bond hearing... so I either heard wrong or Mr Magill was misinformed... I am trying to find a video or a transcript of the forensic accountant...
To MollyK ~~you were absolutely right. Bank transfers differ from cash withdrawals and are treated differently in having transactions reported to the IRS. The reason for the transfers from paypal being under the $10,000 is a rule of Paypal and was well explained by the forensic accountant
Snoopy, he said they'd tried to withdraw over $10,000 which they couldn't. Anyway, he was wrong about it having to be under. lol
ecossie, I do use paypal. I have to pay a withdrawal fee because I live in another country and it's "cross border", it's free for US customers withdrawing into a US bank account. They charge fees on deposits put into the Paypal account.
I'm not that impressed with the forensic accountant to be honest (I do reconciliations for a living). When asked about the expenses he only quoted the ones that were showing on the statements. With the cash withdrawals he just said 'that would've been used for expenses', which indicates to me that he listed cash withdrawals as an expense without finding out what it was spent on.
However the worst thing for me was when the sisters account was brought up. He said something along the lines of: "I just thought they were both Mrs Zimmerman's because they had the same account number but one could have been the sister's". Is it common practice in America to give the same account number to two different people?
I remember the forensic accountant saying it was paypal's policy that you can't take out more than 10,000 in one transaction. He said he didn't know why they picked the 9999 figure, but they did. He also said they tried 3 times in one day to take out more but paypal wouldn' let them. The 10000 figure as an IRS flag came up just a little but got glossed over quickly for some reason. I think it's because the prosecution didn't want to try that issue at a bond hearing. At least that was the impression I got.
Thanks RebeccaB and Conniefl... I retired from accounting almost 20 years ago and did not work with any paypal accts. My calculator was an abacus. j/k lol I focused on income tax consulating until a few yrs ago. I am not familar with the US rules and regs when it comes to the IRS.
Didn't Zimmerman's sister end up with approx $47K? I wonder if her stash went into a safety deposit box after being transferred from paypal into Zimmeman's acct and then into Shellie's acct. Shellie could have just wrote her out checks. Shellie and the sister would not have the same bank account numbers and if the sister is married, she wouldn't be Mrs Zimmerman. What a mix up.
The accountant said it was all accounted for. He didn't have the sister's account information, but what he said was that what went out came back in in the same increments. He didn't know anything about a safe deposit box. He just balanced what came out of paypal then what went out of zimmerman's account and came back in a few days later when Omara asked for it. He then wrote a check to MOM for the balance with the exception I think he said Shelly Zimmerman had 10,000 or what's left of it for living expenses, and the sister has some, but I can't remember how much. The accountant said it's all accounted for. They paid off their bills ,went out to eat, went shopping , paid back his parents some of the money he owed them and paid her school 250 or something like that. There was one interview where MOM was asked how much he had now and if the contributions had continued. I think he said something like 200,000. I'll have to find that link. It was the Today show interview Today show interview
Hey Dave and all,
Very interesting article, as usual, and interesting observations here by your guests! This is a little off-topic from this post but I watched the hearing today and notice 2 things that i was curious about:
1. You were very busy! Were you taking copius notes or trying to multi-task? I've seen you (in person and TV) at many hearings and "the trial" a year ago and have never noticed you so busy.
2. George Zimmerman's "Pit Bull" Frank Taffe was sitting right behind you....does he speak with anyone in the courtroom?
I'm looking forward to future posts from you on this case :)
Katfish~~I may get killed for this but here is the proof .... Is that Taaffee trying to peek over Dave's head? lol
DAVE
Hahaha! Snoopy I was going to mention that whenever Dave's head blocked Taffe from camera view, he seemed to be trying to peak around him. You captured it perfectly! I can think of a few possibilities besides just being a camera hound.....Taffe was trying to read what Dave was writing or ...keeping his eye on his buddy George....nah...he's a camera hound ;)
Katfish~~I am a goner for sure. I whipped that up in my fireworks program. I found the still pics on the internet and did a quickie fix on them ....snip, snip and crop... If I disappear, you will know that Dave hired a hit man here in Can.... nitey nite
" He said he didn't know why they picked the 9999 figure, but they did. "I thought that was in regards to transferring from their bank accounts? I've not found a replay online anybody found one yet? However he DID say according to Paypay it had to under $10K which was my original point. lol
"The accountant said it was all accounted for." With all due respect, conniefl, he said the cash transactions 'would've been used on expenses' without actually knowing what those expenses were. He just wrote them off if they were cash. He also said that the sister would probably have the same account number as the sister in law and that's why he didn't know about it. As a REALLY finicky reconciler I would never hire him to work for me if that's how he treats cash on hand.
Okay, one last point on this, can you tell I'm tired? lol
O'Mara banged on about 'did he buy a new car, did he go to the Bahamas?' Then the FA said stuff that was on Shellie's account. That's got nothing to do with GZ going to the Bahamas etc. Plus GZ was in jail at the time so like he could go to the Bahamas.
If I were BDLR I would've said 'did he pay his entire bond amount when he had the funds to do so?'.
The answer would be "no, there is nothing to say GZ paid any bond, however Shellie withdrew, from her account on the 20th, $5000 for the bond and I've been told that was used to pay it but I don't see anything else". He'd know that because he asked what the cash withdrawals are for seeing as he accounted for them all (yeah, right).
However, seeing as the FA just wrote off all cash withdrawals he didn't even know that! As I said before, when asked what money was spent on all he knew was stuff paid online.
Now I'm only banging on about this because I'm an Ace reconciler (who can't get a job right now because I took time out to raise my family) and I can't believe someone this slack arse is considered an expert. lol
@RebeccaB, Thanks for sharing your expertise in reconciliation! I hope you don't mind my 2 cents worth re the FA hired by the defense. You said, " I can't believe someone this slack arse is considered an expert. lol " This isn't intended to defend the guy as an expert, but most likely he only presented EXACTLY what the defense PAID him to present....in other words he was paid to be vague....now, if he had been hired by the state, we might have seen a more thorough accounting......
@ Snoopy....you did that clip from still pics? Great Job ! Taffe WAS constantly peaking around Dave...I assumed you just pulled a clip from a video of the hearing. Wonder if Dave could sense him doing his peek a boo act behind him? If we don't hear from you for awhile, I'll tell the Mounties to check a certain blogger's passport....in the meantime...don't accept any unusual packages. LOL
I bow to your expertise Rebecca. I also agree with Katfish. The forensic accountant only found what the defense hired him to find. I imagine if it were the prosecution they would have pulled up everyone involved's accounts, not just George and Shelly Zimmerman's. He kept saying he could account for all funds, but was very very vague as to where it went. I'm still stuck on the "living off of other people" business.
Some days I am physically drained after attending functions like I did Friday. That was the case. I went home later that day and crashed. Today, I'm fine. I'm not trying to ignore anyone, that's for sure. I will go over the comments and try to answer ones that really need my attention. Bear with me...
Dave~~ it seems I am forever going out on a limb , not to be confused with the lady in the A case who used to hang upside down from the branches to do her investigating.
I am coming to the defense of Mark O'Mara. I am reading, not only on this blog but others, just how underhanded he is along with other disparaging remarks that I think are uncalled for.
Mark took on this case pro bono, in the beginning. He did not go after Z and offer his services. Mark NeJame was asked to take the case but due to possible conflicts of interest ( the sitting judge, at that time, her husband was affiliated with Mark's law firm), NeJame suggested O'Mara may be interested and Mark O'M took on the challenge. For those who think that O'Mara wanted the notoriety, I doubt that as he was already well-known in his profession.
Mark did not land into a bed of roses as we are finding out. Do I believe that O'Mara figures Zimmerman is innocent and truthful about what transpired on the evening of Feb 26th? I doubt that very much but he has a job to do and that is represent his client to the best of his ability.
Judge Lester, when Z's bond was revoked, said he needed testimony in order to consider bonding out Z the second time. Judge Lester made mention that the state appeared to have a strong case so what was O'Mara supposed to do? He gave it a shot by putting on witnesses and introducing evidence to try and show the judge that just maybe the prosecution did not have that strong of a case. You have to give Mark an 'E' for effort in trying to put Z on the stand to be questioned by the judge only and therefore not open to cross-examination.
This is almost unheard of at a bond hearing but how do you know you cannot get something unless you ask?
Mark O'Mara was deceived by his client re the monies in the defense fund and Mark, being a man of integrity and a professional in his field, did not go along with Z's underhandedness. As soon as O'Mara found out how much money was in the fund, he brought it to the courts attention immediately. Mark has had to do a lot of damage control in regards to the deception re the finances and set up a trust account that cannot be accessed or managed by Zimmerman without authorization.
I could go on and on but had to get a few things off my chest and give some credit where it deserves to be. Unless some of you naysayers can do a better job than Mark O'Mara, slacken off with the disparaging remarks and take time to watch a brilliant attorney at his job, even if it appears that he is representing a client who is obviously guilty. JMO
In the case of Cheney Mason, at his first press conference, he said helping to try the case would be 'fun'. The victim was a two and a half year old child. Her skeletel remains were found in a couple of trash bags and a laundry bag thrown amongst garbage out on Suburban Drive. Very strong evidence indicated that the child was murdered with the use of duct tape, possibly choroform and her decomposing body was in the trunk of her mother's vehicle for at least two and one half days. The mother of the victim was charged with Murder One. Mr Mason Esq thought it would be 'fun' to get an acquittal for this mother and walk out of the courtroom with her on his arm. IMO, this was showing a lack of respect for the victim. This is when I lost respect for Mr Mason. When the mother was found not guilty on the majority of the charges, Mr Mason celebrated the victory by 'giving the finger' to the media.
This was the clincher and why Cheney Mason, Esq took up residence in my 'old fart' bag. I hope this explains why, on my own blog and in here, I referred to him as an old fart. In fact, I have not changed my mind.
Dave: I'm not sure I remember how to do this (and I don't think I can edit)--so if it doesn't work I'll try to repost.
This is an audio only link to nearly all the hearing on Friday. Sorry if it has already been posted. (I did scroll back and didn't see it.)
6/29 Bond Hearing, Audio Only
Glad you are feeling better. I can certainly understand how draining going to those hearings would be. Take care.
Thanks so much nan11. You have not lost your touch. I am going to give a listen now.. Blog radio is boring at Simon's
Zimmerman certainly does have a right to a defense but at what cost though? Is it win at all cost because if that is the case, where do we ever find justice. I mean we *are* searching for the truth about a kid who lost his life right?
I was very impressed with O'Mara at first but very much less impressed now. There was no intent other than attempting to invoke fear of young black men with hoodies when he insisted on showing Travon in his words the most "recent photo". And to suggest that Travon committed suicide but a foolish act is his right but that is really a Baez type move to me.
In he end, Zimmerman's lies may burn both O'mara and Zimmerman, and I have a sneaking suspicion that more lies will be found as we go along.
I did see a clip of O'Mara saying that the 7-11 video was the most recent photo of Trayvon. I agree that he was trying to make him look threatening, but I suspect that it backfired. Trayvon looks like a gawky kid in that video. It is clear that, although he's tall, he is very slight. He certainly does not look like a fighting machine, but like a boy who has experienced a recent growth spurt and is not yet used to having such long limbs. And the prosecutor pointed out that the 7-11 clerk did not find him frightening.
I guess he has to say that Trayvon was killed as a result of his own actions - after all, that is the basis for the self-defense claim. When he took the case, he would not have had a good idea of how strong or weak the case was. And he certainly would not have known what kind of a client he was getting. So in a way he is making the best of a bad hand.
New Puppy~ ~I am very proud to be a Canadian. I do not look at a border as being a barrier and have deep respect for many Americans that I converse with, I refer to them as my 'neighbors' to the south.
I referred to Cheney Mason as an 'old fart' long before the verdict was passed down. I am free, as you are, to have an opinion. It is not my intention to try and shove my beliefs down anyone's throat. I put a label on Mason, not for his lawyering inside the courtroom but for his egotistical behavior before the media. I certainly have not seen Mark O'Mara perform with such a pompous attitude in public.
I also realize that I am not the most popular person on this blog due to being outspoken and at times blunt. It does not surprise me that some may take offense to my comments. This is one reason that I have learned to park my emotions at the threshold before entering in here. Now if Dave decided to put the run to me, I may have to get out the kleenex. That would definitely hurt my pride.
Cheney Mason stays put... afterall, he was instrumental in having a wonderful judge recuse himself for telling a certain blogger that he found his blog unbiased and well written...need I say more?
MollyK~~I have told Dave, on the side, that I honestly feel sorry for Mark O'Mara. I thought at one time that he may step away from this case due to all the deception on the part of his client. I don't think O'Mara will be damaged in any way if Z is found guilty -which almost looks like a given. Most legal analysts seem to be commending Mark for his stamina in meeting the challenge, win or lose. Mark's reputation is built on a good foundation, not sand, so I am not the least bit worried of what the aftermath may bring.
Hear Ye Hear Ye Porky !! MOM's suggestion in Court Friday that Trayvon somehow deserved to die because he was defending himself against a paranoid wanna-be cop was about as low as Baez accusing GA of molesting CA when all of the evidence points otherwise. O'Mara's tactic of basically stating in Court that Trayvon brought it upon himself was, I suspect, his attempt to energize GZ's fan base. He was pandering to a certain demographic. To the extent that he used victim-blaming is disgusting. A child has died and O'Mara is trying to make something sinister out of a kid walking home slowly while talking on the phone. Trayvon was standing his ground that evening. To say that he wasn't flies in the face of the facts: Trayvon was in danger and fell over dead as proof. The problem, at this point, that I have with O'Mara is his having made a production out of proclaiming this case shouldn't be tried in the media, and then he proceeds to do exactly that, all the while mentioning how helpful more donations would be. At Friday's hearing, O'Mara failed miserably by simply relitigated weight of evidence against GZ, without offering any mitigating evidence concerning the fraud that was committed by his client upon the Court. He could have done that without blaming the victim. It was a new low IMO.
O'Mara gave a little shout out prior to the hearing Friday - Here is what O'Mara posted on his "GZLegalCase" before the hearing Friday:
"Tomorrow is a big day for the case. The bond hearing begins at 9:30. We'll give you updates from the court room. Now is an appropriate time to show your support for George."
$$$$$how it in what way may I ask?
Dave~~it is not illegal to create a defense fund. What a good move on O'Mara's part to solicit donations. Look at the money Mark is saving the taxpayers of Seminole County. So should we be lauding O'Mara brilliance or bemoaning about all the tax dollars spent in trying this case if Z were indigent. BTW, some tweets were going out via the defense to keep the public informed of the proceedings at the bond hearing.
Cherokee,
Maybe "now is an appropriate time" to donate because donations received from now on won't count as assets for purposes of the bond hearing? Crass, I agree.
I'm not sure that O'Mara can defend GZ without at least suggesting that Trayvon was shot because of his own actions. Their story is that he went wild and was about to kill GZ with his bare hands, giving GZ no choice but to shoot him. Not much of a story, and we have all been discussing the holes in it, but what else is he supposed to say?
My impression is that O'Mara's heart is not in this case. I would guess that he regrets having accepted it, but can't withdraw without fatally harming GZ's chances of acquittal.
I have maintained that a trial is a contest between lawyers and not who is actually guilty or innocent when the verdict is read. We have watched this play out time and again so therefore, we agree on that.
Nah... Dave treats all his women/men equally when it comes to contributing to this blog. I just happen to have lots of extra time on my hands to help him out when he is busy or not feeling well. If it were not for that, I would be perched on the bottom of his totem pole.
PS...just for the record, any behind the scenes encounters Dave and I have can be described as 'fire and gasoline' and not 'when Harry met Sally.'
I'm not sure that O'Mara can defend GZ without at least suggesting that Trayvon was shot because of his own actions. Their story is that he went wild and was about to kill GZ with his bare hands, giving GZ no choice but to shoot him. Not much of a story, and we have all been discussing the holes in it, but what else is he supposed to say?
Hi Molly - I disagree with this point. First, Florida’s SYG law allows you to stand your ground and places no duty upon you to retreat. You can use force, including deadly force, in self-defense, but only if a reasonable person in the same situation would do so. This is your objective reality as opposed to the defendant's perception of it. But you cannot use more force than is reasonably necessary to prevent being assaulted. A person can use deadly force in self-defense only if the objective facts and circumstances of the situation he/she is actually in, as opposed to his/her perception of it, is such that a reasonable person in the same situation would believe it necessary to use deadly force to prevent being killed or suffer serious bodily injury.
In this case, O'Mara need only prove that GZ was reasonably in fear of his life - and the standard as stated above is whether a reasonable person in the same situation would believe it necessary to use deadly force to prevent being killed or suffer serious bodily injury. Accusations that Trayvon deserved or caused his own death are unnecessary allegations and lend nothing to the mitigating factors that GZ will eventually seek to prove - just as Trayvon's school suspensions are irrelevant. IMO, he was pandering to his client's fan base and was woefully inconsiderate of the feelings of Trayvon's parents who were sitting in the courtroom. It was tacky and did nothing towards aiding GZ in his quest for bond, which was supposed to be the purpose of the Court proceedings despite O'Mara's attempt to make it otherwise.
According to O'Mara, as he said @ friday's hearing --he would "suggest that the state's case is weak" (and george is no flight risk, blah di blah and the Court should let him out on the same $150,000 as before..)
Well, if it's such a "weak" case, as BDLR said, -----bring on the SYG hearing, let's get this thing over with! Why let your client sweat it out in jail when you could so easily demolish the state's "weak" case right now?!
Of course, as BDLR pointed out, his client would have to testify at a SYG hearing and be subject to cross examination...--but of course that wouldn't be a problem would it----just get up there, tell the truth like he's always done, right?
I would venture to say that I don't believe O'Mara is going to be too quick to rush this case to a conclusion given that there is still a substantial sum of legal defense funds yet to be expended. Wink wink.
"Dave~~it is not illegal to create a defense fund. What a good move on O'Mara's part to solicit donations. Look at the money Mark is saving the taxpayers of Seminole County. So should we be lauding O'Mara brilliance or bemoaning about all the tax dollars spent in trying this case if Z were indigent. BTW, some tweets were going out via the defense to keep the public informed of the proceedings at the bond hearing."
Cherokee,
I will address this point s if baffles me why we need to use Dave as a conduit to a civil discussion. It is akin to a person speaking about themselves in third person but I take i that we are all big people here :)
Anyhoo- I did not think that your point even remotely suggested that the defense fund is illegal; I look from your post that O'Mara is now -pandering- to a TV audience and using the website to spin things in such a way to erect that banal anti black reactionary group within the his base.
That is a far cry from any suggestion of legality.
Finally I would have more respect from O'Mara if he tried to spin is an an unfortunate accident. I hear that he has an impeccable record with ethics. I'm certainly no defense attorney and i realize that he is obligated to defend his client. I just think that it gets shady when he plays the race card to the extent that Travon was a thug who deserved to die because he randomly decided to pummel some guy who coincidentally had a gun.
I agree wholeheartedly Porky. I don't need to use Dave as a conduit to post my comments to this blog. I am not attacking anyone personally, just stating my opinions. What I don't understand is someone feeling the need to censor another's person's opinions and thoughts if they do not coincide with their way of thinking. Odd to say the least.
Nope, I was in NO WAY suggesting that O'Mara's defense fund was illegal - that is ludicrous - and there is absolutely nothing in my statements that would lead anyone to believe otherwise. You have interpreted my intent perfectly. O'Mara has stated that the case should be tried in Court, yet he is pandering to the GZ fan club my making the media rounds and is admittedly going so far as to tweet about the case during court hearings. Got to keep that money rolling in. He has stooped to a new low by portrayingTravon as a thug who deserved to die because he defended himself against a paranoid wanna-be cop who had been stalking, following, chasing, and most likely attempted to detain him is.
Dave ~~sometimes it is necessary to have a well insulated conduit to rely upon especially with all the negative current that seems to be generated in here from time to time. We certainly want to avoid any blown fuses. May I think of you as my little circuit breaker? I hope you do not resist because I know you have the capacity to keep things running smoothy.
Since the identity of the donors to the Zimmerman defense fund remain anonymous, we do not know if they are white, black or Hispanic. Who knows, half of them may be French Canadians. So how can we infer that by soliciting donations, O'Mara is creating racism? Have we forgot that the majority of the people donating to the Z fund may very well be slap happy gun owners?
Best I pull the plug on this one, Dave, before I put forth any shocking revelations and overload the circuits.
Question to anyone===if GZ lied on his carry/conceal permit, how could/would that affect this whole case?
**permit application