Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe if Zimmermans defense was based solely on his statements maybe you'd have a point. Its not the physical evidence confirms his version of events as do witnesses. Also lying seems to be a strong word seems like a misunderstanding. If the prosecution is basing it's case on bail hearings like you and Crupp seem to be doing this case will be a slam dunk for Zim.
Yes, the HEART of Zimmerman's self defense claim will be his credibility, his state of mind at the time the shooting took place. And that puts his credibility at issue.
As for "lying".....have you read the Judge's words when he ruled? He didn't say "misunderstanding."
There are also witnesses who CONTRADICT Zimmerman's statement as well as witnesses who contradict each other. I don't know what you are thinking of in terms of physical evidence that absolutely proves Zimmerman's position.
Why did zimmerman file an affirmative defense in this case, if just the little bit of evidence the public knows makes it so clear this is a slam dunk for him?
Zimmerman's attorney is not as sure as you are. He's stated that he has at least 50 witnesses he plans to depose. That's means that those witnesses are basically state witnesses. The defense would not depose their own witnesses. In the court file, discovery indicates that the state has 22 witnesses whose names are not being released, in addition to many more witnesses for the state who are named!
Btw, there is a M.E. investigator and a report by that person has been filed, along with crime scene photos. Have you seen any of that info?
True. No one ever made this request until today. This is priceless!
I just asked someone why, all of a sudden, the State of Florida is asking voters to prove they are U.S. Citizens, even WWII veterans. Why didn't they do this in 2010? He said "Because the Republicans were winning. Now we just want to get that jerk out of office." At least he's being honest.
That's a different topic, but I brought it up because of your comment. "no one ever made this request until....."
Lying about the money was bad enough, but having a passport hidden and claiming he lost it is so obvious.
I don't know that this event will be allowed into the trial. It's an event that happened AFTER the shooting, and doesn't alter the facts of that night, but could be very prejudicial to the jury. A good attorney will at least TRY to exclude this from the trial.
It still goes to his credibility. Doesn't matter that he said these things after he shot trayvon. The "facts" in question are whether or not Zimmerman was in fear for his life and whether or not his version of what happened is true. Zimmerman's credibility is front and center in this case. The State will be allowed to impeach him with inconsistent statements he has made in and out of court that are in the record. The inconsistent statements here involve Zimmerman testifying that he didn't have much money in the bank, and then it turns out he did have a lot of money, and he knew that at the time he testified falsely. Yes, it can be brought up.
Lying about the money was bad enough, but having a passport hidden and claiming he lost it is so obvious.
I'm not sure that's what happened. I know that getting a new passport takes 4-6 weeks under normal circumstances. What's been said is that he GOT the new passport 2 weeks after the shooting. So when did he report it lost & apply for a new one? If that happened after the shooting....Well then he can't claim anything other than having lied about it when he turned in the old one.
I'm not sure that's what happened. I know that getting a new passport takes 4-6 weeks under normal circumstances. What's been said is that he GOT the new passport 2 weeks after the shooting. So when did he report it lost & apply for a new one? If that happened after the shooting....Well then he can't claim anything other than having lied about it when he turned in the old one.
I also don't know when he received it, but are you saying that lying about a U.S. Passport and over $200k in funds received is okay? Why did he suddenly notice his passport was missing? Was he going on a trip? I thought he and his wife were "indigent." (their words) Anyway, if I realized I had 2 active passports, it just takes a phone call to find out what to do.
Apparently you don't believe in following the law, huh?
How would that have been not following the law? Why would there have been any prohibition on him leaving the country before the special prosecutor was brought in & filed the charges? The authorities involved to that point had not accused him of any crime. He should, therefore, have been free to come and go as he pleased, just like any other US citizen.
Actually, I wrote this belonged in True Crime months ago. I suppose it stayed here because of the racial controversy.
Bad day for gz. Though I haven't seen the judge's words, it doesn't matter. The state's phrase 'blatant lie' is the headline.
He should have fled the country when he had the chance. Oh well.
IMO, true. However, this guy does not seem to be all that bright.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
