Do you think Zimmerman will be convicted of murder?

A judge says he lied. That's good enough for me.

Waving your hands in the air doesn't change history.

oralloy wrote:

The suggestions that Zimmerman lied are a bit overblown.

The judge who revoked his original bail and had him re-incarcerated didn't think so.

The assets existed--Zimmerman and his wife lied about not having them, and they let their lawyer misrepresent their financial situation to the court because they lied to him too.

The prosecution has the taped phone conversations between Zimmerman and his wife discussing the transfer of their assets between accounts and they have the bank records as well.

And Zimmerman's wife still faces perjury charges for lying in court

and given the fact that she did attempt to conceal the assets, with the collusion of her husband, and they have bank records as evidence of that, that will be a tough charge for her to beat.

Zimmerman and his wife are both liars.

Zimmerman destroyed his credibility when he lied about his assets.

That's probably why donations to his defense fund dried up.

oralloy wrote:

In the context of depraved heart murder, the term "depraved mind" refers to callously doing something that you know has a very high risk of accidentally killing someone.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/depravity-of-mind/
Nothing about your claim in the legal definition.

The 2nd degree murder charge is going to come down to whether a jury thinks Zimmerman acted recklessly to put himself in the situation.

oralloy wrote:

But Zimmerman did have a reason. He was in fear for his life. Therefore he was not callously gambling with Trayvon's life for no reason.

That's funny. Do you have evidence to support this?

oralloy wrote:

Yes, if Zimmerman had shot Trayvon in the chest for no reason, knowing that he was in no danger from Trayvon, that would count as callously gambling with Trayvon's life.

But Zimmerman did have a reason. He was in fear for his life. Therefore he was not callously gambling with Trayvon's life for no reason.

Zimmerman's reasons are irrelevant to the fact that he put Trayvon Martin's life in imminent danger, and chanced ending that life, when he shot him in the chest at close range. His reasons for doing so may affect his legal culpability for the act, but they don't change the fact that he acted in a way that caused the death of Trayvon Martin--it is a fact that he killed Trayvon Martin.

Either Zimmerman was acting in legally justifiable self-defense, or he wasn't, when he pulled that trigger--and that has nothing to do with "gambling", callously or otherwise, with someone's life, it is really a separate issue.

He shot and killed an unarmed minor--a minor who had a right to be in the area, and a minor who was not engaging in any criminal activity prior to his encounter with Zimmerman. Zimmerman claims this unarmed minor attacked him and he had to shoot him in defense of his own life.

The state can attack Zimmerman's claim of self defense based on his inconsistent statements and accounts of events, and/or on the basis of additional evidence that contradicts his assertions--and they will likely do both of those things.

The state is not required to present any sort of motive for Zimmerman's actions.

So, the state must do two things. First they must attack and discredit his claim of self-defense, and secondly they must try to prove he commited the crime of second degree murder by connecting his behavior to the elements of second degree murder exactly as that crime is defined by Florida law.

oralloy wrote:

Nothing ridiculous or absurd about pointing out reality.

What's ridiculous and absurd are your denials of reality.

Like your stating that "the suggestions" that Zimmerman lied about his assets and financial state are "overblown".

There is substantial evidence--physical evidence, like taped phone conversations, and bank records, that confirm the facts that he not only lied about his assets, he colluded with his wife to conceal them by transferring them to other accounts.

Even his poor lawyer, who Zimmerman also lied to, had to go into court and admit to the judge that his client had lied.

Are you still going to contend that Zimmerman didn't lie, or that "suggestions" of his lying have been "overblown"?

Judge denies George Zimmerman request to delay trial in Trayvon Martin case

Quote:

George Zimmerman's attorneys presented a motion Tuesday asking Judge Debra Nelson to push the trial from mid-June back to November because they say the prosecutor has been slow to turn over needed evidence. The state attorney has denied the accusation.

Nelson denied the motion and said the trial will begin on June 10.

It's pretty well documented that he and his wife deliberately misled the court.

We have the prosecution's narrative describing such actions, and we have their claims that certain evidence supports their narrative.

But that does not mean the evidence is as strong as the prosecution claims. And it does not mean their narrative is correct even if their description of the evidence is accurate.

"There's no question that they were talking in this sort of simplistic kind of code, where they were talking about $155 when, without question, they were talking about $155,000," O'Mara told CNN's Piers Morgan on Monday night.

DrewDad wrote:

It's pretty well documented that he and his wife deliberately misled the court.

We have the prosecution's narrative describing such actions, and we have their claims that certain evidence supports their narrative.

But that does not mean the evidence is as strong as the prosecution claims. And it does not mean their narrative is correct even if their description of the evidence is accurate.

But....
Zimmerman obviously lied to the court about lying to the court. That's the only way Oralloy could be right about Zimmerman not lying to the court.

Does that mean the suggestion wasn't overblown since you have now conceded the claim may or may not be overblown?

oralloy wrote:

We have the prosecution's narrative describing such actions, and we have their claims that certain evidence supports their narrative.

But that does not mean the evidence is as strong as the prosecution claims. And it does not mean their narrative is correct even if their description of the evidence is accurate.

Actually, we have the evidence itself. It was made public.

And we also have the defense attorney that concedes the facts are as alleged by the prosecutor.

Quote:

"There's no question that they were talking in this sort of simplistic kind of code, where they were talking about $155 when, without question, they were talking about $155,000," O'Mara told CNN's Piers Morgan on Monday night.

oralloy wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

It's pretty well documented that he and his wife deliberately misled the court.

We have the prosecution's narrative describing such actions, and we have their claims that certain evidence supports their narrative.

But that does not mean the evidence is as strong as the prosecution claims. And it does not mean their narrative is correct even if their description of the evidence is accurate.

Except, you know, that Zimmerman's on the record accepting responsibility for misleading the judge.

But....
Zimmerman obviously lied to the court about lying to the court. That's the only way Oralloy could be right about Zimmerman not lying to the court.