Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

With release of molestation tape, Zimmerman case moves further towards injustice

With release of molestation tape, Zimmerman case moves further towards injustice

The release of an audio tape by an unnamed woman who claims George Zimmerman molested her starting when he was 8 and she was 6 is perhaps the most outrageous attempt to taint the jury pool yet.

Via Orlando Sentinel:

A woman told authorities that murder suspect George Zimmerman sexually molested her for a decade, starting when both were young children, according to prosecution records released today.

The woman, identified only as “witness 9,” said the abuse started when she was six and ended when she was 16. Zimmerman, she said, is about two years older than her….

Witness 9 is not new to the case. Prosecutors released a statement from her several weeks ago in which she told authorities that Zimmerman does not like blacks. In the audio-recorded interview released Monday, she reiterated that but without providing specifics.

Zimmerman and his family, she said, “don’t like black people if they don’t act like white people. They like black people if they act white.”

Had she seen George Zimmerman act with hostility toward a black person, she was asked.

No, she said.

O’Mara had made a last-minute attempt to block the release of her statement as well as the jail calls. He filed a motion Monday morning at the Seminole County Courthouse, asking that they be delayed, but Corey’s office released them anyway. A pending court order required it.

While all molestation is condemnable, the introduction of the allegations into this highly publicized case can only serve to deprive Zimmerman of a fair trial.  The allegations have nothing to do with the charges against Zimmerman, and have every likelihood to taint the jury pool and cause jurors to make a decision based on something other than the evidence at trial.

Via Daily Beast:

Last Friday, Judge Kenneth Lester of Seminole County Circuit Court denied the requests for withholding the discovery and ordered the release of both the audiotapes and 145 calls Zimmerman made from jail. “Its disclosure may have some small impact,” Lester wrote, “but does not rise to the level of ‘a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice.’”

This case is moving from farce to injustice.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Which is precisely the point, injustice for all.

TrooperJohnSmith | July 16, 2012 at 8:15 pm

So, are all of Martin’s character, drug and behavioral issues now admissible? This is an honest question.

Also, why was this allegation even allowed? Was it the “Zimmerman and his family are racist” component?

Also, isn’t this case starting to be a textbook example of issues that will facilitate appeal, if Zimmerman is found guilty?

    caambers in reply to TrooperJohnSmith. | July 17, 2012 at 9:03 am

    Exactly my question Trooper. We’ve been told ad nauseum what an angel Martin was. So…if part of Zimmerman’s claim is that he saw a person staggering and acting suspiciously, wouldn’t Martin’s prior brushes with the law both on campus and off have more of a bearing than unsubstantiated allegations? BTW…this woman was earlier shopping her story to People magazine and others for a payday so she really isn’t very credible. Also note…the tox screen for Martin has never been released. Why? Does it show Martin had been consuming that night and if there is evidence he was under the influence of something, doesn’t that make Zimmerman more credible? Is that why this information still remains under wraps because it would offer more exculpatory evidence? Sorry this is rambling…I need more coffee.

As I have said before, they should just end this charade and nail him to a cross outside the courthouse as a warning to anyone else who dares ….. defend themselves?

Who do they think they are fooling at this point?

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to imfine. | July 17, 2012 at 4:05 am

    This case isn’t about GZ defending himself. It’s about him daring to defend himself against a black man and winning because Martin brought skittles to a gunfight Martin started.

      I think its a little less than that. Any thug would have done, but he shot the man with a gun, and that tied into the whole stand your ground nonsense. Its was nothing more than a tool to vilify a use of a gun against the backdrop of Florida’s affirmative defense against prosecution. They thought they finally had the opportunity to prove that un restrictive gun laws cause violence and death.

      THe funny part is, that if this were a stand your ground case, it would already be dismissed, as the stand your ground defense is a pre trial proceeding, even before the bond hearing IRCC. I am on the ground getting beat up a hoodlum is a trial defense. So you can get away with a lot more at trial and figured they could beat him up a little and try to make sure he comes out completely screwed up.

        G Joubert in reply to imfine. | July 17, 2012 at 5:03 pm

        Your analysis is okay as far as it goes but totally ignores the race component, which, to me, has driven this whole thing more than anything else.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to imfine. | July 17, 2012 at 5:52 pm

        I cannot find any logic or reality in the suggestion that if GZ had shot a white guy or even another Hispanic that this case would have reached the level of exposure it has nor the level of injustice that it has. It is no different then the Duke lacrosse case in which also no crime occurred. A black prostitute cried rape at white boys and the media, the pols and the government were off to the races.

Surely her claim of suffering molestation goes to motive.

Surely her claim that he “don’t like black people if they don’t act like white people” is a condemnation of most people in the civilized world, including black people.

The only reasonable conclusion is that she is prejudiced, possibly tainted by the alleged molestation she claims to have suffered.

So, the moral of the story is that you must be careful when acting in self-defense. If you submit, you will lose your life. If you resist, you may effectively lose your life, and wish that you had submitted.

It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, mad world… or so the fanatics who would like to control it would have us believe.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to n.n. | July 17, 2012 at 6:00 pm

    She wants money from the talk TV victim circuit, just like Trademark’s parents are getting.

    She sees GZ going down in flames as he is legally accosted by a menacing government with no help save that of a weak defense lawyer.

    It’s easy for some chick to present the Poor, Pitiful Pearl-the-victim scam when somebody is down and out. What’s one more kick if it’s worth money to some loser relative? She sees Trademark’s relatives cashing in – why shouldn’t she? I’m sure she will be aptly rewarded for furnishing Judge Lester with another biased nail to hammer into GZ’s coffin.

SmokeVanThorn | July 16, 2012 at 8:21 pm

Despicable – and exactly what I would expect of the prosecution, which will no doubt be defended by its comparably despicable allies.

Amazing, how everyone just assumes that Zimmerman is guilty of being a molester just because some mystery woman says so. She has an agenda of some sort, which may or may not be that Zimmerman abused her.

Given the way this case has gone, I suspect she’s some kind of plant, throwing mud with mad abandon.

This is the way of authoritarian regimes. If one avenue doesn’t work, try another. And keep trying until the truth doesn’t matter and you’ve destroyed your prey. For the Good of the Nation (uber alles!), of course.

    sybilll in reply to CalMark. | July 16, 2012 at 11:02 pm

    I think we should ask the women harrassed by Herman Cain. Oh wait, after their result was achieved, they went away.

      CalMark in reply to sybilll. | July 17, 2012 at 12:42 am

      Exactly.

      When he was threatening the GOP’s version of The One, Herman Cain was the biggest criminal against women ever born. Shocking! Horrifying!

      When he dropped out, these crimes of the century disappeared, probably back into Axelrod’s apartment building where they originated all along.

    imfine in reply to CalMark. | July 17, 2012 at 3:32 am

    I am not sure in what state given if that everything she said was true, that it was molestation. 2 years apart, and no one knowing but her, would indicate a consensual relationship. Unless she can credibly allege rape, I can’t see a crime.

    If you give people an incentive to lie, they will do so. I personally feel that if a woman makes a false rape allegation, she should get the full prison sentence he would have gotten and serve it in the same jail he would have served it in, in the same block and population.

    If anyone thinks its unfair, may I point out prison male on male rape is by far the most common form of rape, and men going to state prison for rape are usually raped themselves.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to imfine. | July 17, 2012 at 6:03 pm

      I’m not sure why you’re even entertaining this smear as though it were true.

      The largest issue is why Judge Lester let this in.

Discovery, as I have said, is a double-edged sword.

The law of Florida mandates public disclosure of some information developed in discovery.

Some here are willing to ASSume the young lady is lying, I suppose because of their own prejudices regarding this case.

On what evidence? The police considered her claims credible (which is not the same as “true”).

Those allegations are not inconsistent with the conduct of a kid who had been physically abused by a parent, as some accounts say GZ was. It is common for them to be hypersexualized as children and adolescents.

Corey, for all her faults, did not make this revelation.

Blame the law of Florida.

    Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 16, 2012 at 8:44 pm

    If you “dislike” what I said, have the guts to say why.

      turfmann in reply to Ragspierre. | July 16, 2012 at 9:24 pm

      I’m sorry, I was under the impression that Zimmerman was being charged with killing Martin. Exactly what about the existence, content or veracity of that tape is germane to a charge of murder? Do you have an answer for that?

      Of course you don’t because Zimmerman isn’t facing a charge of molestation. If there were any veracity to the charge, we would be watching Zimmerman being perpwalked in front of the press going into the courthouse for another arraignment, wouldn’t we?

      Or does it not make more sense that this entire episode is an enormous miscarriage of justice that is going to get one whole hell of a lot worse before it gets better, and that the behavior of the prosecutor is nothing short of incitement to riot.

      “If you “dislike” what I said, have the guts to say why.”

      There’s the “why”. And for the record, I didn’t click the “dislike” in case you’re wondering. I just found your comment infuriating.

        Ragspierre in reply to turfmann. | July 16, 2012 at 9:36 pm

        Fair questions, and full marks for at least having guts.

        “Exactly what about the existence, content or veracity of that tape is germane to a charge of murder?”

        Motive, I guess. I dunno, frankly, being a NOT prosecutor and a NOT criminal attorney.

        Do you know? Can you put yourself in the shoes of the State?

        “If there were any veracity to the charge, we would be watching Zimmerman being perpwalked in front of the press going into the courthouse for another arraignment, wouldn’t we?”

        No, according to what I know about statutes of limitation. There is no argument that anything tolled the running of the statute. But I have not looked up the Florida code on this. Only in the latest alleged incident would there have been a violation from what I understand, because of the ages involved.

          steer in reply to Ragspierre. | July 16, 2012 at 10:08 pm

          I am all in favor of the authorities investigating these accusations and charging Zimmerman with the appropriate molestation charges if there is sufficient evidence to do so.

          Zimmerman is charged with murder that may have been motivated by racist intent. He should receive a fair trial on those charges with impartial jurors with a presumption of innocence, not smeared with a broadstroke of unrelated innuendo before the trial begins.

          Remember that the prosecution has control over who they call as a witness in the first place. This woman did not witness the event and has no evidence to provide on the event itself.

          Don’t think the prosecutors didn’t know that this testimony would have to be released to the public when they called her either–they know Florida law better than anyone. They knew she would not be allowed to testify about this at trial. So they cheated to get this information to the jury pool to demonize Zimmerman and shape the public opinion of jurors, who will all come from this community and will be aware of the testimony with the hyper-coverage of this case. Further, the defense will have no opportunity to cross-examine this woman to determine if she’s even credible. Her accusations will stand unchallenged in the public eye.

          Shame on the prosecutors. While they have a duty to prosecute crimes to the best of their ability, they are abusing the public trust with this sort of tactic. Our system is designed to try people for crimes they have committed beyond a reasonable doubt, not throw people in jail on a panoply of unproven, inflammatory accusations where the jurors will be itching to put Zimmerman in jail for something, anything.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 16, 2012 at 10:17 pm

          “They knew she would not be allowed to testify about this at trial.”

          I understand your statement, but what do you have to support it?

          Why would she not be called to testify?

          VetHusbandFather in reply to Ragspierre. | July 16, 2012 at 10:29 pm

          Motive, I guess. I dunno, frankly, being a NOT prosecutor and a NOT criminal attorney.

          Her statements about molestation have nothing to do with this particular case or establishing a motive for a racially motivated killing.

          Now her statements about him being a racist, those could help establish a motive. But here’s the catch. If he did molest her, and she realized that she’s beyond the statute of limitations, wouldn’t she have a pretty good reason to try and pin murder charges on him too?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 16, 2012 at 10:55 pm

          ‘K, I’ll try a “what if” scenario here, in response to your suppositions…

          Chuck Skinner is good at these, too.

          “Ladies and gentleman, George Zimmerman was an abused child. You have heard testimony that his mother beat him, and his father facilitated that abuse. Growing up, he had no protector.

          “You have heard expert testimony that the child of an abusive parent is often perversely motivated to gain the approval of his or her abuser.

          “You have heard testimony from a childhood friend and relative of Mr. Zimmerman’s that his mother was herself a person who harbored racist feelings and views, despite her own background.

          “We know from the expert testimony of the psychological experts the State has called that an abused child often grows up with a hidden rage, a rage they cannot consciously identify.

          “Often, they become “rescuers” of other people they identify with, and they become hyper-vigilant, even seeing threats that do not exist in reality. In fact, they can actively seek “victims”, or have them drawn to them in some strange way. It is common for them to work in fields of public safety, like in a police force or fire department.

          “It is the State’s position that George Zimmerman is both a victim and a victimizer. He victimized his own relative, as is not uncommon in children who have been treated the way his mother treated him. You heard the testimony of the experts who told you that abused and shamed children are commonly hypersexual in their childhood and adolescence.

          “We have shown you that George Zimmerman, on the night in question, saw a threat that did not exist. He saw Trayvon Martin, a teenager who was doing nothing more threatening than returning from buying some candy and a soft drink, and Mr. Zimmerman took him for a deadly threat. He acted on his perception, wrong though it was, and shot the youth…acting with a depraved mind and killing him on the spot.”

          Now, that is a lawyerly argument that COULD be made. It is not my position.

          Sorry. I’ve been out of town taking the “Advanced Family Mediation” training (I’m actually STILL out of town, but I finally got my dinosaur of a laptop up and running).

          Rags has a point about this. There’s an offense/defense tradeoff to be made. The State, in pressing the attack about the “motive,” opens its case up to the defense asking the question about the basis of that motive. Corey then has to justify it, or the Defense looks at the jury and says [paraphrase – ‘She’s talking nonsense and can only make vague innuendo.’] I can see Corey suggesting that Zimmerman had “hidden rage” from abuse to try to discredit Zimmerman’s choice to investigate Martin’s actions, and then claiming Zimmerman shot when there was a less-lethal course of action open to Zimmerman (regardless if that course of action was “required” by Florida law or not).

          This, by itself though, is weak. Corey NEEDS to taint the jury pool enough to get it into the public conciousness that there is ANOTHER victim (who can’t have charges brought on her behalf because of pesky things like the statute of limitations).

          If Corey goes this route, she will HAVE to say something like what Rags proposed (“We know from the expert testimony of the psychological experts the State has called that an abused child often grows up with a hidden rage, a rage they cannot consciously identify.”) in order to sell it to the jury.

          For those of you who think Witness 9 won’t be called, I would reconsider it. If Zimmerman takes the stand, and at this point I think he has to to make the self-defense argument, all Corey has to do is ask “do you harbor ill-will or have any rage toward toward African Americans who don’t act ‘white?'” Zimmerman says no. Boom. Door opens and Corey then has free reign to “prove” it by calling character witnesses, including witness 9. The press then spends days discussing how “Witness 9, who in her police statement accused Zimmerman of molesting her for 10 years….”

          Regarding the release of witness 9’s statement, I’m of two minds on it.

          Florida’s VERY expansive evidence release law can be of great use to show the weaknesses in the State’s case against Zimmerman, but would also require disclosure of things that are distasteful if they appeared, even when not relevant to the case itself.

          On the other hand, the information is highly prejudicial to the jury pool given the nature of the allegations contained therein.

          But, as with most things in this case, the threshold on appeal or review is “abuse of discretion” or “clear error”, neither of which is present legally in Judge Lester’s choice to release.

          P.S – Retire05 – I don’t have a CLUE who hot-shot young lawyer in the background of the Robert Durst case was, but I didn’t get my JD until 2009, and didn’t actually move to Texas until September of 2009, so it was a little before my time. Who was it?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 18, 2012 at 9:14 am

          Chuck, both of us have a bone to pick with the State Bar Of Texas. Those idiots didn’t send either of us our secret decoder ring and the “A-list” of “brilliant young lawyers you have to know by heart to be a real lawyer in Texas”.

          Again.

        I just found your comment infuriating.

        Occasionally Rags’s positions exasperate me but he strikes me as a good guy.

          Crawford in reply to gs. | July 17, 2012 at 12:11 am

          Really?

          A “good guy” who supports the corruption and abuse of Corey?

          Odd definition of “good guy”.

          creeper in reply to gs. | July 17, 2012 at 11:11 am

          Rags is hamstrung by an unshakable conviction that the system works. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary he will continue to argue that “the system works”. Sometimes it even does, after the victim of the system has spent years and thousands to make it work.

          So far I don’t see the system working well for George Zimmerman.

          “A “good guy” who supports the corruption and abuse of Corey?”

          Corey corrupted herself the very second she had that press conference with the Martin family and submitted the Affidavit of Probable Cause.

      Crawford in reply to Ragspierre. | July 16, 2012 at 11:54 pm

      Tell me — if someone had phoned the police and claimed Zimmerman had abused her aboard a spaceship after the two were abducted by aliens, and, oh, during their time on the spaceship he made disparaging remarks about blacks, would that be valid to release?

      Of course not. Because it has no effing bearing on the effing case at hand. The same is true of these “claims”. They serve only to make people MORE angry at an innocent man; this is no different than a Jim Crow-era Democrat telling how the “boy” they suspected of murder had been seen “leering” at white women.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Ragspierre. | July 17, 2012 at 4:11 am

      I dislike what you said because you are a nutcase.

      Get thee to thy meds.

        You dislike what I said because it is true.

        This release had nothing to do with Corey.

        It nothing to do with an loony conspiracy you’ve devised in your poor old hate-filled cauldron of a “mind”.

        It was made because Florida law required it to be made.

        It was made by a Florida judge who knows boat-loads more about the law of his state than you do…or even Prof. Jacobson does…and who answers to the people of that state.

        All of which I know is like pouring salt on a slug to you.

          steer in reply to Ragspierre. | July 17, 2012 at 1:13 pm

          In response to your question, the witness could be called to testify that Zimmerman was a racist if she had specific testimony such as witnessing a racist act. She could possibly testify as to statements Zimmerman made that were considered racist. She would not be allowed to make general or conclusory statements though such as “the Zimmerman family thought they were better than black people” or “the Zimmermans only liked black people who acted white.”

          Charges that someone molested another 10 or more years ago are irrelevant and completely unrelated to a murder charge. Evidence in a criminal case must relate to the crime with which the defendant is charged. If I am charged with bank robbery, the prosecution can’t put on evidence that I cheat on my wife.

          You responded to my earlier post without acknowledging that the prosecutors knew the witness’ testimony would have to be released to the public and they called this witness knowing they could get inadmissible evidence to the jury pool. Do you not find it problematic that a public official so clearly misused the powers of their office to demonize a defendant to increase their chances of conviction? Shouldn’t we expect and require our prosecutors to make a case with enough evidence to convict a person of the crime for which they are actually charged?

          Anything else is a kangaroo court.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 17, 2012 at 1:28 pm

          “You responded to my earlier post without acknowledging that the prosecutors knew the witness’ testimony would have to be released to the public and they called this witness knowing they could get inadmissible evidence to the jury pool.”

          Are you making the assertion that police should only investigate information from people they KNOW before their inquiry will provide what you call “admissible evidence”?

          That would be a great advance.

          And are you confused about the term “called this witness”, as in at a hearing? Or should they have just decided not to talk to her?

          Because information in a criminal trial MAY be mandated released, do you actually figure people sit around laying traps like you seem to hint at? And here, did you miss that the State opposed release back in June?

    Rags, whether you are right or wrong isn’t the point. The way I read it this was a decision by the Judge, not the prosecutor. And I think this proves the wisdom of the defense’s earlier request hishonor step aside. It has nothing to do with the young woman’s veracity, motive or opinion. If she deliberately chooses to remain anonymous she doesn’t “exist”. So why should her statement? This was a backhanded way for the judge to play “gotcha” with the defense, and it reflects poorly on his judicial temperament and judgment, in my opinion. Thank you for explaining where I’m in error.

      Ragspierre in reply to 49erDweet. | July 16, 2012 at 9:58 pm

      **If she deliberately chooses to remain anonymous she doesn’t “exist”.**

      I get your confusion.

      Who redacted her identity? Did she? Do you know?

      In a trial, her identity cannot be kept secret, and I have no information showing the defense does not know who she is. In fact, I expect that she is well known to the defense. They have indicated they will be refuting her allegations.

      http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/press-releases/39-zimmerman-defense-responds-to-witness-9-statements

      This is how the system works. It is not all one way or the other.

        Crawford in reply to Ragspierre. | July 16, 2012 at 11:51 pm

        “This is how the system works.”

        More a slow-motion lynch mob than a search for the facts and administration of justice?

        You seem to think that’s a Good Thing.

          Ragspierre in reply to Crawford. | July 16, 2012 at 11:57 pm

          So, you disapprove of the laws the people of Florida have had passed?

          When did you first know you hated democracy?

          Crawford in reply to Crawford. | July 17, 2012 at 12:15 am

          So the court has to include every false tip and glory seeker in the evidence they release? There’s no discretion for the court to withhold obviously irrelevant accusations?

          I’ve seen one loon claim that Zimmerman was a member of a secret group of white-supremacists — had she called the police, should her claims have been included?

          What if someone called up saying they knew Zimmerman was from Mars and was the vanguard of an invasion force? Or that he was the secret clone of Adolph Hitler, a la “Boys from Brazil”?

          Crawford in reply to Crawford. | July 17, 2012 at 12:29 am

          “When did you first know you hated democracy?”

          The moment I learned the difference between democracy and a Constitutional Republic.

          Ragspierre in reply to Crawford. | July 17, 2012 at 12:32 am

          Like the one in Florida, you dummy???

          Seriously, why do you hate the rule of law?

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Crawford. | July 17, 2012 at 4:16 am

          He does. He’s a dyed-in-the-wool statist who thinks the government can do no wrong. If Prosecutor Angela Corey wanted to enter a statement from the ghost of Abe Lincoln that GZ had been a slave-owner, Rags will think it should come in.

          Whatever Angie wants, Angie should get, according to this nutburger.

          Ragspierre in reply to Crawford. | July 17, 2012 at 7:52 am

          Of course, being from the loony JackedRacist who only a few days ago asked what was wrong with hate, every word of that is a lie.

It is pretty clear the woman making the allegations is racist as she accuses Zimmerman of only liking blacks who “act white.” The common usage of this phrase is in regards to blacks who excel in school and obey the law. The obverse is that it assumes true blacks are all gang bangers and the like which is as racist an attitude as it is possible to have.

Zimmerman is pretty squirrely IMO but so far there has not been even a shred of evidence that he acted inappropriately. The prosecution’s case is literally based on nothing so they will try to make Zimmerman plea bargain by dragging in all of this extraneous stuff about the bond and his behavior as a child.

You have to remember that the police chief was forced out and the lead detective was demoted for failure to bring charges so the city of Sanford is facing a huge number of potential civil suits if they can’t convict Zimmerman of something… anything really.. to justify their actions. That is what this is all about.

    VetHusbandFather in reply to Voluble. | July 16, 2012 at 9:55 pm

    The obverse is that it assumes true blacks are all gang bangers and the like which is as racist an attitude as it is possible to have.

    Given what you said, and this quote:

    Zimmerman and his family, she said, “don’t like black people if they don’t act like white people. They like black people if they act white.”

    Couldn’t we sum up her claim as: GZ like’s people who are productive members of society and dislikes gangbangers regardless of their respective races.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to VetHusbandFather. | July 17, 2012 at 6:13 pm

      Indeed, and he would be correct.

      The remark actually says more about the speaker than it does GZ. She clearly values “acting black” and all the gross failures that entails than she does the successes and productivity of “acting white.”

“The allegations have nothing to do with the charges against Zimmerman…”

Really, Prof.?

Have you seen the shape of the State’s case against Zimmerman?

If you have, please give us a synopsis.

If you have not, I don’t see how you can say that from any rational position.

(Rat pile begins in 3…2…)

    OcTEApi in reply to Ragspierre. | July 16, 2012 at 9:39 pm

    Seriously? the rat pile of victimhood..

    I thought you were the brave Indian scout taking arrows shots and collecting feathers.

      He was until he began carrying water for the prosecution. Lost the incentive to disagree agreeably.

        Crawford in reply to 49erDweet. | July 17, 2012 at 12:04 am

        It’s not that he’s backing the prosecution in a high-profile case — it’s that he’s backing a corrupt prosecution that has committed perjury and, frankly, appears to be trying to get an innocent man murdered.

      Ragspierre in reply to OcTEApi. | July 16, 2012 at 9:47 pm

      I don’t count myself as a…

      1. Indian

      2. victim

      I understand you are too demented by your personal hatred to get these subtleties.

      Carry on with your lies… (Nothing I can do will stop you, and I find it amusing.)

        retire05 in reply to Ragspierre. | July 16, 2012 at 10:08 pm

        You are absolutely the most paranoid poster on any website (or all the blogs you are constantly posting on). Everybody hates you and every body lies about you, to hear you tell it.

        Problem is, Rags, you are not smart enough to know that people are laughing at you, not with you.

          Ragspierre in reply to retire05. | July 16, 2012 at 10:19 pm

          “Everybody hates you and every body lies about you, to hear you tell it.”

          Got links?

          See, I recall a thread where you were caught with your pants around your ankles. Everybody laughed and laughed! I was one.

        PhillyGuy in reply to Ragspierre. | July 16, 2012 at 10:29 pm

        That was an amazing display of self immolation. Rather complete I’d say.

        retire05 in reply to Ragspierre. | July 16, 2012 at 11:07 pm

        Rags, I’m sure is anyone is an expert on having their pants around their ankles, you are.

        OcTEApi in reply to Ragspierre. | July 16, 2012 at 11:44 pm

        So you’re denying that you compared yourself to an Indian scout? … where “Scouts take the arrows” and in “stepping out and say(ing) what others won’t” you’re laying bare the lessons of enlightenment for us all to see, but hey if its unpopular you “can deal with the slings and arrows”

        Just sayin’ the whole “Umm…rat pilers…” meme now sounds a bit victimy.

        You’ll put your eye out scout.

          Ragspierre in reply to OcTEApi. | July 16, 2012 at 11:53 pm

          Yep, liar, I sure am.

          I know you just can’t see past your person butt-hurt.

          Butt try…!!!

          Get it?

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to OcTEApi. | July 17, 2012 at 4:52 am

          I remember Rags’ scout and arrows thingy. Comical.

          He’s as a big a fraud as Elizabeth Warren and an insult to native Americans.

          Ragspierre in reply to OcTEApi. | July 17, 2012 at 7:55 am

          Except that its another lie. It had nothing to do with Indians. But that is you all over.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Ragspierre. | July 17, 2012 at 4:22 am

        You’re the biggest liar I’ve ever seen on the ‘net.

        You try to pass yourself off as a lawyer here, yet no real lawyer would support this judge’s decision with a straight face.

        You’re a liar, not a lawyer. You’re an irrational little boy begging for attention, any attention; even negative attention.

        Rags, it must really, really suck being you.

          I thought you were smearing Angela Corey over this. You need to make up your crazy old, hate-twisted “mind” about whose reputation you are going to destroy.

          There are a whole country of lawyers who support this decision with a straight face, loony.

          Because it is the law, and we are officers of the court.

          You need to hurry down to Florida so you can straighten all those people who pushed for open information out.

          Go girl! They need a lil’ crazy dictator down there who just KNOWS her some innocent when she sees it.

    Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 16, 2012 at 10:26 pm

    Umm…rat pilers…

    My question was addressed to the Prof.

    You can rat-pile on a different sub-thread.

    ‘K…?

    Crawford in reply to Ragspierre. | July 16, 2012 at 11:55 pm

    “Have you seen the shape of the State’s case against Zimmerman?”

    You mean the ball of perjury submitted by the special-ed persecutor?

    Yes. It’s ridiculous.

      Ragspierre in reply to Crawford. | July 16, 2012 at 11:59 pm

      Really, you should TRY not to make stupid, unsupported statements.

        Crawford in reply to Ragspierre. | July 17, 2012 at 12:07 am

        Wow. Have you NOT been paying attention to this case?

        Corey, is that you? Not content with making insane phone calls to Harvard?

          Ragspierre in reply to Crawford. | July 17, 2012 at 12:14 am

          No, dummy, I’ve read the Florida Criminal Code Of Procedure on charging instruments.

          You?

          Cite to the code, please, idiot.

          Crawford in reply to Crawford. | July 17, 2012 at 12:21 am

          This case should never have reached the stage of charges being filed.

          776.012: person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
          (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;

          Ragspierre in reply to Crawford. | July 17, 2012 at 12:28 am

          Oh! Golly! Rush down to the court house in Florida, and explain all this to the people there.

          It will save NO TELLING HOW MUCH on a trial.

          Shoot. Problem solved!!!

          Crawford in reply to Crawford. | July 17, 2012 at 12:32 am

          So you can’t actually find fault in the application of the self-defense statute?

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Crawford. | July 17, 2012 at 4:49 am

          He’s paying attention to the case. He drools over every news release. He lives for them. They make him tick.

          It’s just that he’s a lying, twisted nutburger who tries to spin fantasy into reality in any instance he perceives as an opportunity to disparage GZ.

          He first tried to seem fair-minded, but he’s full-blown out of the closet now as an anti-GZ spinmeister. In so doing, he has revealed gross ignorance about the law and exposed himself as a fraud.

          Ragspierre in reply to Crawford. | July 17, 2012 at 8:02 am

          Except I’ve spent a lot of time defending Zimmerman from the haters on the other end of the spectrum from you, dear.

          As you know. You just hate me ’cause I won’t join your little mob, and advertised your admissions of bigotry.

        Crawford in reply to Ragspierre. | July 17, 2012 at 12:10 am

        Go read what Dershowitz wrote about the affidavit:

        “She was aware when she submitted an affidavit that it did not contain the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

        Isn’t the requirement for sworn statements that they be “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”? And couldn’t I be charged with perjury for failing to adhere to that standard?

        So why is the prosecutor — an officer of the court! — not held to the same standard? Why are you accepting her perjury as TRVTH?

          Ragspierre in reply to Crawford. | July 17, 2012 at 12:17 am

          Has it crossed you addled skull that Dershowitz was talking out his ass?

          Do you EVER look under the hood of crap you hear on TV?

          I do. Post a link to a Florida attorney who agrees with the Dersh.

          Explain why NOBODY in Florida has filed a writ of mandamus if the Corey charging instrument is a HOOOOOOOORRRABLE to Florida law.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Crawford. | July 17, 2012 at 4:41 am

          There are a whole lot of people talking out their ass, but Dersh ain’t one of them.

          Those talking out their ass are:

          Rags
          Angela Corey
          Judge Lester
          Trademark’s parents
          Trademark’s parents’ lawyers
          Al Dumbton
          Barack Hussein Obama
          NBC
          CNN
          MSNBC
          the ‘cousin’

          Ragspierre in reply to Crawford. | July 17, 2012 at 8:05 am

          But he is, dear. Dershowitz was showboating. Again. Some more. It is who he is.

          He was talking big. But he had NO LAW behind it. See?

        retire05 in reply to Ragspierre. | July 17, 2012 at 11:24 am

        Ah, now we have Rags (of the Costa Rica Mail Order Law School Degree) saying that Dershowitz, who has a home in Florida, who has practiced law in Florida and who has advised the State of Florida on certain cases, is clueless while on the other hand, our own Rags is much more learned about Florida law.

        All the while Rags continues calling people liars and accusing them of “hating” him/her.

        Tell us Rags, what prominent cases have you ever worked on? After all, anyone who has a much time on their hands as you seem to have must be limited to ONE major client. And didn’t you say that criminal law was NOT your specialty? Seems I remember you saying over at Riehlworld that you are a tax lawyer.

        Frankly, I think you are a lawyer wannabe.

          Ragspierre in reply to retire05. | July 17, 2012 at 11:46 am

          http://viewfromll2.com/2012/04/29/why-alan-dershowitz-is-completely-wrong-about-the-zimmerman-case/

          There you go, you old fool. Read the LAW incorporated in that piece.

          I am a civil law generalist, and the furthest thing from a tax lawyer. I cannot advise anyone on tax matters because I cannot be objective about the tax code.

          I made no claims of being learned in Florida law. I expressly say so rather often. That is one of your lies.

          I do research things when they interest me, so I do know what I know.

          Really, I can recommend it. Give it a try. Then, you won’t be pwnd by a Dershowitz showboating episode.

          I have a very Galtish practice, which has already earned me more than I targeted this year (just settled a million-dollar partnership case that I thought I’d have to try).

          Now I just have a few matters on hand, and two new suits to file. This is good, ’cause it gives me time to do things I enjoy.

          Cheers!

          retire05 in reply to retire05. | July 17, 2012 at 12:16 pm

          Rags, since you claim to be such a hot shot lawyer in Texas, then here is a little test for you:

          in the Robert Durst case, defended by Dick DeGuerin, DeGuerin hired a brilliant young attorney to do the investigative work for their client. This young attorney was so good that all major law firms in Texas (Fulbright and Jawarski; Richard Haynes’ law firm, et al) all tried to hire him but he went into private practice instead.

          Although this young lawyer appeared in court a couple of times during the Durst trial, he operated very much under the radar but not so far as to not having every legal eagle in Texas talking about how good he is.

          If you are really what you claim, you will know the name of that young lawyer. So……………who was he?

          Ragspierre in reply to retire05. | July 17, 2012 at 12:38 pm

          I’m sure I could find out with a little research, but I won’t try.

          I don’t know, and don’t care. The brilliant Texas attorneys I know jack-spit about would fill phone books. And do.

          And I damn sure fail your Red Moby Dick test. Which proves nothing at all except I can’t read your stupid old mind.

          Oh, and that I have nothing to prove to you or anybody here.

          retire05 in reply to retire05. | July 17, 2012 at 12:49 pm

          Rags, what a joke you are.

          There should have to be no research on your part to give me the name of the young lawyer that had all of the Texas legal profession buzzing. The fact that you don’t know the name of that young lawyer tells me you are a phony. You don’t know swat and are just like Alex Baldwin, you’re really not an attorney but you have played one on a blog. Bet you have stayed at a Holiday Inn, as well.

          This attorney I questioned you about has been written about in every major newspaper in Texas, yet you have to research to learn his name?

          So, why don’t you just toddle on over to some “Lynch Zimmerman” website where your dishonesty will be appreciated. Everyone here already has your number – 0.

          Ragspierre in reply to retire05. | July 17, 2012 at 12:55 pm

          You haven’t even tried to read the link that fisks Dershowitz, have you?

          Naw. You’re too busy creating idiot “guess what I’m thinking” games, and declaring yourself the winner.

          Apparently your stupid assertions about this “brilliant young lawyer” are as false as a lot of what you say, ’cause I’ve never even heard other lawyers refer to ANYBODY like that.

          What a moronic liar.

          retire05 in reply to retire05. | July 17, 2012 at 1:15 pm

          Rags, pretty hard to hear what lawyers talk about among themselves when you (YOU) are NOT one of them.

          You are a total phony, a lawyer wannabe. Nothing you have ever provided is anything more than what can be gleened from the internet (such as Florida statutes) or your opinion derived from someone else.

          You’re a laughing stock, only you’re too stupid to realize it. And the fact that you don’t know the name of a lawyer that is in such demand all across Texas in many kinds of litigation, shows it.

          Ragspierre in reply to retire05. | July 17, 2012 at 1:39 pm

          Well, old lying fool, you need to do the right thing and report me to the State Bar Of Texas, because I AM an attorney, I DO represent clients in various civil matters in the counties surrounding Harris County (including Galveston County, Fort Bend County, Waller County, and Montgomery County).

          So you go to the website and make a bar complaint against me for practicing without a license. That’ll be fun!

          http://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=For_The_Public

          Please, please, please…!!!

          retire05 in reply to retire05. | July 17, 2012 at 2:49 pm

          Rags, what do you think you accomplished by providing a link to the Texas State Bar Association?

          Here’s the deal, give me your name and I will be happy to issue a complaint against you.(and don’t ask what the complaints will entail. You’ll find out soon enough)

          And now you claim to practice in Harris and Galveston Counties and you don’t know the name of the lawyer I questioned you about?

          Are you freaking brain dead?

          And just what kind of law is it you practice? I would like to question a few Harris/Galveston County attorneys that I know about you.

          Now, brave enough to provide your name or are you going to continue throwing out pointless web links and hide behind your moniker?

          Ragspierre in reply to retire05. | July 17, 2012 at 3:00 pm

          Yah, old lying idiot.

          Send me your SSN, and I’ll send you my bar number…after I’ve verified your number, ’cause you are a terrible, demonstrated liar.

          What a moron.

          BTW, did you ever figure out the Florida code section under which you wanted to see Serino arrested a few days back?

          When you were made the butt boy of that thread?

          You gonna hide behind your moniker?

          Have you read the link I provided, and are you ready to acknowledge that Dershowitz was talking out his butt? Or do you just refuse to let any new information into that poor old stupid head of yours?

          retire05 in reply to retire05. | July 17, 2012 at 3:23 pm

          Yeah, Rags, I read your link. Seems that at least one of the attorneys there loooooves to donate tens of thousands of dollars to the Obama campaigns, past and present.

          Oh, and does this number ring a bell with you (I’ll use a couple of Xs to protect you although you certainly deserve a total thrashing)

          [content removed]

          William A. Jacobson in reply to retire05. | July 17, 2012 at 4:08 pm

          Let this be a warning to ALL the people who have gone over the edge in this debate, but particularly to anyone who seeks to post personal information about other commenters. Cut it out or I’ll ban the whole lot of you.

          Ragspierre in reply to retire05. | July 17, 2012 at 3:41 pm

          First, does the law show Deshowitz was full of crap?

          Yes or no.

          Not do you like the author, or do I like the author. Is the law supportive of Dershowitz, or does it destroy the BS Dershowitz was throwing around?

          Second, yep. Sure does look familiar.

          Now, couple of things:

          1. admit you are a lying old fool

          2. be very, very careful. You are dancing very close to a tort right now. And I know a lot of very good lawyers (in addition to myself. PLUS, you are in Texas, and I can very easily get to you.

          3. you’ve already done something that I have never done to anyone, and never will. You need to get control of yourself, or I will help you.

          retire05 in reply to retire05. | July 17, 2012 at 4:03 pm

          Rags, your empty threats ring quite hollow. I see the number I provided you with hit its mark.

          Tort against me? What a freaking joke. You have left an internet trail a mile wide and three yards deep. I have not done anything to warrent any tort action against me by you. But you have, making implied threats of legal action against me.

          News flash, Rags, Google is NOT your friend.

VetHusbandFather | July 16, 2012 at 9:47 pm

Wow… I think the worst part about this is that the article I read (linked in the tip line) made absolutely no mention of GZ’s age at the time. Basically it said that he molested a 6 year old girl… and left me to assume he was an adult at the time. Talk about terrible reporting!

“he was 8 and she was 6”

When I was that age, we called it “playing doctor.” Had we not been caught, and had our activities not been nipped in the bud, I believe we would have continued. Yes…it was fun. ;o)

I hope GZ is able to receive a fair trial. If this kind of reporting continues, I’m afraid he won’t.

    theduchessofkitty in reply to kakypat. | July 17, 2012 at 12:10 am

    He won’t get a fair trial: they want to make sure of that.

    It might be a better thing if this is transferred to another county, or even north to Georgia if that can be done… but I’m getting the bad feeling that nothing short of an old-fashioned lynching will be the end of this for some people…

And now TV networks are playing a recording of this anonymous woman’s statements!

Are convictions ever overturned on the grounds of pre-trial publicity?

She and her parents eventually confronted Zimmerman at an Orlando-area restaurant, she said. Zimmerman said he was sorry and left, she said.

This kind of makes me question her credibility, to be honest.

“Mom, Dad, this older boy whose family you trust has been molesting me for years and years.”
“That’s okay, hon, he said he was sorry.”

I really can’t grasp that her parents would “confront” him over this (meaning they were aware of at least some of what she’s alleging”), that he would merely say that he’s “sorry” and leave (meaning that he confirmed at least part of their story to him), and leave it at that (because we sure as heck would have heard about the allegations before now if they followed through in any way).

    retire05 in reply to malclave. | July 16, 2012 at 10:12 pm

    If you were going to confront someone with such serious allegations, would you do it in a restaurant?

    Seems to me, knowing Hispanic family culture, that the meeting, if it ever really happened, would have been in the family’s home, not in a public place.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to retire05. | July 17, 2012 at 4:34 am

      NO! Dignified people would not discuss intimate family matters in a such a public place.

      Nobody should entertain anything this woman says. To do so only gives credence to Judge Lester’s absurd decision here.

L.N. Smithee | July 16, 2012 at 11:06 pm

I am of the opinion that Zimmerman needed to be charged with a crime. I expected that to be a manslaughter charge, not a murder charge. I was willing to entertain the idea that there might be evidence that would justify a murder charge. So far, I haven’t heard or seen anything of that nature.

While some said that it was strange that his bail was revoked for misleading the court on the amount he had in his defense fund. I might have agreed, if not for the fact that he concealed that he had another passport.

This latest stuff, however, is nuts. Whether or not he is a pervert hasn’t a maddog thing to do with whether or not he’s a murderer.

    Crawford in reply to L.N. Smithee. | July 17, 2012 at 12:02 am

    The passport thing was never an issue; as soon as they found it, O’Mara had it. Initially the judge even said it was a non-issue.

    The “perjury” about the defense fund is nothing of the sort. The persecutor EDITED the transcript of Mrs. Zimmerman’s statements to CREATE perjury. The unedited statements make it clear that Mrs. Zimmerman simply did not know at the time she was asked, offered to get the information from someone who did, and that the persecutor declined to follow up.

    Is saying “I don’t know; here’s the person who would” perjury? Is failing to have a piece of information at hand and the state failing to follow up perjury?

    Isn’t editing someone’s statement in order to create a falsehood itself perjury?

      Ragspierre in reply to Crawford. | July 17, 2012 at 9:54 am

      Gosh, you really have your hair on fire over this case, huh?

      A lot of what you’re saying is just plain wrong, you know.

      Seriously. Nobody “edited” any flucking thing. “Excerpting” from a transcript is done constantly. So long as a question is matched with an answer in a fair manner.

      And everyone with a functioning moral compass knows that the Zimmermans tried to play cute with the process.

      Including Zimmerman and O’Mara. (Several of you are excused on that whole moral compass thingy; you know who you are!)

        Crawford in reply to Ragspierre. | July 17, 2012 at 5:00 pm

        ““Excerpting” from a transcript is done constantly. So long as a question is matched with an answer in a fair manner.”

        Excising the MIDDLE of an answer is not “excerpting”, particularly when it changes the meaning of the answer.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Crawford. | July 17, 2012 at 6:35 pm

          It is barbaric to “excerpt” to create a straw man such that when it is taken as superficially as possible, as occurred here, it is used to imprison a man, smear him, and deplete him of resources of paramount importance to his defense and continuing security.

          Barbaric, as in “travesty” to the 1,000th power.

          Ragspierre in reply to Crawford. | July 17, 2012 at 8:07 pm

          Except that didn’t happen.

          A question was asked. It was answered.

          Nobody made St. George play cute with transfers of money in and out of accounts. St. George did that all by himself…with wifey. And everybody knows it. Including St. George.

          He is not a victim here. He is getting what he asked for in his conduct around the bond hearing.

          Again, that is a dirty, rotten shame, because he damaged his case immensely.

Jusuchin (Military Otaku) | July 16, 2012 at 11:20 pm

If they cannot crucify him in court they will find other means.

BannedbytheGuardian | July 16, 2012 at 11:37 pm

On many many levels this is disturbing.

My reaction to girl abused stories is to believe that something happened but not necessarily by the accused person. Transference of experience to someone they actually liked & in retrospect are angry that x person (the accused ) did not help them . Not that the accused even knew about it.

A few weeks ago I picked up a sexual angle emerging but (cougars on the jury ) that could help him. This is the Prosecution trying to stamp that out.

BannedbytheGuardian | July 17, 2012 at 2:40 am

Oh boy . I went over to conservativetreehouse -I had been once before when they analyzed the drug talk. They are very much into this case.

Turns out the lady is GZ’s cousin & has tried to sell her story. Her father was at one time a spokesperson for the Zimmerman family. George also worked for him & seems to have liked him.

They have her mugshot from a DUI her Fb & her work pic in Dad’s Allstate Insurance polo.

Immediately she took her Fb down but they have screenshopped it all.

Treehouse has her analysed as bordeline Personality Disorder & some have come up with a similar take as I.

The site even has its very own Rags who has GZ as the abused child abusing others line.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | July 17, 2012 at 4:30 am

    She and her story will be discredited, but that won’t be reported. She’ll get paid by the media, just like Trademark Martin’s parents have been getting paid (about $500k now) for their appearances and speeches.

If as alleged the “molestation” began when they were 8 & 6 (can an 8 year old form a sexual intent?) and continued for ten years, up to about ten years ago. So a 16 year old in 2002 couldn’t make a sexual allegation against a cousin?

In any case, there is pretty clearly far more prejudicial than probative value in making this public. It is to poison the jury pool.

    Midwest Rhino in reply to Estragon. | July 17, 2012 at 8:15 am

    she says he was “almost 8”, or more clearly, “he was seven”.

    From the day of Corey’s lovey dovey praising of dear Trayvon’s sweet and wonderful parents, this case seems to have been turned into a lynching to appease the race-baiters like Sharpton.

    But with this judge’s actions, and the clumsy and thuggish Obama regime, their need to win Florida, and their propensity to create a crisis at every turn …. there may be even more sinister efforts at work.

    It seems that Chavez may be another role model for Obama. Obama was united with Chavez when Zelaya tried to move toward dictatorship. Jarret praises “Czar” Van Jones, who loved how Chavez controlled the media, and ran as a champion for the little guy, fighting oppressors.

    And this fits in well with the anti-colonial, black theology decades long background of Obama. White (Hispanic) man aggressor with gun, stalks and kills black child with candy. They need to continue the narrative, and reinforce their image of the white man as the abuser. Conveniently, this woman with a story to sell comes along and is escorted to the headlines and news cycle.

    It appears to me this is not about Zimmerman, Zimmerman is just the means for pushing another national narrative through the news cycles … another tool to divide (and conquer).

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Estragon. | July 17, 2012 at 6:39 pm

    Kinda makes you wonder whose idea it was, doesn’t it?

    “Hey, girl, wanna make some money and get some celebrity? You’re related to George, right? Known him all your life, right? Well, I have a few questions for you. Think long and hard about your answers…heh….heh….”

O’Mara then filed paperwork, asking the judge to reconsider.

***Prosecutors also want it withheld.***

Lawyers for more than a dozen news companies, including the Orlando Sentinel, however, have argued that the statement should come out.

The judge on Friday listened to their arguments and said he would rule later.

Zimmerman remains held without bail at the Seminole County Jail on a second degree murder charge. Lester is expected to rule this week whether to grant bail and what amount.
—————————————–

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-07-02/news/os-george-zimmerman-witness-9-20120702_1_prosecutors-statements-witness

Now, that IS from a Mushroom media source, so I read it with a grain of salt.

But don’t a lot of you…if that is true…feel stupid?

Florida law REQUIRES that discovery products in some cases be made available to the PRESS.

Just like I said above.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Ragspierre. | July 17, 2012 at 9:09 am

    No . We are in Discovery . Anything goes it seems.

    SmokeVanThorn in reply to Ragspierre. | July 17, 2012 at 12:46 pm

    “Florida law REQUIRES that discovery products in some cases be made available to the PRESS.”

    Please cite the case law, statute or regulation that you think REQUIRES the dislosure of this information to the press.

        SmokeVanThorn in reply to Ragspierre. | July 17, 2012 at 4:40 pm

        Just as I expected.

        Under Florida law, the judge ruling on a motion for protective order with respect to the public diclosure of criminal discovery is required to weigh a variety of competing concerns, including the dangers of prejudice versus the requirements of Ch. 119, etc. How to resolve these conflicting interests in a given case is far from clearcut.

        One can argue that the judge’s ruling re: Witness #9 is defensible – although both defense and prosecution opposed disclosure. But characterizing it as REQUIRED by Florida law or saying that “Florida law required that it be made” – suggesting that no other decision was possible and therefore any criticism of the judge is unjustified – is wrong.

          Ragspierre in reply to SmokeVanThorn. | July 17, 2012 at 5:01 pm

          And nobody ever made that assertion, either.

          It was a call left to the judge, how knows the law.

          He would have to articulate a reason NOT to disclose it that was compelling.

          Would he NOT?

          And he did not find one.

          Right?

          Crawford in reply to SmokeVanThorn. | July 17, 2012 at 5:07 pm

          Since Florida law does not permit previous convictions to be presented in cases like this, as they’re prejudicial, it’s no surprise that prejudicial information from discovery can be kept sealed as well.

          And it’s pretty clear Witless #9’s entire statement is inadmissable:

          “90.403 Exclusion on grounds of prejudice or confusion.

          Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”

          The danger of unfair prejudice is clear, and I think it’s reasonable to fear “confusion of issues” — a juror deciding to vote for conviction in order to punish for “what he did to that girl”.

          Ragspierre in reply to SmokeVanThorn. | July 17, 2012 at 5:19 pm

          90.403 Exclusion on grounds of prejudice or confusion

          ….is a trial rule.

          It is not a public disclosure rule.

          A Florida judge, how knows these rules pretty well from his writings, and a lot more besides…

          and has presided over many criminal trials…

          ruled that information had to be disclosed according to the mandates of the laws and constitution of Florida.

          You are not only second guessing him, you are calling him corrupt. That is without any support I can find.

          SmokeVanThorn in reply to SmokeVanThorn. | July 17, 2012 at 5:47 pm

          Without conceding that you’ve stated the standard properly, the fact that the judge has the “call left to [him]” and “knows the law” doesn’t mean that he made the right call or applied the law properly. That’s why there are appellate courts.

          You’ve posted several comments attempting to convince readers that any result other than the disclosure of Witness #9’s statement was impossible under Florida law and that there is no reasonable basis upon which to criticize it. (“The law of Florida mandates public disclosure,” “was made because Florida law required it to be made,” “made by a Florida judge who knows boat-loads more about the law of his state than you do,” “There are a whole country of lawyers who support this decision with a straight face, loony. Because it is the law, and we are officers of the court.” “Florida law REQUIRES that discovery products in some cases be made available to the PRESS.”) That simply isn’t true.

          Ragspierre in reply to SmokeVanThorn. | July 17, 2012 at 6:04 pm

          “That simply isn’t true”.

          Put up my quotes in context, because your last statement is very true, though not in the way you wrote it.

          Anyone who wants to acquaint themselves…rather than taking your word or mine…with the bias toward disclosure in Florida law can start at page 4 and read on…

          http://www.scribd.com/doc/90842186/State-vs-Zimmerman-WFTV-Inc-Motion-to-Intervene

          If you quoted me in the context of the madness of some of the comments I was responding to, I think the result would be to show that…

          1. it’s materially different to rationally disagree with a ruling than to…

          2. imply or expressly assert a judge is deliberately poisoning a jury pool…

          3. without any rational support for the latter

          I said…more than once to universal disapproval…that the disclosure was not a decision by Corey, was a decision within the discretion of the Court, and was one that Florida law mandated (without adding that “absent a compelling reason not to disclose” part, but who was listening?).

          Nobody said, “Oh, but Rags, I think the judge, while following the law, made the wrong call as respects…”

          Even Prof. Bill allowed his good sense to be overcome (I respectfully assert).

          Please.

          Ragspierre in reply to SmokeVanThorn. | July 17, 2012 at 6:09 pm

          “The law of Florida mandates public disclosure,” TRUE

          “was made because Florida law required it to be made,” TRUE

          “made by a Florida judge who knows boat-loads more about the law of his state than you do,” TRUE

          “There are a whole country of lawyers who support this decision with a straight face, loony. Because it is the law, and we are officers of the court.” TRUE

          “Florida law REQUIRES that discovery products in some cases be made available to the PRESS.” TRUE

          Now, we would have to qualify some of those true statements, to be sure.

          Thing is, a JUDGE is making a decision. It isn’t…like most true things in the law…cut and dried. That is WHY there is a judge.

          Right?

      Ragspierre in reply to SmokeVanThorn. | July 17, 2012 at 6:59 pm

      Let’s be candid and truthful, shall we, Smoke?

      SmokeVanThorn | July 16, 2012 at 8:21 pm

      Despicable – and exactly what I would expect of the prosecution, which will no doubt be defended by its comparably despicable allies.
      ————————————
      Your first post on the thread.

      Ragspierre | July 16, 2012 at 8:39 pm

      Discovery, as I have said, is a double-edged sword.

      The law of Florida mandates public disclosure of some information developed in discovery.

      Some here are willing to ASSume the young lady is lying, I suppose because of their own prejudices regarding this case.

      On what evidence? The police considered her claims credible (which is not the same as “true”).

      Those allegations are not inconsistent with the conduct of a kid who had been physically abused by a parent, as some accounts say GZ was. It is common for them to be hypersexualized as children and adolescents.

      Corey, for all her faults, did not make this revelation.

      Blame the law of Florida
      ——————————

      My first post on the thread.

      Seems pretty clear who was more correct and tied to sanity.

        SmokeVanThorn in reply to Ragspierre. | July 17, 2012 at 10:19 pm

        You continue with the “Florida law mandates” meme, as if the judge could not have ruled in any other way. Lester could have ordered non-disclosure but chose not to do so. Continuing to say that Florida law “requires” or “mandates” disclosure doesn’t make it so – it’s just an expression of your opinion that Florida precluded any other result. That simply isn’t true.

        I will leave it to others to decide whether the comment you cite – in which you attribute skepticism regarding the belated accusations of Witness #9 to prejudice while making a sophomoric joke based on the word “assume” – and your comments in their entirety are evidence of your correctness and “being tied to sanity.”

        Good night.

          Ragspierre in reply to SmokeVanThorn. | July 18, 2012 at 12:34 am

          “Thing is, a JUDGE is making a decision. It isn’t…like most true things in the law…cut and dried. That is WHY there is a judge.

          Right?”

          What I said was what is true.

          The law of Florida starts from the bias that disclosure is mandatory. Any fool can read the law and rules cited in the pleading filed by the press, and see that is a strong presumption.

          Judge Lester COULD decide to run counter to that.

          As I made clear now several times. Otherwise, the issue would not require a “judgment”. It would be ministerial.

          But the law of Florida…and of this court sans a successful appeal (which nobody even attempted)…is that release of this material WAS mandated, because the necessary showing to REVERSE the strong bias for release was not satisfied.

          Which is what is true.

          Just as I said.

          Sleep well.

[…] Legal Insurrection: With release of molestation tape, Zimmerman case moves further towards injustice […]

Knowing that Rags would comment on this, and a firestorm would ensue, I decided to stay out of it.

Now that the smoke is cleared, and the dead laid to rest, I’m inclined to comment on something that is overlooked.

In the audio, the detective asks No. 9 to be more specific as to her “proof” that the Zimmerman family is racist.

She recalled a conversation with Zimmerman’s mother. Obama was brought up. She told the detective that Zimmerman’s mother did not like Barack Obama.

Ready for the “if you don’t like Obama, you must be a racist” meme..

She said (paraphrase): OMG, how can anyone not like Obama. So I asked her why. She said “because he’s black. I’m a racist.

Ready.

On what planet is that “credible”?

Who on God’s green Earth tells an acquaintance that they don’t like Obama because they are a racist??

That is a meme created by the leftist, sold to the ignorant. Even the left go so far as to say people go around saying, they merely think it.

Not to beat up on Rags, but he says the police found this credible, failing to mention that so did Corey, and so did the Judge.

After her incredible statement, her credible should not have been questioned. It should have been outright dismissed.

Not to mention the small fact the Zimmerman is not responsible for what anyone else says, thinks, or does–including his own mother.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Browndog. | July 17, 2012 at 9:07 am

    So GZ’s mother is this woman’s blood aunt. It is not normal to attack an aunt over politics.

    Well I think that’s the end of Thanksgiving for that family.

    PhillyGuy in reply to Browndog. | July 17, 2012 at 10:06 am

    I guss this woman has been shopping her story for a while now. This has a fishwrap stink to it.

    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/.

    PhillyGuy in reply to Browndog. | July 17, 2012 at 10:15 am

    Christime Meza-Johnson has been hustling this story to media outlets including People magazine for a little bit of time now.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to PhillyGuy. | July 17, 2012 at 7:28 pm

      She’s just a money-grubbing, attention-seeking hustler. Just like Trademark’s parents. I think Crump pulled her strings, and I think it was easy. And I think her story fails. Here’s why: she states that what she did about these TEN years of abuse was to FINALLY have a family meeting about it at a restaurant. How conveniently that makes it look like she protested the abuse but explains why she never involved the police……which there would be a verifiable record of.

“Not to beat up on Rags, but he says the police found this credible, failing to mention that so did Corey, and so did the Judge.”

Understandable confusion; the cops found the sexual allegations credible. That is all I have any information on.

Nothing on anything else alleged, and nothing on who believes what about who.

And, FYI, I’ve had relative strangers admit they were racists. ‘Course the Aryan Brotherhood tats were kind of a giveaway…

I simplified my time on this orb of ours, I despise everyone of the human kind, including myself. 😉

jimzinsocal | July 17, 2012 at 9:58 am

Has anyone verified that perhaps this latest witness and assertions are perhaps tied to the old case against Zimmerman that had been exponged from his record? I seem to recall in some report that he had some case against him that was taken care of from years back. I believe it was mentioned somewhere in the original bond hearing.
The cynic in me wonders if this isnt some backdoor method of bringing up that case again…via this new witness.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to jimzinsocal. | July 17, 2012 at 7:19 pm

    Interesting notion. I don’t know if such testimony is supposed to be allowed in, but at the rate this so-called judge is letting in absurdities, I don’t think the sense of the law would matter at all to him.

    To me, this reeks of Trademark’s family’s lawyers trying to find one relative, any relative, to disparage and smear him.

    There is clearly an effort underway to demoralize the defense and undermine George’s right to a fair trial, and I see it as coming from four directions: Trademark’s family and their lawyers, the prosecution, the judge and the media.

    The Duke lacrosse boys weathered the onslaught of those forces, but only because they had adequate resources and outstanding lawyers. George has neither.

NC Mountain Girl | July 17, 2012 at 11:50 am

I’ve known a lot of really successful lawyers over the years. None of them ever seemed to have much time to spend on comment threads. If what they had to say was truly worthwhile they usually had their own blogs.

    Ragspierre in reply to NC Mountain Girl. | July 17, 2012 at 12:18 pm

    Huh… I had a blog and found it much more time consuming, and that being away from commenting for days in trial has no down-side, while leaving a blog dark for days kills traffic.

    I wonder why Prof. Bill never gets this type of “in-put” from anybody?

    Hmm…???

    And I NEVER claimed to be “really successful”. I am just a little fish in a big legal ocean, doing as much as pleases me.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to NC Mountain Girl. | July 17, 2012 at 7:05 pm

    Even if lawyers have SOME time to spend commenting on other lawyer’s blogs, they don’t have the amount of time spent that we see here by a prolific poster claiming to be a lawyer, especially when one considers all the google searches for statutory cites and the ad infinitum trolling over old threads. Both activities are quite time-consuming in addition to the commenting.

    Quite a mother lode of down-time for a REAL lawyer.

      Making it MORE valuable I can talk on the phone and type at the same time, and can type very rapidly.

      AND shift much of my research and writing into the night, when you’ll note tha my activity (which you follow SO closely) normally ceases on the internet.

      As always, I am touched by your care and attention.

I have two major problems with Witness 9: one, when you’re aged 6 and 8, is it really a crime to “play doctor” or whatever? Who, at age 8, is capable of sexual molestation? Don’t you have to know what sex is first? I mean come on, this is beyond absurd. And two, has anyone ever heard anyone actually trotting out the leftist meme that whites only like blacks “who act like whites”? Who says that? Even people who might actually feel that way wouldn’t frame it that way; they’d argue that they like people with whom they can “relate” or with whom they share common experience, etc. No one, but no one, actually states the exact leftist “accusation” that black people who “act white” are ‘race traitors’ or whatever. This is all completely insane. I mean truly, completely insane.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Fuzzy. | July 17, 2012 at 6:59 pm

    The NY Slimes, Emerge, Donna Brazile, and a myriad of other people, publications and entities have openly stated that Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Thomas Sowell, J.C. Watts, Herman Cain, and Allen West, among others, are Uncle Toms, Aunt Jemimas, only white-liked, race traitors, oreos, and on and on. A simple google search will reveal who what when where, and I’m talking blatant, out-front, no-holds-barred, no equivocation statements.

    Yukio Ngaby in reply to Fuzzy. | July 17, 2012 at 10:54 pm

    Yeah, I found the phrasing odd too. It seems very strange to use the exact terms (“acting white” etc.) often used for the “racial authenticity” argument in the statement.

    Such phrasing suggests to me that it may be an attempt to stir up racial debate along specific parameters again. You know the story: “authentic” Blacks being hunted down like dogs in the streets, etc.

couple of people here that need to get a room and just get it over with.

Professor Jacobson, perhaps you could also advise that the name calling by certain posters also stop. Calling people “liar, idiot, et al” is not using temperance in debate.

It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable as 99% of the posters here prove.

    Ragspierre in reply to retire05. | July 17, 2012 at 5:44 pm

    Being a person who values his integrity very highly, I would not put my head down tonight having told others something was untrue that I knew now to be true.

    But that’s me…

It is not possible to lie without running the great risk of being identified as a liar.

Ragspierre | July 17, 2012 at 7:11 pm

Making it MORE valuable I can talk on the phone and type at the same time, and can type very rapidly.

Does this mean you talk on the phone for your legal practice/clients, while also posting blog comments?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend