Prosecution Calls Shelly Zimmerman a Liar – Judge Lester Revokes Bond – O’Mara Discusses Bond Revocation

I hate to see this happen folks, but in this hearing the state set the defense up for a tactical trap, and because George And Shelly had lied to the court, and allowed their attorney Mark O’Mara to be in the dark, they set themselves up for this. There is no doubt when you look at the state’s evidence presented to Judge Lester that George and Shelly Zimmerman specifically engaged in an act of deception. They lied; and not only did they lie to the court, but they compromised their attorney by misleading him too.

The Transcript from the original April 20th Bond Hearing is HERE pdf

The Motion to revoke the BOND is HERE pdf  Which also includes the transcripts from the phone calls between George and Shelly, and the State’s proof of their specific and intentional collusion to lie to the court, including their credit union bank statements from April 19th (the day before the bond hearing) where they show the Zimmerman’s had specific access to to $135,000 + in funds.

Judge Lester Revokes bail… and explains.

Bernie De la Rionda Calls Shelly Zimmerman a LIAR.

O’Mara Discusses…

[…]  At Friday’s court hearing, De la Rionda and O’Mara also asked a judge to stop  the public release of witness names and statements made by Zimmerman to police  officers. Those documents normally are part of the public record under Florida  law.

“What’s occurring, unfortunately, are cases are being tried in the public  sector as opposed to in the courtroom,” De La Rionda said. “We are in a new age  with Twitter, Facebook, and all these things I’ve never heard of before in my  career. Everybody gets to find out intimate details about witnesses that never  occurred before. Witnesses are going to be reluctant to get involved.”

A consortium of more than a dozen media group asked the judge to ignore the  request, saying such records are presumed to be publicly available under Florida  law.

Rachel Fugate, an attorney for the Orlando Sentinel, cited the Casey Anthony  trial as an example of a highly publicized case in which a jury was able to be  seated despite intense media coverage. The Florida mother was acquitted last  year of killing her 2-year-old daughter.

“Discovery in Florida has traditionally been open … and Florida hasn’t  encountered problems seating juries and giving defendants fair trials,” Fugate  said.

O’Mara said Friday on a website that he doesn’t expect the case to be ready  for trial until next year.

O’Mara said he expects to call on 50 witnesses who need to be deposed before  he decides whether to file a “stand your ground” motion which would ask for a  hearing before a judge without a jury. At the hearing, Zimmerman would argue  self-defense under the Florida law which gives wide latitude to use deadly force  rather than retreat in a fight if people believe they are in danger of being  killed or seriously injured.  (article)

About these ads
This entry was posted in Death Threats, media bias, Racism, Trayvon Martin, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

163 Responses to Prosecution Calls Shelly Zimmerman a Liar – Judge Lester Revokes Bond – O’Mara Discusses Bond Revocation

  1. g8rmom7 says:

    I like when O’Mara says “I know it sounds like I’m talking in code but it’s under 48 hours”. Yes, talking in code is when you say 15 to represent 15,000…ridiculous.

    Like

    •   says:

      It seems as though the only code actually used was when Zimmerman was giving his last four numbers of his SSN to his wife, in which he describes a double digit number as dollars, and a double digit number as cents.

      Like

    • 2ntense says:

      The problem is DLR and the media knew about the money in April. Why wait till now? Because Crump was busy on the Trayvon Trail of Tears? We can all be disappointed and in a snit and all that but it has been out there since shortly after the hearing. What I remember the most is that GZ’s fund had more money than TrayMom’s. Go figure.

      Like

  2. minpin says:

    Any chance that we can have a link to the lies that Shelly Zimmerman made? I know that the site looks for affirmation of facts. Where the the Shelly Zimmerman statements made, other than what has been reported in the media. Thanks, I will appreciate the links.

    Like

  3. mooserator says:

    This needs to be put in perspective, SHE says she doesn’t know. The existence of the account wasn’t being hidden – it was openly acknowledged, but she said she didn’t know how much money was in that account.

    I have some court experience and the last thing you tell your client is to be quiet and let me do the talking. GZ wasn’t running things and some confusion over when one can speak and when they should shut up wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

    But, this needs to be put in perspective – it’s a Bond Hearing. If an NFL player was charged with Murder and then accused of lying in the bond hearing about assets – I don’t think it would be advertised as such a big deal.

    It was a bond hearing – and he may have gotten a lower bond than otherwise. However, I thought the Paypal account was being figured out and the court would updated on it – lawyers being left behind by technology and all. That was the impression many had after that court date.

    Wife was unsure about assets in a Bond Hearing – let me write the Headlines like Ben Crump does for the MSM.

    ..

    Like

  4. MooseMan says:

    I have stuck up for GZ from day 1 of this whole thing and am extremely disappointed at this newest development. Many people, including myself, have questioned his judgement in some of his actions on the night of the shooting. I wrote those decisions he made off as him just trying to do the right thing in the heat of the moment. This PayPal thing, however, was just stupid and not necessary. It has made him and O’Mara look bad and for no good reason, in my opinion.

    Like

    • DizzyMissL says:

      Agree

      Like

    • Herb Martin says:

      Agree about the funds issue — it’s a screw up, maybe worse.

      As to his actions that night, I have yet to find anything morally, legally, or judgement based that is wrong given what *HE* knew.

      We teach people how to deal with POSSIBLE criminal approaches and assaults, and had he done 1-3 classes with us he *COULD* have done much better tactically and strategically, but he didn’t have this type of training (AFAIK or can tell.)

      He was well within his rights, and didn’t take any obviously unreasonable steps based on his knowledge AT THE TIME.

      Like

      • howie says:

        Lester is working on this next week. I want to see the Tox report that the state is trying to hide and Zimmermans 5 statements. This is going to be a long grind.

        Like

    • Susiejoe says:

      This is OMaras mistake. They had previously discussed the website. George and Shelley were following him. He failed to get the balance in that account. Probably did not think anyone would have sent money. But bad mistake of OMaras.

      Like

  5. Sentenza says:

    *sigh*

    I can kind of understand why but it’s still disappointing.

    Like

  6. Mark O’Mara told Anderson Cooper tonight that HE was in posession of the 2nd passport from 4/26 and included it in a second filing to the court on 4/27. However, O’Mara did not turn over the passport and kept it in his briefcase until this morning. O’Mara stated he told De La Rionda this morning he knew of the 2nd passport and actually notified the court, and it was his fault for not turning it over.

    However, it is also clear that both Shelly and George were specifically knowledgable of the funds available to them and did not reveal the information as they were specifically required to do.

    O’Mara looks composed but frustrated. :(

    Like

    •   says:

      They eventually did reveal they had the money, and O’Mara asked the judge to reconsider the amount of bail.

      This was forever ago. I’ll have to applaud the the prosecution for turning something everyone already knew into a huge event that has swayed so many opinions.

      Like

      • The difference is when the PayPal funds were divulged before both to O’Mara, and by O’Mara to the judge, there was nothing to indicate that either GZ or his wife SZ knew how much was there.

        Now however, the prosecution has specifically proven that both knew there was at least $135,000 in the acccount, which they transferred to their Credit union, on 4/19. So for Shelly to say on 4/20 that she had “no idea” how much was within the website collection account is not just some arbitrary statement under oath that can be excused. It was intentionally misleading, and if we are going to be intellectually honest, it was a lie.

        Like

        •   says:

          George’s brother knew how much was in the account. That was made completely clear at the bond hearing. He was the one who knew, and neither of them kept it secret. If Shelly didn’t know the exact amount, that’s not a lie. If Shelly couldn’t estimate the amount, that’s not a lie. None of the questions asked forced her to lie about her knowledge, especially when she gave the judge, the state, and the defense the means to know the exact amount via the brother.

          How did they use this information? They didn’t.

          Then O’Mara submitted their transactions to the court (it would be illegal for them to get Shelly’s account information otherwise) later and they used it against them.

          The judge knew when he received the transaction history what was up.

          Like

          • You obviously did NOT read what Shelly was asked at the 4/20 hearing, and her response. Sorry if the truth is painful for you to accept, but she lied.

            Like

            • John Galt says:

              +1 And GZ sat and listened to it like a “potted palm”.
              Hopefully this is an indication that Judge Lester will enforce the law and rules rigorously throughout the entire course of the proceedings.

              Like

        • minpin says:

          So then where did the O’Mara statements come from that he requested a check from PayPal for the funds in the PayPal account? Did O’Mara lie about that?

          Like

          • JE_Reading says:

            @minpin – I believe O’Mara was referring specifically to the funds that had an electronic hold on them. When you send funds via Paypal, if you have already placed cash in your Paypal account or if you use a credit card, the payment is instant. If you are either a new user, guest user or sending funds via withdrawal from your bank account (electronic check or electronic transfer is what I believe it is called), those funds are reflected immediately in your total account balance but can be held for up to 7 days before becoming part of your available account balance. On all counts, Paypal automatically generates an individual email notification for each payment (donation) received and indicates whether it is an instant (cash) payment or an electronic transfer with a hold period.

            Like

    • Susiejoe says:

      Two mistakes on OMaras part – not turning in passport and not getting the balance of donations disclosed. Not a good sign.

      Like

  7. WestTexasFLA says:

    It does sound like Mrs Zimmerman, at least, misled the judge in regard to the amount in the special account set up for GZ

    However, this only deals with the bond…nothing else. Team Trayvon has been doing quite a lot more lying…and their lying is in direct relevance to what happened that night. They will need more than “Zimmerman lied at the bond hearing” if they have any slight fantasy GZ gets convicted

    Like

    • Roscoe P. Soultrane says:

      Unfortunately, George is the only surviving witness to the intimate details of what happened immediately before the shooting. His credibility, not Crump & Co.’s is what’s going to matter. Anything that helps the prosectuion paint him as dishonest isn’t good.

      Like

  8. DiwataMan says:

    So I was right George told him about the money right when he was released. It’s clear there was some confusion on George’s and Shelly’s part even though she lied about not knowing an estimation of the account amount. I agree with Sharon as well who says “Having that said, this bond-situation has no direct connection with the charges and the racialists who have been campaigning for their own agenda…” but I’ll say even further that even if George started the fight that still wouldn’t affect what I’ve said in the past about this case.

    O’Mara is one cool cat and he better bring this up next time he sees the judge regarding bond.

    Like

    • chopp says:

      Having that said, this bond-situation has no direct connection with the charges …

      It will if he gets shanked while in jail.

      Like

      • DiwataMan says:

        They’ll put him in protective custody. I have no doubt that he will be killed if ever in general population.

        Like

  9. Venus says:

    Oh please- she said she CURRENTLY did not know the amount in the account- They knew about it, so did the prosecution and this whole thing is a joke-

    Like

    • myopiafree says:

      I agree that they screwed up.

      Like

    • chopp says:

      Omara told the judge. So, everybody knew. Why are they revoking bail now? Again, he is not a flight risk.

      Like

    • Shelly Zimmerman knew with specificity how much was in their Credit Union account on April 19th, the day before the Bond hearing ($135,000). Go back and re-read her testimony. She lied.

      That is not a joke, nor is it funny.

      Like

      • Angel says:

        when you think about it, GZ and his wife have been pushed against the wall because death threats have made it impossible for them to work and pay bills. They now have the added burden of paying legal fees, living expenses, fees for security all without the expectation of income. I am willing to entertain the idea they were being deceptive, which is still not cool, to hide funds so they could quality for legal assistance for George and use the money collected for living expenses and perhaps get a lower bond. I think they are guilty of this rather than trying to use the money for some type of escape or they would not have turned it in to O’Mara right away. They should not have lied but I believe they were thinking the money, had it been reported, would have made the bond higher and what were they going to live on in that case?.

        This is so sad on so many levels that GZ and his spouse are fighting to survive knowing that that money was all that they had to live on. Once again, they are not rich, they cannot work, and are virtually outcasts in a society in which they have to face death threats. Now that I think about it, I cannot even imagine the emotional hell they are going through and the choices they were left with and the only one that they are left with is trying to survive.

        Like

      • Susiejoe says:

        Sundance. Shelley was not asked about the credit union account. The question was to the total collected. That would be the sum of what was in PayPal, what was transferred to the credit union account, and what ever was transferred to any other bank account. Knowing one variable out of three is not to know the sum of the three. Shelley did not lie. She answered the questions as she understood them.

        Like

    • Susiejoe says:

      Agree 100 percent Venus. OMara, the Judge, and the prosecution all knew about the website and account. Shelley told them where they could get the exact balance and NONE of them pursued to find out!!!

      Like

  10. Tom says:

    I’ve stuck up for George from day one, but this takes poor judgement.to a whole new level.

    The most telling part is when DLR even says she is “confident that OMara knew nothing about this”. Of course she is!. It was pure stupidity by GZ and his wife, and OMara would never in a million years advise GZ and them to try and pull this stunt.

    The ONLY defense I can think of…if I’m right…is that the website only was setup 48 hours before and everything happened so fast, they just (very stupidly) thought it would be easier to stick to their original plan at the bond hearing and just play dumb if they are pressed about their new website….Because playing dumb almost never gets you caught.

    Except this time it did….big time.

    Like

  11. John Galt says:

    Note that the investigator is asking questions (e.g. “why did you look out that window” “what did you think you saw”) and allowing the witness to respond, as opposed to leading/testifying as BDLR did throughout DD’s interview.

    Like

  12. PAL says:

    All of this is confusing me. OY. [mayjah blonde moment, I guess]. *sigh*

    Ah well. The drinks are on me.

    Like

    • Deborah Tempalsky says:

      Good, I need one too…I am new to all this legal stuff and get lost frequently…when George gets free, we can all buy him a drink!!

      Like

      • PAL says:

        Seriously! I feel like a massive doof when I read some of the geeky legalese speak. I feel so un-skooled!

        I will pour you a double (more trouble)! But, it’s Friday, so that won’t count on Monday!

        Like

    • Susiejoe says:

      I’m having a Zinfandel, reflecting on my deceased husbands rants about how stupid lawyers are.

      Like

  13. mooserator says:

    Let me play ABC reporter, if the roles were reversed.

    They were confused, they are sophisticated people, ane even some financial specialists need to consult on what is what and what applies and what does not. It’s not clear they understood, and this was a Bond Hearing, which has no bearing whatsoever on the facts of the case. They are bilingual, but by no means courtoom veterans. And the wife just looked so nervous. You can imagine what they poor people have been through.

    It does look a bit like bullying by the full power of the state, some observers say they should watch it – or this could backfire.

    All in all, this is only bond manuevering and much to do about nothing when it comes to 2nd degree Murder. Back to the Studio.

    .

    Like

  14. James F says:

    Please bear in mind that the defense was not given an opportunity to rebut these charges yet. This matter deserved a fair hearing before judgement so the defense could have the opportunity to explain.

    I can’t believe so many here are rushing to judgement and branding the Zimmermans as “blatant liars” while denying the opportunity for a fair rebuttal by O’Mara, who has a better grasp of the situation than those of you who automatically take the prosecutions charges and allegations at face value, particularly when the prosecution has already proven themselves to be less than honest. As always, innocent until proven guilty by due process.

    Farewell my fair weather friends.

    Like

    • PAL says:

      Farewell my fair weather friends.

      Whot? Don’t go! I have yet to give you a *tickle*!

      Honestly, I don’t give two flying Farkles about Zimmerman using money to…you know…EAT and have a roof over his head.

      So friggin’ what? He wanted to LIVE like most of us who don’t eat faces to survive!

      Like

      • WeeWeed says:

        Civility, dear girl. We’re ALL working this thing out.

        Like

      • Herb Martin says:

        The only issue here is if the lied to the court, or supported lies that he knew were untrue.

        If so, the judge is and will remain correct to revoke the bond. If not, it can be explained and he can take a scolding for being ignorant.

        He didn’t lie. He may have (in the judges words), “sat there like a potted plant” while his wife lied. She probably didn’t lie either, but was answering questions literally (perhaps she knew more but wasn’t asked the precise questions to get to that.)

        But all this is supposition, and O’Mara needs to work it out with his client and submit a new request for bail with explanations (and apologies) to the Court.

        The judge has already told O’Mara he will entertain a new motion for bail soon.

        Like

        • myopiafree says:

          Good commentary, Herb! This is a set-back, but this is going to be a long process. GZ is NOT A FLIGHT RISK. He would be recognized AROUND THE WORLD at this point. He could not flee. Yes, people make bad judgments.

          Like

        • Susiejoe says:

          Those jokers all know. It was OMaras mess up. Prosecution has no ethics. Just like Ashton in the Casey Anthony trial – plays to win. Oh yea, he lost.

          Like

    • chopp says:

      Great points.

      The comments that if we do not agree with some people here means that we are “intellectually dishonest” is a sign for me to get the hell out of here, too.

      Like

    • John Galt says:

      “Please bear in mind that the defense was not given an opportunity to rebut these charges yet.”

      Yes, it surprises me that their rules permit day of hearing ambush motion service.

      Like

      • Jello333 says:

        I’m not certain about this, but I think IF the judge has decided he needs to increase the bond amount, which I assume he has already done, then he MUST revoke the current bond. That’s because the money that’s now on file isn’t enough to cover it…. and so George shouldn’t legally be “free on bond”. What I think this means is that as soon as George gets before this judge and explains himself, and the judge gives him a new bond amount, everything will be fine. George pays the new bond (the additional amount beyond the original $150K), and is released. And since this WAS, as you say, a bit of an “ambush” by the prosecution, the judge will try to make this process go pretty quickly. I do NOT think he’ll make George sit in jail for more than a few days.

        Like

    • This site will not allow itself to be infected with “Ostrich Mentality”, or hiding from the obvious.

      Your comment is factually flawed. Mark O’Mara was given plenty of time TODAY in court, before judge Lester, to rebutt the motion. He did not rebutt the specificity of the motion because it was factually truthful. There was nothing in the factually truthful aspect of the motion to rebutt. He could only challenge “intent”, and “motive” for lying.

      Apparently you have not reviewed the direct questioning of Shelly Zimmerman about the website funds on 4/20 while she was under oath, and her responses.

      If you choose to be intellectually dishonest, or for some reason unable to accept the truth that Shelly Zimmerman lied under oath, then it is indeed a good idea for you to leave for we will not censor the TRUTH out of some misguided belief that honesty should only be a consideration when it supports your position.

      No. That ain’t us, and that damned sure ain’t me. I have stated all along this quest that chose the Treehouse was a quest for Truth. The truth has no agenda, if that makes you uncomfortable there are a variety of websites willing to slant, manipulate, and ignore facts which do not support their agenda.

      Farewell and following seas.

      Like

      • PAL says:

        sundancecracker is quite the hiney spanker!

        Truth is truth though and being one-sided or single-minded won’t help anyone.

        P.S. thank you to whomever wrote me that email from here. I’m assuming it was a mod because there’s no way any other people would no my email account.

        Like

      • John Galt says:

        “Mark O’Mara was given plenty of time TODAY in court, before judge Lester, to rebutt the motion.”

        How do you know this? The motion indicates that it was served on O’Mara today, the same day as the hearing. From O’Mara’s comments, it does not appear that O’Mara had an opportunity to consult with GZ or his wife prior to the hearing. I don’t know all of the details, but it it appears to me that O’Mara was not given plenty of time, or a reasonable time, to rebutt the motion, as is specifically required by the applicable rule.

        Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure
        3.060. Time for Service of Motions and Notice of Hearing
        A copy of any written motion which may not be heard ex parte and a copy of the notice of the hearing thereof, shall be served on the adverse party a reasonable time before the time specified for the hearing.

        Day of hearing ambush motion tactics have been found to constitute grounds for reversal:

        “The State charged Reedy with one count of grand theft and one count of perjury in an official proceeding. On the day of the scheduled trial, Reedy’s counsel informed the court that a plea agreement had been reached on the perjury charge. Then defense counsel made an oral motion to dismiss the grand theft charge, arguing various grounds in support.   Although the prosecutor objected and advised the court that he had no time to prepare for argument because he had just been confronted with the defense arguments, the trial court dismissed the grand theft count.
        Moreover, rule 3.060 requires that notice of a hearing concerning a written motion that may not be heard ex parte shall be served on the adverse party “a reasonable time” before the hearing. Because the defense did not file a written motion to dismiss, the State had no opportunity to prepare its version of the facts for the consideration of the trial court as contemplated by rule 3.190(d).  See Pope, 674 So.2d at 901.   Accordingly, the trial court erred in dismissing the grand theft charge against Reedy.”

        http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1460712.html

        Like

        • Did Mark O’Mara request time for review of the motion? Answer: NO. Why? Because it would not have made any difference. Any response by him would not have changed the factual evidence provided and presented within the motion itself.

          The prosecution motion contained evidence to refute the prior testimony of Shelly Zimmerman. It is what it is, today, tomorrow, next month, the same facts would not change, therefore no reason to request delay. it is what it is.

          Like

        • Donnie B. says:

          I think BDLR emailed O’Mara a copy of the motion this morning. So he had several hours to prepare/call Zimmerman, etc.

          Like

      • Donnie B. says:

        “for we will not censor the TRUTH”

        This is why I love this site. I support Zimmerman, but the fact is that he and his wife lied. Period. This, IMO, hurts his credibility. As silly as it sounds, I am angry with him for making such a bone-head move.

        Like

      • Susiejoe says:

        Chill out substance and sleep on this. The woman was not lying. Get a nights sleep and then read her answers again. She told them she did not know the balance that day but she told them where they could easily get it. If OMara nor the prosecution nor the judge thought it that important, why should she or George?

        Like

      • scubachick75 says:

        I have to say that I agree with sundance. A lie is a lie. Zimmerman walked right into it. They were both aware that the calls were recorded. He should have known the defense would be hanging on every word he and his wife said. That alone should have been enough to watch what he said and how he said it. They were waiting for him to slip up and he did. He still has my support though.

        Like

      • JE_Reading says:

        Thank you, sundancecracker! I almost missed your statement above. I have been following this case through this site and have come to enjoy “checking in” (albeit as a lurker until a few days ago). While I don’t ascribe to all that this site is about, I have to say that the blog entries and user comments following the GV/TM case have definitely increased my understanding of the case. Some of the other “quest for justice” forums are anything but, pushing one side of the case or the other right in to the same hornet’s nest of contradictions, propaganda, and cult-like denial. Actually, up until tonight, I did not feel that way about this site or collective, user responses. Tonight was the first time I wanted to “jump ship” – primarily due to the lack of acknowledgement and or relying on scapegoat tactics to make a wrong seem right. I think I will hang around a while longer – your statement was exactly what I needed to see.

        Like

        • JE_Reading says:

          PS – re: Thank you, sundancecracker! <-not sure why my reply to your post regarding "ostrich mentality" showed up beneath a different post (I think! Using Google Chrome here – sometimes blog threads tend to get a bit wonky –weird widths)

          Like

      • DizzyMissL says:

        Thank you for saying this. I abhor dishonesty.

        Like

  15. Aussie says:

    I do not honestly think that Shelly lied in that hearing. She stated that the brother in law knew the exact details.

    Also, when was the money transferred? Did it reach the account before or after the bond hearing? Being in the PayPal account is meaningless because PayPal can actually refuse to transfer the amounts.

    Yes, I have known situations where they have done that to people, where people had money donated for legal expenses, and then Paypal made it difficult to transfer the money!!

    Like

    • Please look at the PDF’s and attached links and articles before commenting. PLEASE.

      The state produced evidence to show that Shelly Zimmerman was in the branch of the credit union with a financial assistant from the bank. George and Shelly coordinated the transfer of $135,000 from Pay Pal into their Credit Union account.

      Shelly had accessed the funds on 4/19/12, the day before the bond hearing.

      Shelly said at the bond hearing she had no idea how much money was available. Look at the transcripts provided.

      SHE LIED.

      Quit making excuses because the reality of her lying is uncomfortable to admit.

      Like

      • Aussie says:

        Not making excuses. I am talking about the fact that Shellie stated that the brother in law knew about the details of the account.

        Also, unless PayPal operates differently, I cannot see how she could request the transfer via the credit union.

        There are some real holes in the whole story is what I am saying…

        and that is not defending what Shellie said… what I am questioning is why BDLR did not question Robert Zimmerman jr at the bond hearing!!!

        Like

        • Jello333 says:

          Agreed. I think there’s more to this than meets the eye. If, after I hear more from O’Mara and after the Zims’ hearing before the judge, it looks like George or his wife lied, I’ll admit it. But as of right now I’m not ready to go on the record. Especially the fact that the prosecutor apparently knew about this for a long while, and also the fact that George told O’Mara about this WAY back…. well, something about this doesn’t make sense. I think within a few days, the judge will order a new (increased) bond, George will pay it, and he’ll be out.

          For the record, I am STILL 100% in George’s corner. Oh, and one more thing, even if they DID lie, if it turns out they lied because they thought it would, in some way, help protect them from scum like the New Black Panther Party…. then I for one will absolutely NOT condemn them for it.

          Like

      • James Crawford says:

        Was the Balance on the CU statement the bank balance or funds available? There is a big difference. How likely is it that some of the PayPal donations will prove to be not good funds? How likely is it the SZ will check the CU account on April 21 and find that the account balance is smaller? After dealing with all of the delays on PayPal, how likely is it that GZ and SZ were confused about how much money they really had?

        I am not sticking my head in the sand. GZ and SZ lisoead the court. When the judge issues a bench warrant to arrest members of The New Black Panthers for making death threats, then the court will have credibility to censure GZ and SZ for perjury.

        Also, the courts have known about the discrepancy between the testimony and the info that O’Mara gave them on the donations. I find it not credible that it has taken this long for the prosecutor to review the jail house phone tapes. This motion to revoke bail was purely political.

        Like

        • Jello333 says:

          Yep. Something strange going on here. This is NOT just about some SUPPOSEDLY newly-discovered “lies” by George or his wife.

          Like

      • Susiejoe says:

        No no no. Shelley said she did not know the CURRENT balance – but they could call the brother in law right then and get it.

        Like

        • Aussie says:

          I agree. She answered the question about the CURRENT balance.

          Som other things to consider is when funds go into an account. A lot of funds go in overnight. Those funds are not normally available until the next day, or at least when a cheque clears.

          Funds from Paypal would work in the same way. It is not automatically available when transferred.

          However, what I really contend is the claim that Shellie could have got the Credit Union to make the transfer. That is simply not how it works when you use a PayPal account.

          Like

      • Susiejoe says:

        Et me add that Shelly also told them she had not been with her husband since he had gone into hiding. Yes she talked to him but how much did he make her a part of it? How much did she really know about it? How old is she anyway?

        Like

    • garnette says:

      Besides, don’t most banks have signs that clearly state that they will hold on to a check for up to 10 days before it will clear an account? I would really see this as a bigger issue, if she was asked this question at a different time. At one point, I had looked at the dates of when this all happened, and there was such a short turn around from when the paypal account was set up until the court date that I could see them not being totally aware of the money in the account. Besides,she made it clear that the brother in law was more familiar with the account and could be reached by telephone. He could have gone online and given an exact amount on that day. Personally, I think she played it safe by not giving a figure, nothing more and nothing less. If she had said $10,000 and then the amount came out, I would call that lying. What if she had said $100,000 and it turned out to be $200,000, would she be called a liar? This is clearly a witness that has not been coached and trying to protect herself and her husband by answering what she thinks is the safest. Sadly, it has come back and bitten both of them.

      Like

      • JE_Reading says:

        If 100k was stated and it turned out to be 200k, there would still be an opportunity to say “100k” the last time I checked / was informed by the person in charge of the account (brother/brother-in-law). This leaves the door open for the question “When was the last time YOU checked / were informed?” If asked, GV’s wife could have said Thursday, 6pm; If 100k more flowed in at 8:00pm Thursday night, it still demonstrates that she answered to the best of her ability. The way it went down, no figure was ever stated but it does appear knowledge of SOME funding existed.

        Any amount sent to someone via paypal, whether cleared funds or not, still carries with it an instant email notification to the party whose name the Paypal account is in.

        The donation plea for defense funds was of central importance to GV. He did update his web site (including a note thanking people for their support and asking for patience while he personally got back in touch with everyone). Whatever the reason those within the GV family circle chose to keep the even a remote, $$$ range figure shrouded in secrecy, it is fairly clear that intentional non-disclosure was taking place. This is disappointing, as it stains a first impression of GV that was otherwise that of a straightforward, somewhat softspoken member of society (looking back on the bond hearing – GV in suit and tie). In a larger, more general sense, first impressions –bad, good or indifferent -tend to stick with people as the rest of the story unfolds – this could be applied to any scenario. The key here is how much value equates this, specific first impression (not based on MSM prior to seeing GV in court for the first time but unique TO seeing him in court) holds as weighed against how the person is viewed over time. Even the best of men and women are not immune to drawing on their experiential perspective while doing their utmost to remain objective.

        Like

  16. JE_Reading says:

    Quite honestly I was amazed that the Paypal account was not brought up in court to begin with. MSM was publishing news stories about the makeshift, donation site GZ threw together (I remember him including a photo of a piece of “support” graffiti that vandals left for him on one of the brick walls of a black college – that graphic inclusion drew expected criticisms). In court today, BDLR specified that he heard taped / monitored conversations while GV was interned where he and his wife speaking “in code” with regard to the fund, leaving no room for anything but the implication that they were well informed, as a couple, that donations had flowed in.

    Bottom line, this needed to be more clearly communicated to O’Mara BEFORE the initial bond hearing. That Paypal account flies in the face of the emphasis on the financial indigency/hardships GV and family were facing as a result of this situation. A $10 donation? $100? Not really something that would make a dent as far as bonds and defense funds go…but upwards of 1k, 10k, 100k? Someone needed to give O’Mara a ballpark heads up before the fact and I find it beyond strange that, as GV’s attorney and lifeline through the judicial processes he’s undergoing and will continue to undergo, that he left his legal rep with egg on his face.

    I agree that the bond hearing as well as this near spontaneous (noting Judge Lester clearly and intentionally gave O’Mara NO lateral room to “prep” for this one) bond revocation hearing are separate issues from GV’s pending trial; however, I’m also of the opinion that the sensitivity of this case puts additional emphasis on all actions GV and family from bond hearing and forward…Debacles like this DO NOT do this defendant or his case any favors.

    Like

    • Aussie says:

      The Paypal account was brought up at the bond hearing. This is the point I have been making. It was brought up, and Shelly gave the response that her brother in law had the details.

      Like

  17. PAL says:

    So, okay. *takes deep breath*

    Does this make Zimmerman guilty of second degree murder because he stashed some moula and his wifey lied about it too?

    Since when does moula -after-the-fact- mean guilt? This guy and his wife were poor, I’m sure they were in hard times. This guy was guarding his ‘hood even though he was financially destitute.

    I’m certainly not making Zimm out to be some saint but after the death threats and going into hiding, I don’t know how else he was going to survive without the money and is that really a crime in and of itself?

    Pour me another margarita!

    Like

  18. Please read the states motions including their specific evidence to prove Shelly Zimmerman lied before posting any further supposition. Both links to what she said on 4/20, and what evidence was against her are at the top of the page.

    Like

  19. Susiejoe says:

    No no no. She did not lie!! George did not mislead!! This is all about communication. Understanding the answer the questioner wants. Omara said it was a misunderstanding and that is exactly what it was They ask how much has been collected. She says she does not know CURRENTLY and tells them where they can get the answer!! They did not ask her what the balance was a week ago or 10 days ago. The account was discussed In court – nothing hidden about it. they then ask her about “other” assets. At least in her mind they mean other because that account was covered separately. Reread the transcripts and hear the questions as she did which is shown in how she answers.

    Like

    • Photobucket

      Why is it so hard for people to admit the obvious. You can’t color this any other way. On 4/19 the day before the bond hearing where she made this statement, she accessed the Credit Union account which had $135,000 from the previously coordinated phone call with her, George and the credit union representative.

      How could you possibly say she did not lie?

      Like

      • James Crawford says:

        Granted, GZ and SZ mislead the court about funds available. Keeping access to those funds provided them with options including the possibility of fleeing.

        However; the courts have clearly abdicated society’s obligations to the Zimmermans by refusing to respond to very specific death threats by groups and individuals who were not anonymous. Given statements by so many officials including Holder and Obama, GZ and SZ are in reasonable fear that government authorities will be complicit in their murders.

        The State abdicated it’s moral responsibilities to the Zimmermans, therefore the State forfeits it’s moral authority over the Zimermans.

        Like

      • garnette says:

        Sundance, I went back and read the transcript again. I will say that the question about having money now is probably the one that really stood out to me as a possible lie. The reason I said possible lie is because as I read the transcript, I remembered that they were so afraid of being in the courtroom that they testified by phone.

        So, the reason I said possible lie is that I think this was a woman who was terrified by all that was going on and what the repercussions would be by telling amounts. I remember that after the amount came out, wasn’t it Team Skittles that wanted a list of names of everyone who had donated to that fund. Can you imagine what the headline would have been if she had given an amount in the accounts, and what could possibly happened at that point in time. She didn’t want to answer those questions, not out of being a liar but out of fear, which is why I think she tried to keep directing him to talk to her brother in law. This wasn’t lying or avoiding answering the questions to hid information, it was because at that point and probably now, she and George are in survival mode that is something few people have ever experienced.

        In saying that this reminds me of Maslow’s pyramid of needs. When you think about it, the way that they are living their lives, I could see an argument being made that they are barely having the first need met, which is food, water, housing with the second need being safety which at that point was not being met. When people are at those levels of survival their thinking is very different than it is for the person who knows that they have a place to call home and that there isn’t a bounty on their heads. What we can look back at and say are lies, I really think to her was survival.

        Yes, I agree the truth is the ultimate thing, but in this case I think the truth at that particular
        moment needed to be a bit more gray to protect some people including the donors.

        Like

        • Jello333 says:

          Yes, yes, yes! Thank you for that. “She and George are in survival mode that is something few people have ever experienced.” What those people have been through is horrendous, and I am willing to give them a HUGE amount of benefit of the doubt…. even if it turns out they DID lie to the judge. What would ANY of us do if we had millions of people all over this country hoping we suddenly wound up DEAD? Some of them actually willing to MAKE IT HAPPEN?! And I hope, I pray that O’Mara brings up this very point at the next hearing. It’s about time that the million-pound elephant in the room was exposed.

          Like

          • James Crawford says:

            Exactly the point. The Zimermans had every reason in the world to believe that they were no longer protected by the rule of law. When survival mode kicks in, a stash of cash becomes vital.

            Like

      • Susiejoe says:

        Sundance. I am getting disappointed in you. Shelley got the balance that had been transferred to their credit union account from PayPal. She did not get the total balance of how much had been donated. She likely hadn’t a clue to what PayPal still had to transfer.

        Like

        • Aussie says:

          that was the part being handled by George’s brother. He had to request the transfer from Paypal to the Credit Union account. The Credit Union could not make the request. It is not how PayPal works. It is online.

          Like

      • Jello333 says:

        I don’t know what to think about that. But I do know this: She tells the court exactly where they can find out the info they’re asking about (the brother-in-law). So if she or George is trying to keep the account, or the amount in the account, hidden, she’s not doing a very good job of it. And the court can easily find out not just how much was in the account then, but how much was in it the day before, and the day before that, etc…. The judge or the prosecutor could easily have asked her or George if they’d be willing to voluntarily get a statement from PayPal, or from their bank for that matter (so as not to require a court order). Do you think George would have refused to do that?

        Like

        • Why should the court have to take the position their question would be answered with lies. Remember people are under oath. If you have a question you ask, and people should answer honestly. It is not up to the court to determine, “well , ok, I won’t expect this person to tell the truth, therefore I will investigate independently”, that is just ridiculous.

          The judge, or lawyers, asks a question,and the person answers it. Period.

          O’Mara asked Shelly a question. She lied. It is that simple.

          Again, go look at the prosecution motion with proof that on 4/12, 4/15, 4/17 and 4/19 both Shelly and George were discussing the money available to them.

          You really think O’Mara wants to challenge that and have it dug into in even more detail? Hell NO. Bad enough they can show the Zimmerman’s to be liars on this aspect, the last thing he wants is an exclamation point on it. He’s the one trying to help them.

          Like

          • Aussie says:

            In this case Shelly stated that her brother in law had the answers. The question asked of her was about the current amount. She said she did not know. This is more than likely correct at the time of the bond hearing.

            It is the way the questions were asked.

            On top of that we do not know if the funds were in fact available at a given point in time. Just because the funds were transferred does not mean that they were immediately available.

            Like

          • ctdar says:

            Whats funny(strange)is why would OMara ask
            a question from his defendants wife that he didn’t know the answer too?

            Like

      • JE_Reading says:

        There are a number of replies to sundancecracker’s statement (a statement I personally personally agree with). Mitigating emotional tribulations are not an excuse for non-disclosure – especially pre-courtroom disclosure to O’Mara. Again, the bond revocation and the murder trial are completely separate issues, but when you have very few opportunities to present yourself as an ethical, honest, and for GV, innocent human being, you simply cannot play the “when someone chooses to lie (for whatever reason or circumstance) vs. when someone doesn’t” game. Impressions tend to stick. O’Mara himself noted just prior to bond revocation portion of today’s courtroom processes that we live in (paraphrasing) the Internet world now and never hearing about a case is not the standard anymore. Instead, he pointed to hoping for people that had the ability to rise above the information and still be just and fair (again, stressing that I’m paraphrasing but I believe my interpretation of his words is accurate). Damage was done today. It’s obvious. The question is what will it take to undo that damage?

        @Mooserator – you’ve made a keenly observant point in your reply below regarding the judge’s selective “outrage.” The refusal to give O’Mara time to prep for a hearing he literally had dropped on him in grenade clearance time was actually pretty shocking. Several times, I believe the judge said it needed address now because it was serious (is anything in the courtroom not?) –a bizarre justification, really.

        Like

        • John Galt says:

          “The refusal to give O’Mara time to prep for a hearing he literally had dropped on him in grenade clearance time was actually pretty shocking. Several times, I believe the judge said it needed address now because it was serious (is anything in the courtroom not?) –a bizarre justification, really.”

          This is very concerning as it constitutes a violation of Rule 3.060. And yes, because “this matter is serious” it would seem that the judge should require adherence to the rules enacted to ensure due process. On the other hand, I guess this means that O’Mara can also file ambush motions on “serious” matters.

          Like

  20. mooserator says:

    So what is the bottom line?

    The Benefit derived was a LOWER BOND? That’s it, not the end of the world. Adjust the Bond accordingly.

    George gets his info from his wife. I think it may be overly harsh to expect him to correct wife, who is the source of the first-hand knowledge. All Communications with Wife were monitoried, if I’m reading this correctly, which would mean that if George agreed to mislead, we’d be hearing that tape. It stands to reason someone else advised the Wife to state the amount was unknown – instead of providing a figure. If George had, we would know, the world would know.

    It’s a Bond Hearing.

    .

    Like

    • Susiejoe says:

      If George and his wife were hiding the account, why would he have discussed it with her on the phone where he knew it was
      Being recorded? Why was his own attorney asking questions about it? Why didn’t his own attorney pursue getting the balance revealed in court? I will tell you why. OMara goofed. He didn’t think anything was there and so blew it off as insignificant. That relayed message to Zimmermams that it was not that relevant.

      Like

  21. txantimedia says:

    Personally I’ll withhold judgment until O’Mara gets a chance to rebut. I agree it doesn’t look good, but then isn’t that the prosecution’s intention?

    Like

  22. mooserator says:

    I have a Question. This may be important.

    Was Alan Dershowitz correct when he said that Angela Corey should be facing charges because she did not include important (exculpatory) information in the Probable cause affidavit to the Court?

    Because if the renowned Dershowitz is correct, then it would seem this Judge’s outrage is very selective. His sense of honesty and forthrightness may not meet what excerpts of today’s hearing would lead one to believe.

    I’m all for Law and Order – all around.

    .

    Like

    • John Galt says:

      The matter of prosecutorial misconduct has not (yet) been called before the court by a defense motion. If and when O’Mara raises the issue, then you may have an opportunity to review and evaluate Judge Lester’s performance.

      Like

    • Jello333 says:

      Yep, what John said just below. I’m pretty sure the day of judgement for Crump, Corey, and their minions is coming at some point. And I wouldn’t miss it for the world!

      Like

  23. Cravits says:

    sundancecracker, do you know what time Shelley was at the CU on 4/19? I ask, because if she was at the CU on 4/19, during an hour prior to the bond hearing, then yes, it is clear that she lied to the court.
    If on 4/19 she went to the CU after the bond hearing, then I need to know more before judging whether or not she lied.

    Like

  24. Burnt Toast says:

    Meh.

    What I have seen from the bond hearing, the question was raised whether paypal fund was relevant. That has been answered.

    Did Shelly lie? Did the Zimmerman’s ever mention $135k in “code”? Was it shown that she talked to brother in law about the account?

    This is almost as scandalous as Zimmerman shooting a twelve year old child with a bag full of skittles.

    Like

  25. mooserator says:

    Bond Hearing was the following day, 4/20.

    They have all communications between husband and wife, at that time, since the PayPal creation. I woudn’t correct my wife in that situation – she is the source of the first hand knowledge. I would assume something changed.

    To lay this at George’s feet, they should have the tape of him agreeing to mislead the court or instructing her how to answer.

    Like

  26. I’ve read the transcripts, and…

    I don’t see in the filing where they were speaking “in code” about anything.

    I agree with others who say that she made it clear that she didn’t know the exact amount but her BIL would know – they failed to call the witness or ask the questions!

    Having been through protracted, hostile litigation myself, one of the first and main things that my Atty absolutely *DRILLED* into me was “Answer ONLY the questions they ask! If they ask ‘Did you go out for pizza Friday night’ then you say ‘NO!’ – do NOT say ‘No – it was Saturday night!’ – they didn’t ASK about Saturday, so KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!”

    Seems to me if Mrs. Z had guessed and been wrong, they’d have called her a liar about that!

    The next day – IIRc – O’Mara gave exact figures to the court – and this was *BEFORE* Z was actually released!

    I’d also like to see a FULL accounting of the PP account… I’m willing to bet that donations skyrocketed AFTER the bond hearing – and still would have shown in that day’s balance…

    I just don’t see them lying about this – they had to *KNOW* it was going to come out!

    What REALLY blows me away is the ambush service here… Prosecutions been sitting on this for weeks, and they spring it today – when it’s too late for O’Mara to put together a rebuttal?!

    I’m sure they’ll fight this – but the damage in public opinion is done…

    The passport thing is a bit more problematic, but there too… I’m waiting to see the “evidence” that they misled anyone about it – sounds like O’Mara’s saying he’s had it all along…

    IF Z turns himself in as ordered – and I don’t doubt he will – it should prove to anyone that he’s NOT a flight risk! I figure O’Mara will be prepared by the NEXT bond hearing to deal with the problems here… And I STILL think the whole “last-minute service” thing is dirty-pool — it stinks to high heaven!

    All that said, if JZ or O’Mara or *ANYONE* related should read this, let me give you a tip…

    LET THE ENEMY PLAY THE DIRTY TRIcKS.

    *YOU* must **ALWAYS** TAKE THE HIGH-ROAD!!

    I fought – and WON – one of the ugliest custody-battles in history… Epic, pure-dee HELL against a woman who would lie about what day it is and be so believable you’d have to go check your calendar… She had trouble remembering from hearing to hearing what lie she’d told before, so we were finally able to wrap her up in a noose of her own making…

    I knew she’d ALWAYS lie, so I had to make sure I *ALWAYS* told the truth — even when it made me look bad!

    When The Judge issued his decision – I’ll never forget his words…

    “I’m going to begin by addressing my comments to Mrs. Dad. I’ve got to tell you, bluntly, that the *MOST* striking feature in this case has been (pointing at me) that man’s ABSOLUTE integrity, and YOUR ABSOLUTE lack thereof! If that were the ONLY factor I considered, I believe it would justify me awarding sole custody to Mr. Dad — but that’s NOT the only thing I considered…”

    He then spent the better part of an hour verbally beating her with all the crooked, dishonest, nasty, hurtful, downright EVIL $#!+ she’d done…

    He ended by awarding me Sole custody and ordering her to be held right there in the courtroom — no phone calls, no nothing — while the Sheriff’s Deputy escorted me to go get the kids – RIGHT THEN – as he feared (as I did) that she’d run off with them again… But I digress…

    When your opponent is an evil scumbag who wouldn’t know integrity if it spit in her face, YOU MUST ALWAYS BE 100% TRUTHFUL, AND DEMONSTRATE FLAWLESS INTEGRITY!!

    In this case, I agree that Jorge & company blew it. Though I don’t believe they deliberately lied, they allowed themselves to be manipulated into the APPEARANcE of lying – which is almost as bad in a case like this!!

    Like

    • garnette says:

      I’ve written above about the passport issue, but considering his was expiring in May 2012 and he started the process in the beginning of March before this became a LSM news story I think he knew he needed to renew it. The current passport has to be mailed with the passport forms and will be returned with the new passport or separately. Also, the state department says to allow 10 weeks to get a new passport. There are ways to get one faster. So, the entire where are the passports and who has them during the time he is in hiding, in jail and after jail seems to be making an issue out of a man who has no home and can’t go home right now trying to keep track of his belongings. Omara most likely thought that the passport was safest with him thus he let the court know he had it but didn’t volunteer anything until the court requested.

      Like

      • Susiejoe says:

        That second passport was
        Obtained in 2004 when the first was thought lost. So then the First was found I’d bet the second has been in storage since. Not fresh on his mind When they asked for his passport, George gave them
        The one he has been using for the last 10 years. So then he thought and gave it to Omara do he could do his second fail as an attorney. So yesterday, Omara hired another attorney to work this case. Maybe he has too much other stuff going on.

        Like

        • garnette says:

          Egads since one was being renewed does that make 3 passports with only one of them being valid? The reason why passports are returned with new ones is that people keep them as souveneirs. If he had multiple ones that had not been replaced it would be an issue. I know what they are trying to do. They are putting this out there to get people who don’t have a passport will think he can use all of them kind of the way action hereos do in the movies. Customs are now so electronic that they wave a wand over your passport to read all your info and to store the info. But if you don’t travel you would not know that.

          Like

      • mwsomerset says:

        The second passport was issued in 2004…..not 2012.

        Like

        • garnette says:

          I read that section and each time I read the date as 3/8/2012. Now that I took my contacts out I saw the date correctly. I still think that it is much ado about nothing in the grand picture. If he had been home a lot it would be different. I have used an expired passport for id just can’t use it for travel. She may need his id and really didn’t know which one was the valid one.

          Like

  27. Essential Elements says:

    I don’t know if this helps?

    To transfer money from Paypal to your bank account:
    The money will be in your bank account in 3-4 business days, depending on your bank.

    Or ~ Request a check
    We charge $1.50 USD for each check. To avoid fees and withdraw your money faster, you can transfer money to your bank account.

    Like

  28. Guy Fawkes says:

    She said she did not know the amount, there is nothing to rebut that. Just like if you asked me right now, what was in my bank account, or my investment portfolio, I would tell you I do not know. Of course, I could look, but I do not know for certain, nor could I estimate within a degree of legal certitude. Shelley did not deny the account, nor did she deny that there was cash in it. She said her Brother in Law had dealt with it. The Prosecution had full opportunity to compel the brother in law to testify, and they choose not to. She pointed directly at the person who would know, and the state chose not to question him. About her going to the bank, I do not know Shelley Zimmerman, but I know my wife, and though I could send my wife to the bank with specific instructions, she would hand them to the teller, get a balance, etc. and would have little idea what it means.

    I am just not sure I accept she lied. Was she less than forthright? I think without question. That said, my attorney always tells me to only answer the bare minimum, do not provide any further information beyond that which factually answers the question.

    This is just a cluster. O’Mara knew about the account, there was no intent to hide it. Whose fault is it for not determining the amount in there at the bail hearing (not that the amount could legally impact the bail as it cannot be punitive, just to ensure appearance.)

    As for the PayPal account, something stinks here. I worked in the financial and banking industry. I have also used Paypal for campaigns I have run. First, Paypal is a pain in the rear. Secondly, they WILL NOT let you transfer funds from an account from 1 registration to another without a Letter of Authorization. Did George’s Brother in Law set the account up in George’s name and falsely attest to being George? (There are new procedures which must be followed since 9/11). The registrations on the account make all the difference, for example, I cannot transfer funds from a Joint account JTROS to a Joint Tenants in Common account, or from Joint ownership to single registration without an LOA signed by the losing party. As fast and loose as the Financial Industry can play, failing to follow these requirements is not only a Federal Crime, but will also have your firms Compliance Department on you like white on rice. If Shelley was able to go to the Credit Union and discuss the account, the Paypal Account must have been registered to them Jointly, or to Shelley alone, otherwise the transfer could not have occurred, or they would not have discussed an account with her on which her name was not present.

    The other thing that smells to me is that I have personally had issues with Paypal taking 2 weeks to transfer a few thousand dollars from one Campaign account to another, with matching registrations. Getting it done required multiple phone calls and verifications. I have a hard time believing that $135k could just easily be transferred via Paypal, not to mention, there is a Federal Flag anytime there is a receipt of $2,000 singularly, or $5k in aggregate, to or from an account that does not have an established history of such transactions. Given the fact George and Shelley are of little means, receiving a 135k transfer would have raised numerous flags automatically in the clearing system, as well as required a SAR (Suspicious Activity Report) be filed by the institution. There was no way such a transaction was easily accomplished, nor could one reasonably anticipate the length of time it would take to accomplish.

    This is not ostrich syndrome, some of the evidence just does not pass the smell test, and I say this as one who was involved with processing EFT and ACH Transfers from financial accounts after the passage of the unPatriotic Act.

    Like

    • James Crawford says:

      I absolutely agree.

      There is no way that the transfer of such a large amount could have occurred so rapidly without holds being put on funds availability.

      I would assume that by the time of the bail hearing, GZ and Sz were totally confused.

      All of the “facts” about the bank balances are statements by the prosecution who have been proven to be liars.

      Like

    • Susiejoe says:

      Shelley went to the credit union to get the balance in their account. That was her conversation with George. She knew that balance but that was not the question put to her on the stand.

      Like

  29. mooserator says:

    Investigator Dale Gilbreath, representing the State said under oath, during questioning, that he had not seen medical records that show G. Zimmerman had a broken nose.

    It is my understanding the state had those medical records in their possession.

    This is the case of their life, appointed by the Gov., they have two main investigators, it strains credulity to believe he had read that medical file for weaknesses to exploit.

    It’s worrisome to me that the Judge is so selective in his strident demand for 100% honesty and accountability. Why so one-sided? I say this bodes very bad for a Fair Trial.

    .

    Like

    • mooserator says:

      And Bernie de la co and Angela Corey are GUILTY because they didn’t jump up in court and correct Gilbreath!

      !

      Like

    • captainronmexico says:

      Rest Assured that Georges very competent lawyers will be highlighting every inconsistent statement by all these liars AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. Which has not yet come.

      This is a bump in the road that will ultimately mean very little in the final outcome of this case.

      In the end, a thousand lies to put an innocent man in jail are far more egregious than one told to get him out.

      Like

  30. Cravits says:

    sundancecracker, I put the following post and another on the wrong thread a few moments ago:

    Disregard my previous comment. I read in the motion (pdf file you provided a link to) excerpts of the recorded jailhouse conversations, which show that she knew as early as 4/12 that the account was funded ($44K at that time, according to George).

    You’re right, she lied.

    George knew, too. Anyone who questions that just needs to read the motion, which contains excerpts of the conversations.

    Like

    • McBain says:

      Is there any proof George told his wife to deny the existence of the money? I read where his wife said there wasn’t any money but did George ever say that in court? Or is he taking the fall for not alerting the court to the incorrect statement his wife gave?

      Like

    • THANK GOD someone is ACTUALLY reading the friggin motions instead of just commenting out of some ridiculous emotional need to ignore the facts.

      Like

  31. Cravits says:

    Here’s the second, brought over from the “BACK TO JAIL” thread:

    . . . 4/16 Shelley told George there was $86K in the CU account ($8.60) and that the total was $155K (“like $155″).

    That means Shelley definitely lied when at the bond hearing on 4/20 O’Mara asked her “Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected” and she answered “I do not”.

    Like

  32. DiwataMan says:

    I’m sorry but this judge has no interest in truth. He sits there in his pseudo righteousness in judgment of George because he didn’t make it abundantly clear to the court all what little funds he had for his survival available for the state to suck away while at the same time this judge allows the state to commit a more egregious injustice by lying about witness #2 which also influences his decision about bail. Gee, if George is willing to chase people down and murder them how could he not be a flight risk? Maybe we ought to jack this bail up a bit huh? What’s that? You had some money? Throw the book at him!

    I’ve said from the beginning that if George knew about the money, which I now know he did, and O’Mara clearly explained to him that he must make all monies known, which I don’t know if he did or if he did that George fully understood, then that does not bode well on George’s credibility but that still does not make him a murderer.

    Let me make it clear, this is not about two wrongs making a right, and as I’ve said, don’t misconstrue the point about bringing up the prosecution lying about the witness. The point is not that they did it so it’s ok for George, it’s if the judge is going to consider bond or no bond and the amount and the prosecution lied in order to influence the judge to either deny or increase bond then he has to ALSO take that into consideration AS WELL as the situation with the PayPal account.

    The sad part is that ain’t going to happen.

    Like

  33. Cravits says:

    Guy @ 11:07, you can read in the motion an excerpt of the 4/12 conversation in which George told Shelley to “take care of my account so you can log in”, and “call him so he can reset the password and the security question so you can use it”.

    Like

    • Guy Fawkes says:

      Yes, but what are you insinuating it means? No one denies there was an account, or that they knew about it. What evidence is there to refute that she did not know the balance at the time she was asked? She was told to do something, but says in court that she does not know, but the Brother in Law does. The Prosecution chose to not force him to testify. I agree she was not forthright, but not sure she “lied” in giving a material mis-statement. It is not her job to make the state’s case for them, to do their work by volunteering more information than asked, nor is George reasonably expected to jump up and correct the record. As any good attorney will tell you, “Do not talk to the Police.” Same applies to the State, they are not your friends, they do not have you best interest at heart, and if there is any inconsistency, be it $100 or $1,000, they will hang you over it. That said, you keep your mouth shut and only provide the minimum information in response to the query. That is exactly why any good attorney will be able to solicit information by asking a specific question (a bit like the “Bigger than a breadbox?” Game.

      O’Mara knew there was an account, it had been in the media, and to be honest, I would have expected him to know about it, and to have asked his client if there was an issue. This information was immediately disclosed to the court the following day, I really fail to see the issue here. People are spiting Shelley because she was not more forthcoming in helping the prosecution deny her husband bail and violate his 5th Amendment right to a Grand Jury on trumped up charges? I would have literally answered the questions as well. and left it at that. If she did not know the balance at the moment, and there was no way she could, then she truthfully answered honestly in saying she did not, but that the brother in law could check and tell them. There is nothing untruthful about that statement in a literal sense. She had no obligation to do any more than answer the question, which she did.

      Like

  34. Lee says:

    I did not see a copy of the credit union records – was that made public? Was the jail recordings made public? If I remember correctly, George started the fund about 3-4 days before he was placed into custody. He had his hearing on the 20th. I think he surrendered on the 11th or 12th. Can you receive money in and process out that fast? You are looking at about a 11 day span, including weekends. Does anyone remember when his fund opened? I have bought things using PayPal but I do not know how it works on the receiving end. I read the post above – it sounds like it can be onerous.

    Like

    • READ THE MOTION.

      Like

    • zane says:

      Having worked with PayPal on receiving payments, I can tell you that there is more than a 3-4 day turnaround in having funds in a PayPal account transferred to your own personal bank/credit union account. It has been my experience that if I request PP funds on Monday, they are transferred to my personal account by Friday, or even the following money. If the money is a large amount, many times the back will put a hold on the transfer draft for another 10 business days. My bank received a draft from a company paying me on an oil lease. The company’s draft was on a bank in Houston and I am in a small central Texas town. Although it was for just a few thousand dollars, my bank issued a ten day hold before it was credited to my account.

      So while everyone is getting a rope for Shelly Zimmerman, claiming she lied, it IS quite possible she was unaware of how much money had been transferred, OR IF IT HAD EVEN CLEARED FOR DEPOSIT.

      Like

  35. Rumpole says:

    Sad thing is…. this is blood in the water for lynch mob forum posters… they have gone into frenzy today :(
    “He lied, his credibility is destroyed and he will be found guilty”
    Those who are claiming that in Florida it’s curtains for GZ because he is caught in one lie obviously are unaware of the Casey Anthony case. :)

    Like

    • And it don’t do a damn bit of good to refute their rabid attacks by ignoring the truth. Shelly and George did lie about the PayPal money from the website. Admit that, then get the convo back on the part that matters the events of 2/26.

      If people keep fighting this losing battle about symantics and parsing phrases like what does “is” mean, then this distration will errode Zimmerman even more.

      Like

      • Rumpole says:

        Yes. I think George tried to hang on to the windfall… he lied, his wife lied… bad!
        Maybe he did not get the MEMO… he is in a precarious position.
        He’s licensed to carry a gun… he should know about NOT shooting himself in the foot.

        Like

  36. James Crawford says:

    Will reprimanding the Zimermans set a precedent that the prosecution and team chump will regret?

    We know that Galbraith committed blatant perjury by stating that there was no evidence of injuries to GZ.

    We know that Cory witheld critical information in the indictment.

    Team Crump is guilty of everything from blatant lying, threats of riot to pressure the prosecution to sojourning perjury and witness tampering.

    The NewBlack Panthers are guilt of soliciting murder and abduction.

    How will the judge justify not sanctioning these criminals after reprimanding the Zimermans?

    Like

    • Jello333 says:

      Yep. Now that he’s smacking down George a bit, when the time comes for him to bring the hammer down on Team Crump members they won’t be able to whine about double-standards. And I predict the hammer he uses on them will be FAR bigger than the one he uses on George.

      Like

    • Aussie says:

      Team De la Rionda is guilty of leading a witness to her answers and guilty of pressuring witnesses to change their testimony

      Like

  37. txantimedia says:

    In re-reading the transcripts, I’m not convinced that Shelly Zimmerman lied about the fund or that they were speaking in code. In the phone transcripts it’s telling that all the discussions of money are preceded by dollar signs (indicating that the words spoken were 100 dollars, not just 100), yet the discussion of the bond amount does not have dollar signs.

    The prosecution’s assertion that they were speaking in code is just that, an assertion. In the transcripts they provided, there is no proof that the numbers they discussed were related to that fund. In point of fact, the $155 total that Shelly said they had in the account does not match the $135,000 that the prosecution knows was in the account (if indeed it’s the same account!) that day and stated on the record was in the account that day.

    Furthermore, Shelly testified under oath that not only did she not know what was in the “website fund” but that George’s brother did. IOW, they had, on the record, the knowledge that George’s brother was aware of the fund and knew how much was in it. Yet they chose not to pursue that at the bond hearing. They could have asked the judge for a recess while they contacted the brother, but they chose not to. They even asked Shelly if he was reachable by phone yet elected not to pursue it.

    This looks more and more like the prosecution sandbagging the defense with tendentious claims in order to manipulate the public and the media. Angela Corey harps constantly about not trying the case in the media yet constantly goes to the media with statements that bring into question George’s credibility. She clearly knows that her only chance of winning is if she can portray George as a liar and demonstrate that the witness’s testimony is not reliable.

    I feel pretty certain that O’Mara will seek another hearing to refute the prosecution’s accusations (and ask for a bond amount to be set) and will make the prosecution look like the unethical scumbags that they are.

    Like

  38. Jello333 says:

    If Dershowitz is right, and I think he is, then the Probable Cause Affidavit had lies and misleading statements in it. And had it not, the judge likely wouldn’t have found it sufficient to issue a . And had the judge not issued the warrant, then George would never have been in jail. And had he not been in jail….. there would have been no bond hearing!

    This judge needs to consider THAT.

    Like

  39. Jello333 says:

    All my other comments have been about the PayPal account and such. But I wanna say something else now.

    O’Mara and the prosecution have both asked for George’s statements to be sealed, right? Supposedly because there’s suspicion they might be considered “confessions” as opposed to “statements”. Well, I now think O’Mara was just playing games. I hear that today the judge implied that he was gonna find that they CAN be released, which means he thinks they are NOT confessions. If so, then I love O’Mara’s comment in that video. He says something like, “Well, if they’re not confessions, then that means they won’t fall under the non-disclosure rule, and so they’ll probably be released.” In other words, when they’re released, O’Mara can say…. “Hmm, the prosecution said these statements were damaging to George. They claimed that they are basically confessions. Looks like they were wrong.”

    Like

    • howie says:

      Absolutely. Also the state is trying to hide the Tox Report. Wonder why?

      Like

      • ctdar says:

        Still trying to work a plea deal before going to trial? If tox report not known prior to a trial than in gen public minds, TM remains the cute lil 12 yr old football player.
        After report comes out in discovery, that image is gone forever.

        Like

        • howie says:

          I think so too. This round for the state. Let the next round begin. I also think the Judge will not change the venue from what he said in the hearing about public disclosure and its affect on a jury.

          Like

  40. A_Nonny_Mouse says:

    Wasn’t there also something about a passport? Or actually a “second passport”?

    I have to say that if I were in George Zimmerman’s shoes –the prosecutor accuses me of MURDER for an act of self-defense, the newspapers accuse me of “hunting down and shooting {the thug who was attacking me} like he was a rabid dog”, some racist group puts a price on my head, I read about random beatdowns of white people in retaliation for me defending my life, my name is dragged through the mud by the likes of Sharpton & other race-hustlers, then the Attorney General suggests that the DoJ will get involved if the local powers-that-be don’t sufficiently crucify me– I’d really, REALLY, *OMG REALLY* want to have an extra passport and a wad of cash handy — just in case.

    I mean, I’m far away from the sh*tstorm, and I have serious concerns whether George is going to get a fair trial. Imagine how it looks to him? He’s got to be terrified 24 hours a day out on bond; but is probably twice as terrified to think of being back “inside” with all the rabid “sons of Obama” who are looking to score points by “avenging the death” of Saint Skittles. If I had a grandmother in Peru I just might think of paying a family visit…

    Like

  41. Somuchtolearn says:

    So Everyone knew (Z’s lawyers, Corey, judge, internet, the skittles family, the people who live under rocks…) why has become “explosive” news now? Perhaps because Crump, Corey, whether skittles team saw that even the lib leaning media stopped being completely biased? Perhaps because sounds of leading searches on google that had to do with Trayvon were purple lean, no limit %&***, and Facebook posts? Maybe, they felt the earth shake when Sharpton started to distance his ignorant %&* from the family. I’d say it was convenient timing, and that its going to backfire on ALL of them. As bad as it sounds, I think the Martin family and Crump just wanted to know about the money so they could figure out how to get some of it.

    Like

  42. ctdar says:

    Re revoking the Bond
    #21 assertion by the State
    “The Court relied on false representations & statements by Defendant & Shelly Zimmerman”
    Why can’t O’Mara just file a motion to dismiss the 2nd Degree charge based on how the State charged by simply quoting along the lines above? If anyone filed any false representations & statements with absolutely no exscupltarary evidence (tho plenty available including eye witnesses, GZ injuries & statements, etc) it was Corey who used
    filing the charge IMHO to appease the riotous atmosphere as well as further her career
    (no coincidence, an election year). I really think the charge of 2D is an intentional overreach based on bias & misuse of taxpayer funds.

    Like

    • howie says:

      He can and will once he gets all the evidence. I think all of it will be coming soon with some redactions. Right now they better get a full and complete financial disclosure for the Judge. Zim may be cooling his heels in jail while awaiting adjudication.

      Like

    • howie says:

      Fla. Statute 3.131 (5) is binding. Regardless of the Murder charge.

      Like

  43. Diwataman says:

    Here is a lot more from the hearing

    O’Mara “Let’s not look at this any differently then what he’s[George] going through as well.”

    Like

    • cajunkelly says:

      At the end, when BDL talks about revealing witness identities through public information filings, I AGREE with him. Both my self and DH have fallen victim to this issue. Both of us, within weeks of each other, were first responders (not our profession, but rather under a Good Samaritan situation, since we’re both trained) to horrifying fatal accidents.

      In both cases the families of the deceased accessed all the information about us via law enforcement records (right down to cell phone numbers) and subjected us to grueling questioning about the hows, whens and wheres, their loved one’s “last moments” and “did they suffer”.

      Folks, unless you’ve been a first responder to a nightmare invoking fatality, you have no idea of the emotional devastation. We are not equipped to be, nor should we be placed in the position to be asked to become, counselors for the survivors.

      In my case, within moments of placing the 911 call, and because the deceased family had contacts with the local LEA, my cellphone rang. The caller (his sister) bluntly asked “is my brother dead?” That was the beginning of 3 MONTHS of grilling by the family. As cold as it sounds, I finally, out of self preservation, had to sever contact. *I* was in counseling myself, attempting to deal with the mental/emotional trauma.

      My DH’s situation was even more emotionally taxing, and the private invasion went even further.

      I have spoken with legal counsel and am considering mounting a campaign to SEAL the personal information of PRIVATE first responders.

      I said all that to say this; I identify with what Bernie said about hesitating to report a crime. I’ve even questioned just how I would handle it if I’m ever caught in the position of being the first responder on another vehicle accident.

      Yes, being a responsible citizen is an honorable thing. Being a responsible citizen should not subject that person to invasion of their private lives. I.E. don’t count on *others* to do the honorable thing.

      Like

      • cajunkelly says:

        And, I might add, *my* situation, and that of my DH, didn’t include the element of possible *death threats* added to the trauma and aftermath of our identities and contact information being so readily available and utilized. Though, in my case, one of the survivors that I performed CPR on *has* shown up at my *HOME* drunk as a skunk, on a night I was home alone, down on his drunken knees at my door, begging to “shake my hand and thank me for giving him a second chance”. I told him through the door that he could thank me better by DOING SOMETHING with that *God given* second chance, other than living his life in a besotted drunken stupor. Unfortunately he hasn’t heeded that advice.

        Like

  44. Diwataman says:

    Here is the full bond hearing on April 20th as well, I didn’t know if you all had this.

    http://www.wral.com/news/video/11004815/#/vid11004815

    Like

  45. DA says:

    I transferred money into my account 2 days ago and then paid a few bills.
    if you asked me for an estimate of how much money is in there, I would not be able to give you any intelligent answer. I would say “I do not know” even though I was logged into my online account just 36 hours ago. In fact, I would be scared to use my debit card b/c I just have no idea what is in there. Might be $1000 or might be $3.12
    Just b/c you don’t have an estimate doesn’t make you a liar. That is too much of a stretch.

    Like

    • Guy Fawkes says:

      Exactly, the point I have been trying to make. I have an app on my phone that gives me real time information on my accounts. Unless you ask me while I am looking at it, my answer will be “I do not know.” BDLR was told the brother knew, was told the brother in law was reachable by phone, and opted not to call him. That said, the numbers “in code” do not match those that were in the account at the time, so is that not further proof that Shelley did not know, and was not even able to estimate accurately the balance? I do not get this whole thing. If the account was secret and discovered after the fact, I totally understand, however, since everyone knew about it, there is no secret there. No intent to hide the money. So what is the squabble over? How much was in there? Respectfully, George and Shelley are of little means, and if hauled into court, and asked about an account they know the court knows about, they may have assumed that the court was already aware of all the pertinent information. Not making excuses for her, I just imagine my wife in that position, and knowing her, she would have said the same. She would have said she did not know and assumed that the court could, and did glean any of the necessary information about the account prior to, which I bet a dollar to a donut that they already had.. If fact, I think BDLR would be a fool not to have done so. That is the kicker for me. They had to have known at the time. This is yet another attempt to try the case in the media on the part of the prosecution. The sheer fact Judge Lester allowed the motion to be argued the same day it was filed borders on judicial misconduct. I have never been in court and seen a Judge allow something like that to be sprung at the last minute, especially when there was plenty of time beforehand to do so. Had this been a secret account that was just found that morning and it could be substantiated that the defendant was preparing to flee, then perhaps, but there is not indication that he was, given the fact George has complied at every turn.

      Like

  46. Nola Chandler says:

    In the motion to revoke bail the prosecution listed two things the Zimmemans were not honest about or lied to the court about; the passport and Mr. Zimmerman’s defense funds that were being deposited into a paypal account. Mr. O’Mara made the courts aware of the second passport on April 27 and he also made the courts aware of the defense funds that were being donated on Mr. Zimmerman’s behalf. During that hearing the judge stated that he needed to know more about the monies relating to these funds. On May 18, 2012; Mr. O’Mara provided information to the courts and to the state attorney regarding these funds.

    The prosecution presented two lies too the court, passport/money; O’Mara returned to the courts and addressed those two issues, so why does the judge over look the passport issue and revoke bail because of the money issue and call SZ a lair?

    The website was setup as a defense fund for Zimmerman’s legal defense. So when SZ was asked if they had any money and she said no, she didn’t lie because legally the money were not hers and Zimmerman’s personal money, and especially not to do with it what they wanted to do with it.
    If a trust is setup for my my medical expenses the money deposited into that trust does not belong to me because it is setup for a specific purpose and using it for other purposes could become a legal issues.

    He questioned her about the money in the website” right now”, and she stated, “CURRENTLY” I do not know. She told him who he could get that information from as to what was in the website “right now”. SZ had no way of knowing what was in that website right then and there; therefore she did not lie.
    He should have asked her when was the last time she checked the website and what was in the website the last time she checked?
    He should have asked her to her knowledge had there been any money transferred from that website to any of their personal accounts.

    He asked SZ if she had an estimate of how much money had been obtained or collected “so far”? and she answered, “I do not”. Her brother-in-law had not disclosed that information to her, so did she lie, not neccesarily. If SZ transfered $135K into a credit union that does not meant that $135K was all that had been obtained or collected through that website up to that point, Prior to taking the amount that she transfered out there may have been other transfers made. Money was going into that website daily even after she made the transfer, so there was no way as she sat on that phone that she could have estimated how much money had gone into that website.

    Like

  47. Juzmejax says:

    There’s just one part of this, I don’t understand. I have read all the links. We know that the bond hearing was on 4/20/12 and the judge set the bond at $150,000. The calls between George and his wife were made before this hearing, so how did either of them know the amount of the bond? It doesn’t make sense to me. THEY knew the amount of bond BEFORE it was set by the judge?

    Like

  48. Greg says:

    I wish and hope there is an avenue that would allow GZ to sue the everlovin’ you know what out of team Trevon and the media.

    Like

Comments are closed.