Zimmerman Bond Hearing Set For June 29

Notice to all of you who are following the Zimmerman case.

The hearing has been scheduled for Friday morning, June 29th.

10 Responses to Zimmerman Bond Hearing Set For June 29

  1. jd says:

    GZ wife arrested on perjury charges. In custody at same facility as husband.

    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-06-12/news/os-george-zimmerman-wife-arrested-20120612_1

    from the sentinel:

    According to the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office, deputies were alerted by prosecutors Tuesday that a warrant had been issued for Shellie Zimmerman, 25. She was arrested about 3:30 p.m. “at the location she was residing in Seminole County,” deputies said in a statement.

    She was booked on a perjury charge, with bond set at $1,000. She is currently “in the process of posting bond,” deputies said.

  2. lynp says:

    Oh please, Robert Sr made a support statement for his son. All he has is hearsay information from George. He is not a witness in any way to the event. What is to be suspicious about him?
    As Shellie told the SA in open court that her brother in law had the information about the Paypal account and offered to call him so that he could tell the Court, the particulars. No one told her yes, make the call so the Court did not interview him. For all we know, Robert Jr was sitting outside of the Court smoking waiting for the call that never came.
    Far as I am aware, George was not asked in court or on paper if he had other assets so as not asked, did not lie about the account.
    How come O’Mara did not have a bell go off with talk of “accounts”? What accounts George, where and how much?

    • jd says:

      And he is not protected by attorney client privilege if he gets asked about what he and his son discussed before or after the vidietaped walk thru. His story to the press is indeed hearsay – but telling none the less. He should know, and like the prosecution claims about his sons statements to police, it doesn’t match witness statements and evidence.

      As to whatever spin you want to put on Shellie, she was in a hearing about her husband’s finances and was asked if she had “any estimate” of funds. Sure, there is a defense that can be presented for her. I doubt the judge will be impressed.

      More important is that GZ s own lawyer admits he has a credibility problem. And by “his own lawyer” I mean the one who hid the passport and has his own credibility problem now.

      Robert jr tells the same hearsay story that the father does about GZ being knocked to the ground with the first blow. So I put him in the same category as his father – either he is pushing a false narrative knowingly or unknowingly.

      And this sort of petty bickering proves nothing. We dOnt know what GZ told investigators yet. We just don’t.

      Bur I’d love to hear more about the passport and money hidden from the court while the family claimed indigent status. The judge revoked bond and called GZ a potted palm. I doubt he’s predisposed to hear a tortured and technical explanation of how this is all an innocent mistake.

      • jd says:

        First sentence correction
        Robert Zimmerman sr was present T the videotaped walk thru with Sanford PD the day afterthe shooting.

  3. jd says:

    Again, it’s that father that fascinates me at present. Either he knew or he didn’t, and he’s been the main proxy for what we know about GZ’s still-under-seal statements to the police. RZ claims his son was walking a path to(wards) his vehicle when he was approached, struck to the ground by TM and then TM got on top of him right then and there. The problem is, the evidence and witness statements seem to show that the body and scattered objects were found elsewhere – between the townhouses and NOT on GZ’s path to(wards) his truck. At the very least he’s simply wrong about where the fight ended – but of course if the fight started at point A and ended at point B- and the distance is too great for a supine form to travel without getting his knees muddy, jeans torn, etc then there has to be a MEANS by which GZ went afoot after, along with, or in front of TM. And the proxy story doesn’t include any travel at all.

    I think it’s pretty clear that GZ may have left out a lunge, feint or even a punch to the nose that DIDN’t lead to him falling on the ground and that’s a huge thing to leave out in a self defense story about murder.

    So is the dad pushing a false narrative FOR his son or BECAUSE his son lied to him? He’s got ten grand on his house already forfeit to the bondsman. With his courtroom background, is he likely to have advised his son to hide the money and passport from the judge?

    And so on.

    O’Mara himself tells a story he can’t prove about how he got the missing valid passport in a fed ex packet and “forgot” to give it to the court. He’s got zero real proof other than his good name to cover himself. So his own credibility is on the line, and he knows it – apparently he includes some timestamp from his word processing program as “proof” that he drafted a letter about the hidden valid passport. This is like Nixon investigating his own wrongdoing and giving himself a clean bill of health.

    • Yes, I’m very curious about his five statements that we haven’t seen yet. If there any material inconsistencies or contradictions, that cannot be reasonably explained or harmonized, his defense will be in serious trouble.

      You’ve focused on the same issue that I’m wondering about and that is where did the confrontation take place.

      Did it start and end in the same place or different places?

      If it started in a different place, how far apart are the two places and how did they get from one place to the other?

      Was there a chase?

      If so, who was chasing whom?

      Did he follow Trayvon down the sidewalk between the two rows of townhouses where Trayvon was staying and confront him down by the house where Trayvon was staying as Trayvon was catching his breath and talking to his girfriend?

      If any of this happened, did he tell the police?

      If not, why not?

      Your suspicions about the father could be right. However, if George says something like, “Dad told me to conceal the amount of money in the account and hide the passport,” I would expect the father to deny it, whether it’s true or not true.

      This bond hearing could end up being a lot like attempting to defuse a ticking bomb with conflicts of interest galore.

      “Fascinating,” as Mr. Spock would say.

      • jd says:

        Regarding the scattered “debris field” of dropped objects including GZ’s lighted keychain flashlight – all of these items are on Trayvon’s path to home and none of them are on George’s path that leads to(wards) his vehicle.

        Here is a homemade “evidence map” I made for myself – with lots of speculative distances and conclusions, but after hundreds of views no one has found any fault with it that I know of:

        the39steps

        The distance from the keychain flashlight to the shell casing is around 40 feet, and much to far for two people on the ground to cover.

        There was a witness to a chase, W-2. and she put the two figures at 10-12 feet apart. It’s unclear if she will testify to the same, since her story is changing over time (some say she sees only one figure in later testimony but she is not asked specifically about the two persons she claimed to see earlier.) She’s already said she saw a foot chase, and the prosecution mentioned it at the bond hearing. There are also witnesses 4 and 7 who we have not heard about yet. And, w11 and w12 seem to describe hearing a fight that migrated past their unit, which is the northernmost unit on Twin Trees Lane. All of this matches the dropped items, including the tan 7Eleven bag found around halfway between the T and the body’s location in John’s back yard.

        If his proxies and surrogates are pushing the same narrative he told police GZ, has a lot of truth in his story ( he was battered about the head in some manner, was losing the struggle at some point, and may be one of the voices yelling “help”) but leaves out the part where he most likely tried to detain TM as the altercation migrated and objects were strewn about. If there is an innocent explanation for the movement, it better be in his statement to investigators.

        The difficulty for the prosecution is that there may not be a credible eye witness to the foot chase who can be present at trial, but deductive reasoning tells us there was some explanation for the movement. And that GZ omitted this explanation altogether, and for a reason that puts him in a more exculpatory position.

        Less pertinent, but also just as fake probably is the position of GZ’s car when he called the police and had his call recorded. HIs surrogates here tell a story that leaves out the probability that he MOVED his car during the call, shadowing the teen and this was the cause of TM’s decision to start running. I’ll write more about that if anyone is interested. It’s another deductive reasoning map about the movements, but it’s not speculative about what happened, just deductive about what could NOT have happened.

  4. jd says:

    I am not a lawyer but I think the prosecution is going to tear the Zimmermans apart at this hearing. The family is caught in the classic conspiracy trap. “What did you know and when did you know it” is just the beginning of their difficult questions they could face if any of them has the courage to take the witness stand.

    Best move? I think the defense kind of needs to throw Shellie under the bus first, if possible and she can “come clean” for everyone about the hidden money and the hidden valid passport. The others, if called could repeat exactly what she said and pray for the best on cross examination, just pleading the fifth to every question. I don’t see much chance of GZ making bond again, however if he does that, or if he refuses to take the stand.

    The line of questioning I want to hear begins with either GZ or Shellie on the stand and starts with, did you tell your father (in law) about the money and the passport? Then it proceeds to “are you in the habit of hiding important things from your father (in law)?” or, “can you tell us why he claimed the family was indigent when he knew about the $135 in the bank and the $20K slush fund and the $5K given to the bondsman and the $50K spent on your getaway, etc?”

    Of course if the father gets on the stand he can be asked if he knew about the money and the passport, and asked if his son was in the habit of lying to his father, or if he himself was in the habit of lying to a judge.

    I just don’t know how a bond hearing is run, even though I saw the last one from start to finish. ( It didn’t seem like a typical bond hearing to me. People were on the phone with the judge – I assume there will be no more or that charade this time – and the defense attorney attacked the “information/ affidavit” for the bulk of his time, and then the defendant made a bizarre self-serving “apology” where he contradicted his recorded statements about estimating Trayvon’s age as “late teens” and a “kid” by claiming he thought TM was “a little bit younger than me.”

    Then there is the defense lawyer himself who has claimed HE hid the valid passport from the court for many days. Seeing as how all the money is coming from donations, if I were the judge I’d not give him a fine but instead give him ten days in jail for contempt of court.

    The 29th is a Friday – I’m guessing this could be a long, good Friday.

    • I’m not sure how it’s going to work out, but you’re right, it will certainly be interesting to watch.

      You’re also right about George and Shellie having some splainin’ to do. Unfortunately for Shellie, she faces a potential perjury charge for her claimed lack of knowledge under oath at the bond hearing regarding the amount of money in the internet account.

      She probably should not testify and this brings up an important issue. I think Mark O’Mara has a potential conflict of interest and he should not be giving her any legal advice about whether to testify or not testify because her legal interest in protecting herself from being charged with perjury potentially conflicts with George’s legal interest in getting out on bond.

      Putting her on the stand to shoulder the blame for the perjury, for example, might serve his best interest but not hers, particularly if it was his idea in the first place to remain silent about the money in the account while she testifies that she did not know how much money was in the account.

      If she takes the stand, I would expect to see some aggressive cross examination by de la Rionda about George may have instructed her to do.

      Then O’Mara could potentially have some exposure too based on what he knew, when he knew it, what advice he may have given regarding it and to whom he gave it, so he may have an interest in protecting himself.

      It might be in his best interest to sit this one out.

      It might conceivably be in everyone’s best interest to exercise their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: