• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Judge revokes bail for George Zimmerman in Trayvon Martin case [W:124]

Thunder said:
it should have been $10 million.
Click to expand...

Apparently the judge has seen something that made him realize that the state's case was not as strong as he originally thought. Guess we'll have to see if there is anythign contained in the written order.
 
buck said:
One lady is the witness. If you listen to the interview, she refers to her husband something along the lines of "he will tell you the same thing, I think". The other female voice you hear in that interview is a second investigator that accompanied Serino.
Click to expand...


The interview of a female wtiness, Witness No 11, March 2, 2012 at 11:20 AM The wtiness heard a male voice ask something like she heard something like "What are you doing?"



//
 
Thunder said:
more like he now understands that GZ is a liar and can't be trusted.
Click to expand...

So, you really think they are going to release a known liar that can't be trusted and has been charged with murder 2 in which the state has a strong case? Murder 2 is typically non-bailable. The judge must have seen something that allowed him to release Zimm.
 
Gladiator said:
The interview of a female wtiness, Witness No 11, March 2, 2012 at 11:20 AM The wtiness heard a male voice ask something like she heard something like "What are you doing?"
Click to expand...

Yes, she repeated many times that she has no idea what any of the voices said. She couldn't even tell how many people were out there. She is simply taking a guess as to what it might be. Otherwise there would be no reason for her to keep reminding them that she has no idea what they said (the TV was too loud).
 
buck said:
Yes, she repeated many times that she has no idea what any of the voices said. She couldn't even tell how many people were out there. She is simply taking a guess as to what it might be. Otherwise there would be no reason for her to keep reminding them that she has no idea what they said (the TV was too loud).
Click to expand...

I listened again, and you are correct, that there is a second female voice, and that is an investigator.

"We" is used by witness 11, but apparently refers to her fiance and her.


So Witness 11 can be heard as the lower toned female voice in the March 2, 2012 interview.

She does say the TV was loud, and she does not remember exact words, but she does say, at one point, that she heard something like, "What are you doing?"

Witness 11 also that all male voices she heard had a beligerant tone.

This supports Dee Dee's version of what Dee Dee remembers in those 2 key aspects.

In the re-enactment George says he was talking in a calm voice "I don't have any problem with you." which is a lie within a lie.



//
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
a tense situation, is not evidence of the manner in which TM addressed GZ.

its a lie, and that makes you a liar.
Click to expand...

Excon said:
Wrong!
You really are not thinking it through.
The tense situation itself is enough evidence to suggest such.
Click to expand...
I think you two are talking about two different things.

Thunder is saying that a tense situation =/= evidence proving Martin addressed Zimmerman in a belligerent manner.
Excon is saying that a tense situation = enough evidence to suggest that Martin may have addressed Zimmerman in a belligerent manner.

You're not even discussing the same point, FFS.
 
buck said:
Apparently the judge has seen something that made him realize that the state's case was not as strong as he originally thought. Guess we'll have to see if there is anythign contained in the written order.
Click to expand...

That isn't what bail is about... its not about the strength or weakness of the case.. Its about flight risk and insuring the accused will appear.

The judge has been generous... IMO because he realizes George is not very bright..

Honey, if George were intelligent, he never would have shot Trayvon.
 
sharon said:
That isn't what bail is about... its not about the strength or weakness of the case.. Its about flight risk and insuring the accused will appear.

The judge has been generous... IMO because he realizes George is not very bright..

Honey, if George were intelligent, he never would have shot Trayvon.
Click to expand...
Can Zimmerman make $1mil in bail? Cause otherwise I'm not understanding how setting the bail that high means (to paraphrase buck) that the Judge realizes the state's case is weak...
 
The Mark said:
Can Zimmerman make $1mil in bail? Cause otherwise I'm not understanding how setting the bail that high means (to paraphrase buck) that the Judge realizes the state's case is weak...
Click to expand...

Not exactly what I stated. However, the judge originally said that the state's case was very strong. Murder 2 is typically a non-bondable offense. If the state had as strong a case as the judge originally believed and they could have convinved the judge, he could have denied bond for murder 2. Doesn't mean the case is necessarily weak, just that it may not have been as strong as the judge originally opined. And yes, as I recall, the judge specifically stated that he beleived that Zimmerman could make the bond in his order.
 
Last edited:
The Mark said:
Can Zimmerman make $1mil in bail? Cause otherwise I'm not understanding how setting the bail that high means (to paraphrase buck) that the Judge realizes the state's case is weak...
Click to expand...

Good question.. We know he can come up with 100,000 in cash, but what can he use for the collateral?

I wish they been honest with the court in the first bond hearing..
 
An impartial and more knowledgeable judge would be better.
 
Sure it is. He had/has the discretion to have just called George in to explain the discrepancy without revocation.
 
Redbeard said:
Sure it is. He had/has the discretion to have just called George in to explain the discrepancy without revocation.
Click to expand...

The bail had to be revoked... it was obtained thru false pretenses.
 
Wrong... Revocation not a necessity. You do realize judges do have authority to use discretion, yes?
 
Redbeard said:
Wrong... Revocation not a necessity. You do realize judges do have authority to use discretion, yes?
Click to expand...

I view lying to the court and one's lawyer about finances and a duplicate passport to be a serious matter.
 
You said "the bail had to be revoked." And whether you view it lying or not is irrelevant to a judges discretionary authority.
Again, I am telling you a revocation was not a necessity prior to obtaining the information from George.
At the time, the judge only had what the prosecution gave him to view.
 
Redbeard said:
You said "the bail had to be revoked." And whether you view it lying or not is irrelevant to a judges discretionary authority.
Again, I am telling you a revocation was not a necessity prior to obtaining the information from George.
At the time, the judge only had what the prosecution gave him to view.
Click to expand...

Sorry.. you lost me... At the first bond hearing the prosecution wouldn't have known about the 204,000 dollars in the bank...
 
Excuse me! Is this thread not about the judge revoking the previous bond?

Shall I take this s l o w! Do try to keep on track.
Revocation not necessary (again judges discretion) to call George in to question him about the information given to him from the prosecutor.
 
Redbeard said:
Excuse me! Is this thread not about the judge revoking the previous bond?

Shall I take this s l o w! Do try to keep on track.
Revocation not necessary (again judges discretion) to call George in to question him about the information given to him from the prosecutor.
Click to expand...

As I understand it George ad Shellie also deceived OMara.
 
That is something they have to deal with.

Example on George: The police come to your house asking you to come with them to the station as they would like to question you. ^They do this without arrest being made.
The judge has/had the discretion to have George come in to clear the matter face to face with the judge, without revoking the bail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom