• 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.

** EXPOSED : A Blatent LIE by O'Mara told to the court

Paperview

Paperview

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
10,341
Reaction score
5,075
Location
The Road Less Travelled
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Or is it? You decide.

In the May 28th hearing, there was a tidbit told by O'Mara which a few people have picked up on.

During the hearing, O'Mara specifically said there was a video recording of TM showing

"two buddies of his beating up a homeless guy."

It's right here - at 23:25. Captured.



Full Zimmerman Hearing May 28 2013 - YouTube

The ever knuckled-dredged American Thinker picked up on it and wrote this story:
Trayvon, George, and the Homeless Man

By Jack Cashill May 31, 2013
At a pre-trial hearing on May 28, the attorney for accused murderer George Zimmerman, Mark O'Mara, slipped a time bomb into the public record that no one in the major media seemed to notice. It had to do with a homeless man, and the relationship between that man and the victim of Zimmerman's alleged crime, Trayvon Martin.

...
The media missed, however, O'Mara's reference to homelessness and Martin's attitude towards it. O'Mara informed Judge Nelson that Martin had a keen interest in fighting and that he had video proof of the same. The charmless Nelson made one of her rare stabs at humor by implying that if attendance at a fight were proof of criminality, half of America would be in jail.

O'Mara countered by saying that Martin not only attended fights, but that he also recorded them on video, including "one where two buddies of his are beating up a homeless guy." The video recorded a crime. The State of Florida had had this video in possession for months and took no follow-up action.

Read more: Articles: Trayvon, George, and the Homeless Man
Click to expand...
There isn't enough eyerolls in the world...

Some folks on the web are even turning it into 'Trayvon beat up a homeless man."

That video has been elusive, as it was never released, and I've been looking for it since Omar brought it up.

And as of this morning...the mystery...lol....may have been solved.

Orlando Sentinel's Rene Stutzman writes a story last night where it is clear she had to have seen the video.

She describes what she saw, and said it was not anything like O'Mara presented it.

Then the article was pulled. Did she give her buddy O'Mara the heads up just as she pressed the "publish" button, then....whoa...decided to pull it to help OMy milk more money from the Zimbots? Did she just realize at that moment she was accusing O'Mara of lying to the court? Who knows.

Why did it get pulled?

This is what was seen last night on Google News
8625BLspOhmCcAEYRk_.jpg-large.jpg


but if you clicked on it, the story was gone. No trace of it on OS last night -- or today.

Luckily, through the magic of google cache, we get the story:

z-homeless_zpse37cdade.jpg


You can see it for yourself here: Trayvon Martin fight video - OrlandoSentinel.com

So...the mystery is...why was the story pulled?

And why do we not get to see the video? Why is he withholding it?

Two homeless guys TM encountered fighting over a bike is NOT
AT
ALL

"two buddies of his beating up a homeless guy."


If Stutzman's description is accurate -- it is a Blatant LIE O'Mara told the court.

And if true, he should be sanctioned.
 
Paperview said:
If Stutzman's description is accurate -- it is a Blatant LIE O'Mara told the court.
.
Click to expand...

I dislike "if" statements. It is a speculation statemement that can't really be debated.

example of a worthless statement.
"If" evidence showed you were the shooter of TM, GZ is wrongly accused and you should be charged.

Besides there is so much bs on the web and some news media that will never make it to court. If it is true, would you not think the State would bring action against the O'Mara? They have yet to do so.
 
mike2810 said:
I dislike "if" statements. It is a speculation statemement that can't really be debated.

"If" evidence showed you were the shooter of TM, GZ is wrongly accused and you should be charged.

Besides there is so much bs on the web and some news media that will never make it to court. If it is true, would you not think the State would bring action against the O'Mara? They have yet to do so.
Click to expand...

Well, this just happened a few days ago where O'Mara made the allegation of what was on TM's phone, re the video of his "two buddies of his beating up a homeless guy."

Yet, mysteriously, the video is no where to be found...but there sure was a hell of a document dump of all those phone messages and pictures.

Why was that one missing?

Now we know Rene saw it - and it is NOT AS OMARA DESCRIBED IT TO THE JUDGE.

Not at all. I'm sure more will be coming out about that video - and the media has been alerted this morning of the potential LIE O'Mara told the court.
 
"would you not think the State would bring action against the O'Mara?"


Furthermore, who says they won't? The State doesn't file motions and have it posted to the court website within minutes of coming out of a hearing, you know.
 
From the OP hodgepodge of copy/paste/screenshots...

O'Mara has unearthed a good bit of evidence that he says shows that Trayvon took part in organized fights. Last week, he released text messages from Trayvon's cell phone. In one the Miami Gardens teenager wrote that in one fight he got pummeled in the first round because his opponent got him on the ground.

Also in court Tuesday, he said he had found video of Trayvon refereeing a fight.
Click to expand...

That's an unexpected development.
 
Eh, since you started a new thread for this topic, I guess i'll move my comment here:

1) So, she reported on what she believes the video shows and, according to her, it does not show what omara indicated. How does this make her a "Z-licker"? I assume you have some historical context for your feeling. What has Renee reported on that you find so offensive and why do you think she shold not have reported on whatever it was you find offensive?

2) Do you know why OS decided to delete the story? There could be multiple reasons. one such reason is they are not certain it does show two homeless fighting over a bike and want to confirm prior to posting. Maybe they found additional information that showed that it might have been something different. It is not necessarily, and most likely not, for the reason you claimed - she gave Omara the heads-up prior to posting. Why would Renee have posted the story at all, if she really was a "Z-licker" as you claim?
 
ecofarm said:
From the OP hodgepodge of copy/paste/screenshots...



That's an unexpected development.
Click to expand...

Not to anyone who was watching the May 28th hearing.

Here is a portion of the transcript of the hearing I linked above:
Beginning at about 21:20

O’Mara: Response, Your Honor, is that we are allowed to look into that and to bring it to the jury, should we have evidence of a reputation for that. And there is certainly enough evidence—we will suggest—in the text messages; the Facebook posts; and other witness testimony that is going to suggest that Trayvon Martin involved himself ongoingly in fighting with other people.

He actually had texted about having lost the first round of a fight because somebody had gotten on top of him—much the way he did to George Zimmerman. And he also texted—might have been a Facebook post—that he had won a fight because he punched somebody in the nose, at first. Which is, again, exactly what we suggest the forensic evidence supports here.

So, if we meet the criteria of [Buenos]—it certainly should be admitted and should not be limited pre-emptively before the trial. [Unintelligible.]

Judge Nelson: How do you get past the authentication issue? And then, after authentication, you have a hearsay issue.

O’Mara: Thank you, and we will address that. But the question is—if we can show authentication—and we do have people under subpoena who had these conversations with him—then, that is our burden.

But it is not a pre-emptive motion in limine to pre-empt us trying to do it.

Judge Nelson: You have different things here in your—ah, the defense response. Under ‘C’ you say, “one pre-arranged fight.” I think you have to—if you are able to get through the authentication and the hearsay; those are the first two hurdles—and then you have “or a spectator at others”—I don’t think any evidence of being a spectator of a fight would come into evidence.

That would mean anybody who goes and watches any fighting match could have that brought against them as a character reference in a trial. So.

O’Mara: Presumably, however, you will keep your mind open when we present to you the videos of him at these fights. Not just as a pure spectator, but refereeing one; and being involved in taping one where two buddies of his are beating up a homeless guy. So as long as we keep an open mind as to the potential relevance of these pieces of evidence—should the State present. Don’t forget—let me back up, and I apologize, Your Honor.

This information—all of it—is only going to become relevant for the defense case according to how the State handles their presentation. If this case is limited primarily, solely, to what happened from the beginning of the non-emergency call to the end of the emergency call which included the shot of Trayvon Martin—if that is what this case is going to be limited to—then this evidence may not be relevant at all.

The question is—today—I don’t know; and quite honestly nor does the court know—how the State is going to intend to present Trayvon Martin that day. So, pre-emptively, I don’t think that you should limit it.

Judge Nelson: I understand the case law and the rules of the court; and my ruling is that it will not be mentioned in opening statement. And if and when it comes in—if the defense is able to authenticate it and get past the hearsay—evidence or testimony regarding the fighting would be allowed in. But it has those hurdles to do.
​
 
Paperview said:
Not to anyone who was watching the May 28th hearing.
Click to expand...

Ahahaha, as if!

Seriously, though, if O'Mara has evidence that Trayvon was involved in organized fighting, as both a fighter and a referee, then his 'innocent child' image will be destroyed in the eyes of everyone.
 
Dishonesty in your presentation.
There isn't enough eye-rolls in the world to give your topic. :doh
You are jumping the gun as you do not know.

If you were honest about it you would have made your title a question.
Did O'Mara lie to the Court?
But of course you didn't.

Your false title, as it was done purposely on your part and therefore, is a lie.


You have no clue if what was posted was correct, a test, or whatever. You just do not know.
You have no idea if what she saw, or even if she saw the one O'Mara referred to.

For all you know she saw one video, thought it was it, and hurriedly posted an article about it to beat the other reporters, only to find out she watched a different one, so removed it.
You just don't know at this point.



But lets say what was posted is true.
So what?
As far as we are concerned, O'Mara reported what he believed he saw. Big deal. It still shows ™'s interest in fighting.
O'Mara believed that is what he saw. If the video in not representative of what he believes he saw, it isn't a lie unless you could show that he knew it wasn't as he stated.

And as for sanctions.
iLOL
Stating to the court what you believe, is not actionable.
Unlike the direct and deliberate untruths BDLR stated to the Court.
 
Last edited:
There are too many "ifs" and various other suppositions to take this seriously.
 
this thread is like most tabloid news sites. Rush to get something posted before all the facts are known.
 
mike2810 said:
this thread is like most tabloid news sites. Rush to get something posted before all the facts are known.
Click to expand...

He really thinks this means something because he spammed it elsewhere. :lamo

Hmmm?
I wonder if I did some more searching, if I would find it spammed at other forums too.
 
Last edited:
buck said:
Eh, since you started a new thread for this topic, I guess i'll move my comment here:

1) So, she reported on what she believes the video shows and, according to her, it does not show what omara indicated. How does this make her a "Z-licker"? I assume you have some historical context for your feeling. What has Renee reported on that you find so offensive and why do you think she shold not have reported on whatever it was you find offensive?

2) Do you know why OS decided to delete the story? There could be multiple reasons. one such reason is they are not certain it does show two homeless fighting over a bike and want to confirm prior to posting. Maybe they found additional information that showed that it might have been something different. It is not necessarily, and most likely not, for the reason you claimed - she gave Omara the heads-up prior to posting. Why would Renee have posted the story at all, if she really was a "Z-licker" as you claim?
Click to expand...

Oh give me a break. Anyone who has been reading Stutz's stories knows she leans broadly toward the defense, feeding every little rumor he tells her, titling bombastic headlines, she works with the freaks at the treehouse, and bends over backwards to kiss the Omarter team. If you haven't seen that, I don't know what to tell you.

That she saw the video and who knows...maybe she was drunk on a Saturday night and posted that story, then realized how dangerous it was to point out OMarter lied to the court...maybe Omarter told her to hold up till he could milk more money from the Z suckers.

We'll find out soon enough why there is such a wide variance in how a video on the dead kid's phone could be described in two compleeeeeeeeeeeetely different ways.
 
Paperview said:
Oh give me a break. Anyone who has been reading Stutz's stories knows she leans broadly toward the defense, feeding every little rumor he tells her, titling bombastic headlines, she works with the freaks at the treehouse, and bends over backwards to kiss the Omarter team. If you haven't seen that, I don't know what to tell you.

That she saw the video and who knows...maybe she was drunk on a Saturday night and posted that story, then realized how dangerous it was to point out OMarter lied to the court...maybe Omarter told her to hold up till he could milk more money from the Z suckers.

We'll find out soon enough why there is such a wide variance in how a video on the dead kid's phone could be described in two compleeeeeeeeeeeetely different ways.
Click to expand...
As for your characterization of her, you are wrong.

Your bias clearly shows through though.

As for her maybe being drunk, sure, as for what you ridiculously allege, not even.
 
Excon said:
As for your characterization of her, you are wrong.

Your bias clearly shows through though.

As for her maybe being drunk, sure, as for what you ridiculously allege, not even.
Click to expand...

Don't be too upset I pretty much ignore most of your gibber-filled posts, ExCON.

Just relax and enjoy it.
 
Paperview said:
Don't be too upset I pretty much ignore most of your gibber-filled posts, ExCON.

Just relax and enjoy it.
Click to expand...
:doh :slapme: :doh
iLOL

There is nothing to enjoy from you gibber filled posts containing lies and unsupportable assertions.


And btw, you ignore my posts because you can not contend with the truth. That much is obvious.
 
Last edited:
Paperview said:
Oh give me a break. Anyone who has been reading Stutz's stories knows she leans broadly toward the defense, feeding every little rumor he tells her, titling bombastic headlines, she works with the freaks at the treehouse, and bends over backwards to kiss the Omarter team. If you haven't seen that, I don't know what to tell you.

That she saw the video and who knows...maybe she was drunk on a Saturday night and posted that story, then realized how dangerous it was to point out OMarter lied to the court...maybe Omarter told her to hold up till he could milk more money from the Z suckers.

We'll find out soon enough why there is such a wide variance in how a video on the dead kid's phone could be described in two compleeeeeeeeeeeetely different ways.
Click to expand...

Or maybe you paid her to post the vid and write the article, then pull it. Or maybe the State paid her then the States check bounced, so she pulled the vid.

or maybe, .... . Maybe's are like "if" statements. makes me wonder if you also buy into the staged Boston bombing or Sandy Hook CT's. Maybe, I am on to something.
:mrgreen:
Let's wait and see what the State does.
 
He he.

GZ legal has responded!!!!


hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
 
Laughing my Freaking Ass OFF!!!!!!!

from @gzlegalcase...


CORRECTION AND APOLOGY REGARDING MISSTATED NATURE OF TRAYVON MARTIN VIDEO
ON 02 JUNE 2013.
During the Tuesday, May 28th hearing, Mr. O'Mara misstated the nature of video from Trayvon Martin's cell phone which was included in the Defendant's 3rd Supplemental Discovery. He stated that the video showed "two buddies of his beating up a homeless guy," when what happened was Trayvon Martin, along with a buddy, was videotaping two homeless guys fighting each other over a bike. Though it was unintentional, it is a particular concern to us because we are and have been committed to disputing misinformation in every aspect of this case, not causing it. For that, Mr. O’Mara apologizes.

Correction and Apology Regarding Misstated Nature of Trayvon Martin Video

Tolja...he LIED!
 
Paperview said:
Tolja...he LIED!
Click to expand...
:doh :slapme: :doh
iLOL
:lamo
Wrong.

Misstated, as it was pointed out it possibly could be.


And by stating so, shows he is honest, unlike those of you on the other side of the coin.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
From the OP hodgepodge of copy/paste/screenshots...



That's an unexpected development.
Click to expand...

Now taking karate (mma) classes is proof of violent proclivities.

We used to spar with quarter staffs.

Not one of us ever jumped on a stranger and tried to beat them to death, either.
 
What if...? said:
Now taking karate (mma) classes is proof of violent proclivities.

We used to spar with quarter staffs.

Not one of us ever jumped on a stranger and tried to beat them to death, either.
Click to expand...
Good for you.
Is your name Trayvon?
 
Will ya look at that.

BLxmtirCAAAt2uH_zps13702a47.jpg


This LIE would never have been revealed if it wasn't for a few of us trusty sleuthers piecing together parts of a deleted story and then honking on the horn to the media about it.

I have a record of GZS's legal office responding to a Zman fan club -- who was OH MY'ing it, after it was brought to her attention, and she wanted to let people know, *what can I tell the people who are asking me about it*

The email was posted about 45 minutes ago -- GZLEGAL saying they would respond soon.

And TADA!!!


Misstated my sweet creamy butt!! That was a ****ing LIE/


hysterical.gif
hysterical.gif
hysterical.gif
 
Paperview said:
Will ya look at that.

BLxmtirCAAAt2uH_zps13702a47.jpg


This LIE would never have been revealed if it wasn't for a few of us trusty sleuthers piecing together parts of a deleted story and then honking on the horn to the media about it.

I have a record of GZS's legal office responding to a Zman fan club -- who was OH MY'ing it, after it was brought to her attention, and she wanted to let people know, *what can I tell the people who are asking me about it*

The email was posted about 45 minutes ago -- GZLEGAL saying they would respond soon.

And TADA!!!


Misstated my sweet creamy butt!! That was a ****ing LIE
Click to expand...
You are so full of it.

It was not a lie.


And yes we know it was a misstatement and not a lie.


Are you really ignorant of that which is, and isn't, a lie?
You have no evidence that it was a lie. None.
 
Last edited:
You don't freakin' make a misstatement about the difference between "two of his buddies beating up a homeless person --"

and two homeless people fighting over a bike.


Holy frakin Moses. He did it deliberately to poison the waters more. HE LIED> AND he KNEW IT.

That's not an oversight, that's a **** up that just made a further mockery of any shred of credibility he had.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom