He said anything about an “escape fund”?
If the money was placed in a trust, wouldn’t the only way Zimmerman could get at it is to go to court and dissolve the trustee’s handling of funds? If that’s correct, it’s hard to believe Zimmerman would leave the country with no funds. The American courts would block any transfer overseas, or wherever he would have gone.
The guy went into hiding right after the shooting. Remember when his lawyers didn’t even know where he was? And that was before he had been charged with any crime. His ass needs to be grateful that bail was even on the table.
If the money was in a trust, then what was Shellie transferring around? Monopoly money?
Here’s the info on the trust. Why the judge ignored this is beyond me. The whole point of O’Mara’s argument was Z isn’t a flight risk.
The judge poisioned the jury pool by openly accusing Z of planning to flee in his ruling.
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/george-zimmerman-bond-hearing-set-friday/nPhcB/
nevermind
Sheesh, are you being obtuse on purpose? Read what it says…the money *has now been turned *over to a trust.
GZ doesn’t get a freeroll to try to dupe the court then get a mulligan after getting caught.
If a person isn’t charged with a crime, he can go anywhere he damned well pleases. How is that evidence of hiding? Add the fact that the black panthers put a bounty on his head, I would be hiding as well.
No, we cannot.
And to me. The money was serious, but the passport was an obvious and intentional deceit upon the court.
He and his wife packed up shop the day after the shooting, before any “Black Panthers” had caught wind of this fiasco.
I don’t mind him packing up shop and leaving after the incident.
But lying about the money and - more critically, the second passport - is a big-time red flag.
No, his actions show that he was clearly planning to leave an option to evade the administration of justice if that suited him. The subsequent safeguards against that are his lawyers’ damage control, after his actions came to light.
I should clarify - I don’t mind him packing up and leaving town for a bit after the incident.
But *after he’s been charged, *lying about the money and second passport is a big-time red flag.
Or…what Larry Mudd said.
Now is slightly after the first bond hearing.
Cite for ‘now’ being ‘slightly after the first bond hearing’ and not ‘after getting busted on the PayPal account balance & transfers’.
You still haven’t answered any of the questions posed to you on the last page. They are the same questions I’ve asked since the beginning of this case.
Sorry – missed these before…
Your eye is mistaken.
In any criminal prosecution, the government has a list of elements of the crime. These are the specific things they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
For an ordinary second degree murder case, they must prove:
[ol]
[li]The victim is dead.[/li][li]The death was caused by the criminal act of the accused.[/li][li]The death was an unlawful killing of the victim by an act imminently dangerous and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.[/li][li]The death occurred in the county and state of Florida that is trying the case.[/li][/ol]
When self-defense is asserted, the element list changes:
[ol]
[li]The victim is dead.[/li][li]The death was caused by the criminal act of the accused.[/li][li]The death was an unlawful killing of the victim by an act imminently dangerous and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.[/li][li]The death occurred in the county and state of Florida that is trying the case.[/li][li]The accused did not reasonably believe that the act which caused the death was necessary to prevent death OR[/li][li]The accused did not reasonably believe that the act which caused the death was necessary to prevent great bodily harm to himself OR[/li][li]The accused did not reasonably believe that the act which caused the death was necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.[/li][/ol]
Those two lists are different.
When the defense claims self-defense, the state must specifically disprove what the accused believed. That’s not the same as the defense claiming mistaken identity, or accidental gun discharge, or some other generic excuse.
Now explain how proving murder doesn’t simultaneously demonstrate all the items in bold. Because that’s the crux of the question: how does the evidentary burden for proving murder in a non self-defense case differ from proving murder in a self-defense case?
I don’t think you can, to be honest. This is language that I cited in the previous Zimmerman thread that monstro started. From Mullaney vs. Wilbur:
You say this like it’s a profound statement.
The state can disprove what the accused believes in a self-defense case using the same dadgum evidence they’d need in a “I didn’t do it” case.
This evidence can be from:
Witness testimony that shows the accused behaved in criminal manner.
Physical evidence that suggests the accused committed an unlawful offense against the victim.
Circumstantial evidence that implicates the accused as the aggressor in the conflict leading to the victim’s death.