How do you equate “losing the only witness who claimed to know what happened” as “having him by the balls”? He’s not waiving his right to immunity, just to this specific hearing, and the only reason the defence would do that is because they feel it is unnecessary - that is, there is no chance of a conviction.
You have glommed on to Deedee like someone easily distracted by a bright piece of shiny (which doesn’t surprise me). Can I ask what you she lied about? And if she lied, will those lies be admissible in court? If she lied, does this in any way trump the evidence that shows she was on the phone with Martin up until the moment that Zimmerman and the kid likely encountered each other?
If these supposed lies of hers are enough to destroy her credibility, why aren’t Zimmerman’s lies about his finances, his passport, or his nonexistent associate degree? What is good for the goose is good for the gander, ain’t it? The defendant’s star witness is so bad who lied in his own bond hearing, under oath.
This is so totally devoid of reason that I’m convinced you’re delusional now. If the defense was so convinced that there is no case against Zimmerman, there would be no reason to string things along until trial. They would have had an immunity hearing yesterday so he could clear his name already.
Zimmerman lying at the bond hearing has nothing to do with the case. Deedee lying, if in fact she did lie, removes much of the evidence against Zimmerman. The claims are she lied about being Martin’s girlfriend, and about being on the phone to him when she claims she was.
Cite for this?
T-mobile’s records corroborate her being on the phone with him, so you need to check your sources.
Cite that there are claims she lied? Several posts on this page claim it.
If this forms the basis of your hopes and dreams, no wonder you think Zimmerman will walk.
Apparently she lied about being in the hospital at some point - and that she wasn’t 16 but 18. I’m not sure what that has to do with anything – except that she lied about something.
On the other hand, Zimmerman lying about something didn’t seem to matter in the great scheme of things. Odd that.
Zimmerman couldn’t use stand your ground even if it would avoid a trial. Being given immunity would reignite a shit storm of anger all over again. This whole mess blew up because the cops didn’t charge him in the beginning.
His only hope is to clear his name and have a jury say NOT GUILTY. Even then he may be hounded and threatened just like OJ and Casey Anthony.
But his best chance of regaining a normal life is a jury trial and acquittal.
DD will be deposed this month. It has to do with her credibility. The state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z is guilty. I suppose there’s a good reason the state hasn’t released DD’s phone records, and Trayvon’s cell phone GPS records around the time of the incident, (GPS-A is allegedly accurate up to ten feet) and it’s rather odd that the security camera across the street, at Kohl’s, the security camera pointed at the 7-11 parking lot, turned out to be blank (but Apparently only during the time of the incident). If they were helpful to the prosecution, they certainly should have been released. One could conclude they hurt the case. (If they aren’t in discovery, they can’t be used at trial). With modern technology, there are few secrets, but the technology in this case appears mysteriously lacking.
No, I think he’ll walk because the evidence against him is too weak to sustain a conviction, and doubt about the testimony of the key prosecution witness makes it weaker. Zimmerman could lie about everything under the sun, and it would make no difference if the evidence against him isn’t strong to begin with. You are attempting to equate two very different things.
The question isn’t whether Zimmerman is a good, or nice, or honest man. The question that matters is, is he provably a murderer?
And Zimmerman’s lying goes toward what? His creative writing skills?
Zimmerman’s credibility is utterly irrelevant if the state don’t have a strong case against him. Really, what is so hard to grasp about that? He doesn’t have to prove his innocence, he doesn’t have to say anything.
Is there something about that you don’t understand? I’ve mentioned it many times, and I’m not sure I can make it any clearer.
Try three more times. Maybe then I’ll learn once and for all that a defendant lying to save his own skin is irrelevant in a trial.
All signs right now point to the evidence being strong enough to make an immunity hearing contraindicated for him. “Deedee is a liar!” is the defense’s latest ploy to distract this fundamental truth from Z’s supporters. What’s sad is that y’all are falling for it.
Everyone has lied at least once in their lives. Thus, the defense has to do more than demonstrate that Deedee is like 100% of the population when it comes to honesty. They have to show her account can’t be trusted because she has lied about issues pertinent to Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence.
How does lying about her age or where she was during Martin’s funeral have to do with the whether she was on the phone with Martin during the fight and heard him say “get off, get off”?
Do you understand that, if the jury disbelieve his testimony, all they can do is ignore it, they may not assume the opposite is true? This, by the way, is true for all witnesses, but it has a very different effect with a star prosecution witness and with a defendant.
So, tell me, how would proof that Zimmerman was lying help in any way prove he is guilty of murder? Either the evidence is there to show his guilt and prove him a liar, or something else proves he’s a liar and it’s irrelevant. It’s the proof of murder that would make him guilty, not the proof of lies.
The fundamental truth, based on the evidence that’s been released to the public, is that Zimmerman legally shot Martin in self defence.
The defence have to introduce reasonable doubt on the veracity of her testimony. If they can show she lied about her age and her relationship with Martin in her interview with the police, that mat very well cause a jury to doubt her entire testimony. They don’t have to prove anything - although they will, of course, do so if they can.
It really depends when she lied about these things, and to who. If she lied to a reporter, or an acquaintance, it would almost certainly be irrelevant. If she lied to her lawyer or to the police, it would show that she’s willing to lie when she could be expected to tell the truth.
If she can be shown to have lied under oath when the trial happens, her entire testimony will probably be ignored.
He didn’t have to say a single word to anyone yet he immediately spent 5 hrs going over what happened with the police. 5 hrs. This is where people who lie are exposed. He didn’t have time to create the elaborate plots people have accused him of in this thread. All the evidence that has come out since has corroborated his story instead of proving it wrong. This is what the state has to work with.
The specially appointed prosecutor bypassed the normal legal proceedings (grand jury) and based the charges on “new” information from a witness. That would be Dee Dee. The prosecution has done everything possible to stonewall the defense by delaying information that the defense is entitled to including that of Dee Dee’s.
Dee Dee’s testimony is extremely weak to begin with because she wasn’t there. She’s relaying what she thought she heard and adding her own interpretation of things like the sound of grass. Her testimony also occurred well after the event and appears to have been coached. Given all the above plus her poor speaking abilities she’s going to get shredded on the stand before her lie about the funeral is even raised.
I can picture it now.
"Miss (whatever her last name is), you told the police that you “heard grass” is that correct?
“Uh-huh”
"Is that a ‘yes’?’
“I guess”
looks at judge, judge waves it on
“And could you explain for the court what grass sounds like, at least from your perspective?”
“I un-no ya know, grass and shit”
“Miss please refrain from swearing in my court room”
“Aight…”
“Miss, you’ll need to be more specific”
“Uh what’s spesifik mean?”
“Pardon?”
“I un-no what that word means”
head shake
“What sound does grass make?”
“Like shoes on grass”
head shake
“So, if I may expand upon your interpretation - the sound of grass is a wet slippery sound or?”
“ya..I guess”
“Is that a yes or no”
“Look I dunno, can we hurry this up.”
Dee Dee looks at Crump
“Are you in a hurry to go somewhere Miss?”
“…”
“Why do you keep looking at Mr. Crump?”
“Listen ya’ll, I want to get outta here and get me a no. 7. That man said he’d buy me one and biggie size it, if I said what he told me to”
OBJECTION
Laughter in the court room
“No further questions your honor”
“You honor the State requests a recess..”
CIRCUS
I suck at seeing lies because I trust everyone based on the fact that I don’t lie…but I’ve heard it said that one way to spot a liar is if they overshare. Just saying.
Real talk. Hey everybody, decided I’d drop back in for a while. I’m assuming no one has changed their minds, right? Doesn’t look like it. This case is going to be a real let down for those invested in Zimmerman’s guilt. It will be a lesson never to jump to conclusions or hate people without good reason.
He will never “cop a plea”. He will be found not guilty, and then (the pressure being off of the judge) she will grant him civil immunity. The end. And all the haters can blow their tops and make threats and cry and run around their neighborhoods knocking over garbage cans. Then they can find the next contrived injustice to attach themselves to.