I don’t agree. “Had to know” expresses the belief that his knowledge was certain.
“I think he knew,” or “I think he would have known,” express an opinion but acknowledge the the uncertainty of the proposition.
I I knew that he knew I would have stated that he knew. Using “had to know” provides an implicit “don’t you think?” to the reader.
I don’t know about that. When I read your original statement I got the impression that it would be incredulous to believe he didn’t know. I didn’t get the sense that my agreement was being solicited, rather the opposite, I got the sense that I had to agree.
Well, exactly. It strongly implies that I believe there is no way in hell Zimmerman was kept ignorant of such a significant fact. It may even suggest I think you’d be crazy to disagree. It is not, however, a declarative statement.
Forget it Jake; you’ve been Brickrolled.
But you don’t believe that. You KNOW there’s at least one way Zimmerman didn’t know. Nor is it particularly far-fetched. Zimmerman Sr. learns that the site has raised $200K, thinks back to his days as a magistrate, whose duty it is to set bonds, and realizes that this benefit has a downside: it could make the judge worry that with such a large treasure chest, Zimmerman was a flight risk. So he keeps it to himself.
How is that “no way in hell?” Does it violate the laws of physics? Does it contradict our innate sense of how humans behave? Can’t we easily imagine such a thing?
If George Zimmerman were asked by the judge, and he testified that he wasn’t aware of the amount raised until after he was released, do you picture the judge responding, “That’s just not credible. There’s no way you wouldn’t have known?”
Are you suggesting that the Zimmerman family conspired to hide assets from the court?
Well, a conspiracy requires an agreement amongst multiple people to commit a criminal act. So far as I know, Zimmerman Sr. never testified as to any indigency or made any financial representations to the court, nor was he under any obligation to do so.
So, no. In this hypothetical scenario I crafted to offer you one way that Zimmerman wouldn’t know about the $200K, it wouldn’t be a conspiracy to hide assets from the court. But even if it were, the point remains that it’s one way George wouldn’t have known about the money.
Perhaps you are right. If the Zimmermans secured the bond using their house, wouldn’t there be paperwork required by the court? Would they not be asked if their son was indeed indigent?
If the cost of a good is sufficiently low…
Yes, and then no.
Yes, there would be paperwork. No, they would not have to disclose their total assets, just those assets that they planned to use to secure the bond.
But George is an adult. The parents are not asked to verify the financial condition of their adult son.
::sigh::
Right you are.
Since Zimmerman Sr. was serving in Vietnam in 1970, that means means he is over 60 at the minimum. Can we actually rule out that he knows very little about using PayPal unless someone walked him through it?
I checked my paypal account and it doesn’t seem to log anything unless you actually withdraw some money. Even if the Zimmermans knew how much money was in the account the court might need a court order to Paypal to find out.
Don’t forget that George Zimmerman will own at least 50,000 in taxes on that money.
No need to speculate - he knew about it.
His brother ran the site, not his father.
I’m afraid I don’t see the part in the article which indicates that George Zimmerman knew about that during the bond hearing.
Do you have a cite for that? In any case I don’t recall he was called into court to testify.
It may not be stated explicitly, but it’s very difficult to conclude otherwise, given that his lawyer’s response to the direct suggestion that he did know was to characterize Zimmerman’s failure to disclose the funds as an “oversight,” and to stress that O’ Mara himself had no personal knowledge of it.
Certainly if he could claim that Zimmerman didn’t actually have a clear idea of how much was sitting in the kitty last week, it would be sheer negligence to fail to defend him on those grounds. We can safely assume that he knew full well that such a claim wouldn’t bear scrutiny. (eg; logs will show logins to the paypal account using Zimmerman’s credentials.)
So you basing this on the fact that O’Mara was deferential to Judge Lester? I would say that the speculation is not over.
No. We can’t safely assume any such thing. The oversight in question could have been anytime between Zimmerman’s learning of it and the time he did reveal it. The oversight could have been Zimmerman’s failure to read email directed at him giving him totals, or a hard copy letter that he Zimmerman should have read. The oversight could have been Zimmerman’s brother not telling Zimmeramn about the total.
Look, I don’t say it’s impossible that he knew, or even that it’s unlikely.
I say it’s not settled. If I were betting on the issue, i’d bet he knew.