Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

The Criminal Information (embedded at the bottom of this post) does not say. Instead, the accompanying Affidvit recites testimony, phone call transcripts, and evidence of money received and transferred. Again, that all is relevant to whether George deceived the Court at the bond hearing.

But nowhere in the criminal Information or Affidavit of Probable Cause is a specific sentence or set of words identified as false with an explanation of why it was false.

I think there is a reason for this. Many of the answers of Shellie were non-committal. Since the prosecution does not specify which statements were false, here are some possibilities taken from the testimony quoted in the Affidavit of Probable Cause:

Q. Other major assets that you have which you can liquidate reasonably to assist in coming up with money for a bond? A. None that I know of.

What are “major assets”? Isn’t that a matter of opinion? Similarly, what does “reasonably” mean? Isn’t that also a matter of judgment, not a fact? The same lack of clarity accrues to “liquidate.” If the alleged funds already were liquid, the funds could not be liquidated again.

Q. I have discussed with you the pending motion to have your husband George declared indigent for cost, have I not? A. Yes, you have. Q. And is – - are you of any financial means where you can assist in those costs? A. Uhrn, not- – not that I’m aware of.

This question by defense counsel brings into play another conversation — not recited in the Information — as to what was in the pending motion and the discussions outside of court. What was her understanding of who owned the funds, what they could be used for, and whether they were her funds (“are you of any financial means”). If the funds belonged to George or to his defense fund, they were not Shellie’s financial means.

Q: I understand that you do have other family members present with you, and I’ll ask some more questions of them, but have you had discussions with them of at least trying to pull together some funds to accomplish a bond? A: We have discussed that— Q: Okay A: —-trying to pull together the members of the family to scrape up anything that we possibly can.

It’s not clear at all what could be false about this, unless Shellie did not actually have discussions with family members. Again, possible deception, but not a false statement.

Here is the entire segment quoted in the Affidavit of Probable Cause from the prosecution’s examination of Shellie (emphasis mine):

Q. And you mentioned also, in terms of the ability of your husband to make a bond amount, that you all had no money, is that correct? A. To my knowledge, that is correct. Q: Were you aware of the website that Mr. Zimmerman or somebody on his behalf created? A: I’m aware of that website. Q: How much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was — A: Currently, I do not know. Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected? A: I do not.

Notice the specific wording of the questions and answers. I think the best case for perjury was the response to the question whether “you all had no money.” (added) The way the question was structured, however, the question was whether Shellie previously said that there was “no money,” not that at the time of the question there was no money.

But in the very next question the issue of the website fundraising was raised, and she said she doesn’t “currently” know how much is “in that website right now” or how much was raised “as a result.” The word “currently” suggest that at the moment she was testifying she didn’t know, which may have been correct. Similarly the denial that she had “an estimate” would only be false if at the time of testifying Shellie had an estimate. [see Update below]

It may sound like I’m nitpicking the questions and answers, but that’s what’s at issue in a perjury prosecution.

This Court has held that statements alleged to be perjurious must be of “empirical fact” and not of opinion, belief or perception…. One of the essential elements of perjury in official proceedings is that the person making the statement does not believe it to be true… The questions posed to elicit perjured testimony must be asked with the appropriate specificity necessary to result in an equally specific statement of fact.

Cohen v. State, 985 So.2d 1207 (Fla. App. 3 Dist. 2008)(citations omitted).

Instead of specifying the words which constituted empirical statements of fact that knowingly were false and why, the prosecution presents testimony and then evidence, and only generally and vaguely states that a false statement was made.

I am not excusing the conduct of the Zimmermans as to the bond hearing. I understand why the Judge feels he was deceived.

I am questioning the bringing of a felony perjury charge without greater specificity of the false statements, particularly while the alleged perjurer’s husband is awaiting trial in a highly publicized case.

Just more questions as to how this prosecution is being handled.

Update: Per a commenter, it appears that the above testimony was selectively edited by the prosecution to leave out the following exchange (deleted testimony in bold):

Q: How much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was —

A: Currently, I do not know.

Q: Who would know that?

A: That would be my brother-in-law.

Q: And is he — I know he’s not in the same room as you, but is he available so we can speak to him, too, or the Court can inquire through the State or the Defense?

A: I’m sure that we could probably get him on the phone.

Q: Okay. So he’s not there now.

A: No, he is not, sir.

Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?

A: I do not.

The deleted transcript language certainly gives a very different context to the issue of whether Shellie knew how much was available or had an “estimate.” She offered to get the person who knew on the phone, but the prosecution didn’t take her up on that.

Note that in the Affidavit of Probable Cause the prosecution did not use an ellipsis or any other indication to show that words were omitted.

1 posted on 06/13/2012 7:25:32 PM PDT by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: roses of sharon

This is as bad if not worse than the Duke LAX case. This woman needs to be taken down the same way Nifong was.


2 posted on 06/13/2012 7:30:03 PM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: roses of sharon

Let me guess, Ms. Corey has further political ambition? She may be seeking a higher office?


3 posted on 06/13/2012 7:34:07 PM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: roses of sharon
I think that the Zimmermans are rapidly becoming political prisoners, because the More Equal Pigs (reference George Orwell-"Animal Farm") like the faux DA, have determined that it is useful for the state for them to be so... They also fear riots by the segment of the community that voted 95% for Obuma in 2008, and would be afraid to call out the National Guard to stop the riots because they would be called racist, and have to endure the drone of , "No Justice, No Peace"...

If there is exculpatory evidence relating to Mrs Zimmerman which was suppressed by the prosecution, then it is a major malfeasance, and the Fed Courts could get involved under several Amendments including 4,5. I hope Gov Scott has the National Guard at the ready...
6 posted on 06/13/2012 7:38:11 PM PDT by BigEdLB (Now there ARE 1,000,000 regrets - but it may be too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: roses of sharon

I bet I know the words that were said to her:

Obama: “I can make you assistant attorney general or even suggest you for a supreme court seat if you can win this one case...”


8 posted on 06/13/2012 7:40:37 PM PDT by struggle (http://killthegovernment.wordpress.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: roses of sharon

I feel that they are going to lose the case and trying everything possible to punish them using the bureaucracy. They should have held the probable cause hearing before the judge and ended this months ago.


9 posted on 06/13/2012 7:40:57 PM PDT by RetiredTexasVet (There's a pill for just about everything ... except stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: roses of sharon

She may have been dishonest, but it is very odd that everyone knew of the website collections and she told them to ask the brother in law on the amount. Did anyone ask him?


14 posted on 06/13/2012 7:49:53 PM PDT by Williams (No Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: roses of sharon

Corey is up for re-election and may well have ambitions for higher office, and is apparently, willing to suborn perjury to get there.

Angela Corey, meet Mike Nifong.


15 posted on 06/13/2012 7:51:56 PM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: roses of sharon

Corey is up for re-election and may well have ambitions for higher office, and is apparently, willing to suborn perjury to get there.

Angela Corey, meet Mike Nifong.


16 posted on 06/13/2012 7:52:17 PM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: roses of sharon

“Corey allegedly responded by threatening to sue Dershowitz and Harvard. “

I want the popcorn concession.


17 posted on 06/13/2012 7:56:56 PM PDT by Humble Servant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: roses of sharon

Tried to explaiher testimony could ha e an explanation and here it is.

Of course it ended wig George and myself being racists and this king it was okay to shoot an unarmed man
of course I think if the other guy instigated it by first action then that fight will end by my stopping g his action and if I feel my life is in danger then it’s going end permanently for the other guy.

Don’t start none, won’t be none.


22 posted on 06/13/2012 8:18:22 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live thnrough it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: roses of sharon

Every democrat is corrupt.

Every last one.

I sure hope all of the blacks calling for blood are really happy with themselves.

I also hope they have a glimmer of an idea of where their sons are tonight.


23 posted on 06/13/2012 8:24:45 PM PDT by Eaker (When somebody hands you your arse, don't give it back saying "This needs a little more tenderizing.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: roses of sharon
So it was Corey who decided to charge Zimmerman's wife with perjury? Last night it sounded like it was the judge's decision.

There have been a number of cases in recent years where politics has been more important than justice. It may serve the interests of certain individuals like Nifong or Corey, or interest groups like the racial grievance industry, the anti-gun groups, feminists, etc., at the expense of individuals who don't get fair trials--and at the cost of the public's belief in our system of justice. Plenty of room for cynicism.

Maybe they genuinely think they have to sacrifice Zimmerman to avoid riots--sort of like the logic attributed to the high priest in John 11.50 (better than one man die than the whole nation perish).

I think it was Nixon, in the Watergate tapes, who said that perjury is a hard rap to prove. Maybe Mrs. Zimmerman needs to consult with Bill or Hillary.

25 posted on 06/13/2012 8:31:09 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: roses of sharon

Thank you for your analysis.


33 posted on 06/13/2012 10:44:43 PM PDT by dervish (ABO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: roses of sharon
The deleted transcript language certainly gives a very different context to the issue of whether Shellie knew how much was available or had an “estimate.” She offered to get the person who knew on the phone, but the prosecution didn’t take her up on that.

Note that in the Affidavit of Probable Cause the prosecution did not use an ellipsis or any other indication to show that words were omitted.

If Florida Law permits prosecutors to do this, then the Law needs to be changed. Either way, this witch needs to be hounded out of office.

40 posted on 06/14/2012 8:51:06 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: roses of sharon

Bookmark


42 posted on 06/14/2012 12:35:01 PM PDT by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: roses of sharon; DallasSun; BLOC77; dmz; skeeter; Uncle Chip

Some of our in-house, corrupt big gov supporters are not going to like this!


43 posted on 06/14/2012 12:43:38 PM PDT by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson