Zimmerman's jailhouse calls about money transfers, bulletproof vests could play role in bond hearing

Foxnews ^

[Uncle Chip]

Assuming Mark O'Malley was her questioner here, was this the answer he expected her to give? Was it one he rehearsed with her? Had she kept their financing from him?

The sad thing here is that these questions may very well have been his way of finding out as well. Had he even broached the subject of the Paypal account with them before the hearing?? If not, then why not???

One would have thought that since bailbond testimony is different and has to be full and without omission of any kind, that O'Mara should have and would have advised his client[s] accordingly before the hearing. And the Paypal money has to be in a Trust account by Florida Law. Did he advise them of that. He may have, but then again, he is not and was not Shelly's counsel, just George's -- a sad fact that she now realizes as she searches for one of her own.

[Uncle Chip]

I stand corrected —

[Synthesist]

“Assuming Mark O’Malley was her questioner here, was this the answer he expected her to give? Was it one he rehearsed with her? Had she kept their financing from him?”

Their attorney must know better than to engage himself in perjury, so my best guess is that GZ and SZ *never* told him about the large sum of donated cash.

[Synthesist]

“Does this statute just apply to the defendant who testifies or to anyone who testifies in a bailbond hearing???”

The statute must cover anyone who testifies. Judge Lester cited both SZ and GZ for misleading the court in his bond revocation order.

[Synthesist]

Now I recall that shortly after the bond hearing, a news story broke that the court had been mislead about the cash donations. Then shortly after that, O’Mara announced that he had set up a trust fund for the donations and had taken down GZ’s original website.

I think that it is very obvious at this point that he was not aware of the large sum of cash before the bond hearing.

[Uncle Chip]

The statute must cover anyone who testifies.

Does it also cover the prosecution's witness at the bailbond hearing, namely Investigator Dale Gilbreath who, while under oath, testified that he questioned Zimmerman's statement that Martin was slamming his head against the sidewalk just before he shot the teenager, saying that it was "not consistent with the evidence we found".

When the prosecution is unable to produce for the court the "evidence" that Gilbreath claims he "found", will he too face perjury charges???

[Synthesist]

“The statute must cover anyone who testifies.”

I should clarify that. That bond hearing statute is aimed only at the defendant during the gathering of financial information for the setting of bail.

But of course, everyone who testifies under oath at any court proceeding must be truthful or risk the charge of perjury, as SZ found out the hard way. Mr. Gilbreath would be held to that standard also. If his testimony is questioned though, an attorney could argue that he was just offering his best opinion about the evidence, which may allow him some wiggle room to escape perjury.

[imardmd1]

I think that it is very obvious at this point that he was not aware of the large sum of cash before the bond hearing.

You may well be right, and if so, O'Mara is probably going to walk real softly about the prosecutor's behavior and the way the court is run.

I only have opinions coming out of a layman's logic, which probably doesn't mean anything.

But it seems like just posting any published article not heavily biased reopens a floodgate for folks to vent, whether their impatience is toward the headlined aspect of the case or not.

Thanks for your opinion ---