6/02/2012 10:39pm, #1541
He's talking about this post:
True, but we fucking knew he had the website weeks before the prosecution or the judge even had the case - why didn't they ask? Remember, this was the hearing during which Z apologized, which threw everyone for a loop and managed to derail the entire hearing. Is it really his fault, or is this just another politically-motivated action on behalf of the State of Florida?
6/02/2012 10:53pm, #1542
6/02/2012 11:04pm, #1543
I wouldn't have relied on her testimony alone, because by her own testimony, she didn't really know what was going on.
A: I'm aware of that website.
Q: And 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.
6/03/2012 8:03am, #1544
Whether YOU would believe her is irrelevant to the question you asked earlier.
True, but we fucking knew he had the website weeks before the prosecution or the judge even had the case - why didn't they ask?
If you want to argue if she lied then or later we can, but it is irrelevant to your first point. That's what Rivington is telling you. You didn't ask about "WHO" was questioned, you clarified that later.
6/03/2012 8:18am, #1545
I asked a month ago why nobody asked Zimmerman, and while that was still the point of my question this time, I admit that it was worded poorly. I didn't say "why didn't they ask anybody," I said "why didn't they ask." I think that's pretty plain to see, especially if you FOLLOW THE CONVERSATION.
Riv seems emotionally invested in winning the battle over my words, so I'll concede this round. I know what I meant, and if you guys don't, there's no way I'll convince you - you're too focused on my words and not on the subject matter.
I'd be happy to have a conversation about Mrs. Z's testimony.
6/03/2012 8:22am, #1546
When you added "however" that completely changed your "dude I was wrong" comment. That makes it reads like you are explaining what you meant in totality. Oh wait, that's exactly what you just did.
I read it correctly.
Zimmerman's been altering things, as people point out, since the beginning. The next best reliable source, or so they thought, was his wife IMO. This whole thing is cantankerous, I'd be curious if they can charge her with perjury if they can prove she was lying.
6/03/2012 9:20am, #1547
Putting aside all questions of Mrs. Z's truthfulness, why didn't the prosecution or the judge ask George Zimmerman during the bond hearing about the proceeds from the website? Or, if they did, please show me where in the transcript.
The judge is like "zomg they're hiding money from us." I'm thinking it's his and the prosecution's fault for not knowing about the money. This was my position last month, and it's my position now, absent any information which suggests otherwise.
6/03/2012 10:46am, #1548Originally Posted by daddykata
Originally Posted by daddykata
What's the alternative theory—it's the prosecution's fault for not knowing about the money because all they did was ask about the money and get a non-answer, and then they monitored jailhouse communications and found Mr. and Mrs. Z talking about moving money back and forth between accounts because they didn't know about the money?
6/03/2012 1:04pm, #1549
In other recordings Zimmerman’s wife, who testified at his bond hearing, called him from a credit union where she had an account linked to the “Real George Zimmerman” Pay Pal account, which at the time had about $130,000 in it. Prosecutors contend that she was “intimately involved in the deposit and transfer of funds and money into various accounts.”
6/03/2012 1:11pm, #1550
Yes, we all know what we meant IN OUR HEADS. Most of us can say, "oh damn you are right this is what I meant." Today, not you for some reason.
Last edited by It is Fake; 6/03/2012 1:14pm at .