I agree with you. Mark O'Mara tried to explain it as they were afraid of "The System" and I believed him. IIRC, first the was the public outcry demanding an arrest. Next up was Angela Corey and that's enough said there. Then he had Sonner and Urhig. I liked Urhig(SP) but they questioned his mental stability to the press. He finally gets MOM and doesn't really trust him. I think they only met one time prior to the arrest. So he has been getting screwed by all the people he respected and put his trust in...particularly the judicial system.

I can't say I wouldn't have done the same in their shoes. But I wouldn't have discussed funds over a jail phone either. There is a sign that says they are recorded. There is no way that "code" would pass by anyone. It was like kid code.

And what evidence is there to prove that Shellie Zimmerman knew otherwise?

The amounts of money in George Zimmerman's bank account aren't at issue here. The contention is that she perjured herself with respect to the PayPal account. So, what evidence is there that Shellie Zimmerman knew the amount of money in that account, and that such knowledge made the quoted statement untrue, and that she believed that statement to be untrue when she made it?

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

Thank you!! You expressed my thoughts about this so much better than I could! (I should have bolded the entire post!)


(and great to "see" you! )

As flareon answered upthread, I believe the jailhouse recorded conversations between SZ and GZ show a clear intent to deceive. Also, the bit about the State Inspector having information/proof that SZ had control of the transfers in and out of that Fund account - yet more confirmation she knew.

Do I think the State of Florida should be pursuing this nonsense? Absolutely not.

The statutory definition of perjury is very specific. The jailhouse conversation is only relevant if it provides evidence that Shellie made a statement:

1) Under oath,
2) In an official proceeding,
3) Regarding a material fact,
4) That was untrue, and
5) That she believed to be untrue

So, what is the exact statement made under oath that you believe the jailhouse conversations prove to be untrue, and prove that Shellie believed to be untrue?



Shellie did not have control of the PayPal account. Shellie had control of the bank account. She knew that money was in the bank account, and made transfers between George's bank account and her own bank account. She did not touch the PayPal account. Robert Zimmerman, Jr. had control of the PayPal account. Thus, the recorded jailhouse conversations do not apply to Shellie's knowledge of the amount of money in the PayPal account.

Also: if Shellie has a "clear intent to deceive", why did she tell BDLR that, if he wanted to know the amount of money in the PayPal account, he could get Robert Zimmerman, Jr. on the phone? Saying, "I don't know, but I can tell you the person who does know" is an absolute refutation of an allegation of intent to deceive.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

This is the Probable Cause Affidavit for Shellie's arrest.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/upl ... ?mobile=nc

It's apparent that she lied when she told BDLR that they had no money.

I understand that you would like exact quotes, but unfortunately, I do not keep up enough to provide what proof the State has or doesn't have. Things are not black and white - not even with the "law" (as we've seen with Judge Nelson).

It is a matter of "connecting the dots" to realize that if SZ was in charge of transferring money out of/into her and GZ's accounts, Bernie's question to her would require that she DID know there was "probably" enough to make bond at the time, as at the very minimum, she would know (even if she was in a "fog" - sorry, Jodi Arias trial lingo) there seemed to be money from "somewhere" (the PayPal) that GZ was transferring funds out of and into HIS account.

I don't think a jury (if this is a jury case) nor Judge Nelson (if indeed she is the one who decides) could ignore this.

I'm sorry to not be able to give you the minutiae of their jailhouse convos that would contradict her testimony, but this is what I remember from the beginning of this whole fiasco.

Awesome! Thanks for this ( ) and yes, it is apparent to me, too. I will get to reading this more in depth as soon as the Arias trial is over today!

Much of the jailhouse convos are in my link above.

Even if one doesn't want to believe that she didn't know how much money was in the Paypal account ( ) she knew there was cash in the safety deposit box.

Yes, I agree. It was quite foolish for SZ to answer the way she did (did O'Mara not prepare her?). I'm sure no one saw this perjury charge coming from the State. Florida is usually quite lax (Cindy Anthony perjury on the stand comes to mind).

Proving perjury is not a matter of "connecting the dots", or of proving what the accused "probably" knew regarding some unspecific information from "somewhere". That's the whole point. The State must provide specific evidence that proves that a specific statement was untrue, and that proves that the accused believed the statement to be untrue.

The questions were simply not asked specifically enough to elicit a statement with sufficient specificity to prove that Shellie committed perjury. And insofar as the PayPal account is concerned, Shellie proved that she had no intent to deceive, by telling BDLR exactly whom to ask regarding the balance.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

Did I miss the State's reference to money in a safe-deposit box, in the affidavit? It appears to me that the State is claiming perjury regarding statements about the PayPal account. (I say "appears", because the State doesn't actually specify in the affidavit the exact statement they claim was perjurious.)

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

I posted the Probable Cause affidavit above. I don't believe they are only referring to the PayPal account, but rather that she lied about having money.

From the affidavit posted by forensicpsy:



This, I believe, is the clincher. (while a poor question - in the "you all" he covered everything)

Not a chance.

"And you mentioned... is that correct?"

BDLR's compound-question incompetence strikes again:

Is that correct [that you mentioned something]?
Is that correct [that "you all" had no money]?
Is that correct [that "you all" had no money to make a bond amount]?

Which one did BDLR imply?
Which one did Shellie infer?

How can the State prove, either way?

Prior case law clearly indicates that this question and answer are simply not legally sufficient to constitute perjury. The question has multiple meanings, and does not inquire about a specific, material fact. BDLR screwed the pooch, if he was trying to entrap Shellie for perjury with this question.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

Sorry the thread was locked when you got here Chip.

I did lock both threads while moving posts.. and made a point of unlocking both.... I thought

Me Culpa

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I agree. Although I do support GZ, and I don't agree with Shellie's prosecution, I do believe that Shellie may be convicted.

I'll be the FIRST to say I truly hope you are right about this, Chip. I do not condone what they are doing to Shellie - they are clearly going out of their way to try to prosecute. I can guarantee people have done MUCH worse with nary a consequence.

But it's hard for me to imagine the defense (especially in this particular case) will succeed in parsing words in the way you have demonstrated. "Technically" you are correct and it goes back to my saying it was a poorly worded question (we can see that questioning is not Bernie's forte when we see the mess he made of his DD interview).

I feel for GZ and this spaghetti-against-the-wall persecution.

I'm extremely disgusted by every single facet of this case regarding George. The case against Shellie is shameful.

In response to the defense demand, the state filed a statement of particulars in Shellie's case on Feb. 22nd. The statement of particulars must specify in detail the state's case. The Florida supreme court said in State v. Davis:



I assume that if the defense moves to have the charges dismissed, it will be based on the statement of particulars rather than the charging affidavit. Unfortunately, few of the court papers in Shellie's case are easily available. I would very much like to read the statement of particulars and the motions to dismiss or petition for a writ of quo warranto.