chipbennett wrote:
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?
Remote wrote:
As flareon answered upthread, I believe the jailhouse recorded conversations between SZ and GZ show a clear intent to deceive.
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?
Quote:
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.
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.