Exclusive! First hand Witness: Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman Zimmerman Innocent Smoking Gun

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Zimmermans actions towards the media created no conflict of interest because -
A. - Zimmerman himself spoke.

That was one of the main reasons his lawyers ditched him. Apparently creating conflicts of interest is his specialty. Missing it is yours?

reply to post by LErickson


Xcath is right here.
Zimmerman wasn't intentionally creating conflict of interests. He was right in calling it out. It was the right thing to do and the judge should have mentioned it herself. She most likely did not because it is a high profile case and she would have gotten a lot of attention.

The fact that her husbands worked with someone that had been contacted by Zimmerman's family and turned them down means that her husband very well could have discussed the case with her prior and influenced her personal opinion outside of a courtroom setting. The second judge had a personal and business relationship with Zimmerman's representation so it was necessary for that judge to step down due to conflict of interest. The second judge did what the first judge should have. It is not like Zimmerman did something bad or as you put it had some sort of specialty in creating a conflict of interest. That is retarded. How would they know that they would be turned down by that law firm. If that lawyer had taken the case she would have had to step down because she would have still had a conflict of interest.

I didn't see that the original lawyer "ditched" him, but never took the case. That would have been the first conflict of interest in the entire situation so why would they "ditch" him over conflict of interest? I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by LErickson

 

Xcath is right here.
Zimmerman wasn't intentionally creating conflict of interests. He was right in calling it out. It was the right thing to do and the judge should have mentioned it herself. She most likely did not because it is a high profile case and she would have gotten a lot of attention.

The fact that her husbands worked with someone that had been contacted by Zimmerman's family and turned them down means that her husband very well could have discussed the case with her prior and influenced her personal opinion outside of a courtroom setting. The second judge had a personal and business relationship with Zimmerman's representation so it was necessary for that judge to step down due to conflict of interest. The second judge did what the first judge should have. It is not like Zimmerman did something bad or as you put it had some sort of specialty in creating a conflict of interest. That is retarded. How would they know that they would be turned down by that law firm. If that lawyer had taken the case she would have had to step down because she would have still had a conflict of interest.

I didn't see that the original lawyer "ditched" him, but never took the case. That would have been the first conflict of interest in the entire situation so why would they "ditch" him over conflict of interest? I don't think you know what you are talking about.

edit on 19-4-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

I wonder if anyone actually listens to people speak or if they just hear Charlie Browns mom?

The judge did mention it herself. She made full disclosure of the situation, she didn't wait for anyone else to bring it up...watch the clip I posted. That is a conference call with Zimmermans new lawyer and her in court over her disclosing this possible conflict. How can you say with a straight face she didn't mention it? SHE IS THE ONE WHO BROUGHT IT UP!!!!


And to tell someone else they don't know what they are talking about is frankly laughable.

how much money do you think the martins and zimmerman have raised so far? who has the higher profile lawyers? just wondering if these lawyers are big time, i have never heard of any of them.

reply to post by pizzanazi75


I read this info for myself. She made the decision after Zimmerman's attorney argued.

The judge in the Trayvon Martin case quit after the attorney for defendant George Zimmerman argued she had a possible conflict of interest that related to her husband.

I guess you were just hearing Charlie Brown's mom then huh? Or just running with the facts as you make them up. You have done this multiple times in this thread. I don't make things up, I just go with the sources.

latino.foxnews.com...

reply to post by conspiracy nut


I don't know about the Zimmerman's, but I would say the Martin's have gotten a lot of help/donations. I do know that they also trademarked their sons name. Whether that is in poor taste is a matter of opinion.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

I read this info for myself. She made the decision after Zimmerman's attorney argued.

The judge in the Trayvon Martin case quit after the attorney for defendant George Zimmerman argued she had a possible conflict of interest that related to her husband.

I guess you were just hearing Charlie Brown's mom then huh? Or just running with the facts as you make them up. You have done this multiple times in this thread. I don't make things up, I just go with the sources.

latino.foxnews.com...

He only brought up those issues because SHE fully disclosed it. I mean listen to what she says with her own words....its not hard to do.

Quote from Judge Jessica J. Recksiedler....

'Essentially this status at this time, it has come to MY attention a certain matter based on the cannons of my obligations that I wish to disclose to the Attorney's in this case and the parties.'

Judge Jessica J. Recksiedler holds a conference calls with state attorneys and George Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, on Friday to disclose a possible conflict of interest.

Judge in Zimmerman Trial May be Recused Due to Conflict of Interest

I would like for you to point to where I have made anything up about this case. You can't because I haven't. Just like I have just proven you wrong in this instance.

The complete ignorance around here is disgusting.

Cable TV and courtroom ethics collided in the Trayvon Martin case Friday when the judge suddenly announced that she has a conflict of interest that might force her to step down.

Judge in Trayvon Martin case has conflict of interest

Florida Judge Jessica Recksiedler, who was assigned the Trayvon Martin shooting case, revealed a possible conflict of interest tied to her husband, a lawyer who works for a television legal analyst with ties to the defendant.

Trayvon Martin Judge Reveals Possible Conflict of Interest


I want all of you to read those quotes. She revealed this information. Once she revealed it it is no surprise Zimmermans lawyers would argue to have her recused....but to claim this was brought on by Zimmerman's attorney's is misleading at best. She removed herself from the conflicting situation, which is exactly what Zimmerman should have done the night of Feb. 26.

Originally posted by LErickson

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Zimmermans actions towards the media created no conflict of interest because -
A. - Zimmerman himself spoke.

That was one of the main reasons his lawyers ditched him. Apparently creating conflicts of interest is his specialty. Missing it is yours?

A suspect speaking to the media is not a conflict of interest. What it is is a bad legal maneuver since whatever he states to the media can come back to bite him in court.

People need to learn what a conflict of intrerest is...

Deny ignorance sir... stop embracing it for purely idoelogical reasons.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
I would like for you to point to where I have made anything up about this case. You can't because I haven't. Just like I have just proven you wrong in this instance.

The complete ignorance around here is disgusting.

Isn't it though....

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
I want all of you to read those quotes. She revealed this information. Once she revealed it it is no surprise Zimmermans lawyers would argue to have her recused....but to claim this was brought on by Zimmerman's attorney's is misleading at best.

Its a conflict of interest, from her own mouth. Whether the info came up now or down the road when Zimmerman realizes he knows the lawyer that was hired by the media as an analyst.. Im not sure why you are intent on splitting hairs here.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
She removed herself from the conflicting situation, which is exactly what Zimmerman should have done the night of Feb. 26.

The above is an example of making a claim that is not a fact. Please disclose your source that supports your claim above that Zimmerman did not remove himself from the situation. All of the information / evidence I have seen, from the moment of contact to the moment the police arrived, is up in the air until the trial starts and witnesses are called.

So please, link your source to support your "fact" above. Or is this another one of your "my opinion" after the facts like you have done several times before?

Originally posted by pizzanazi75

She removed herself from the conflicting situation, . .

I read somewhere she said - - it would distract from the case by adding more conflict - - so she stepped down of her own accord.

Basically - - it would add more fuel to a fire that is already red hot.

Whether is was actually conflict or not - - didn't make any difference.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
I would like for you to point to where I have made anything up about this case. You can't because I haven't. Just like I have just proven you wrong in this instance.

The complete ignorance around here is disgusting.

Isn't it though....

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
I want all of you to read those quotes. She revealed this information. Once she revealed it it is no surprise Zimmermans lawyers would argue to have her recused....but to claim this was brought on by Zimmerman's attorney's is misleading at best.

Its a conflict of interest, from her own mouth. Whether the info came up now or down the road when Zimmerman realizes he knows the lawyer that was hired by the media as an analyst.. Im not sure why you are intent on splitting hairs here.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
She removed herself from the conflicting situation, which is exactly what Zimmerman should have done the night of Feb. 26.

The above is an example of making a claim that is not a fact. Please disclose your source that supports your claim above that Zimmerman did not remove himself from the situation. All of the information / evidence I have seen, from the moment of contact to the moment the police arrived, is up in the air until the trial starts and witnesses are called.

So please, link your source to support your "fact" above. Or is this another one of your "my opinion" after the facts like you have done several times before?

He put himself in that position. He created it. Have a listen for yourself...just skip on to 2:22.

Please disclose your source that supports your claim above that Zimmerman did not remove himself from the situation.

On a side note, if you would have followed the entire conversation about why it was a big deal you would have seen that it was because your pal GogoVicMorrow was trying to defend you, not very well I might add. He said ....

Xcath is right here. Zimmerman wasn't intentionally creating conflict of interests. He was right in calling it out. It was the right thing to do and the judge should have mentioned it herself. She most likely did not because it is a high profile case and she would have gotten a lot of attention.

What he said in your defense was not true. Not surprising. The former Judge DID BRING IT UP. Ive linked the video clip of the conference call in the court room with Zimmermans lawyer to disclose it. Have you watched it? That is why it is a big deal. You and your pals were trying to say that Zimmerman's lawyers 'called her out'....that in no way, shape, or form happened. Just another lie by your side. I mean you really should keep up with what is going on.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by pizzanazi75

She removed herself from the conflicting situation, . .

I read somewhere she said - - it would distract from the case by adding more conflict - - so she stepped down of her own accord.

Basically - - it would add more fuel to a fire that is already red hot.

Whether is was actually conflict or not - - didn't make any difference.

I think she did the right thing. I just find it so annoying that a few people on here are trying to say that she had to be called out on this 'conflict' when she fully disclosed it herself. It's getting real old around here, I tell ya.

reply to post by pizzanazi75


You seem to ignore the other side where Martin came back at Zimmerman. Until such time as the info comes out, your claim is speculation and nothing more. As for the 911 tapes it does not describe what occured from the moment of contact between Zimmerman and Martin and the time the police showed up. All we have are various 911 calls and witnesses who are giving information that does not yet seem to favor one side or another. That will change when it goes to court so until then I again ask you to provide your information that allows you to state as a fact Zimmerman forced the confrontation by approaching Martin.

As far as following the conversation save it. Its apparent you did not understand what a conflict of interwst was. I corrected your mistake and provided people with the defintion of a conflict of interest. Zimmerman cannot create a conflict of interest. Whatever he states can come back to be used against him in court, especically if he stated it to media.

Your attempt to deflect your mistake by blaming me or gogo is fail. You did not know what a conlfict of interest was. i corrected you and gave you some examples. Dont blame him because you did not know.

It is irrelevent who brought it up. the fact remains is its a potential conflict of interest. Better to resolve it now than in the middle of the trial. Please reference my response to you about what a conflict of interest is and who is invovled for it to be classified as one. Hint - Zimmerman cannot create a conflict of interest.

As far as keeping up, there is really nothing to keep up with. The bond hearing was today and the prelim hearing is in May. Until then its its rehash the same crap as before.....

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

You seem to ignore the other side where Martin came back at Zimmerman. Until such time as the info comes out, your claim is speculation and nothing more. As for the 911 tapes it does not describe what occured from the moment of contact between Zimmerman and Martin and the time the police showed up. All we have are various 911 calls and witnesses who are giving information that does not yet seem to favor one side or another. That will change when it goes to court so until then I again ask you to provide your information that allows you to state as a fact Zimmerman forced the confrontation by approaching Martin.

As far as following the conversation save it. Its apparent you did not understand what a conflict of interwst was. I corrected your mistake and provided people with the defintion of a conflict of interest. Zimmerman cannot create a conflict of interest. Whatever he states can come back to be used against him in court, especically if he stated it to media.

Your attempt to deflect your mistake by blaming me or gogo is fail. You did not know what a conlfict of interest was. i corrected you and gave you some examples. Dont blame him because you did not know.

It is irrelevent who brought it up. the fact remains is its a potential conflict of interest. Better to resolve it now than in the middle of the trial. Please reference my response to you about what a conflict of interest is and who is invovled for it to be classified as one. Hint - Zimmerman cannot create a conflict of interest.

As far as keeping up, there is really nothing to keep up with. The bond hearing was today and the prelim hearing is in May. Until then its its rehash the same crap as before.....

As far as keeping up, there is really nothing to keep up with. The bond hearing was today and the prelim hearing is in May. Until then its its rehash the same crap as before.....

Really, the bond hearing was already today? Did he get out on bail? I haven't heard? Could you provide a source for that?

See that is why you should keep up. The bond hearing is scheduled for later today, 4/20. Unless of course you are implying you live in the future.

An attorney will ask a Florida judge on Friday to allow George Zimmerman to post bond despite ongoing concerns about his safety amid a national uproar over his role in the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

George Zimmerman's attorney to ask for bond

Ill be waiting on that source on that bond hearing that happened already.

It is relevant who brought it up when one side is trying to say the former judge didn't disclose this and Zimmermans lawyers had to argue to get her off the case. That is not true. She made this disclosure, fully, herself. That is the Zimmerman side trying to continue to mislead.

You just keep proving why any thing you say is irrelevant, misleading, and sometimes all out lies.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Really, the bond hearing was already today? Did he get out on bail? I haven't heard? Could you provide a source for that?

Trayvon Martin case: Hearing raises possible conflict of interest for judge

yes the bond hearing is today - Friday April 20th 2012.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
It is relevant who brought it up when one side is trying to say the former judge didn't disclose this and Zimmermans lawyers had to argue to get her off the case. That is not true. She made this disclosure, fully, herself. That is the Zimmerman side trying to continue to mislead.

Not really and your own new york times article states the same.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Ill be waiting on that source on that bond hearing that happened already.

Hmmm.. I see you still only see what you wish. The bond hearing was set for today - Friday April 20th 2012. I never said the hearing already occured. Please note the time of my post is 01:32 AM - Today, Friday April 20th 2012. Has it not occured to you that the hearing might be delayed because of the judge issue?

Once again when you cannot refute the argument you go after something completely obscue in an effort to defelct. You still ahve not provided your support that states Zimmerman confronted Martin. Please provide the source that is conclusive or admit your statement is an opinion and not a fact.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
You just keep proving why any thing you say is irrelevant, misleading, and sometimes all out lies.

Ah yes more of your typical tactics.. Attack the poster when th efacts dont support your argument. Speaking of lies im still waiting on that evidence that shows Zimmerman made contact with Martin and insitigated the assault.

Or was your intent of passing it off as a fact contingent upon people not questioning it? Since its your opinion and not a fact one can only wonder...The more you attempt to attack me while ignoring the questions and observations the more ridiciulous you are going to look.

All people have to do is look at your posts and they will see the same pattern.. You make claims, get called out, dont support them and the defelct and obfuscate. I am still waiting on you to cite your sources in the other thread where you made claims and passed them off as fact when they arent.

We can continueto play this back and forth game, a game you initiated and ran full speed with, or you can drop the attitude and accusations and we can return back to a more civilized back and forth debate. I leave that decision as to how we proceede up to you.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Really, the bond hearing was already today? Did he get out on bail? I haven't heard? Could you provide a source for that?

Trayvon Martin case: Hearing raises possible conflict of interest for judge

yes the bond hearing is today - Friday April 20th 2012.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
It is relevant who brought it up when one side is trying to say the former judge didn't disclose this and Zimmermans lawyers had to argue to get her off the case. That is not true. She made this disclosure, fully, herself. That is the Zimmerman side trying to continue to mislead.

Not really and your own new york times article states the same.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Ill be waiting on that source on that bond hearing that happened already.

Hmmm.. I see you still only see what you wish. The bond hearing was set for today - Friday April 20th 2012. I never said the hearing already occured. Please note the time of my post is 01:32 AM - Today, Friday April 20th 2012.

Once again when you cannot refute the argument you go after something completely obscue in an effort to defelct. You still ahve not provided your support that states Zimmerman confronted Martin. Please provide the source that is conclusive or admit your statement is an opinion and not a fact.

For real learn to read or to type or both THESE ARE YOUR WORDS....

As far as keeping up, there is really nothing to keep up with. The bond hearing WAS today and the prelim hearing is in May. Until then its its rehash the same crap as before.....

You have implied that he has already had his bond hearing. Just another example of you not even knowing what you type and then trying to defend it. I know exactly when the bond hearing is, that is why I pointed out to you, ONCE AGAIN, that you were wrong. Trying to turn it around saying I can't read is really sad on your part. I have quoted what you typed, I know exactly what you said. That is how I knew to correct you on it, again.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I guess you forgot about this post where you said he had already had his bond hearing.

give this post a star posted on 20-4-2012 @ 01:32 AM
As far as keeping up, there is really nothing to keep up with. The bond hearing was today and the prelim hearing is in May. Until then its its rehash the same crap as before.....

How do you define 'was?'

Im beginning to believe you are a police officer the way you will out right lie, twist your own words, and try to manipulate a conversation to deflect attention away fromyour own wrong-doings. Pretty typical cop behavior. Just like the Sanford PD trying to discredit witnesses because of their own mess ups.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
For real learn to read or to type or both THESE ARE YOUR WORDS....

As far as keeping up, there is really nothing to keep up with. The bond hearing WAS today and the prelim hearing is in May. Until then its its rehash the same crap as before.....

You have implied that he has already had his bond hearing.

No really I have not. Nice try though. I really enjoy it when you accuse me of things and ignore my response. I think I am the best judge on what I stated and what is meant by it.

Still waiting on you to support your claims by the way. Or are you going to continue this back and forth in hopes of people forgetting youmade an unsupported claim and passed it off as fact?

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Just another example of you not even knowing what you type and then trying to defend it. I know exactly when the bond hearing is, that is why I pointed out to you,

You know when the bond hearing is, and I stated when the bond hearing is, and yet for some reason you are once againt making a claim that is just not true.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
ONCE AGAIN, that you were wrong. Trying to turn it around saying I can't read is really sad on your part. I have quoted what you typed, I know exactly what you said. That is how I knew to correct you on it, again.

Once again im not. I stated the bond hearing was set for today, Friday April 20th. Are you stating the hearing is not?

Is this all you have? GRammar and spelling? Please cite your sources from your claims before or admit its your opinion and that you intentionally misled the people by passing your opinion off as fact.

Let me help you out -

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
She removed herself from the conflicting situation, which is exactly what Zimmerman should have done the night of Feb. 26.

Your obfuscation -

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
He put himself in that position. He created it. Have a listen for yourself...just skip on to 2:22.

Please disclose your source that supports your claim above that Zimmerman did not remove himself from the situation.

Now, please cite your source that confirms Zimmerman is the person who made contact with Martin and not the other way around.

or is that like your other posts where you make a claim, get called out, and then refuse to answer the questions? There is nothing that conclusively confirms Zimmerman made contact with Martin first.

Why are you trying to pass that speculation off as fact?

Again you set us down this course of back and forth by your actions and unfounded accusations. We will continue to have these conersations so long as you contniue t behave in the manner you are. Attack the poster when you cant attack the facts.

You even made a second post stating the same thing from your other post. Do you really like to hear yourself talk that much or what? You think im a liar.. I could care less as it is nothing more than another demonstration of your inability to use facts to refute your being called out.

Will you stop the personal attacks and accusations?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Or are you going to continue this back and forth in hopes of people forgetting youmade an unsupported claim and passed it off as fact?

You have over 200 pages of lies about the topic from the author of this thread and the dishonesty that upsets you in this thread is this?
That seems odd. Either you are not really interested in honesty or you are just not really interested in this topic.

I honestly want to know why someone would come into a thread this long with this many lies in it and not care about any honesty other than this personal petty crap.

What about the people lying about Martin attacking Zimmerman? Any of those lies bother you?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by LErickson

 

Xcath is right here.

Oh ok then.
Your opinion has really come to mean something to me.