Comment

Insanity Break: The Terms

124
Targetpractice6/18/2012 11:03:46 pm PDT

re: #123 goddamnedfrank

The alternatives are that O’Mara was unprofessionally lazy and didn’t perform even this modicum of due diligence or that he willfully allowed the perjury presented by Mrs. Zimmerman under cross to be entered into the record without comment.

Anyway what matters is that the court seems to have been persuaded that he actively deceived them, which is why his bail was revoked rather than raised.

The judge was convinced by a motion that cherry-picked portions of the phone calls, as well as Shellie’s testimony, and left out portions of her testimony that could have served to exculpate her, such as:

Q. And you mentioned also, in terms of the ability of your husband to make a bond amount, that you all had no money, is that correct?
A. To my knowledge, that is correct.
Q: Were you aware of the website that Mr. Zimmerman or somebody on his behalf created?
A: I’m aware of that website.
Q: 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.
Q: And is he — I know he’s not in the same room as you, but is he available so we can speak to him, too, or the Court can inquire through the State or the Defense?
A: I’m sure that we could probably get him on the phone.
Q: Okay. So he’s not there now.
A: No, he is not, sir.

Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?
A: I do not.

That bolded section is not in the state’s motion to revoke bond, nor is it in the affidavit charging her with perjury. And there’s no indication in the motion that that section had been cut out.