Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Zimmerman to be Charged

54 views
Skip to first unread message

Clave

unread,
Apr 11, 2012, 4:46:36 PM4/11/12
to
News conference w/State Atty. Corey at 6:00 Eastern.

Jim


Dave the Clueless

unread,
Apr 11, 2012, 4:59:22 PM4/11/12
to
On Apr 11 2012 5:46 PM, Clave wrote:

> News conference w/State Atty. Corey at 6:00 Eastern.
>
> Jim

Good. I don't know the laws in Florida but I have a hard time wrapping my
head around how someone could shoot an unarmed person on the street and be
released without charges on his word alone. I wonder if the officer(s) who
decided to release Zimmerman without charging him with so much as
disturbing the peace will have to explain their reasoning.

-------
Arguing with a liberal is like playing chess with a pigeon. It doesn't
matter how good you are at chess since the pigeon is just going to knock
over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around likes it’s victorious.

------ 


phlash74

unread,
Apr 11, 2012, 5:34:46 PM4/11/12
to
On Apr 11 2012 1:46 PM, Clave wrote:

> News conference w/State Atty. Corey at 6:00 Eastern.
>
> Jim

If I were her, I'd charge him with manslaughter. The chances of getting a
murder conviction are virtually nil imo, and an acquittal could lead to
some nasty stuff happening. I think it will be relatively easy to shoot
holes (pun not intended) in his story and obtain a manslaughter conviction.

Michael

-----------------
"> phlash
On your circle jerk k00l kidz email list. Should be disqualified for
that, but I'll give him a pass because he is smart." - ramashiva,
8/22/2010

"Hitler has already been forgiven, but you have not." - Reptillian AKA
Igotskillz, 4/6/2011

_____________________________________________________________________ 


Clave

unread,
Apr 11, 2012, 6:08:20 PM4/11/12
to
"phlash74" <a10...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:m0ah59x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> On Apr 11 2012 1:46 PM, Clave wrote:
>
>> News conference w/State Atty. Corey at 6:00 Eastern.
>>
>> Jim
>
> If I were her, I'd charge him with manslaughter. The chances of getting a
> murder conviction are virtually nil imo, and an acquittal could lead to
> some nasty stuff happening. I think it will be relatively easy to shoot
> holes (pun not intended) in his story and obtain a manslaughter
> conviction.

WOw -- 2nd degree.

Jim



Message has been deleted

TruthSeeker

unread,
Apr 11, 2012, 6:55:50 PM4/11/12
to
On 4/11/12 4:45 PM, Auto wrote:
> "Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com> wrote in
> news:lenhr.57375$IQ1....@newsfe18.iad:
>
>> "phlash74" <a10...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:m0ah59x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

>>> If I were her, I'd charge him with manslaughter. The chances
>>> of getting a murder conviction are virtually nil imo, and an
>>> acquittal could lead to some nasty stuff happening. I think
>>> it will be relatively easy to shoot holes (pun not intended)
>>> in his story and obtain a manslaughter conviction.

>> WOw -- 2nd degree.

> Overcharged, and probably easier to beat. That way, everybody is
> happy, for now.

It may be plea-bargained down. You don't start with the charge you're
willing to plead it down to.



--
TruthSeeker

"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."
Message has been deleted

Dutch

unread,
Apr 11, 2012, 8:59:53 PM4/11/12
to


"phlash74" <a10...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:m0ah59x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> On Apr 11 2012 1:46 PM, Clave wrote:
>
>> News conference w/State Atty. Corey at 6:00 Eastern.
>>
>> Jim
>
> If I were her, I'd charge him with manslaughter. The chances of getting a
> murder conviction are virtually nil imo, and an acquittal could lead to
> some nasty stuff happening. I think it will be relatively easy to shoot
> holes (pun not intended) in his story and obtain a manslaughter
> conviction.
>

Is "guilty of a lesser charge" not an option?

Dutch

unread,
Apr 11, 2012, 9:03:07 PM4/11/12
to
"Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com> wrote
> News conference w/State Atty. Corey at 6:00 Eastern.

Court TV bonanza.

Adam Russell

unread,
Apr 11, 2012, 10:35:41 PM4/11/12
to
On 4/11/2012 3:45 PM, Auto wrote:
> "Clave"<cla...@the.monastery.com> wrote in
> news:lenhr.57375$IQ1....@newsfe18.iad:
>
> Overcharged, and probably easier to beat. That way, everybody is
> happy, for now.
>
>
>

We really dont know what evidence there is, so you cant know what level
of charge is viable.

~M~

unread,
Apr 11, 2012, 10:42:46 PM4/11/12
to
"Adam Russell" wrote in message
news:Y-SdnZu4LMr...@giganews.com...

>We really dont know what evidence there is

Oh, you finally noticed?


--
"The less intelligent you are, the more susceptible you are to propaganda"
- Jerry (Pigeon Shit) 'n Vegas, Master of Irony 2/5/2012

brewmaster

unread,
Apr 11, 2012, 10:43:31 PM4/11/12
to
Yeah, if only a tv channel called "Court TV" still existed.

--
Brew "part of the 100%" Master

________________________________________________________________________�


Adam Russell

unread,
Apr 11, 2012, 11:01:47 PM4/11/12
to
On 4/11/2012 7:42 PM, ~M~ wrote:
> "Adam Russell" wrote in message
> news:Y-SdnZu4LMr...@giganews.com...
>
>> We really dont know what evidence there is
>
> Oh, you finally noticed?
>
>

Ive been saying this all along. Evidence needs to be aired - either at
trial or if there is no trial then it will come out either voluntarily
or by result of FOIA request. Pics of crime scene, pics of injuries to
Z and M, pics of blood locs, body loc, pics of shell casings, loc of
truck, all witness statements etc.

gtech1

unread,
Apr 11, 2012, 11:22:02 PM4/11/12
to
Your post isn't very clear. Are you saying Zimmerman's lawyer represented
your boss in the DUI trial?
On Apr 11 2012 7:38 PM, Auto wrote:

> TruthSeeker <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote in
> news:5eydnVj4Fb5rlhvS...@giganews.com:
> If he's tried for 2nd, can the jury find for manslaughter,
> anyway? If you happen to know.
> I was part of a trial in Jacksonville years ago. Six man jury.
> Drunk driving charge against the guy I worked for.
> I was told his lawyer was the best criminal lawyer in the area,
> at the time. His asst. told me that he saw him defend on a murder
> trial, and actually had the jury crying. He won our case too.

----�


Schmedley

unread,
Apr 12, 2012, 12:22:03 AM4/12/12
to
On Apr 11 2012 7:38 PM, Auto wrote:

> TruthSeeker <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote in
> news:5eydnVj4Fb5rlhvS...@giganews.com:
>
> If he's tried for 2nd, can the jury find for manslaughter,
> anyway? If you happen to know.

The Florida rules allow this. I assume the prosecutor would have to
consent to a jury charge of a lesser included offense, and that would
depend on how well the case goes in.

----- 


VegasJerry

unread,
Apr 12, 2012, 8:18:01 AM4/12/12
to
On Apr 11 2012 1:59 PM, Dave the Clueless wrote:

> On Apr 11 2012 5:46 PM, Clave wrote:
>
> > News conference w/State Atty. Corey at 6:00 Eastern.
> >
> > Jim
>
> Good. I don't know the laws in Florida but I have a hard time wrapping my
> head around how someone could shoot an unarmed person on the street and be
> released without charges on his word alone. I wonder if the officer(s) who
> decided to release Zimmerman without charging him with so much as
> disturbing the peace will have to explain their reasoning.

I would hope so. There have been rumors that the police chief had
connections to the Ku Klux Klan and that Zimmerman's father used influence
in the arrest of his son. The police Chief has already 'stepped aside,'
and no reasons have been given as to why Zimmerman was not treated the
same as other shooters (like the police themselves) in at least having to
give a blood sample. I'll bet it's close to a year before this comes to
trial.


Jerry 'n Vegas














>
> -------
> Arguing with a liberal is like playing chess with a pigeon. It doesn't
> matter how good you are at chess since the pigeon is just going to knock
> over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around likes it’s victorious.
>
> ------ 

_____________________________________________________________________ 


VegasJerry

unread,
Apr 12, 2012, 8:24:22 AM4/12/12
to
On Apr 11 2012 2:34 PM, phlash74 wrote:

> On Apr 11 2012 1:46 PM, Clave wrote:
>
> > News conference w/State Atty. Corey at 6:00 Eastern.
> >
> > Jim
>
> If I were her, I'd charge him with manslaughter.

The evidence points to Second Degree Murder. I maintained from the start
that he would be charged with Second Degree; but that was a logical leap
from the start; given everything we've seen in the press. I also believe
Zimmerman will plea to Manslaughter. This is usually how these play out.


Jerry 'n Vegeas





The chances of getting a
> murder conviction are virtually nil imo, and an acquittal could lead to
> some nasty stuff happening. I think it will be relatively easy to shoot
> holes (pun not intended) in his story and obtain a manslaughter conviction.
>
> Michael
>
> -----------------
> "> phlash
> On your circle jerk k00l kidz email list. Should be disqualified for
> that, but I'll give him a pass because he is smart." - ramashiva,
> 8/22/2010
>
> "Hitler has already been forgiven, but you have not." - Reptillian AKA
> Igotskillz, 4/6/2011
>
> _____________________________________________________________________ 

-------- 


fffurken

unread,
Apr 12, 2012, 11:21:05 AM4/12/12
to
On Apr 12, 1:18 pm, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:

> > Good. I don't know the laws in Florida but I have a hard time wrapping my
> > head around how someone could shoot an unarmed person on the street and be
> > released without charges on his word alone. I wonder if the officer(s) who
> > decided to release Zimmerman without charging him with so much as
> > disturbing the peace will have to explain their reasoning.
>
> I would hope so. There have been rumors that the police chief had
> connections to the Ku Klux Klan and that Zimmerman's father used influence
> in the arrest of his son. The police Chief has already 'stepped aside,'
> and no reasons have been given as to why Zimmerman was not treated the
> same as other shooters (like the police themselves) in at least having to
> give a blood sample. I'll bet it's close to a year before this comes to
> trial.

Jerry, I'm sorry but I'm not going to address your message this time.
I just wanted to say that that was a quite well constructed,
articulate paragraph, devoid of spelling mistakes.

Who wrote it?

VegasJerry

unread,
Apr 12, 2012, 12:20:11 PM4/12/12
to
On Apr 12 2012 8:21 AM, fffurken wrote:

> On Apr 12, 1:18 pm, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > Good. I don't know the laws in Florida but I have a hard time wrapping my
> > > head around how someone could shoot an unarmed person on the street and
be
> > > released without charges on his word alone. I wonder if the officer(s)
who
> > > decided to release Zimmerman without charging him with so much as
> > > disturbing the peace will have to explain their reasoning.
> >
> > I would hope so. There have been rumors that the police chief had
> > connections to the Ku Klux Klan and that Zimmerman's father used influence
> > in the arrest of his son. The police Chief has already 'stepped aside,'
> > and no reasons have been given as to why Zimmerman was not treated the
> > same as other shooters (like the police themselves) in at least having to
> > give a blood sample. I'll bet it's close to a year before this comes to
> > trial.
>
> Jerry, I'm sorry but I'm not going to address your message this time.

All evidence to the contrary.



> I just wanted to say that that was a quite well constructed,
> articulate paragraph, devoid of spelling mistakes.
>
> Who wrote it?

That's all you got out of it? Proper spelling and structure? I had a
secretary that did that sort of thing. Did you even understand what was
written?


Jerry

________________________________________________________________________ 


RazzO

unread,
Apr 12, 2012, 1:21:53 PM4/12/12
to
Quiet down.

BTSinAustin

unread,
Apr 12, 2012, 2:03:38 PM4/12/12
to
On Apr 11 2012 10:43 PM, brewmaster wrote:

> On Apr 11 2012 6:03 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> > "Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com> wrote
> > > News conference w/State Atty. Corey at 6:00 Eastern.
> >
> > Court TV bonanza.
>
> Yeah, if only a tv channel called "Court TV" still existed.

Nancy Grace is all giggly

________________________________________________________________________ 


Travel

unread,
Apr 12, 2012, 2:01:45 PM4/12/12
to
On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 4:59:22 PM UTC-4, Dave the Clueless wrote:
> On Apr 11 2012 5:46 PM, Clave wrote:
>
> > News conference w/State Atty. Corey at 6:00 Eastern.
> >
> > Jim
>
> Good. I don't know the laws in Florida

You don't know the "laws," period. There has to be probable cause for arrest. For probable cause there needs to be evidence. There was no evidence to refute Zimmerman's story, and on top of that, only evidence confirming his story. No evidence, no probable cause, no arrest. Get it.


>but I have a hard time wrapping my
> head around how someone could shoot an unarmed person on the street and b

That's not what happened. Zimmerman was under attack.


> released without charges on his word alone.

Unbelievable. It wasn't on "his word, alone." There was a witness, and 911 calls from various neighbors.





> I wonder if the officer(s) who
> decided to release Zimmerman without charging him with so much as
> disturbing the peace will h>ave to explain their reasoning.

We hope so, and hope the jury listens and understands the facts and Constitution better than you.


Travel

unread,
Apr 12, 2012, 2:54:11 PM4/12/12
to
On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 7:38:16 PM UTC-4, Auto wrote:
> TruthSeeker <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote in
> news:5eydnVj4Fb5rlhvS...@giganews.com:
>
> If he's tried for 2nd, can the jury find for manslaughter,
> anyway? If you happen to know.

Sure, there were several other possible conviction-charges in the Casey Anthony trial, which was also in Florida, that the judge listed when he "charged the jury" at the end of closing arguments in that trial.

This, not to be confused with a "plea bargain," which would occur before this point of the jury deliberation proceedings.

Also, it's important to note carefully the wording and definitions of the various charges, and therefore the meanings of the charges can vary from state to state.

Also, given that. The approach taken by the prosecution will be toward proving their case as it applies to way the law is written in Florida. For example, according to a Florida defense lawyer-commentator on FOX, the prosecution has to prove that there was no "combat." Meaning, they have to prove that there was no actual fight, and Zimmerman just shot Martin without physical threat and provocation.

That would seem quit difficult to prove by the prosecution, given the evidence and circumstances of this case, but that's probably why there's so much talk, now, about an autopsy report and knowing the trajectory of the shot etc., etc.: they'll probably try to obfuscate their way into convincing the jury that the trajectory of the bullet was inconsistent with Zimmerman's story of Martin being on top of him, banging his head on the sidewalk, etc., etc.

Travel

unread,
Apr 12, 2012, 2:59:08 PM4/12/12
to
Whenever I hear that line, I'm thinking: you mean, there no evidence supporting the "Sharpton/Martinites'" claims that it wasn't self defense by Zimmerman.

Travel

unread,
Apr 12, 2012, 3:13:16 PM4/12/12
to
On Thursday, April 12, 2012 8:18:01 AM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:
> On Apr 11 2012 1:59 PM, Dave the Clueless wrote:
>
> > On Apr 11 2012 5:46 PM, Clave wrote:
> >
> > > News conference w/State Atty. Corey at 6:00 Eastern.
> > >
> > > Jim
> >
> > Good. I don't know the laws in Florida but I have a hard time wrapping my
> > head around how someone could shoot an unarmed person on the street and be
> > released without charges on his word alone. I wonder if the officer(s) who
> > decided to release Zimmerman without charging him with so much as
> > disturbing the peace will have to explain their reasoning.
>
> I would hope so. There have been rumors that the police chief had
> connections to the Ku Klux Klan and that Zimmerman's father used influence
> in the arrest of his son. The police Chief has already 'stepped aside,'
> and no reasons have been given as to why Zimmerman was not treated the
> same as other shooters (like the police themselves) in at least having to
> give a blood sample. I'll bet it's close to a year before this comes to
> trial.
>
>
> Jerry 'n V_____________________


Links and cites, please.

Thanks for the left wing propaganda-parroting. Like there isn't already enough of this totally fabricated crap. If any of that was even on the margins of being proved, it wouldn't be in the realm of the bogus, whispering rumor.

Anyone check out Martin's family's background? Ah! didn't think so.

Travel

unread,
Apr 12, 2012, 3:16:17 PM4/12/12
to
You must be referring to the idiocy. Yes, that was quite clear.

Dave the Clueless

unread,
Apr 12, 2012, 4:22:33 PM4/12/12
to
On Apr 12 2012 3:01 PM, Travel wrote:

> On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 4:59:22 PM UTC-4, Dave the Clueless wrote:
> > On Apr 11 2012 5:46 PM, Clave wrote:
> >
> > > News conference w/State Atty. Corey at 6:00 Eastern.
> > >
> > > Jim
> >
> > Good. I don't know the laws in Florida
>
> You don't know the "laws," period. There has to be probable cause for
arrest. For probable cause
> there needs to be evidence. There was no evidence to refute Zimmerman's
story, and on top of that,
> only evidence confirming his story. No evidence, no probable cause, no
arrest. Get it.

I'll take your word for it. Again, I don't know the laws.

>
> >but I have a hard time wrapping my
> > head around how someone could shoot an unarmed person on the street and b
>
> That's not what happened. Zimmerman was under attack.

Or so he says. The police had no way of verifying this, did they?

>
> > released without charges on his word alone.
>
> Unbelievable. It wasn't on "his word, alone." There was a witness, and 911
calls from various
> neighbors.
>

I was unaware of these items.

>
>
>
> > I wonder if the officer(s) who
> > decided to release Zimmerman without charging him with so much as
> > disturbing the peace will h>ave to explain their reasoning.
>
> We hope so, and hope the jury listens and understands the facts and
Constitution better than you.

I never claimed to be a Constitutional scholar, nor to be in possession of
all the facts. Settle down.

-------
Arguing with a liberal is like playing chess with a pigeon. It doesn't
matter how good you are at chess since the pigeon is just going to knock
over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around likes it’s victorious.

____________________________________________________________________ 


Message has been deleted

fffurken

unread,
Apr 12, 2012, 7:10:09 PM4/12/12
to
On Apr 13, 12:02 am, Auto <auto48886...@hushmail.com> wrote:

> Since the lawyers that appeard on CNN and FOX when asked, they
> said they thought it was overcharged.
> To me, that makes it political, to calm down the mob rule
> mentality. JMO

Why would lawyers (/prosecutors) set their stall at the minimum they
think they can get?
Message has been deleted

fffurken

unread,
Apr 12, 2012, 7:36:34 PM4/12/12
to
On Apr 13, 12:31 am, Auto <auto48886...@hushmail.com> wrote:

> > Why would lawyers (/prosecutors) set their stall at the
> > minimum they think they can get?
>
> It seems to me that would be the fair and just thing to do.

Yeah, I said lawyers Auto!
Message has been deleted

Adam Russell

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 12:56:31 AM4/13/12
to
There is some truth to that. But consider the fact that if there was no
crime there was technically no cause to keep evidence under wraps. The
fact that police were not yet willing to release the evidence to public
view indicated that the police had some reason to believe that
eventually charges might be filed.

Travel

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 12:16:14 PM4/13/12
to
On Thursday, April 12, 2012 4:22:33 PM UTC-4, Dave the Clueless wrote:
> On Apr 12 2012 3:01 PM, Travel wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 4:59:22 PM UTC-4, Dave the Clueless wrote:
> > > On Apr 11 2012 5:46 PM, Clave wrote:
> > >
> > > > News conference w/State Atty. Corey at 6:00 Eastern.
> > > >
> > > > Jim
> > >
> > > Good. I don't know the laws in Florida
> >
> > You don't know the "laws," period. There has to be probable cause for
> arrest. For probable cause
> > there needs to be evidence. There was no evidence to refute Zimmerman's
> story, and on top of that,
> > only evidence confirming his story. No evidence, no probable cause, no
> arrest. Get it.
>
> I'll take your word for it. Again, I don't know the laws.
>
> >
> > >but I have a hard time wrapping my
> > > head around how someone could shoot an unarmed person on the street and b
> >
> > That's not what happened. Zimmerman was under attack.
>
> Or so he says. The police had no way of verifying this, did they?


Yes, there's an eye witness.


>
> >
> > > released without charges on his word alone.
> >
> > Unbelievable. It wasn't on "his word, alone." There was a witness, and 911
> calls from various
> > neighbors.
> >
>
> I was unaware of these items.



> >
> >
> >
> > > I wonder if the officer(s) who
> > > decided to release Zimmerman without charging him with so much as
> > > disturbing the peace will h>ave to explain their reasoning.
> >
> > We hope so, and hope the jury listens and understands the facts and
> Constitution better than you.
>
> I never claimed to be a Constitutional scholar, nor to be in possession of
> all the facts. Settle down.
> -------

There's nothing particularly esoteric about it.
You don't have to be a constitutional scholar to understand the well established procedure in this. And with a left wing media, yes, you do have to possess a certain foundation of at least the basic facts.


____________________________________________________________________

Travel

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 12:39:23 PM4/13/12
to
On Thursday, April 12, 2012 7:02:52 PM UTC-4, Auto wrote:
> Travel <trave...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:11223668.353.1334256851692.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vb
> uc18:
>
> > On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 7:38:16 PM UTC-4, Auto wrote:
> >> If he's tried for 2nd, can the jury find for manslaughter,
> >> anyway? If you happen to know.
>
> > Sure, there were several other possible conviction-charges in
> > the Casey Anthony trial, which was also in Florida, that the
> > judge listed when he "charged the jury" at the end of closing
> > arguments in that trial.
>
>
> > This, not to be confused with a "plea bargain," which would
> > occur before this point of the jury deliberation proceedings.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Since the lawyers that appeard on CNN and FOX when asked, they
> said they thought it was overcharged.
> To me, that makes it political, to calm down the mob rule
> mentality. JMO

Absolutely, it's another "politically correct" witch-hunt. The prosecutor's a political hack if there ever was one.

Speaking of FOX, O'Reilly, commenting on the prosecutors press conference, said to the effect that: she wasn't particularly professional in her presentation and appeared surprisingly "jaunty," and gave what amounted to a political speech. I couldn't agree more with that assessment. She wasn't exactly keeping with the serious nature of the occasion, she was wallowing in all the attention as if she were receiving an MTV award or something. A real hack.

Bradley K. Sherman

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 12:45:08 PM4/13/12
to
Travel <trave...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>Yes, there's an eye witness.
> ...

Who is that, exactly?

--bks

Travel

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 1:55:16 PM4/13/12
to
On Thursday, April 12, 2012 7:31:34 PM UTC-4, Auto wrote:
> fffurken <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:7698d42b-845d-4640...@12g2000vba.googlegroups
> .com:
> It seems to me that would be the fair and just thing to do.
>
> Maybe they have solid evidence of 2nd degree murder. I sure don't
> have any idea. Even his new lawyer said today on TV that he
> doesn't know what evidence the State has.

Here's the answer to that:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2871365/posts?page=84

Travel

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 2:23:10 PM4/13/12
to
It doesn't mean that at all.

In fact, they released the facts. They did state what their investigation revealed and the police report, witnesses, 911 calls etc., etc. That's how we know about it.

You make my point: because the investigation showed that there was no evidence that the Martin side wants to hear, you're claiming the facts haven't come out.

Read or Youtube Alan Dershowitz' comments on CNN, with regard to the prosecution's affidavit/2nd degree charge: he says that they're irresponsible, unethical, etc. The facts are out. The special prosecutor, Corey, has jackshit for any "new" facts.

Travel

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 2:27:46 PM4/13/12
to b...@panix.com
You want me to do your reading of the news for you, too?



On Friday, April 13, 2012 12:45:08 PM UTC-4, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
> Travel <trave...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...
> >Yes, there's an eye witness.
> > ...
>
> Who is t


Adam Russell

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 3:05:46 PM4/13/12
to
Pics of crime scene, Pics of M and Z's injuries, loc of body, loc of
blood spatter, loc of shell casings, loc of truck, blood on Z's shirt?
These are all bits that should be available as evidence but have not
been released. They did state that the evidence is supposed to be
sealed. In fact iirc they were upset that someone leaked the 911 tapes.
The police report that was released was extremely minimal.

Bradley K. Sherman

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 4:28:13 PM4/13/12
to
Travel <trave...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, April 13, 2012 12:45:08 PM UTC-4, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
>> Travel <trave...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > ...
>> >Yes, there's an eye witness.
>> > ...
>>
>> Who is that, exactly?
>>
>You want me to do your reading of the news for you, too?

No, I'm saying that you can't produce the name of the eye witness.

--bks

Wilhelm Kuhlmann

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 4:40:16 PM4/13/12
to
On Apr 13, 1:28 pm, b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:

> No, I'm saying that you can't produce the name of the eye witness.

Why are you asking for information which hasn't been publicly
released? As you know, this witness has been identified only as
"John".

The reporter who interviewed John has now appeared on Fox News on
"Hannity". Her name is Shannon Butler, and she works for Fox 35 in
Orlando. She confirmed she interviewed John, and they even played
some of her interview with John.

Your contention that "John" doesn't exist is looking more and more
ridiculous.


William Coleman (ramashiva)
Message has been deleted

Bradley K. Sherman

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 7:36:37 PM4/13/12
to
Wilhelm Kuhlmann <ramas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 13, 1:28 pm, b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
>
>> No, I'm saying that you can't produce the name of the eye witness.
>
>Why are you asking for information which hasn't been publicly
>released? As you know, this witness has been identified only as
>"John".
>
>The reporter who interviewed John has now appeared on Fox News on
>"Hannity". Her name is Shannon Butler, and she works for Fox 35 in
>Orlando. She confirmed she interviewed John, and they even played
>some of her interview with John.

Har! Are you talking about this nonsense:
|
| BUTLER: All I can figure is he didn't see what happened
| right before that, and that's maybe how this prosecutor
| made that decision. We don't know if she interviewed this
| eyewitness. We assume that she did, but we haven't been
| able to talk to him since that day. So we don't know what
| he told her or what they found or even if Sanford police or
| FDLE ever talked to him. We know there's one other witness
| too that says that same exact thing. So yes, there are
| questions.
|
<http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/04/12/case-against-george-zimmerman-whats-next-after-charges>

--bks

Wilhelm Kuhlmann

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 7:54:57 PM4/13/12
to
On Apr 13, 4:36 pm, b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
> <http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/04/12/case-against-george-...>

Why is this nonsense?

One of your complaints about the original story on "John" is that
there was no byline on the story. The reporter who interviewed John
has now appeared on national TV and identified herself.

There is something seriously wrong with you, Bradley. You made up
your mind about this case based on incomplete evidence. Subsequently,
you dismiss any and all evidence which cast doubts on your narrative
as "bogus" and "nonsense".


William Coleman (ramashiva)

Bradley K. Sherman

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 7:58:03 PM4/13/12
to
Wilhelm Kuhlmann <ramas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>> <http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/04/12/case-against-george-...>
>
>Why is this nonsense?
>

Because even the frumious reporter showing up on the
Fox agitprop show "Hannity" is backing off the story.

E.g. Where, exactly, is the transcript of the interview?

--bks

Wilhelm Kuhlmann

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 8:06:38 PM4/13/12
to
On Apr 13, 4:58 pm, b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:

> Wilhelm Kuhlmann  <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> <http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/04/12/case-against-george-...>
>
> >Why is this nonsense?

> Because even the frumious reporter showing up on the
> Fox agitprop show "Hannity" is backing off the story.

How is she backing off the story???

And why are you using the nonsense word "frumious" to describe
Shannon? If you bothered to read her bio, she reported on the Florida
2000 Presidential Election, so she is obviously a veteran reporter.

> E.g. Where, exactly, is the transcript of the interview?

Where is the receipt for the Skittles?

Your question is nonsense. The interview was definitely recorded,
because part of it was played on Hannity's show. I think it was a
different show from the one linked by you.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

Wilhelm Kuhlmann

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 8:23:00 PM4/13/12
to
On Apr 13, 5:06 pm, Wilhelm Kuhlmann <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Your question is nonsense.  The interview was definitely recorded,
> because part of it was played on Hannity's show.  I think it was a
> different show from the one linked by you.

I am correct. The show you linked was April 11. Shannon originally
appeared on Hannity on March 26. You can see from the transcript that
a portion of the interview with John was played --

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/03/27/witness-reportedly-saw-trayvon-martin-beating-george-zimmerman-shooting


William Coleman (ramashiva)

fffurken

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 8:39:07 PM4/13/12
to
On Apr 14, 1:06 am, Wilhelm Kuhlmann <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > E.g. Where, exactly, is the transcript of the interview?
>
> Where is the receipt for the Skittles?

lol

The skittles has to be the biggest, most laughable sideshow in this
case. Except it's mostly from the other side (to yours), "Armed only
with a bag of skittles" etc.

Yet you want to persist the conjecture that a teenager may have
shoplifted a bag of skittles. As if it fucking matters.

Bradley K. Sherman

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 8:45:16 PM4/13/12
to
Wilhelm Kuhlmann <ramas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/03/27/witness-reportedly-saw-trayvon-martin-beating-george-zimmerman-shooting
>

The whole intervew was three sentences long? All they've got is
some bogus piece of tape from an anonymous witness. And even
Fox is not playing it as news! ("Hannity" is not a news show.)

Compare that interview from *two weeks ago* with the one from
two days ago:

<http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/04/12/case-against-george-zimmerman-whats-next-after-charges>

And there is no question that Butler is backing off.

--bks

Wilhelm Kuhlmann

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 9:01:08 PM4/13/12
to
On Apr 13, 5:45 pm, b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:

> Wilhelm Kuhlmann  <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/03/27/witness-reportedly-s...

> The whole intervew was three sentences long?

Who said that?

> All they've got is some bogus piece of tape from an anonymous witness.

Why is it bogus??? You have serious mental problems. Anything which
contradicts your opinions is "bogus". Get help.

> And even Fox is not playing it as news! ("Hannity" is not a news show.)

> Compare that interview from *two weeks ago* with the one from
> two days ago:

> <http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/04/12/case-against-george-...>

> And there is no question that Butler is backing off.

You are delusional, Bradley. There is nothing in the second show to
suggest that Shannon is backing off or changing her story.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

Wilhelm Kuhlmann

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 9:03:25 PM4/13/12
to
WHOOOSH!!!

I was satirizing your question "Where, exactly, is the transcript of
the interview?"


William Coleman (ramashiva)

Bradley K. Sherman

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 9:09:25 PM4/13/12
to
Wilhelm Kuhlmann <ramas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Why is it bogus??? You have serious mental problems. Anything which
>contradicts your opinions is "bogus". Get help.
>

Don't you find it peculiar that in the only playing of
this bogus "interview" Hannity doesn't ask how or where
she got the interview? Don't you find it peculiar that
no one outside Fox is interested in hosting Shannon Butler
and her exclusive interview? Hannity is not a news show.
It's agitprop. The interview is bogus.

I saw Hannity and Brett Baier pull off this scam in 2003.
Hannity would bring on Baier who would claim that he had
just interviewed a high-level Pentagon official who had
found WMD in Iraq.

If this interview was real, Butler would be sitting in the
catbird seat. The only possible explanation is that no one
at Fox really believes the story.

No big deal. If there's a trial we'll see plenty of
John. I'm betting against it.

--bks


Bradley K. Sherman

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 9:12:17 PM4/13/12
to
It wasn't fffurken's question. But now that you bring it up,
where, exactly, *is* the transcript of the interview? Are we
supposed to believe that no one at Fox understands the incredible
newsworthiness of an exclusive interview with an eyewitness?
Are they waiting for the trial to be over? So very bogus.

--bks

fffurken

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 9:13:23 PM4/13/12
to
On Apr 14, 2:03 am, Wilhelm Kuhlmann <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote:

> WHOOOSH!!!
>
> I was satirizing your question "Where, exactly, is the transcript of
> the interview?"

OK, I'll buy that, not least because my lol was genuine. Although, I'm
almost sure you said something before along the lines of him
shoplifting a bag of skittles increased the plausibility that he was
casing the area for potential burglaries.

Btw, it wasn't *my* question. Pay attention, I'm not Bradley.

Mossingen

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 9:23:17 PM4/13/12
to
"Wilhelm Kuhlmann" <ramas...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f8446ab7-c8e5-49f3...@p6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

<snip discussion>


You'd have better chances trying to convince Travel that Sarah Palin would
have made a terrible President.


Wilhelm Kuhlmann

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 9:20:24 PM4/13/12
to
On Apr 13, 6:09 pm, b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:

> Wilhelm Kuhlmann  <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >Why is it bogus???  You have serious mental problems.  Anything which
> >contradicts your opinions is "bogus".  Get help.

> Don't you find it peculiar that in the only playing of
> this bogus "interview" Hannity doesn't ask how or where
> she got the interview?

The interview isn't bogus. Stop saying that. And no, I don't find it
peculiar at all. Shannon is a reporter for an Orlando TV station.
Why would Hannity ask her how or where she got the interview?

> Don't you find it peculiar that
> no one outside Fox is interested in hosting Shannon Butler
> and her exclusive interview?

How do you know that no one outside Fox is interested in interviewing
Shannon Butler??? You have a very bad habit of assuming facts which
you can't possibly know.

> Hannity is not a news show.
> It's agitprop.  The interview is bogus.

You are an idiot, Bradley. Seriously. A stone idiot.

> I saw Hannity and Brett Baier pull off this scam in 2003.
> Hannity would bring on Baier who would claim that he had
> just interviewed a high-level Pentagon official who had
> found WMD in Iraq.

> If this interview was real, Butler would be sitting in the
> catbird seat.  The only possible explanation is that no one
> at Fox really believes the story.

You are an idiot. If no one at Fox believed the story, it wouldn't be
on the air. It's a story by a veteran reporter from the local Fox
affiliate closest to Sanford. Why wouldn't they believe the story?

I notice you offered absolutely nothing to back up your contention
that Shannon was backing off her story.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

Bradley K. Sherman

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 9:37:32 PM4/13/12
to
Wilhelm Kuhlmann <ramas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>You are an idiot. If no one at Fox believed the story, it wouldn't be
>on the air.

Wrong.

>I notice you offered absolutely nothing to back up your contention
>that Shannon was backing off her story.

I already excerpted her most recent mealy-mouthed story:
|
| BUTLER: All I can figure is he didn't see what happened
| right before that, and that's maybe how this prosecutor
| made that decision. We don't know if she interviewed this
| eyewitness. We assume that she did, but we haven't been
| able to talk to him since that day. So we don't know what
| he told her or what they found or even if Sanford police or
| FDLE ever talked to him. We know there's one other witness
| too that says that same exact thing. So yes, there are
| questions.
|
<http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/04/12/case-against-george-zimmerman-whats-next-after-charges>

Not only does she not have one new thing from the frumious
"interview" (where is the transcript by the way?) but
now she has lost all track of "John."

--bks

Wilhelm Kuhlmann

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 10:00:08 PM4/13/12
to
On Apr 13, 6:37 pm, b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:

> Wilhelm Kuhlmann  <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >You are an idiot.  If no one at Fox believed the story, it wouldn't be
> >on the air.

> Wrong.

> >I notice you offered absolutely nothing to back up your contention
> >that Shannon was backing off her story.

> I already excerpted her most recent mealy-mouthed story:
>  |
>  | BUTLER: All I can figure is he didn't see what happened
>  | right before that, and that's maybe how this prosecutor
>  | made that decision. We don't know if she interviewed this
>  | eyewitness. We assume that she did, but we haven't been
>  | able to talk to him since that day. So we don't know what
>  | he told her or what they found or even if Sanford police or
>  | FDLE ever talked to him. We know there's one other witness
>  | too that says that same exact thing. So yes, there are
>  | questions.
>  |
> <http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/04/12/case-against-george-...>

> Not only does she not have one new thing from the frumious
> "interview" (where is the transcript by the way?)  but
> now she has lost all track of "John."

LOL. She said she hasn't been able to talk to him again. That
doesn't necessarily mean she has lost track of him. It could be that
he has refused to be reinterviewed.

BTW, you are a very poor debater. You failed to point out that there
is an inconsistency between what Shannon said on March 26 and what she
said on April 11 --

March 26 --

"BUTLER: Yes, they did. According to John, John told us they did talk
to police because he said that he actually saw a picture that the
police showed him of George Zimmerman and said was this the guy. So
according to John, yes, he has spoken to the police which would speak
to kind of somebody backing up what George Zimmerman had told them
originally."

April 11 --

"BUTLER: All I can figure is he didn't see what happened right before
that, and that's maybe how this prosecutor made that decision. We
don't know if she interviewed this eyewitness. We assume that she did,
but we haven't been able to talk to him since that day. So we don't
know what he told her or what they found or even if Sanford police or
FDLE ever talked to him. We know there's one other witness too that
says that same exact thing. So yes, there are questions."

I just posted this inconsistency on Shannon Butler's Facebook page.
Let's see if she replies to me --

http://www.facebook.com/ShannonButlerFOX35


William Coleman (ramashiva)

Bradley K. Sherman

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 10:58:57 PM4/13/12
to
Wilhelm Kuhlmann <ramas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>BTW, you are a very poor debater. You failed to point out that there
>is an inconsistency between what Shannon said on March 26 and what she
>said on April 11 --

At the end of the day, the new revised Butler story:
|
| "All I can figure is he didn't see what happened right
| before that, and that's maybe how this prosecutor made that
| decision ... "
|
adds nothing to the story. No one is saying there wasn't
a struggle. There is a one or two minute period, after the
911 call and before the struggle began, during which everything
pertinent happened, and "John" can't help us with that, even if
he exists, which he doesn't.

I wonder how much she paid that drunk named "John" to
leave a message on voice mail?

Butler also contradicted the police report in the 26 March
appearance.

--bks

Wilhelm Kuhlmann

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 11:02:38 PM4/13/12
to
On Apr 13, 7:58 pm, b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:

> At the end of the day, the new revised Butler story:
>  |
>  | "All I can figure is he didn't see what happened right
>  | before that, and that's maybe how this prosecutor made that
>  | decision ... "
>  |
> adds nothing to the story.  No one is saying there wasn't
> a struggle.  There is a one or two minute period, after the
> 911 call and before the struggle began, during which everything
> pertinent happened, and "John" can't help us with that, even if
> he exists, which he doesn't.

Like I said, you need psychiatric help. You imagine you know things
which you can't possibly know.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

Bradley K. Sherman

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 11:34:57 PM4/13/12
to
I cite chapter and verse; my interlocutors hurl insults.
Twas ever thus on USENET.

--bks

Wilhelm Kuhlmann

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 11:44:33 PM4/13/12
to
On Apr 13, 8:34 pm, b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:

> Wilhelm Kuhlmann  <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >Like I said, you need psychiatric help.  You imagine you know things
> >which you can't possibly know.

> I cite chapter and verse; my interlocutors hurl insults.
> Twas ever thus on USENET.

You are delusional. You haven't cited any chapter and verse. From
the beginning, you have asserted that "John" doesn't exist. You
haven't offered any reason why you think this is so, other than that
"John" contradicts the narrative that you have already decided is
true.

Even after being shown that an actual reporter with a name and face
vouches for the existence of "John", and even after hearing a tape
recording of John's voice, you still doggedly insist that John doesn't
exist.

That is illogical.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

fffurken

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 11:39:45 PM4/13/12
to
On Apr 14, 4:02 am, Wilhelm Kuhlmann <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Like I said, you need psychiatric help.

I would have no reason to believe that. Why are you such a fucking
liar? Using 'lie' by your own standards.

> You imagine you know things
> which you can't possibly know.

Sorta reminds me of you and God.

And don't count this as an anklebite asshole. I'm getting fed up
reading your crap in this thread with someone who is being civil with
you.

Bradley K. Sherman

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 11:51:42 PM4/13/12
to
Wilhelm Kuhlmann <ramas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>You are delusional. You haven't cited any chapter and verse. From
>the beginning, you have asserted that "John" doesn't exist.
>

I've cited every interview the wondrous blond "veteran
reporter" Shannon Butler has had with crack journalist
Sean Hannity. She's got nothing.

There is no "John." There is no "interview." There's
just Fox news creating something out of nothing and
you buying into it.

Were is the transcript of the interview? Cite one
question that Shannon Butler asked "John" in the
interview. When did the interview take place?
Where?

--bks

Wilhelm Kuhlmann

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 11:56:39 PM4/13/12
to
On Apr 13, 8:51 pm, b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
There is nothing wrong with being skeptical that Shannon Butler is
telling the truth.

There is something seriously wrong with stating as fact that Shannon
is lying and "John" does not exist.

Apparently you are too dimwitted to understand the difference.


William Coleman (ramashiva)


Bradley K. Sherman

unread,
Apr 14, 2012, 12:47:06 AM4/14/12
to
Wilhelm Kuhlmann <ramas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>There is something seriously wrong with stating as fact that Shannon
>is lying and "John" does not exist.
>
>Apparently you are too dimwitted to understand the difference.

Wilhelm, it's Sean Hannity. I'm trying to help you understand
how he does his little thing. There are a thousand dogs not
barking around this story. For example: where is the transcript
of the interview with "John"? This is not news, this is noise.

--bks

Wilhelm Kuhlmann

unread,
Apr 14, 2012, 1:19:28 AM4/14/12
to
On Apr 13, 9:47 pm, b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
Yawn. You are a child, Bradley. Don't imagine that you can help me
with anything. You have now demonstrated to both me and Hankins that
you have no critical thinking skills and are incapable of having a
rational discussion.

Congratulations on joining a select club which includes Clave, Jerry,
and Maggot the Faggot.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

Clave

unread,
Apr 14, 2012, 3:02:39 AM4/14/12
to
"Wilhelm Kuhlmann" <ramas...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:232badb1-d389-46f6...@r32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

<...>

> Congratulations on joining a select club which includes Clave,
> Jerry, and Maggot the Faggot.

Among the people who can argue circles around Cole-Tard...like that's even a
skill...


VegasJerry

unread,
Apr 14, 2012, 9:40:23 AM4/14/12
to
Advertizing your ignorance again..... What a sorry asshole you are.




>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)

____________________________________________________________________ 


mo_ntresor

unread,
Apr 14, 2012, 9:51:57 AM4/14/12
to
On Apr 13 2012 3:10 PM, Auto wrote:

> > Here's the answer to that:
> > http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2871365/posts?page=84
>
> And Alan Dershowitz is no right wingnut.
>
> Looks to me as if the best outcome would be to have a trial, and
> let the evidence prevail.
>
> Maybe the mob rule tactics of Sharpton/Jackson will get some
> light to shine on this case.

you're going to get black idiots using an acquittal as an excuse to rob
their cities.

mo_ntresor

____________________________________________________________________ 


Wilhelm Kuhlmann

unread,
Apr 14, 2012, 11:03:19 AM4/14/12
to
Jerry, please list here all the people on RGP who think you are
capable of having a rational discussion.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

Travel

unread,
Apr 14, 2012, 11:50:51 AM4/14/12
to b...@panix.com
On Friday, April 13, 2012 4:28:13 PM UTC-4, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
> Travel <trave...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Friday, April 13, 2012 12:45:08 PM UTC-4, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
> >> Travel <trave...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > ...
> >> >Yes, there's an eye witness.
> >> > ...
> >>
> >> Who is that, exactly?
> >>
> >You want me to do your reading of the news for you, too?
>
> No, I'm saying that you can't produce the name of the eye witness.
>
> --bks


No, you're saying that there isn't an eye witness. There is. In fact, there are two. If you don't know, don't post. And no one has to produce jackshit for you.


Travel

unread,
Apr 14, 2012, 11:43:48 AM4/14/12
to
On Friday, April 13, 2012 3:05:46 PM UTC-4, Adam Russell wrote:
> On 4/13/2012 11:23 AM, Travel wrote:
> > On Friday, April 13, 2012 12:56:31 AM UTC-4, Adam Russell wrote:
> >> On 4/12/2012 11:59 AM, Travel wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 10:35:41 PM UTC-4, Adam Russell wrote:
> >>>> On 4/11/2012 3:45 PM, Auto wrote:
> >>>>> "Clave"<cla...@the.monastery.com> wrote in
> >>>>> news:lenhr.57375$IQ1....@newsfe18.iad:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "phlash74"<a10...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:m0ah59x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> >>>>>>> On Apr 11 2012 1:46 PM, Clave wrote:


Oh, you're making up evidence in your own mind, assigning it's importance and then and climing your made-up evidence is being hidden. Iiii seee. Just make things up as you go along why don't you, and you can submit meaningless posts forever.

The special prosecutor, who's obviously looking to gather any evidence against Zimmerman, would have everything there is on this, and she's coming up short. Maybe she doesn't know about your made-up "evidence."


> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> News conference w/State Atty. Corey at 6:00 Eastern.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Jim
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If I were her, I'd charge him with manslaughter. The chances
> >>>>>>> of getting a murder conviction are virtually nil imo, and an
> >>>>>>> acquittal could lead to some nasty stuff happening. I think
> >>>>>>> it will be relatively easy to shoot holes (pun not intended)
> >>>>>>> in his story and obtain a manslaughter conviction.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> WOw -- 2nd degree.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jim
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Overcharged, and probably easier to beat. That way, everybody is
> >>>>> happy, for now.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> We really dont know what evidence there is, so you cant know what level
> >>>> of charge is viable.
> >>>
> >>> Whenever I hear that line, I'm thinking: you mean, there no evidence supporting the "Sharpton/Martinites'" claims that it wasn't self defense by Zimmerman.
> >>
> >> There is some truth to that. But consider the fact that if there was no
> >> crime there was technically no cause to keep evidence under wraps. The
> >> fact that police were not yet willing to release the evidence to public
> >> view indicated that the police had some reason to believe that
> >> eventually charges might be filed.
> >
> > It doesn't mean that at all.
> >
> > In fact, they released the facts. They did state what their investigation revealed and the police report, witnesses, 911 calls etc., etc. That's how we know about it.
> >
>
> Pics of crime scene, Pics of M and Z's injuries, loc of body, loc of
> blood spatter, loc of shell casings, loc of truck, blood on Z's shirt?
> These are all bits that should be available as evidence but have not
> been released. They did state that the evidence is supposed to be
> sealed. In fact iirc they were upset that someone leaked the 911 tapes.
> The police report that was released was extremely minimal.

Bradley K. Sherman

unread,
Apr 14, 2012, 12:20:46 PM4/14/12
to
Travel <trave...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>No, you're saying that there isn't an eye witness. There is. In fact,
>there are two. If you don't know, don't post. And no one has to produce
>jackshit for you.
>

Oh I thought you meant an eye-witness who confirmed Zimmerman's
story (which is unraveling)! You must be referring to Mary Cutcher
and Selma Moore, who do not confirm it:
<http://www.wtol.com/story/17207684/witness-to-fl-teen-shooting-not-self-defense>

--bks

Travel

unread,
Apr 14, 2012, 1:21:22 PM4/14/12
to b...@panix.com
On Friday, April 13, 2012 7:58:03 PM UTC-4, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
> Wilhelm Kuhlmann <ramas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...
> >> <http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/04/12/case-against-george-...>
> >
> >Why is this nonsense?
> >
>
> Because even the frumious reporter showing up on the
> Fox agitprop show "Hannity" is backing off the story.
>
> E.g. Where, exactly, is the transcript of the interview?
>
> --bks


And you don't think that the anti-Zimmerman, politically motivated special prosecutor, Corey, has seen this material, completely? Lol, you're sucking wind.

Unfortunately for you, your facts-ignoring rant of: "it's all a "profiling" conspiracy against the blacks" is destroyed now that
of "your side," (the special prosecutor) now has the case.


Travel

unread,
Apr 14, 2012, 1:41:46 PM4/14/12
to
Of course. The witness is obviously, now, well lawyered-up, and advised to speak no more.

Bradley K. Sherman has been destroyed and is now just squirming around.

Also, as a space saver: convincing this imbecile is like convincing, Hankins,
that what would obviously be Sarah Palin's policies if she were to be President would, alone, be light years beyond the disastrous, socialist Obama "administration."

Travel

unread,
Apr 14, 2012, 1:48:17 PM4/14/12
to
Message has been deleted

brewmaster

unread,
Apr 14, 2012, 2:08:55 PM4/14/12
to
LOL, IF he answers, it will be the "bizarro-world" list.

--
Brew "part of the 100%" Master

________________________________________________________________________ 


Adam Russell

unread,
Apr 14, 2012, 3:11:40 PM4/14/12
to
On 4/14/2012 8:43 AM, Travel wrote:
> On Friday, April 13, 2012 3:05:46 PM UTC-4, Adam Russell wrote:
>> On 4/13/2012 11:23 AM, Travel wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 13, 2012 12:56:31 AM UTC-4, Adam Russell wrote:
>>>> On 4/12/2012 11:59 AM, Travel wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 10:35:41 PM UTC-4, Adam Russell wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 3:45 PM, Auto wrote:
>>>>>>> "Clave"<cla...@the.monastery.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:lenhr.57375$IQ1....@newsfe18.iad:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "phlash74"<a10...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:m0ah59x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 11 2012 1:46 PM, Clave wrote:
>
>
> Oh, you're making up evidence in your own mind, assigning it's importance and then and climing your made-up evidence is being hidden
>

No, Im just naming the evidence that in my opinion would have to have
been collected by any semi-competent police investigation. None of
which is available to the public as of yet. I have no way to say
whether this presumed evidence would support Z or refute him, except
that if the prosecutor is competent it would be likely that some of that
evidence would support charges.

>> Pics of crime scene, Pics of M and Z's injuries, loc of body, loc of
>> blood spatter, loc of shell casings, loc of truck, blood on Z's shirt?

Are you claiming that the police did not gather this evidence?

VegasJerry

unread,
Apr 15, 2012, 1:09:43 PM4/15/12
to
On Apr 14 2012 11:08 AM, brewmaster wrote:

> On Apr 14 2012 8:03 AM, Wilhelm Kuhlmann wrote:
>
> > On Apr 14, 6:40 am, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 13 2012 10:19 PM, Wilhelm Kuhlmann wrote:
> >
> > > > Yawn.  You are a child, Bradley.  Don't imagine that you can help me
> > > > with anything.  You have now demonstrated to both me and Hankins that
> > > > you have no critical thinking skills and are incapable of having a
> > > > rational discussion.
> >
> > > > Congratulations on joining a select club which includes Clave, Jerry,
> > > > and Maggot the Faggot.
> >
> > > Advertizing your ignorance again..... What a sorry asshole you are.
> >
> > Jerry, please list here all the people on RGP who think you are
> > capable of having a rational discussion.
> >
> >
> > William Coleman (ramashiva)
>
> LOL, IF he answers, it will be the "bizarro-world" list.

Heh. Did you turn out to be wrong?



>
> --
> Brew "part of the 100%" Master
>
> ________________________________________________________________________ 

------ 


VegasJerry

unread,
Apr 15, 2012, 1:09:03 PM4/15/12
to
On Apr 14 2012 8:03 AM, Wilhelm Kuhlmann wrote:

First name is yours; we're having one right now.



Jerry








>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)

---- 


Wilhelm Kuhlmann

unread,
Apr 15, 2012, 1:27:28 PM4/15/12
to
FAIL. I just listed you as a person I think is incapable of having a
rational discussion. Therefore, it is irrational to suggest that I do
think you are capable of having a rational discussion.

Since you are being irrational, we are not having a rational
discussion.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

Travel

unread,
Apr 15, 2012, 2:09:11 PM4/15/12
to
On Saturday, April 14, 2012 3:11:40 PM UTC-4, Adam Russell wrote:
> On 4/14/2012 8:43 AM, Travel wrote:
> > On Friday, April 13, 2012 3:05:46 PM UTC-4, Adam Russell wrote:
> >> On 4/13/2012 11:23 AM, Travel wrote:
> >>> On Friday, April 13, 2012 12:56:31 AM UTC-4, Adam Russell wrote:
> >>>> On 4/12/2012 11:59 AM, Travel wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 10:35:41 PM UTC-4, Adam Russell wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/11/2012 3:45 PM, Auto wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Clave"<cla...@the.monastery.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>> news:lenhr.57375$IQ1....@newsfe18.iad:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "phlash74"<a10...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> news:m0ah59x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 11 2012 1:46 PM, Clave wrote:
> >
> >
> > Oh, you're making up evidence in your own mind, assigning it's importance and then and climing your made-up evidence is being hidden
> >
>
> No,

Yes, that's exactly what you're doing.

Im just naming the evidence that in my opinion would have to have
> been collected by any semi-competent police investigation.

And your imagined evidence and opinion means jackshit.


None of
> which is available to the public as of yet. I have no way to say
> whether this presumed evidence would support Z or refute him, except
> that if the prosecutor is competent it would be likely that some of that
> evidence would support charges.
>

Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor, has read the arrest affidavit and says to the effect that: arresting Zimmerman with such gross lack of evidence is irresponsible and unethical.

End of your bogus "argument."

Last post to Bradley K. Sherman on this. I can't waste my time with someone with an obvious agenda who just pulls made-up blithering from the imagination of their ass.

brewmaster

unread,
Apr 15, 2012, 2:33:38 PM4/15/12
to
On Apr 15 2012 10:09 AM, VegasJerry wrote:

> On Apr 14 2012 11:08 AM, brewmaster wrote:
>
> > On Apr 14 2012 8:03 AM, Wilhelm Kuhlmann wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 14, 6:40 am, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Apr 13 2012 10:19 PM, Wilhelm Kuhlmann wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Yawn.  You are a child, Bradley.  Don't imagine that you can help me
> > > > > with anything.  You have now demonstrated to both me and Hankins that
> > > > > you have no critical thinking skills and are incapable of having a
> > > > > rational discussion.
> > >
> > > > > Congratulations on joining a select club which includes Clave, Jerry,
> > > > > and Maggot the Faggot.
> > >
> > > > Advertizing your ignorance again..... What a sorry asshole you are.
> > >
> > > Jerry, please list here all the people on RGP who think you are
> > > capable of having a rational discussion.
> > >
> > >
> > > William Coleman (ramashiva)
> >
> > LOL, IF he answers, it will be the "bizarro-world" list.
>
> Heh. Did you turn out to be wrong?

No, you didn't answer the question. You said "first name would be
yours...". He asked you to list the rgpers. You didn't.

brewmaster

unread,
Apr 15, 2012, 2:36:58 PM4/15/12
to
You are exactly right on this Travel. AD is one of the top legal minds in
the world, is one of the most respected Harvard law professors, and has
stated that there was no probable cause listed for murder 2. Of course,
bks and VJ are better legal minds than AD, so he is obviously wrong.

I still think she overcharged so that the case will take a long time to
resolve, and by that time nobody will care anymore, and there will be no
riots. If she had charged man 2, which is probably appropriate, there
would have been riots (and there may be some still when Z is acquitted in
a year).

>
>
> > >> Pics of crime scene, Pics of M and Z's injuries, loc of body, loc of
> > >> blood spatter, loc of shell casings, loc of truck, blood on Z's shirt?
> >
> > Are you claiming that the police did not gather this evidence?


Travel

unread,
Apr 15, 2012, 2:36:30 PM4/15/12
to
I guess that was "Adam K. Russell." Same thing, clone the above.

The special prosecutor has seen all the "released or not released to the public," evidence, plus that of her own investigation. The results are in: she has found zero in new revelations, and her arrest affidavit is an irresponsible disgrace, based on "a trial no matter what," political witch-hunt.


VegasJerry

unread,
Apr 15, 2012, 6:44:31 PM4/15/12
to
On Apr 15 2012 11:33 AM, brewmaster wrote:

> On Apr 15 2012 10:09 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> > On Apr 14 2012 11:08 AM, brewmaster wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 14 2012 8:03 AM, Wilhelm Kuhlmann wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Apr 14, 6:40 am, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Apr 13 2012 10:19 PM, Wilhelm Kuhlmann wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Yawn.  You are a child, Bradley.  Don't imagine that you can help
me
> > > > > > with anything.  You have now demonstrated to both me and Hankins
that
> > > > > > you have no critical thinking skills and are incapable of having a
> > > > > > rational discussion.
> > > >
> > > > > > Congratulations on joining a select club which includes Clave,
Jerry,
> > > > > > and Maggot the Faggot.
> > > >
> > > > > Advertizing your ignorance again..... What a sorry asshole you are.
> > > >
> > > > Jerry, please list here all the people on RGP who think you are
> > > > capable of having a rational discussion.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > William Coleman (ramashiva)
> > >
> > > LOL, IF he answers, it will be the "bizarro-world" list.
> >
> > Heh. Did you turn out to be wrong?
>
> No, you didn't answer the question.

Yea, acutually I did.







You said "first name would be
> yours...". He asked you to list the rgpers. You didn't.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Brew "part of the 100%" Master
> > >
> > > ________________________________________________________________________ 
> >
> > ------ 
>
>
> --
> Brew "part of the 100%" Master
>
> ________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________ 


VegasJerry

unread,
Apr 15, 2012, 6:45:33 PM4/15/12
to
On Apr 15 2012 10:27 AM, Wilhelm Kuhlmann wrote:

> On Apr 15, 10:09 am, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 14 2012 8:03 AM, Wilhelm Kuhlmann wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 14, 6:40 am, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 13 2012 10:19 PM, Wilhelm Kuhlmann wrote:
>
> > > > > Yawn.  You are a child, Bradley.  Don't imagine that you can help me
> > > > > with anything.  You have now demonstrated to both me and Hankins that
> > > > > you have no critical thinking skills and are incapable of having a
> > > > > rational discussion.
>
> > > > > Congratulations on joining a select club which includes Clave, Jerry,
> > > > > and Maggot the Faggot.
>
> > > > Advertizing your ignorance again..... What a sorry asshole you are.
>
> > > Jerry, please list here all the people on RGP who think you are
> > > capable of having a rational discussion.
>
> > First name is yours; we're having one right now.
>
> FAIL.

Not hardly....

Learn to lose, again.


Jerry



> I just listed you as a person I think is incapable of having a
> rational discussion. Therefore, it is irrational to suggest that I do
> think you are capable of having a rational discussion.
>
> Since you are being irrational, we are not having a rational
> discussion.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)

____________________________________________________________________ 


Pepe Papon

unread,
Apr 16, 2012, 4:31:54 AM4/16/12
to
The Catch-22 is that, since he's irrational, he won't accept a
rational point like the one you just made.

Travel

unread,
Apr 16, 2012, 10:56:53 PM4/16/12
to
Yes, I know I'm right on this. No probable cause for arrest is what I've been arguing. And now, through the Alan Dershowitz comments, it's been demonstrated that I'm right.

Also, I'm well aware of Alan Dershowitz' career and status.

An important point, as a result of his assessment is that, it vindicates the original/initial police investigation, and especially their decision not to arrest due to lack of probable cause. In other words, the first investigation wasn't flawed at all, and there was no need for the special prosecutor; beyond the obvious: it's a political witch-hunt.


> I still think she overcharged so that the case will take a long time to
> resolve, and by that time nobody will care anymore, and there will be no
> riots.

No, she clearly thinks that she can get a conviction on second-degree. As I've said from the beginning, Zimmerman will be tried on "politically correct" and a bagged-jury, cherry picked from a media-poisoned jury pool, and not the evidence. That's the plan, you can be sure of it. They want to BURN Zimmerman.

As in the great line from the movie, "Spartacus": they don't want to just destroy Zimmerman, the man, they want to destroy the -LEGEND- of "profiling."

The evidence didn't get in the way of an O.J. "politically correct" acquittal, a Casey Anthony "politically correct" acquittal or an Oklahoma pharmacist "politically correct" conviction. The evidence had nothing to do with these odious, media-driven, left-wing "social justice" cases.

>If she had charged man 2, which is probably appropriate, there
> would have been riots (and there may be some still when Z is acquitted in
> a year).
>

There were no riots because the left wing didn't organize and stage them. The left got what they wanted: a left wing political-hack-special-prosecutor who they knew would arrest Zimmerman no matter what, and put him on trial.

The Tea Party Republican governor of Florida caved and appointed this hack, while throwing the Sanford, Florida, police dept. under the bus.



0 new messages