Trayvon Martin's Girlfriend Lied

#1
volmaverick

volmaverick

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
6,015
Likes
14
#1
SANFORD — Trayvon Martin's girlfriend, the state's most important witness in the George Zimmerman murder case, was caught in a lie Tuesday.

It was not the first piece of misinformation tied to her, but it was the most damaging to date and left prosecutors in a very awkward position.

They had to publicly acknowledge that their star witness had lied under oath and had to answer questions about what they intend to do about it.

George Zimmerman stand your ground hearing: Witness in Zimmerman case caught in lie - OrlandoSentinel.com


Hmmm... seems like everyone in this case is lying EXCEPT George Zimmerman.


The Martins refuse to allow their son’s phone records to be released...WHY???

Some calls must be to problematic gang members and probably what the girl says didn’t add up to the record.

Why block the cell phone records? What is wrong it showing the truth here in a matter of life, death and jail?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#2
#2
So, if your parents refused to allow your phone records to be released, the reasonable implication is that some of your calls must have been to gang members?
 
#3
#3
therealUT said:
So, if your parents refused to allow your phone records to be released, the reasonable implication is that some of your calls must have been to gang members?
Click to expand...

Maybe

If there is nothing to hide , why not release them?

Also

Is it safe to assume that SHE will now be charged with perjury? I mean Shellie Zimmerman was charged, so this woman should be as well. Right?
 
Last edited:
#4
#4
volmaverick said:
Maybe

If there is nothing to hide , why not release them?
Click to expand...

Because they do not want to release them. That is reason enough in America.

Now, if the prosecution subpoenas the phone records, then the phone records will be handed over to the prosecution; this does not entail that they will be public record, though.

Your immediate jump from the choice not to release/reveal something to criminal conduct is ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#5
#5
volmaverick said:
Is it safe to assume that SHE will now be charged with perjury? I mean Shellie Zimmerman was charged, so this woman should be as well. Right?
Click to expand...

She ought to be charged with perjury. I doubt it is safe to assume that she will be.
 
#6
#6
The article says that she represented herself being 16 years old to the prosecutors, when she was really 18 years old. It seems that she also lied about being in a hospital during Martin's funeral. So there is some question about her being charged with perjury, like Zimmerman's wife. Also, an 18 year old going with a minor might open charges of statutory rape. Who knows what the telecom records will reveal. Suffice it to say that she is not shaping up to be a very good "star witness" for the prosecution. She was not even there.
 
#7
#7
This case has fallen by the wayside real quick.

I still believe both sides were equally at guilt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9
#9
Vol Main said:
The article says that she represented herself being 16 years old to the prosecutors, when she was really 18 years old. It seems that she also lied about being in a hospital during Martin's funeral. So there is some question about her being charged with perjury, like Zimmerman's wife. Also, an 18 year old going with a minor might open charges of statutory rape. Who knows what the telecom records will reveal. Suffice it to say that she is not shaping up to be a very good "star witness" for the prosecution. She was not even there.
Click to expand...

Agree with everyone aside from the statutory rape BS. It is not illegal in the state of Florida for an 18 year old to have sexual relations with a 16 year old.

Why she said 16 instead of 18, I have no idea. But, it certainly was not to avoid rape charges.
 
#10
#10
therealUT said:
Agree with everyone aside from the statutory rape BS. It is not illegal in the state of Florida for an 18 year old to have sexual relations with a 16 year old.

Why she said 16 instead of 18, I have no idea. But, it certainly was not to avoid rape charges.
Click to expand...

I did not know the Florida law on age of sexual consent, but it seems that you are correct. Statutory rape seems unlikely to become an issue, because 24 is the starting age of the older party. Florida law as cited below does protect 16 year old girls from sexual contact(lewd and lascivious) with boys 16 and older but it apparently does not protect boys from girls..
_______________________________________________

794.05 Unlawful sexual activity with certain minors.--

(1) A person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, "sexual activity" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose.

(2) The provisions of this section do not apply to a person 16 or 17 years of age who has had the disabilities of nonage removed under chapter 743.

(3) The victim's prior sexual conduct is not a relevant issue in a prosecution under this section.

(4) If an offense under this section directly results in the victim giving birth to a child, paternity of that child shall be established as described in chapter 742. If it is determined that the offender is the father of the child, the offender must pay child support pursuant to the child support guidelines described in chapter 61. History.--RS 2598; s. 1, ch. 4965, 1901; GS 3521; s. 1, ch. 6974, 1915; s. 1, ch. 7732, 1918; RGS 5409; s. 1, ch. 8596, 1921; CGL 7552; s. 1, ch. 61-109; s. 759, ch. 71-136; s. 1, ch. 96-409.



Update 06-23-01: Comments from Email:
Florida Law (Section 800.04, Florida Statues) regarding lewd and lascivious behavior carries a mandatory sentence. This law has turned many teenage boys into sexual offender. If there is physical contact....not sexual intercourse (battery)...between a girl under 16 and a boy 16 or over, The girl or her parents can charge the male and have him arrested. Consent is not considered, just the ages of the participants.
 
Last edited:
#11
#11
I'm not condoning having sex with minors but I always found it odd that a 13-14 year could be tried as an adult for murder but wasn't able to consent to sex with someone unless it was also a minor.
 
#14
#14
Let's not assume anything. That's why this thing got out of control to begin with. Everyone assumed it was a teen murdered by a crazy neighborhood man. Hardly the truth.
 
#15
#15
LittleCat said:
Let's not assume anything. That's why this thing got out of control to begin with. Everyone assumed it was a teen murdered by a crazy neighborhood man. Hardly the truth.
Click to expand...

Only a certain demographic assumed that. They ignored the fact the guy was half Hispanic & made it racial & he was just white. But they ignore the fact the president is half white too. Whatever fits the agenda.
 
#16
#16
govols/cc said:
Only a certain demographic assumed that. They ignored the fact the guy was half Hispanic & made it racial & he was just white. But they ignore the fact the president is half white too. Whatever fits the agenda.
Click to expand...

If you listened to social media, the mainstream media on tv then you would know how crazy everyone after the incident. It wasn't just a small group.
 
#19
#19
govols/cc said:
He will probably be acquitted but lose the imminent civil trial which is something I will never understand.
Click to expand...

As a Castle Doctrine/SYG state the civil side isn't nearly as easy as sounds. If he (Zimmerman) is criminally cleared of the shooting the law actually acts to protect against civil suits.
 
#20
#20
hndog609 said:
As a Castle Doctrine/SYG state the civil side isn't nearly as easy as sounds. If he (Zimmerman) is criminally cleared of the shooting the law actually acts to protect against civil suits.
Click to expand...

What happened to OJ? Makeup call?
 
#21
#21
govols/cc said:
He will probably be acquitted but lose the imminent civil trial which is something I will never understand.
Click to expand...


If you don't understand the difference between the two your parents need to get a refund from your high school.
 
#22
#22
lawgator1 said:
If you don't understand the difference between the two your parents need to get a refund from your high school.
Click to expand...

If the justice system declares after a legitimate trial that one is not guilty for an action, then it is purely absurd for the justice system to turn around and rule that the same individually is responsible and I'm the wrong for the same act.

Now, this problem is rooted in the absurd notion that there exist offenses against the state (i.e., the criminal) that are absolutely separated from offenses against individual citizens (i.e., the civil).
 
#24
#24
govols/cc said:
What happened to OJ? Makeup call?
Click to expand...

Did you just stroke out? For one the two cases aren't even remotely similar factually or contextually and 2nd, even if that WERE the case, why are you assuming they operated under the same set of laws? (FL vs CA)
 
#25
#25
lawgator1 said:
If you don't understand the difference between the two your parents need to get a refund from your high school.
Click to expand...

Lol. Coming from you that doesn't really bother me. It's obviously just about the money. OJ would have been even more worthless in jail (the first time). Maybe it was to fool black people into thinking they actually won.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top