George Zimmerman Jail Transcripts and Bank Records

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:50:20 PM EST
Tags: George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I've uploaded the George Zimmerman jail transcripts and bank records. The transcripts are all in one document so you don't have to download 6 separate transcripts. The bank records may take a while to open, as they are 34 pages and 2.64 MB.

The links to the audio of the calls are here.

Update: Mark O'Mara told Piers Morgan tonight he will introduce another conversation at the June 29 bail hearing. In it, George and Shellie discuss her testifying at the April 20 hearing. George tells her, "Before you testify, pray first and tell the truth." [More...]

O'Mara said the tapes are significant to the one minor issue of whether Shellie knew the amount of money that was in the account, and that clearly she did. He said they told the court of the funds four days after the April 20 hearing.

O'Mara said not one of the 154 calls from the jail show an intent to deceive the judge. He said the speaking in "simplistic code" of 155 instead of $155,000 may have been to keep guards and inmates from overhearing. (On one call, Zimmerman tells Shellie other inmates want to use the phone and the guards will be coming for it shortly.)

O'Mara said "they didn't tell the judge the absolute truth." He said it was due to mistrust of the system and the judge, based on what they had been going through and what they were suddenly facing with the state's attorney trying to keep him in jail, but it was not an intent to deceive the judge.

As to credibility, he acknowledged it's a factor, but said it should not affect the core issue, which is what happened with Trayvon Martin. He said the objective evidence -- forensic evidence, witness statements and injuries -- should be more important.

O'Mara also said Zimmerman didn't lie to him. He stated, as he has before, that he never asked Zimmerman about the fund because he didn't know about it. He say GZ brought up the paypal account with him (during their discussion about closing down his internet presence) and George immediately agreed to turn over the money to O'Mara, which he did. There's a check in the bank records from GZ to O'Mara for $122,393.04, written on April 25.

In other calls released today, George talks about an inmate whose clothes were lost in the laundry. George tells Shellie he wanted to give him some of his clothes but didn't think he'd be allowed to. He also talks about how thankful he has been for the chaplains at the jail. "I mean I owe the chaplains here so much and, I can never repay them." He and his wife seem to have a mutually supportive relationship, repeatedly expressing little endearments to each other.

When I listen to O'Mara, I often get the sense he's not talking to the public but the Judge, as if he knows what he says will be reported back to him. He always seems to want to pacify the judge. Tonight he said "there's no question Judge Lester stuck his neck out in granting bond to George Zimmerman" by letting him remain in hiding and relieving him of other standard bond conditions. O'Mara didn't say a word about the law favoring Zimmerman or even that the Judge should give him another chance. While overall I think he's doing a good job, sometimes I think he is a bit too ready to acknowledge his client's shortcomings and not forceful enough about his innocence.

I don't know who "Ken" is on the tapes, but in addition to being in charge of the paypal account, he also was in direct contact with O'Mara. From the last call on 4/17:

ZIMMERMAN: Have you heard at all from O’Mara?
SHELLIE: I have not heard from O’Mara, but Ken did.
ZIMMERMAN: Oh, really?
SHELLIE: Mm hmm.
ZIMMERMAN: Why?
SHELLIE: Um, they were just, you know, working some stuff out.
ZIMMERMAN: Mm. Okay.
SHELLIE: But I can't, I don’t wanna say.
ZIMMERMAN: Yeah, good idea. Okay.
SHELLIE: But just like logistical stuff.
ZIMMERMAN: I gotcha, I got it, I got it. And is it all worked out?
SHELLIE: Um, yeah, yeah, they seem to be positive and, like Ken was saying like I'm feeling much better about this whole thing today after talking to him....

I don't think Zimmerman ever tried to keep the paypal fund secret. On his Facebook page which he opened April 10, the day after the website went live, he made several updates up until his surrender on the 11th, including this one saying he would no longer be able to access the site but the paypal link would still work. As on the website, he said the money would be going to living expenses and his "legal defense." In another, he thanks the person who set up the site.

And on April 25, "Ken" posted this comment on the blog Conservative Treehouse when the site went down, assuring those who had donated that George would receive the money. These updates were posted to his now-defunct website while he was in jail.

The State's Attorney's office today said more discovery would be released in the coming days.

< Class Action Suit Against Supermax : Treatment Not Fit for Dogs | Senate Hearing This AM on Solitary Confinement >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

George Zimmerman Jail Transcripts and Bank Records | 50 comments (50 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I think... (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by DebFrmHell on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 02:07:33 AM EST

that after reading through all of those transcripts I no longer know what to think about George Zimmerman. I actually feel kind of bad for him.

I think I wanted him to be more of an azzhat and he doesn't come across that way. He even feels badly for an inmate that got ripped off and losing all of his stuff.

He never really even met with MOM except in passing for the recusal of Judge R.

MOM met with Shellie and she reinforced how much she liked him to her husband.

There was so much concern about his family's safety and what they were dealing with pertaining to the media. And the purchase of the bullet proof vest. One for Shellie, one for MOM, and one for himself. Their Security Council consisted of what, his father and brother?

There is the money issue. But it looks like his mother had lent him money to stay in hiding. He was down to about $500.00 up until then. I think it is safe to assume he had been living on his charge cards. They were a priority for him to pay off, IMO, in case he had to resort to them again. He even has a check paying back his mother within a couple of weeks of the loan. Looks like Mrs. Dean probably got paid back also.

His sister Susie/Grace was intrumental in teaching Shellie how to set up the accounts so that funds could be transferred. Shellie seems clueless as to a lot of those machinations. He says that RZ, Jr. has/had control of that account. That RZ transfers the PP funds into GZ's account an from there it is disbursed into other accounts.

The website was established on the 8th of April and closed out by the 26th, IIRC, so the sudden influx of that kind of cash available has to be mind-blowing. I never got the impression that fleeing was even considered an option. He seemed to be genuinely grateful for support.

Anywhoooo. Putting all of these transcripts out in proper context instead of just parts of them changed some of my presumptions of him and his wife. I had previously thought she was the smarter of the two.

That isn't so much of a "code." Especially, since both seemed to forget on occasion to use it.

Just personal observations. Certainly, not legal.

I do feel sorry for him (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by ruffian on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 06:05:56 AM EST

I think he made a horrible mistake that he will be paying for in one way or another for the rest of his life. IMO that is fair since his mistake cost another man his life. We can still have sympathy for him.


"A mistake that he will be paying... (none / 0) (#75)
by heidelja on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 01:38:38 PM EST

...for in one way or another for the rest of his life. IMO that is fair since his mistake cost another man his life."

Possibly you do not mean this the way it might sound. I question it because MANY have been involved in incidences resulting in another's death....even involving guns. They go seen later as inadvertant because they were determined accidental. Are they expected to "pay for" their "mistakes" the rest of their lives? Is GZ's situation involving a gun too incomprehensible to be thought of as an incidence resulting in an accidental death?


please stay on topic (none / 0) (#76)
by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 01:45:06 PM EST

of jail records and bank statements. Shootings and guns are not the topic.


: So what.... (none / 0) (#82)
by heidelja on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 05:07:05 PM EST

...might be the "collateral damages" of the jail phone recordings and bank statements?
By comments here, only 6 of the 155 "tapes" seems to possibly engender a positive view of GZ that he once did not enjoy. How much more endeared can GZ become with the release only a few of the others?
Central Florida News 13 in Orlando early this afternoon reported that to them the bank statements revealed the location (state) where GZ had been in hiding! Does this suggest bad ethical news reporting or more so malice of the State towards GZ for not fully redacting the statements?

the goverment can be so injust (2.67 / 3) (#18)
by Steve27 on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 05:58:22 AM EST

It is clear that Zimmerman is being persecuted by the goverment, by established society. His only crime is that he actually got involved with his community. Unlike so many of his neighbors who would not come out of their homes to help him as he was being beaten.


I'm afraid that... (none / 0) (#85)
by unitron on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:55:36 AM EST

"I had previously thought she was the smarter of the two."

Unfortunately for them and the mess in which they find themselves, I"m afraid that the answer to the question of which of the two is the smarter is "neither".


What would bail have been if paypal (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Steve27 on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 05:50:23 AM EST

money was known by the court?

Would the judge have imposed a higher bail if he knew about all the paypal money? The paypal money was for Zimmerman's legal defense. Wouldn't the judge have not included it in the calculation of funds available to Z to make bail? If so, why can't O'Mara argue that Zimmerman assumed the paypal money was not relevant to questions about what assets he had that could be used to make bail?

Strategy, strategy (4.25 / 4) (#17)
by cboldt on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 05:57:05 AM EST

-- why can't O'Mara argue that Zimmerman assumed the paypal money was not relevant to questions about what assets he had that could be used to make bail? --

He could, and the more you think about it, the more it makes sense. Zimmerman has a deep well to draw from, and we don't know yet how much he may be able to raise. If bond represents your personal assets at risk, to discourage flight, public goodwill just doesn't fit the bill.

There are serious legal issues with Lester's order to hold Zimmerman without bail. The order does not meet the legal requirements for eliminating bail; and no wonder, because the fact pattern doesn't admit writing an order that gives the legal justification for holding without bail. O'Mara isn't arguing that, either.

Maybe O'Mara is being milquetoast so as to allow Zimmerman opponents to paint themselves as the unreasonable heavies. It seems to play well in the interview with Piers Morgan, who wants to insist that Zimmerman can't be believed for anything, and O'Mara says, "Yep, he sure has hurt his credibility." At some point, the facts start to speak for themselves.


: My comment... (none / 0) (#77)
by heidelja on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 01:49:25 PM EST

...at 08:42 AM June 08, 2012 to another RE: The Orlando Sentinel article entitled "George Zimmerman's bond hearing set for June 29" dated June 6, 2012 was:
O'Mara practices the art perfected by ledgendary old Southern ball coaches. They poor mouthed their own team to inflate the egos of the opposition to the point of overconfidence. In law it works to make the defendent (by their own admission) gain sympathy by being unjustly attacked by an adversary even when they fully admit to the (unreasonable and overreaching) allegation.
O'Mara's most accurate statement can be found from June 1 immediately following the State's surprise (grandstanding) attack. He said then that the State was only doing its job as an adversary.
There is no point for O'Mara to attack the State's unreasonable and overreaching allegations. Plenty of others through the free press are doing it for him!

Per comments above it might be working, and by yours below I will slightly tweak it (see below).

We had a long thread about that the other day (none / 0) (#19)
by ruffian on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 05:59:03 AM EST

Your last statement is the most likely argument they will make- that GZ did not think he could uses these funds for bail money.


the problem is (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by becca70 on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 06:23:49 AM EST

He talked about using it for bail money and did use it for the only bail money that was paid.

I personally think if he'd admitted to it the bail amount would've been the same.


that's a misleading interpretation (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 11:31:09 AM EST

read the transcript. Shellie proposed it, he said he'd think about it. Only $5,000 was used and it was after the bail hearing.


: "only five thousand" was used. (none / 0) (#80)
by willisnewton on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 02:27:16 PM EST

Only five thousand was needed, when combined with the $10K IOU that father presumably has since forfeited to the bondsman. The actual amount seems immaterial. He drew from the fund or he didn't. How is the amount relevant?
I think the transcription may be off when they are speaking about if it's 50, pay the 15. Fifteen and fifty are sound-alike words and it makes more sense to me to think he is saying "pay the 50" - I hope this can be cleared up on the 29th.
I think maybe what Jeralyn is trying to say is that GZ didn't think the money could be used for bond until after the bond hearing, when he knew the amount needed and then had it used it for that purpose, after consultation or consideration of some kind. This is one explanation for the idea that he thought the money couldn't be used for bond, but his conversations seem to say he felt the money could be used for bond. "If it's 50 pay the (whatever.) " Whatever the whatever amount is, he's saying it can be used for bond, and he's saying it before the bond hearing. Maybe he was unsure later.
I'm not sure what "changed his mind," if ever it changed, but GZ talking to his lawyer or family member who spoke to the lawyer seems a likely thing to consider. There has been some statements to the press about the decision making during this time but I don't know exactly what was said. But IIRC, the lawyer tells the story that he didn't know all about the monies until after GZ made bond. So the exact sequence of events is still unclear to me, and the court has heard little of any of this that makes it all clear.
Perhaps on the 29th it will become clear, or perhaps GZ will plead the fifth, as is his right and we won't know more until and if Shellie is brought to court for her alleged perjury, and she doesn't plead the fifth or plead guilty to this or a lesser charge in a plea deal.
In my opinion however little of this reflects well on his credibility, or chances of making bond again. How any of this may affect his trial is unknown to me.

I think he would've liked (none / 0) (#51)
by spectator on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 10:36:55 AM EST

to set it around 500k, and was annoyed he didn't have the say to set it in stone.

just a wild guess.


So... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by becca70 on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 06:08:05 AM EST

"I don't know when I'm going to get to see him again"
"Hmmm, we've got to get that bag from him"
"You know what? I think my passport's in that bag"
"Oh really? Well I have one in a safety deposit box"
"Okay you hold on to that"

He never even mentions O'Mara about the bag or passport.

He doesn't know if he'll ever see his lawyer again? They have to get the bag from GZ's lawyer? While talking about GZ's passports they're really talking about Shellie's passport?

You're forgetting that on the paper filed on the 12th that GZ told O'Mara he had no valid passport. Then by the 20th the one in the bag (why would O'Mara sign the declaration on the 12th when he had the one in the bag?) was presented in court. It's obvious from the tapes that GZ also knew about the one Shellie had in the SDB (or as you put it, her passport). If he could tell O'Mara about the one in the bag (that O'Mara had all the time according to you) he could also tell him about the one in the SDB (Shellie's, according to you..still don't know how you're concluding that) and also could've told him about the funds raised.

Why is it so hard for Pro-Zimmerman people to admit when he stuffs up?

If I was on trail I'd want none of you on the jury.

Your dates are off (none / 0) (#29)
by cboldt on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 06:41:13 AM EST

On the 12th, O'Mara says no valid passport. On the 20th he tenders the lost one, and the one in the bag is there on the 27th.

I think there's a good argument that Zimmerman was hiding a passport, but Lester seems satisfied with the explanation that it's all an innocent cock-up. He could be in error on that, and it won't be the only mistake he's made or will make.


passport (none / 0) (#78)
by lore hahn on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 02:03:34 PM EST

Cboldt, check page 2-3 of Jeralyn's combined files. I agree with her, they talk about Mark O'Mara in context, who so far has only met with Ken, and then there is this:

ZIMMERMAN: I don't know when I'm gonna get to see him again.
SHELLIE: Mm. I gotta get that bag from him.
ZIMMERMAN: Mm. You know what?
SHELLIE: Huh?
ZIMMERMAN: I said do you know what?
SHELLIE: What?
ZIMMERMAN: I think my passport's in that bag.

I think this discussion is moot, since at least in the time frame of the documents we have there is only one encounter between Mark O'Mara and George Zimmerman, but no time to talk, he only gets a signature:

2012/4/12 - 16:43:27 - p 2
Shellie tells George she sent a text message to O'Mara, telling him George will call him from jail.
2012/4/16 - 14:26:41 - p 33
SHELLIE: ... Have you met with him
yet?
ZIMMERMAN: No, he came by and he just had me sign a paper real quick, uh, an Order asking
the judge to, you know, recuse herself.
SHELLIE: Uh huh
ZIMMERMAN: And he (inaudible) he just came to me (inaudible) and signed it and left. I didn't
even talk to him. I asked him how I was gonna get to talk to him and he said,
today's been really crazy. He doesn't think so.
2012/4/16 - 16:32:12 - p 51
ZIMMERMAN: Oh, tell uh O'Mara that his office line is still blocked from here.
2012/4/17 - 11:27:26 - p 55
ZIMMERMAN: Have you heard at all from O'Mara?
SHELLIE: I have not heard from O'Mara, but Ken did.

Time relates to start of call.


: Ken (none / 0) (#79)
by lore hahn on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 02:17:43 PM EST

I have to add that strictly O'Mara's contact with Ken could suggest to some that he also knew about the paypal activities. Personally I think, O'Mara may well have tight schedule book (docket?), so the conversation probably stayed on topic. Remember nobody needed to lie about the finances and other troubles, and obviously the money was much higher than expected even by GZ.
I had an early informed hint that there would be plenty money available for George, so I wasn't surprised, but at least everybody in the pro-Zimmerman camp was. Up to the revelation about the amount there was much ridicule how much money George could probably collect. Most guesses weren't very high.
Thus I think O'Mara deserves the benefit of doubt. His strategy looks good to me. This shouldn't be his main focus.

Poor Ruth A. Dean (3.50 / 2) (#2)
by Aunt Polgara on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 10:18:11 PM EST

Now Ruth Dean is also going to have to go into hiding for her $1,000 check to Shellie.

Piers Morgan / O'Mara Interview Transcript (3.50 / 2) (#11)
by cboldt on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 05:29:53 AM EST

Transcript - Piers Morgan - June 18, 2012

-- When I listen to O'Mara, I often get the sense he's not talking to the public but the Judge, as if he knows what he says will be reported back to him. He always seems to want to pacify the judge. ... While overall I think he's doing a good job, sometimes I think he is a bit too ready to acknowledge his client's shortcomings and not forceful enough about his innocence. --

I'd add that he seems reluctant to point out any error of law, and at least in the bail hearing, polished the apple a bit by publicly telling the judge that the judge didn't need O'Mara to point out passages from the case law or provide education/argument how the case law should be applied.

I'm puzzled by this, and not sure whether to assign the current dynamic of the O'Mara/judge relationship to O'Mara having a miquetoast approach to conflict, the judge being a hothead who reacts badly to being shown to have made even the slightest mistake, or some combination of the two. I can think of other underlying factors than might cause the sort of interplay we are seeing, none of them reflecting a healthy respect for the law.

Whatever the payoff might be, if this is some sort of strategy, it isn't cost free. Zimmerman will have spent 30 days in jail with insufficient legal basis for the detention.

I think it's called the high road (none / 0) (#57)
by amateur on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 11:18:16 AM EST

and I think it's a good strategy. Frankly, chasing after every little perceived error of the judge or prosecution is probably a waste of time and resources and would eventually get him a reputation for being unserious. He has been practicing in FL for a while and most likely knows his way around, and seems to have come to the conclusion that it's better to appear reasonable in all things. It also makes his client more human to observers (a pool from which he may need to draw a jury), where as full on battle mode would likely galvanize opposition. Remember that he's seen evidence that we haven't, hasn't seen all of it yet, and that a jury will likely still need to be chosen. If I'm reading him right, he's letting everyone underestimate him.


: i like your assessment. (none / 0) (#83)
by Tamta on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 07:41:32 PM EST

it is very astute.

I am in the same boat... (none / 0) (#73)
by bmaz on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 01:22:48 PM EST

...as the rest here in not being the actual attorney of record and having a full grip on the totality of facts. That said, O'Mara perplexes me. He seems plenty bright, and has by all appearances a fair amount of respect in his legal community. But he sure seems to tack differently than I would think most criminal attys would confronted with the scenes in front of him. We shall see


passports and deposit boxes, oh my (none / 0) (#3)
by willisnewton on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 12:48:31 AM EST

IMO from listening to the last call, and reading the transcript is seems clear that GZ and SZ are talking about two different passports, one in a bag and another in a box. We heard some of this at the previous hearing but the full call and transcript gives context - and later Shellie goes on about a mysterious reason the one in the box "needs" to be moved out of a box with both GZ and SZ's name attached. I'm curious what others make of this. She says, "Because what you told me to do yesterday would then mean that I need to go and get that out."

The transcript is slightly different here than the one the prosecution used at the last hearing, as well. GZ says "hold on to THEM" not "hold on to THAT" as previously transcribed, thus IMO indicating that he accepts the idea of two passports being identified and their locations known.

I seem to recall O'Mara claimed the second (aka valid) passport was found as the couple packed to move, after GZ made bond. Is that an accurate description of what happened?

box (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by lore hahn on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 12:54:43 PM EST

I wouldn't tie her "mysterious comments" to the passport only. In the context, if I remember correctly, she said that as she understands what George wants her to do, maybe it would be better to have a box with her name only. I do not think this relates to the passport only but also to the money.


: correction: (none / 0) (#70)
by lore hahn on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 01:01:07 PM EST

to have in a box with her name only - or her own box.

Shellie is saying (none / 0) (#4)
by Redbrow on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 01:53:54 AM EST

the one in the sdb is hers. 'Them' is hers plus the one in the bag belonging to George. Funny how the prosecutor changing 'them' to 'that' in their transcript changes the whole context.

ZIMMERMAN: I think my passport's in that bag.
SHELLIE: Oh, really. Well, I have one in a safety deposit box.
ZIMMERMAN: Okay, you hold onto them.


and her next words were "for you." (none / 0) (#6)
by willisnewton on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 02:32:35 AM EST

So I still hope we get some clarification here eventually.

ZIMMERMAN: I think my passport's in that bag.
SHELLIE: Oh, really. Well, I have one in a safety deposit box.
ZIMMERMAN: Okay, you hold onto them.
SHELLIE: ...for you.

Also, she mentions that Ken is in contact with MO'M and "they were just, you know, working some stuff out... But I can't, I don't wanna say.... But just like logistical stuff."

What's that about?

And lastly, if the second passport mentioned here belongs to Shellie, why might she be needing it to not be in the box?


I believe... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by DebFrmHell on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 04:45:08 AM EST

that the logistical context involves moving him from the jail to a safe house. There is conversation about renting/changing cars around, finding hotels that have attached garages for ease of access to throw off the press in an effort to keep his whereabouts unknown.

It isn't like they didn't have cause for concern. Whatever MOM told Ken/RZ Jr about the logistics, it seemed to have eased their minds.

I am not so sure on the passport issue since neither of them refers to the dates of expiration. They know that they are going to have to turn in the passport in the event that bail is granted. If he were certain they were talking about two distinct passports, why would he be asking her to do a double check?

SHELLIE: and getting it out.
ZIMMERMAN: Good idea.
SHELLIE: Because I think mine, I think the one that I have only has my name on it.
ZIMMERMAN: I think you're right. You should double check.
SHELLIE: Mm hmm. Because what you told me to do yesterday would then mean that I need to go and get that out.

Even though GZ says "them" in this transcript, SZ continues to refer to the passport in a singular fashion.

The "only has my name on it" indicates to me that she is talking about a safety deposit box not a passport. No one has a passport with two names, as an example, hers and his.

The replacement passport was reissued in 2004 and, IIRC, it was a clean, never used passport. That is 8 years ago, only 5 of which he is married to SZ, later that it is needed. If either believed there was only one remaining, would they even bother to check the date of expiration after all of those years?

In any case, it was after he got out and the move was in play that the one that expires in 2014 was turned into OM. Judge Lester said it was excepted as an error on MOM's behalf and it became a non-issue.

Just my IMO, FWIW.


: passports (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by becca70 on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 05:27:42 AM EST

The thing with the passport is, on the 12th April Zimmerman filed via O'Mara that he had no valid passport. By the time of the first bond hearing he turned in the May 2012 passport. If he could tell O'Mara 'hey I made a mistake, I do have a passport' and that was fine to introduce at the bond hearing (meaning it negates he made a mistake on the paper filed with the court) he could also say 'hey, we've got a couple hundred thousand in liquid funds'. I don't think it would've affected his bond amount if he'd told the truth.
By telling the truth I mean telling his lawyer before the bond hearing, just like he did with the May passport. Why do people say "5th amendment!" about his funds when he obviously mentioned that he did actually have a passport (granted not the important one) even though his court filed document said he didn't and that's just fine?
Then ,surprise! He has another passport. I'm having a hard time believing that O'Mara managed to bank the check that was sent at the same time as the passport but the passport slept in his files.

willisnewton, in my opinion (none / 0) (#39)
by Dilbert By Day on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 08:58:04 AM EST

the topic shifted almost imperceptibly, from GZ's passports, to a cryptic discussion about withdrawing money from a joint safety deposit box.

April 17, 2012 - Call 6 0f 6 - Page 5 0f 12
SHELLIE: I'm thinking of going to the box that has both of us on it
ZIMMERMAN: Mm hmm.
SHELLIE: over by somewhere else
ZIMMERMAN: Yeah.
SHELLIE: and getting it out.
ZIMMERMAN: Good idea.
SHELLIE: Because I think mine, I think the one that I have only has my name on it.

I assume that any financial asset held in a safety deposit box listing GZ as a cosignatory, would be subject to declaration in a bond hearing. It's hard to fathom GZ could believe that money isolated in his wife's account, or sole safety deposit box would be immune from declaration, and that donation $ transferred to his sister's account would go undiscovered. Amateur hour indeed, but stranger things have happened. Unsophisticated burglars still get stuck in roof vents.

Reread the entire transcript in context; I think she's talking about money here.

SHELLIE: Mm hmm. Because what you told me to do yesterday would then mean that I need to go and get that out.

As the conversation evolves, they discuss having "Susie" open an additional safety deposit box.

ZIMMERMAN: Yeah, double check, and then Susie can also open one and put some in hers too.
SHELLIE: Oh, that's true.
ZIMMERMAN: Mm hmm.
SHELLIE: Now that she's an account holder.
ZIMMERMAN: And pay for it out of, you know (Voices blended, inaudible)
SHELLIE: Mm hmm. Mm hmm.

On April 19, two days after this conversation, Shellie confirmed that she withdrew cash from "our other one." I can only speculate that she was referring the dual signature deposit box represented in the first blockquote.

ISSUE CAPIUS - Page 5 of 6.
On April 19, 2012, George and Shellie Zimmerman spoke on the telephone and talked about Shellie taking money from the safety deposit box.
Shellie Zimmerman: Yeah, of course. I have, well, remember, I went ---
George Zimmerman: Yeah ---
Shellie Zimmerman: went to our other one and got that out.
George Zimmerman: Yep.
Shellie Zimmerman: So I have like $13, $15

*The above phone excerpt dated April 19, 2012, appeared in the state's perjury affidavit, but wasn't included in yesterday's transcripts release.


better if he had gotten Saul (none / 0) (#24)
by Steve27 on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 06:13:27 AM EST

In Breaking Bad, the first thing Saul the lawyer does is talk money with his clients. How can O'Mara say he did not know about the paypal money? What would Saul have known if he was GZ's lawyer.

Why blame O'Mara? (none / 0) (#30)
by cboldt on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 06:44:02 AM EST

-- Surprise to the public. The way it's worded it's like 'nothing in the other tapes is relevant but hold on, we've found one that is!' --

Until he had a chance to listen to the tapes, the fact this remark was in the was unknown to O'Mara, as well as unknown to the public.

he state could have noticed it when it charged Shellie, but it didn't make any remark about it. So, as between the state and O'Mara, why choose to blame O'Mara for hiding the ball?

I haven't found that assertion yet (none / 0) (#31)
by cboldt on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 06:49:52 AM EST

-- he said all other calls were private and had no bearing on the case ergo there's nothing else the public needs to know. --

Maybe I'm not as careful a reader as you. I see the Motion distinguishing between recordings that have a bearing on the case, and those that don't, and of those that don't, O'Mara objects to publicizing the ones that implicate a privacy interest.

I don't see O'Mara asserting that none of the recordings, save the 6 the state selected to prosecute Shellie, have bearing on the case, although he does say he has no objection to those 6 recordings being made public, because they do have a bearing on the case against Shellie.

: I deleted that comment (none / 0) (#63)
by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 11:46:37 AM EST

it was a false reading of the motion. The motion is here. He didn't say there were no other relevant calls.
Please do not reprint a comment you think is false in your response. Respond to the commenter by name and say you believe they are wrong and why. That way if I delete their comment, the false info doesn't remain on the site.

Let loose the recordings (none / 0) (#32)
by cboldt on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 06:52:51 AM EST

-- The state has heard these tapes, O'Mara has heard these tapes so why wait until the 29th to release the 'other' tape if he has no problem with it being released? --

Maybe your wish will be granted. The only privacy interest implicated is Zimmerman's, plus the recording has bearing on the case.

The state didn't bring it up, and has an interest in suppressing it. It didn't bring it up because it doesn't support their case, and it has an interest in suppressing the recording because it cuts against the charge.

I believe common sense (none / 0) (#38)
by spectator on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 08:47:34 AM EST

along with the tapes tell a story, Ken & MOM etc.,
i really feel bond#1 was orchestrated more than folks think,i feel George is a victim of that "unique bond event";
just because he was talking about money before doesn't mean he did anything wrong at the bond.

Also the way he and Shellie were trying to communicate made things tough, who knows how many "oop's what i meant to say was..." never happened, people's meanings can easily hide when a conversation is put under a microscope, especially a high pressure jailhouse chat.
That said... i think O'Mara had room to play with, and should have leaned more on "confusion and the situation" and a tiny bit of self sacrifice, i'm a bit disappointed right now.

Then again i don't have the luxury of what evidence he knows.

O'Mara had claimed (none / 0) (#45)
by Tamta on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 09:46:11 AM EST

To not know 'specifics' of the website account and moneys. That particular wording can be heard in the 4/20 hearing.
From that hearing we can infer that the State has 'knowledge' of those funds as well.

: that comment (none / 0) (#62)
by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 11:43:55 AM EST

was deleted. Speculative misconduct accusations are inappropriate.

I think you have something mixed up (none / 0) (#48)
by cboldt on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 10:18:48 AM EST

-- why is O'Mara in possession of both passports 3 days after Zimmerman gets out of jail? --

O'Mara handed one passport to the Court on April 20. Zimmerman was still in jail. Another passport was somewhere else. After O'Mara handed in this passport on April 20, he had zero of Zimmerman's passports in his possession.

Zimmerman got out of jail on April 22nd, a Sunday. Sometime between then and April 27, Zimmerman FedEx'd the replacement passport to O'Mara. O'Mara could have but did not give this passport to the court on April 27th. But, from April 25 or so, until June 1, O'Mara is in possession of one of Zimmerman's passports, the active one.

please stay on topic (none / 0) (#58)
by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 11:29:09 AM EST

which is the new discovery released -- jail calls, transcripts and bank records.

Comments about dog attacks and reader speculation about plea bargains have been deleted.

and please don't reprint (none / 0) (#61)
by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 11:42:20 AM EST

a commenter's false information. If you do, and I delete the comment, I also have to delete your response or the false info is still on the site.

I don't know if it was my post that was deleted. (none / 0) (#65)
by leftwig on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 11:50:01 AM EST

But if it is mine you are referring too, I think its a misinterpretation of what I was trying to say. My understanding is that O'Mara had one passport on 4/20, which I am guessing is one that Shellie found and turned in since Zimmerman was in jail. Zimmerman was then released just after midnight, so technically he got out on 4/23 and then found the second passport at some point and sent it Fed Ex to O'Mara on 4/26. Hence the statement that O'Mara was in possession of both passports a few days after Zimmerman was released from jail.

: It was incorrect to say O'mara was (none / 0) (#67)
by leftwig on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 11:54:15 AM EST

in possession of both passports. IT is correct to say one was turned over to the court (4/20) and the other to O'Mara on 4/26. I was trying to emphasize that Zimmerman had neither, but was not doing it in a completely factual way.

The lost passport was turned over on April 20 (none / 0) (#66)
by cboldt on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 11:53:44 AM EST

[April 20] O'MARA: If you would then call those witnesses, Your Honor, I mean as we're doing that -- pleasure doing that, Your Honor, if I might, this is my client's current passport. The only passport that he has. It does expire May of 2012 but didn't want to acknowledge this and surrender to the court at this time.

The second passport, the valid one, the one not reported lost by Zimmerman, was obtained by Zimmerman in 2004; was given to O'Mara via FedEx sometime after Zimmerman was released from jail on April 22nd. O'Mara had intended to give it to the court on April 27th, but forgot. It was given to the court on June 1st.

See O'Mara's Notice of Surrender of Passport, dated June 1, noting submission of a US Passport with an expiration date of March 25, 2014.

typo: $5k OF aprox $204k n/t (none / 0) (#72)
by willisnewton on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 01:21:26 PM EST

His out of pocket expenses were $5K OF aprox. $204K gifted to him by donors and a $10K IOU to the bondsman from his father.

your comment was deleted (none / 0) (#74)
by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 01:36:44 PM EST

because the last paragraph of the bond revocation order says in a footnote that any inference the passport and a large sum of money are relevant to risk of flight have been dispelled.

Please don't post negative speculation about Zimmerman that is contrary to what the court has already found.


: here is the rest of the story: (none / 0) (#81)
by willisnewton on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 04:20:22 PM EST

It's your blog, delete whatever you like but if you cite a reason I hope it is the right one.
Yes there is a footnote in the judge's order explaining his decision to revoke bond. It's a foot note to this sentence:
"Most importantly, though is the fact that he has now demonstrated that he does not properly respect the law or the integrity of the judicial process. (footnote citation here)"
Here is the wording of the footnote:
"Furthermore, there may certainly be an inference made that his retention of the unexpired passport, together with a large, undisclosed sum of money in his bank account is relevant to his access to means of flight. That factor has now, based on evidence from the Department of State, been dispelled. "
IMO the State Dep't either cancelled his "valid" passport or put out a travel alert of some kind regarding the passport number, and that is why the factor has "now" been dispelled. It was NOT dispelled at the time he made bond, and likely not dispelled until the prosecution contacted the state department and the state department's actions were made known to the court. There was probably a period in there where the state department was ready to seize GZ at a border had he attempted to use his passport. Otherwise someone didn't do their job right.
Let's be clear: The judge has not clearly indicated that GZ was never a flight risk. Far from this. Just that the state department has taken an interest and that he does not currently possess the same "access to means of flight" as he did previously, and the judge recognizes this now, at the time of the statement.
So what the court found is that PREVIOUSLY it could be inferred that he had money and a passport and these facts were relevant to the issue of flight risk. And now, at the time of the written statement his situation is different, since the state department acted. GZ's own actions post-bond hearing are not the subject of the footnote.
That's what the judge "found," IMO.
At the time GZ made bond the court had not "already found" anything at all about hidden funds, alleged perjury of the wife and a hidden, valid passport.
So any "negative speculation" about George I may have made was not contrary to what the court has already found. I think it's WHAT the court found, and the state department and judge put a stop to, to wit, "an inference... that his retention of the unexpired passport, together with a large, undisclosed sum of money in his bank account is relevant to his access to means of flight."
Granted at the time of the bond hearing Shellie had not YET put all the money back in George's account, so technically the bit about "his" bank account refers to a time post-bond hearing, but presumably at the time the court learned his then-current financial situation.
IANAL but I can read what is written.

I question the intent to evade fees or taxes (none / 0) (#84)
by Tamta on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 11:44:42 PM EST

With transfers:

Call 6. Early in recording.
Context is number of transactions per day GZ is comfortable with and sounds unaware of consequences for more transfers.

SZ: "Like Ken said, if we have to Pay the piper later down the road that's fine".

3/4 of way through recording SZ says that she has completed tax exemption.