Author Topic: Notice of April 30 Hearing  (Read 5823 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Notice of April 30 Hearing
« Reply #15 on: April 18, 2013, 05:43:01 PM »
Or it could just be that after having killed a person he needed to talk to his priest. It may have nothing to do with Jesse, Al, or that other guy. Maybe BDLR jumped on the idea of a 'confession'.

Or he could have texted his friend and made a disparaging remark about Sharpton.  Bernie wouldn't have brought it up if it was Zimmerman talking about going to confession.  Zimmerman had just issued his apology in open court.  De la Rionda was in cross examination mode.  De la Rionda has some messages that Zimmerman sent, on his mind.  I speculate that de la Rionda wants to get these out, and characterize them (or leave that job to the press) as Zimmerman being (racially) prejudiced.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Notice of April 30 Hearing
« Reply #16 on: April 18, 2013, 06:17:02 PM »
The police had Zimmerman's phone that night, because they had to bring it in to him for him to look up the number of the propery management guy about the non-working main gate camera.

Isn't that when they downloaded everything from it?

Did they ever even give it back, or did Zimmerman replace it?

Wouldn't they have needed a warrant to access any of his communications (except the jail phone) after that?

So what is Bernie talking about and where did he get the idea to ask about it?

Zimmerman certainly wouldn't have made any reference to Tracy Martin prior to the shooting.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Notice of April 30 Hearing
« Reply #17 on: April 18, 2013, 06:38:23 PM »
Wouldn't they have needed a warrant to access any of his communications (except the jail phone) after that?

So what is Bernie talking about and where did he get the idea to ask about it?

I assumed that Zimmerman voluntarily gave up his phone some time after the initial interrogations.  By "some time," I mean days, maybe up to 10 or 15 days.  Cops say, "Oh, we forgot to look for something, can we have your phone again?"  I don't know that's what happened, that's just the sort of background that fits Bernardo asking if Zimmerman had made remarks about a reverend, or Tracy Martin.

Warrant is only required for some observations and some (most) seizure of property as evidence.  Anybody can waive warrant for their own property and privacy.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Notice of April 30 Hearing
« Reply #18 on: April 18, 2013, 06:43:07 PM »
The police had Zimmerman's phone that night, because they had to bring it in to him for him to look up the number of the propery management guy about the non-working main gate camera.

Isn't that when they downloaded everything from it?

Did they ever even give it back, or did Zimmerman replace it?

Wouldn't they have needed a warrant to access any of his communications (except the jail phone) after that?

So what is Bernie talking about and where did he get the idea to ask about it?

Zimmerman certainly wouldn't have made any reference to Tracy Martin prior to the shooting.

I know fans of the Prosecution have b*tched into the early mornings about Zimmerman using money after he got out of jail to buy new phones and pay for service.  My thought is that they kept the phone.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Notice of April 30 Hearing
« Reply #19 on: April 18, 2013, 07:47:57 PM »
We've been over this before. The SPD gave Zimmerman his phone back, and some time later Zimmerman signed a release for the FDLE to examine it. The release is in the discovery. Jeralyn pointed to it the last time we discussed it.

In the bond hearing, de la Rionda asked Zimmerman about volunteering the phone data, before asking him about the reverend. It was clear that this was the data de la Rionda was asking about.

The question was about something said about a reverend, not to a reverend.

Audio and transcript of bond hearing.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Notice of April 30 Hearing
« Reply #20 on: April 18, 2013, 07:52:08 PM »
My thought is that they kept the phone.

Come to think of it, I'm not sure if it was nailed down that Zimmerman got the phone back from SPD. The FDLE might have examined a different phone. But I don't think there has been any suggestion of two phones belonging to Zimmerman.

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Notice of April 30 Hearing
« Reply #21 on: April 18, 2013, 08:36:23 PM »
The release is in the discovery. Jeralyn pointed to it the last time we discussed it.

Do you have a link to that release handy? It's reasonable to assume the date on that release is when LE gained full access to the phone's data.

EDIT: And didn't GZ in his Sngleton interview need to get his phone back from LE in order to get the number for the security service? I'll have to re-listen.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2013, 08:38:32 PM by FromBelow »

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Notice of April 30 Hearing
« Reply #22 on: April 18, 2013, 08:49:02 PM »
Or it could just be that after having killed a person he needed to talk to his priest.

Do Catholics use the word 'reverend' when referring to a priest?


Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Notice of April 30 Hearing
« Reply #23 on: April 18, 2013, 08:53:31 PM »
Do Catholics use the word 'reverend' when referring to a priest?

As far as I can ever remember hearing, not without it being the first half of the phrase "reverend father".

They gave him back his phone so he could retrieve the number of the guy who's name he could remember at the company in charge of the non-functioning front gate camera, but I assumed all this time that they took it back again after that.

I skimmed through the discovery PDFs that I've downloaded and only found the iPhone release from back of the head picture guy, although it's in two of them.

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Notice of April 30 Hearing
« Reply #24 on: April 18, 2013, 09:02:46 PM »
Do Catholics use the word 'reverend' when referring to a priest?

Yes. It's used as a title of respect. Like "Sir" or "Doctor".

Quote
In North America and Europe, Catholic Priests may be verbally addressed as "Reverend Last Name" or "Reverend Doctor Last Name" (if he has a doctoral degree). In the U.S.A. it is perfectly acceptable to call any Christian clergyperson, "Reverend". With any clergyman you should include a doctoral degree or any honorary title, e.g., The Reverend Dr. John Smith, Ph.D., or The Reverend Msgr. John Smith. Do not abbreviate "Reverend" unless you are writing an informal note, and always include the definite article "The" before "Reverend".

BBM

http://www.wikihow.com/Address-Catholic-Clergy

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Notice of April 30 Hearing
« Reply #25 on: April 18, 2013, 09:09:31 PM »
And didn't GZ in his Sngleton interview need to get his phone back from LE in order to get the number for the security service? I'll have to re-listen.

According to my notes it's at about 6:20 on the recording.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Notice of April 30 Hearing
« Reply #26 on: April 18, 2013, 09:20:07 PM »
Yes. It's used as a title of respect. Like "Sir" or "Doctor".

I should have spelled out what I meant more precisely.

De la Rionda used the word by itself, as a noun, in the third person.

Quote
Did you ever make any reference to a reverend?

In such a context, a Catholic priest would usually be referred to as 'a priest'. I don't think I've ever heard the word 'reverend' used to refer to a Catholic priest in that way.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2013, 09:21:48 PM by nomatter_nevermind »

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Notice of April 30 Hearing
« Reply #27 on: April 18, 2013, 09:26:13 PM »
I assumed from BDLR's question that it was almost certainly a disparaging comment about the reverend.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Notice of April 30 Hearing
« Reply #28 on: April 18, 2013, 09:49:20 PM »
I assumed from BDLR's question that it was almost certainly a disparaging comment about the reverend.

Yes. If Zimmerman said something about his own priest, good or bad, I can't think of why it would be one of the first things de la Rionda wanted to ask him about.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Notice of April 30 Hearing
« Reply #29 on: April 18, 2013, 09:58:33 PM »
The consent form is 5/33, dated 3/21/12.

ETA: Name and house number redacted. The address is on RVC. I suppose that could be for W-13 instead of Zimmerman.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2013, 10:02:04 PM by nomatter_nevermind »

 

Site Meter
click
tracking