Neighborhood watch captain shoots unarmed teen.

[Rocko20]

It's pretty mind-bottling how someone can raise 200k in two weeks regardless if he knew about it before bond was set. You can't tell me someone else didn't also have access to the site/account to inform him on the funds coming in when he would inevitably be arrested.

Sushi, how does someone spend 50k they don't know about?

[SushiHorn]

How did he know he had $5k on his account to spend "directly on bail" if he was locked in jail without internet access? That would seem to contradict your previous contention that he didn't know about it until he got of jail?

How did he spend the other $50k if he didn't know about it until after he was released AND it takes 3-5 days for PayPal to send money, as you previously maintained?

Did George Zimmerman pay his own bail? Highly doubtful. There is no reason to believe that there was any material amount available at the time of the hearing or to believe that Zimmerman knew about any such amounts. Even 2 days after the hearing, only $5,000 was available for his FAMILY to help him make bail. You're assuming the existence of funds on April 20th without any proof and further assuming perfect exchange of information with Zimmerman in jail and then blaming him for not fitting into your ridiculous pre-conception.

Paypal makes funds available 3-5 days after they are DONATED. If you set the donations to be swept from your Paypal account to the bank, they would get the money without any additional request. But they still could not get it any sooner than 3-5 days after it was given.


The obvious answer is that the picture of Zimmerman's bloody head came out on the 19th IIRC. That would trigger an outpouring of donations from people who might have had doubts about his innocence before. And those funds would have become available between THIS week. It's easy to see how that number goes from very small to six figures as the evidence supporting Zimmerman's self-defense claim gets stronger.

[Dwight Schrute]

Shoot black kid and profit???



Lot of "hookers and blow" for $50k in less than 2 months....

Looks like the attorney is casting credibility dispersion towards Zimmerman's parents and wife, who testified to the judge....

People like you are the reason why Zimmerman has to raise ask for help for his living expenses, but you are too emotional and ignorant to understand why.

[Dwight Schrute]

Should I donate to my church? Nope. Salvation Army? Nope. American Cancer Society? Nope. Dude who killed an unarmed black teenager? Yep.

He killed a 17 year old who was already a thief, a proud drug addict, and didn't give a damn about his education. Toss in the fact that he thinks he can attack random folks on the street and viciously assault them without repercussions. Zimmerman did society a favor. People need to stop pretending like all young lives are so precious. More criminals than doctors are born everyday. More murderers and rapists are born every day than scientists. By all accounts, Zimmerman was an outstanding person who worked hard and had pride in not only his family but his neighborhood and took care of the people in his life. Martin, by all accounts, was a little thug gangsta wannabe who had no direction in life and no respect for himself, for his family, or for society in general.

Zimmerman deserves to walk and I hope he sues the $#@! out of MSNBC/CNN/ABC and gets every damn cent he can from them.

[Dwight Schrute]

It's pretty mind-bottling how someone can raise 200k in two weeks regardless if he knew about it before bond was set. You can't tell me someone else didn't also have access to the site/account to inform him on the funds coming in when he would inevitably be arrested.

Sushi, how does someone spend 50k they don't know about?

For all we know, the majority of those funds could have come from a handful of donors.

[Rocko20]

For all we know, the majority of those funds could have come from a handful of donors.

It doesn't matter if it came from one donor, it's still mind-bottling. Imagine how much Casey Anthony and OJ could've raised...

[Dwight Schrute]

It doesn't matter if it came from one donor, it's still mind-bottling. Imagine how much Casey Anthony and OJ could've raised...

Not really the same situation. For one, there wasn't PayPal in OJ's day and everyone who wasn't black knew the guy was guilty and only got off via the Chewbecca Defense. For two, even if Casey Anthony was innocent, she came off as a bitch so no one was going to give her any duckies anyways. We are seeing a mirror effect of the OJ trial with this Zimmerman case. Once the lies got deciphered through and the facts came out, only black folks and ignorant bleeding hearts thought/think that Zimmerman is guilty. The media went full force trying to get this guy locked away via the court of public opinion by any means necessary including outright lying and it backfired on them. Backlash towards the media and those realizing that Zimmerman wasn't the bad guy in this whole incident has driven people to donate money to him. Hell I might send the due $20 or so because from the description Reuters gave of him, he sounds like the kind of guy in your neighborhood you don't mind inviting over for a beer or two during a cookout.

[al pastor]

Funds being available is completely different from PayPal Immediately notifying you that you've received funds.

[phdhorn]

So far this issue doesn't seem to be impacting things much. From the "lawyer discussion" I heard on TalkingHeadCableTV last night, the judge is not likely to completely revoke bond, and that's what most of the papers are saying today. The judge is weighing the decision merely on whether to increase the bond amount, not revoke bond. I heard one lawyer say that this is because granting bond is completely a matter of whether the accused is a flight or danger risk. At this point there is no consideration of revocation.

The UK Guardian mistakenly has a headline that the judge "rejected" the raised bond request, but when I read the article, it looks more as if he simply hasn't ruled "yes" at this time, nor might ever rule yes. Most of the other things I've read say that O'Mara did a good job again in disclosing this as fast as possible, plus moving the funds into a trust and weeding out impersonators and fraud.

Otherwise, I read that this all came up because Zimmerman volunteered the question about the PayPal accounts with the money when he and O'Mara were shutting down his online accts. (Facebook, etc.) and O'Mara had to ask "what are you talking about". Once O'Mara found out he quickly notified the judge. Seems to me that Zimmerman would never bring that subject up (again, HE brought it up, according to O'Mara) if he were deliberately obfuscating or lying about it. That part just does not make sense. In this case it appears to me that Zimmerman simply never made the connection of this $$ as income for figuring the bond, and O'Mara clearly didn't know about it. But it's a complete stretch to say someone was hiding something. You can't hide that $#@!, and it wasn't triggered by someone else finding out and raising questions... again it was triggered by Zimmerman himself and brought to the attention of his attorney.

Finally, the prosecution apparently isn't even asking for revocation, only an increase in the bond. Whether Lester decides this is uncertain... he's sympathetic to not allowing anonymous donors' names to come out for fear of harm to them (reasonable obviously in light of this circus).

O'Mara is a good attorney. That much I can tell. This guy is very, very good at his job and definitely ethical.

If it can be clearly proven that Zimmerman lied with intent to defraud his attorney and the judge as to this money, then he should suffer the consequences. But right now nothing IN THE COURT PROCEEDINGS (not the Internetz, which we all know is more better at this than the legal system) to indicate anything of the sort.

[Bevoette]

$200,000? $50,000 "blown theough"?

hello wire fraud, hello al caponesque tax problems. hello $#@! me in the ass federal prison

is that different from ""federal pound me in the ass prison" ??

I'm sure the money will end up paying his legal defense. and I can't believe his sorry ass has raised so much money.

[oobe]

I love how Sushi states that other people's contentions are "ridiculous", yet he cannot answer the extremely straightforward question, "How did Zimmerman spend $50,000 in 4 days that he didn't know he had?"

I also love how not caring about one's own education is now a justifiable reason for vigilante homicide. Whoever is behind the Dwight Schrute sock is an unbelievably absurd person.

[Bevoette]

"How did Zimmerman spend $50,000 in 4 days that he didn't know he had?"

.

I am pretty sure he knew, seriously how do you spend $50K and NOT know? but thought he could just get away with it like he could get away with shooting an unarmed teenager with out ANY consequences.

[sawbonz]

I love how Sushi states that other people's contentions are "ridiculous", yet he cannot answer the extremely straightforward question, "How did Zimmerman spend $50,000 in 4 days that he didn't know he had?"

I also love how not caring about one's own education is now a justifiable reason for vigilante homicide. Whoever is behind the Dwight Schrute sock is an unbelievably absurd person.

A friend of a friend is currently awaiting trial on a serious felony charge. He has a really good defense attorney. Atty wouldnt speak to him until his check for 50K had cleared. I would imagine a big chunk of the 50k went to pay back whoever fronted the $ for O'mara's retainer.

[wildcat09]

No, I asked specifically for evidence that people were gloating over "another dead niglett" as wildcat put it. Using comments left by mouthbreathers on a blog as proof? Sorry, but I thought Shaggy had higher standards when it came to providing proof via links.

Here's some:

He killed a 17 year old who was already a thief, a proud drug addict, and didn't give a damn about his education. Toss in the fact that he thinks he can attack random folks on the street and viciously assault them without repercussions. Zimmerman did society a favor. People need to stop pretending like all young lives are so precious. More criminals than doctors are born everyday. More murderers and rapists are born every day than scientists. By all accounts, Zimmerman was an outstanding person who worked hard and had pride in not only his family but his neighborhood and took care of the people in his life. Martin, by all accounts, was a little thug gangsta wannabe who had no direction in life and no respect for himself, for his family, or for society in general.

Zimmerman deserves to walk and I hope he sues the $#@! out of MSNBC/CNN/ABC and gets every damn cent he can from them.

[MrPhlegm]

yo sushi, you dont capisce politics?

if the murderer walks in state court, think about it, this is an election year, what is barry and holder's big constituancy?

that's right and what will b n h do when those guys are pissed?

thats right unleash the irs and the rest of the justice dept to obtain a modi$#@! of justice for trayvon.

one way or another georgie is gonna pay and pay and pay.

I would be willing to bet that georgie is involved in the drug trade and dea will be busting his ass soon.

[244335]

It's official. Phlegm is a crack addict.

[MrPhlegm]

It's official. Phlegm is a crack addict.

yeah and georgie is busy cookin meth in a clapped OUt trailer in Bithlo.

the drug, wire fraud, and tax bust IS coming unless of course ol georgie goes off the rails again and unleashes the ol GZUV on another unsuspecting victim first

[Bevoette]

It's official. Phlegm is a crack addict.

nah, but he and I dropped acid once back in the day.

[244335]

nah, but he and I dropped acid once back in the day.

Sadly, I believe that this may be one of the most factually accurate statements made in this entire post post.

[SushiHorn]

I love how Sushi states that other people's contentions are "ridiculous", yet he cannot answer the extremely straightforward question, "How did Zimmerman spend $50,000 in 4 days that he didn't know he had?"

I also love how not caring about one's own education is now a justifiable reason for vigilante homicide. Whoever is behind the Dwight Schrute sock is an unbelievably absurd person.

Of course that question was answered but you just refuse to acknowledge it. Though I've answered the question in a reasonable way, no one wants to take on the actual response.

It's much easier to just keep repeating that the question wasn't answered instead of dealing with the answer. It's this sort of rejection of reality that caused me to stop posting on this thread in the first place.

[SushiHorn]

"How did Zimmerman spend $50,000 in 4 days that he didn't know he had?"

To ask such an idiotic question reveals how trapped in the narrative someone is.

Who ever said that Zimmerman didn't know about the money from Monday to Wednesday? That's just stuff you're making up. To ask it as a question shows an inability or unwillingness to reason. The question may be straightforward but the premises underlying it are false. So it's like the classic "when did you stop beating your wife?"

[oobe]

Wait, are you referring to the long-winded post you made where you basically state you have no answer for how Zimmerman could have spent $50,000 in 4 days after you claimed (and re-claimed) he did not know the money even exist? Your answer is a non-answer?

Also, why don't you admonish at least half as much as mine, or even acknowledge, the grotesqueness of posts like Dwight Schrute's? Wait, I have an answer for you. Because you are more annoyed by questions that actually challenge your preconceived, and poorly thought out, notions than you are by posts made by truly horrible people. Says a lot about you.

[SushiHorn]

Wait, are you referring to the long-winded post you made where you basically state you have no answer for how Zimmerman could have spent $50,000 in 4 days after you claimed (and re-claimed) he did not know the money even exist? Your answer is a non-answer?

You apparently didn't read post #2785. I'll give you that chance to do so before you further embarass yourself.

Also, why don't you admonish at least half as much as mine, or even acknowledge, the grotesqueness of posts like Dwight Schrute's? Wait, I have an answer for you. Because you are more annoyed by questions that actually challenge your preconceived, and poorly thought out, notions than you are by posts made by truly horrible people. Says a lot about you.

What it says about me is that I'm more likely to answer people who address me directly than people who do not.

[244335]

Forgive oobe, when he doesn't have his head up inside some fat, foul smelling vagina, he's busy eating his own poop.

[oobe]

Sushi,

I'm not sure why you continue to fail to answer the question while pointing to posts you made that do not answer the question. Maybe you should not make de facto claims that he could not know about the money but then was able to spend it before, you know, actually knowing. Also, I did not address you directly in my post. To do so, I would have started my post like this one.

I get trying to stay objective given the lack of lay knowledge about the case. But please don't pretend that you are being any more objective than the demented psycho who goes by numbers. Your bias is obvious, yet you criticize others with a different bias, and your assertions rely on the same set of limited knowledge as everyone else.

[Bevoette]

Sadly, I believe that this may be one of the most factually accurate statements made in this entire post post.

don't be a hater! see now you know some of my issues!

[244335]

oobe, I love you too, sweet cheeks.

[SushiHorn]

Sushi,

I'm not sure why you continue to fail to answer the question while pointing to posts you made that do not answer the question. Maybe you should not make de facto claims that he could not know about the money but then was able to spend it before, you know, actually knowing. Also, I did not address you directly in my post. To do so, I would have started my post like this one.

I get trying to stay objective given the lack of lay knowledge about the case. But please don't pretend that you are being any more objective than the demented psycho who goes by numbers. Your bias is obvious, yet you criticize others with a different bias, and your assertions rely on the same set of limited knowledge as everyone else.

You continue to wildly mis-characterize my answer. At a certain point that becomes outright lying.

Quote and critique it if you have any interest in a resonable debate. You're not objective when you summarily dismiss reasonable explanations of things that you characterize as somehow nefarious. If you disagree with the specific elements of the explanation, you should say so. Your blanket dismissial and mis-characterization of the whole thing is just an excuse to avoid examining the lack of reason underlying your position.

[groverat]

The idea that O'Mara didn't already know about the website and Paypal account is hilarious.

[tantric superman]

.

You're not objective when you summarily dismiss reasonable explanations of things that you characterize as somehow nefarious. If you disagree with the specific elements of the explanation, you should say so.

Sushi, I have not read this whole thread but I thought you were kind of biased in another one.

I think one of the problems is the bolded language above. You probably have people posting who don't care about reasonable explanations of things -- they just care about the facts, as ultimately to be determined in a court of law. Or, perhaps, as ultimately never to be determined, either in a court or just because one of the critical fact witnesses is dead.

That may be what the issue is. Some people are trying to explain things with the limited info we have, and some people find that attempt to explain wrong on its face.

[TahoeHorn]

...

That may be what the issue is. Some people are trying to explain things with the limited info we have, and some people find that attempt to explain wrong on its face.

It's the Internet!

[phdhorn]

That may be what the issue is. Some people are trying to explain things with the limited info we have, and some people find that attempt to explain wrong on its face.

Even this is tolerable, but when some $#@!tard comes in here and lectures "down" that such and such is the case or the opposing believer is an idiot, that any other consideration is oh so stupid (because from their fatass on the computer chair they are KING OF KNOWLEDGE!!!) that's when I find it repugnant. And, they can $#@! off.

Internetz boardz are of course ripe and appropriate places for discussion, fine. But in this case, stuff is still coming out. Some $#@!hole here who knows it all to the degree they sneer at others should really desperately write in to the lawyers and judge in this case to instruct them as to how to proceed. Apparently those directly involved in the case need to check this thread for the REAL story. Because some of us have it and there's no other explanation.

$#@! you foppish blowhards. No, make that $#@! off and die. The rest of us will discuss this based on the merits of what does come out or develop.

[wildcat09]

I can understand wanting to hold back until more is known/wanting to stay objective/playing devil's advocate/whatever. What I find annoying about Sushi's behavior in this thread is that that's not what he's doing. He's coming up with what he believes to be reasonable alternative explanations, but instead of simply asserting them as reasonable possible explanations, he's asserting them as what obviously clearly happened and dismissing anyone else who has alternative reasonable explanations. Then when called out on acting like a pompous $#@!, he reverts back to "hey I'm just offering reasonable explanations!"

[Nivek]

I can understand wanting to hold back until more is known/wanting to stay objective/playing devil's advocate/whatever. What I find annoying about Sushi's behavior in this thread is that that's not what he's doing. He's coming up with what he believes to be reasonable alternative explanations, but instead of simply asserting them as reasonable possible explanations, he's asserting them as what obviously clearly happened and dismissing anyone else who has alternative reasonable explanations. Then when called out on acting like a pompous $#@!, he reverts back to "hey I'm just offering reasonable explanations!"

Way to be reasonable, $#@!face.

[The Missing Link]

I can understand wanting to hold back until more is known/wanting to stay objective/playing devil's advocate/whatever. What I find annoying about Sushi's behavior in this thread is that that's not what he's doing. He's coming up with what he believes to be reasonable alternative explanations, but instead of simply asserting them as reasonable possible explanations, he's asserting them as what obviously clearly happened and dismissing anyone else who has alternative reasonable explanations. Then when called out on acting like a pompous $#@!, he reverts back to "hey I'm just offering reasonable explanations!"

You and I are reading different threads.

[groverat]

I think the most telling thing about Sushi's point-of-view is that he went full-ahead with a false timeline regarding Zimmerman's website, and when he was shown to be wrong on the timeline, his offering was "OK the media screwed up the facts again."

[TahoeHorn]

I enjoy Sushi's posts. He gives his opinion about the case.

What I hate are posts which rail about other people and their posts. If Sushi opines A and you disagree, opine B. Don't rail about Sushi. I want to hear opinion A and opinion B about the case, not a string of attacks on posters.

It's certainly appropriate to opine that we don't have enough knowledge to make statements with certainty. I've made a number such posts myself. But personal attacks get old. I especially tire of personal attacks from posters who specialize in attacking others and their opinions rather than venturing their own.

[OnBoard]

OK so what's the verdict today ? Is Zimmerman still thought to be the cold blooded, murdering, night stalking, white Hispanic racist he was portrayed as by the national media ????

The Enquirer has already moved on to the continuing saga of "Bat Boy"..........

[Snacks]

when are the riots?

[OnBoard]

when are the riots?

After the trial of course, they're always after the trial.

[vanilla]

when are the riots?

about 10 mins after GZ walks. check back with this thread for best locations

[wildcat09]

I enjoy Sushi's posts. He gives his opinion about the case.

What I hate are posts which rail about other people and their posts. If Sushi opines A and you disagree, opine B. Don't rail about Sushi. I want to hear opinion A and opinion B about the case, not a string of attacks on posters.

It's certainly appropriate to opine that we don't have enough knowledge to make statements with certainty. I've made a number such posts myself. But personal attacks get old. I especially tire of personal attacks from posters who specialize in attacking others and their opinions rather than venturing their own.

I'm trying to think of a way you could be a bigger passive-aggressive pussy, but I'm drawing a blank.

[TahoeHorn]

I'm trying to think of a way you could be a bigger passive-aggressive pussy, but I'm drawing a blank.

I'm crystal clear - no blank - that this board would benefit by your leaving more than by any other poster.

[SushiHorn]

Sushi, I have not read this whole thread but I thought you were kind of biased in another one.

I think one of the problems is the bolded language above. You probably have people posting who don't care about reasonable explanations of things -- they just care about the facts, as ultimately to be determined in a court of law. Or, perhaps, as ultimately never to be determined, either in a court or just because one of the critical fact witnesses is dead.

That may be what the issue is. Some people are trying to explain things with the limited info we have, and some people find that attempt to explain wrong on its face.

That approach is not objectionable at all and such people don't require any response. It's the paranoid conspiracy theory folks that I'm responding to. The ones that have already decided that Zimmerman is a murderer regardless of evidence and are simply looking for any tiny thing as confirmation of their bias. Some specific examples, some of them borderline pathological:

Nobody in the family noticed $50k in "hookers and blow"?

How did he know he had $5k on his account to spend "directly on bail" if he was locked in jail without internet access?

Not real questions. Just polemics based on knowing lies. Any evidence of hookers and blow? Of course not. Zimmerman didn't make his own bail, his family did. So both are false premises. And since Zimmerman was the only one called on to testify about his resources, his knowledge is the only one that could be problematic.

[SushiHorn]

I think the most telling thing about Sushi's point-of-view is that he went full-ahead with a false timeline regarding Zimmerman's website, and when he was shown to be wrong on the timeline, his offering was "OK the media screwed up the facts again."

Of COURSE you would leave out the most important fact. I provided a quote and a link to back it up. The source turned out to be wrong so what you derisively bolded was the LITERAL truth. That's one thing I hate most about this whole thread. People are just so dishonest in their presentation. It's telling alright but not the way groverat seems to think.

And of course the difference was immaterial but people more interested in "gotcha" than facts want to portray it as something it's not. The only change was that Zimmerman was not in prison on the day the website launched rather than incarcerated the entire time. Here was the original so everyone can see what was actually there.

First, the website was created "almost two weeks ago." IOW, just a few days before the bail hearing. If it's as amateurish as Zimmerman's Facebook page he used to get his story out I doubt he raised much money early on because it just looked like a possible scam. Few would contribute without confirming authenticity. And unless Zimmerman had internet access in prison, he could not possibly know what had come since his arrest.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201..._disclose.html

[iamthepush]

where are the riots?

in hell

http://www.shaggybevo.com/board/show...=1#post3919798

[SushiHorn]

Let me get this straight. You concoct some imaginary scenario where a guy spends $50k in 2 days, after not knowing he had money from a PayPal account his "family established", including buying imaginary used cars (Enterprise Rent-A-Car says "hello"), you come up with all sorts of budgets for the next "2-3 months" despite the statements from his attorney that it was already spent, and not merely budgeted.

Renting a car in his own name would be brilliant considering the death threat and the conspiracy to kidnap him. For someone else to rent it and let Zimmerman use the car would be illegal in most states. But to have a friend BUY and let him use the car is perfectly legal AND untraceable. If he didn't have the money he'd have to try and borrow a car that couldn't be traced to him - a real hardship unless a friend or relative had an extra car just sitting around.

Zimmerman has been reported to be in hiding out of state. It is very likely that he paid for the place in cash to make it untraceable. And current month plus a month in advance (i.e. first and last month) is pretty standard in those situations. So he pays for 2-3 months up front but the money is already spent. Several news reports have him moving around between multiple locations.

Obviously the $5,000 was spent on bail directly per various news reports. Unless you contend he didn't repay his parents, that goes to $15,000 on bail. There's a third of the money right there. Is that what you're saying?

Then, you claim I am "pathological" for using a Shaggy-ism of "hookers and blow" for expressing my disbelief that anybody could spend $50k in 48 hours.

You're pathological for stating that his actions are frivolous and wasteful. That's pretty much the definition of the phrase you used. I guess bail money is just a luxury in your world.

You still never explained how he actually spent the $50k in the time period YOU allocated him to spend the money, and, in contrast to his own attorney's statements. The attorney said the money was spent on "rent" and "whatever", not "budgeted for private investigators".

If it was budgeted for a PI do you seriously think a defense attorney is going to announce that publicly? I only raised it as one possibility. Even without the PI, I could easily spend twice was Zimmerman did in half the time if I'm trying to hide from the lynch mob.

[groverat]

O'Mara seems like a sleazeball.

[SushiHorn]

Just out of curiosity, what motivates you to concoct an imaginary story out of a bad Grisham novel about some guy on the run, renting safe houses, paying for cash, buying used cars in other people's names despite NOT A SINGLE bit of evidence saying he did those things? You assigned budgets on various items, durations of the item, and descriptions that have nothing to do with his attorney saying he spent $5k on bail, and $50k on "rent and whatever". This is all for a guy that likely never made $50k per year in his entire adult life, and now, you find it reasonable that he is able to spend $50k per 48hours/4-days/3-weeks (depending on what timeiline you finally decide PayPal was able to get him his money).

I think it is a much better story if the guy got paid $200k by a bunch of people feeling sorry for him after killing a kid with Skittles and find out he was spending it on "hookers and blow"....

What motivates me is a disgust with the herd mentality generally and the lynch mob forming on this issue specifically. Look how many people keep repeating the same crap despite lack of any supporting evidence and even with substantial evidence to the contrary. Nearly as bad, the BS about a "kid with skittles" is focuses on the irrelevant in order to ignore the plainly critical. That a teenager bashed Zimmerman's head on the concrete and a witness testified that he was "wobbly" with a concussion when the picture was taken. Skittles is intended to distract, not enlighten.

You talk about Gresham novels in order to avoid the obvious. Zimmerman has been in hiding in response to death threats since shortly after the shooting. Many sources reported that he was hiding outside the state - possibly even before his arrest and bail. What you refuse to acknowledge is that this takes money. Where did he get it from? Most likely from family and friends at first. Keep in mind that he had moved out and was hiding for 6 weeks BEFORE the arrest and then again after he got out. Did he pay them back from the donations? Did he pay his parents back for the bail money they put up? Did he then pay for the place(s) where he is currently laying low? These are common sense questions that you want to cast as some sort of conspiracy theory. And O'Mara said "living expenses" which certainly matches the description of all of these items. The cost of staying alive when a bunch of crazies are out to kill you can be high.

What IS something out of a Gresham novel is your ridiculous assumption that Zimmerman can hide from the bloodthirsty mob and it doesn't cost a penny. You further characterize the attempt to estimate costs as something out of a work of fiction. We are both making assumptions. I assume it costs money to live and more to hide out. You assume it costs nothing. The question is which assumption is reasonable and which is not.

[TahoeHorn]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimm...ry?id=16353532