Zimmerman Said Attorney Mark O’Mara Knew He Had $37K He Attempted To Transfer Before Bond Hearing

We were always skeptical about the notion that Zimmerman’s attorney Mark O’Mara’s claim that he didn’t know about the money Zimmerman had available to post bond at the time of his April 20, 2012 bond hearing–the one in which O’Mara, Zimmerman, and Zimmerman’s wife claimed them to be indigent to the court. With today’s release of Zimmerman’s jailhouse Call #30, we hear Zimmerman say, in his own words, that Mark O’Mara was aware of at least part of the nearly $135K Zimmerman had collected in donations to his website.

According to Zimmerman, Mark O’Mara was aware that he had at least $37K available prior to the bond hearing, yet neither of them disclosed this amount of available cash in the documentation they submitted when requesting a reasonable bond amount. Consequently, the money Zimmerman had available was not considered when setting the original $150K bond.

Here’s a transcript of the portion of the conversation that took place on 4/14/2012:

~04:45 Mark of Call #30

ZIMMERMAN: I did tell him that, you know, we did try and make one transfer. Uh, 37 and that it got held out because it’s over the 10, you know. So, he knows about that.

MAN: Does he know the volume?

ZIMMERMAN: No.

MAN: Okay. I’d like to keep that with us.

ZIMMERMAN: I think so too.

Of course, it is not possible to determine whether or not what seems to be said on the call is 100 percent accurate if interpreted at face value. So, Mark O’Mara either knew or did not know about the $37,000. If Mark O’Mara knew about the $37,000, he intentionally withheld the information so that George Zimmerman could claim indigence and receive a lower bond than if Judge Lester knew about the money.

If Mark O’Mara did not know about the money, it further shows that his client, Zimmerman, is bent on lying every chance he gets. This would mean that Zimmerman lied to his friends, for whater reason. This brings into question the stories to friends and co-workers whom Zimmerman spoke with the days after the shooting. Contained in the release of evidence on July 12, 2012 are witness accounts of Zimmerman “re-counting” the events of February 26, 2012, the night he shot unarmed Trayvon Martin. If Zimmerman candidly lied to a friend in a phone call while behind bars, why wouldn’t he lie about the events that ended with him shooting an unarmed teenager, an act that could land a spot in a cell for the remainder of his life?

During the most recent bond hearing, which resulted in a $1 million bond for George Zimmerman, O’Mara attributed George and Shellie Zimmerman’s lies to the court to fear, confusion, and mistrust of the system.

If, however, Mark O’Mara was aware of the money the Zimmermans had available to them, wouldn’t he have the obligation to speak up about this as well? Furthermore, wouldn’t his failure to speak up constitute purposely misleading the court?

Shouldn’t O’Mara have spoken up, when he was the one filing the motions, questioning the witnesses, and being the mouthpiece of deceptiveness? Was this yet another reason why O’Mara fought so hard to keep these jailhouse calls from being released to the public?

The final question has to do with how the court chose to respond upon discovering Zimmerman (and allegedly O’Mara’s) lies about the Zimmermans’ finances. The court revoked Zimmerman’s bond, and the state charged Shellie Zimmerman with perjury, yet O’Mara got off free and clear–nobody questioned whether HE was being completely honest, despite the defendant’s own words indicting him. Why is it that O’Mara suffered no consequences for what appeared to be his own hypocrisy. He misled the court about misleading the court, all the while condemning and apologizing at the same time for George and Shellie Zimmerman misleading the court.

Is that kind of conduct really okay?