Before jumping to conclusions about the bond revocation development,  I’m going to allow the dust to settle for a few days and see what happens.  Keep in mind that no matter how this particular drama plays out, there remain three distinct domains in this case:

(1) Trial in the court of public/political opinion.  That’s where this particular round of legal maneuvering will have its greatest currency and “success” to what every degree anyone can eventually call whatever eventually happens a success.

(2) Pre-trial maneuvering.  In relation to the actual legal process, that’s what is happening.  Zimmerman may end up in jail or he may not.  Remember this, however: if the case does eventually go to trial, none of this will be admissible as evidence.

(3) The actual trial, which may or may not ever occur.  Again, whatever effect the most recent maneuverings eventually have, they will have little or no effect on the evidence presented at trial.

I’m tentatively planning update 10 for Wednesday, June 6, 2012, which should be enough time for this particular drama to play out sufficiently for me to have anything meaningful to say about it.  However, it would be worthwhile to keep a few additional things in mind:

(1) At the bond hearing, the money in Zimmerman’s account was known and discussed.  This is not an amazing, surprise revelation as some are already portraying it.

(2) The judge stated that he would have to do research into the matter before having anything to say about it.

(3) Mark O’Mara, Zimmerman’s lawyer, has been keeping the court informed about the money and its disposition and assisting in organizing those accounts.

(4) The special prosecutor knew about the supposed “code” conversations between Zimmerman and his wife before the bond hearing.  Why did she wait so long to bring this matter before the judge, alleging perjury?  The proper place for discussion about all matters having to do with bond was at—where else?—the bond hearing.  It is possible she is trying to construct a perjury trap.  Is she, lacking real evidence, continuing to try the case in the court of public/political opinion where Zimmerman has already been convicted?

Some are suggesting that Zimmerman’s handling of this matter was foolish.  Knowing only what we know at the moment, that’s certainly a possibility.  However, if this case does go to trial, it’s likely going to take a year or more, and I’m not going to put myself and my long-suffering readers in the position of treating each dribble of information with breathless intensity.  There are one or two other things of importance going on in the world these days.

We’ll see what happens, but think on this last little tidbit: Many are suggesting that Zimmerman’s credibility is now fatally damaged.  If the case does go to trial—and that is not a certainty by any means—it is the evidence and only the evidence that will convict or clear him.  It is likely he’ll never take the stand in his own defense.  His “credibility,” particularly over something that happened a year or so earlier, won’t be the issue.