I understand there are GOOD reasons to venture on to enemy shows.

But... there are a lot of negatives that offset that.

Part of what is happening in this case is IMPRINTING as I keep saying. And the masses often "learn by rote".
Repeat a false statement often enough and it not only gets regarded as true, but it becomes a talking point that all Traybots can squawk on cue when stimulated (Pavlovian Reflex)..

Faaaark..... ice tea..... faark!!!

The least MOM could do is correct any false statements ... pursued Trayvon, just walking home, did nothing wrong, told to stay in his car, told not to pursue, iced tea etc etc etc

MOM should correct such "mis-speaks" EVERY TIME they are uttered. Imprinting and repetition works powerfully to ingrain false notions... the only counter is to CLEARLY deny them every time they are uttered.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

But someone obviously did delete text messages. Perhaps that was not what the stories mean, but begs the question, "Who did it and when?" Those messages marked as deleted, obviously were. I think the likelihood of Trayvon having gone through his phone and deleted only those incriminating messages which would tend to expose the narrative being spun prior to his death is "suspicious" to say the least. If he was that clairvoyant, he would not have decided to attack George. The stories might not be saying it, but I put the odds of a 17 year old kid cleansing his messages like they appear to have been per the 3rd Reciprocal Discovery right around 0%.....about the same as a 15 turned 19 year old girl with terrible grammar drafting a letter to Sybrina in cursive which by and large contains mostly proper grammar and no "slang", but spells her best friends name consistently wrong........

From CTH...............

IAmGeorgeZimmerman says:
May 31, 2013 at 2:35 pm

Propaganda tech as related to this case:

1. NAME CALLING or STEREOTYPING:
Giving a person or an idea a bad label by using an easy to remember pejorative name. This is used to make us reject and condemn a person or idea without examining what the label really means.
Examples: “Republican”, “racist”, “kkk”, “you support a child killer”, “gun nuts”, “whites”.

2. VIRTUE WORDS or GLITTERING GENERALITY:
These words are used to dupe us into accepting and approving of things without examining the evidence carefully.
Examples: “child”, “innocent”, “killed for color of his skin”, “hunted and killed in cold blood”,

3. DEIFICATION:
This is when an idea is made to appear holy, sacred, or very special and therefore above all law. Any alternative or opposite points of view are thereby given the appearance of treason or blasphemy.
Examples: “trayvon martin statues blaspheme black chuch altars”, “could have been obamas son”, “he was an innocent child”.

4. TRANSFER:
Transfer is when a symbol that carries respect, authority, sanction, and prestige is used along with and idea or argument to make it look more acceptable. Examples: Howard University,Change.org, Obama, “civil rights case of the century”
This method is also called GUILT- or VIRTUE-BY-ASSOCIATION.

5. TESTIMONIAL:
When some respected celebrity (or alternatively someone generally hated) claims that an idea or product is good (or bad). This technique is used to convince us without examining the facts more carefully. For example congressional resolutions to honor trayvon, basketball teams wearing hoodies for trayvon, oprahs comments, rikki lake, dr phil, obamas if i had a son comment, jay z, plies, will smith, getting jeb bush to say sans facts that syg law cant save gz, russel simmons, roseanne….

6. PLAIN FOLKS:
This is a way that a speaker convinces an audience that an idea is good because they are the same ideas of the vast majority of people like yourself.
Examples: “i am trayvon”, “could be my child”. Another example would be when the speaker tells a story about a family or people that are “just like you” to reinforce the speaker’s point of view. for example the fictional family dynamic of the martin/fulton clan.

7. BAND WAGON:
This common propaganda method is when the speaker tries to convince us to accept their point of view or else we will miss out on something really good. The Band-Wagon technique is often used in advertising.
Examples: “fasted growing change.org petition ever”, “Be the first on your block”, “Act Now!”. You might ask yourself “What if I was the only one on my block because no one else was interested (duped)?”.

8. ARTIFICIAL DICHOTOMY:
This is when someone tries to claim there are only two sides to an issue and that both sides must have equal presentation in order to be evaluated. This technique is used to dupe us into believing there is only one way to look at an issue, when in fact there may be many alternative viewpoints or “sides”. Like most propaganda techniques it simplifies reality and therefore distorts it, often to the advantage of the speaker. A classic example is the “intelligent design” versus “evolution” controversy. or in this case “trayvon isnt here to tell his side of the story” and the like.

9. HOT POTATO:
This is an inflammatory (often untrue) statement or question used to throw an opponent off guard, or to embarrass them.
Examples “gz is getting fat”, “gz diddled his cousin 20 years ago” “gz is racist” “spd is racist” The fact that it may be utterly untrue is irrelevant, because it still brings controversy to the opponent.

10. STALLING or IGNORING THE QUESTION :
This technique is used to play for more time or to avoid answering a pointed question.
Examples: “he shouldnt have gotten out of the truck” “ill wait for trial for the facts (that are coming out as we type)” claiming evidence shows x y z then refusing to cite said evidence to support.

11. LEAST-OF-EVILS is used to justify an otherwise unpleasant or unpopular point of view.
Example: ‘”normal teenage behavior”.

12. SCAPEGOAT:
This often use with Guilt-by-association to deflect scrutiny away from the issues. It transfers blame to one person or group of people without investigating the complexities of the issue.
Examples: “George got out of the car”, “shouldnt have had a gun” “shouldnt have followed”. “took law into own hands”

13. CAUSE AND EFFECT MISMATCH:
This technique confuses the audience about what is really cause and effect. In fact the causes of most phenomena are complex, and it is misleading to say just the following:”if gz didnt get out of the car tm would still be alive”

14. DISTORTION OF DATA or OUT OF CONTEXT or CARD STACKING:
This technique is used to convince the audience by using selected information and not presenting the complete story. for example sampling liberal polls to claim what america thinks about gz innocence or guilt or ability to have a fair trial

15. WEAK INFERENCE:
Weak inference is when a judgment is made with insufficient evidence, or that the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the evidence given. essentially the entirety of the narrative they all fell for that has now been deconstructed.

16. FAULTY ANALOGY:
This is when a comparison is carried to far. ‘ travyon is emmett till”

17. MISUSE OF STATISTICS:
Some examples: Average results are reported, but not the amount of variation around the averages. A percent or fraction is presented, but not the sample size as in “9 out of 10 dentists recommend…”. Absolute and proportional quantities are mixed as in “3,400 more robberies occurred in our town last year, whereas other cities hand an increase of less than one percent”. Graphs are used that, by chopping off part of the scale or using unusual units or no scale, distort the appearance of the result. Results are reported with misleading precision. For example, representing 13 out of 19 students as 68.42105 percent.

18. FEAR: “it could be you because of your skin color, whitey is out to get you”

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Clearly someone indeed did them a bunch of deletes. At this point no one knows who did so. I am hoping that this guy admits that either he was told to do so, or he knows who did. That would cause quite the uproar. Cannot wait to hear what he has to say,

_________________

re MOM and Sharpton -

I was underwhelmed by MOM on Sharpton's show. I thought that he should have taken that occasion to state more definitely GZ's innocence while in that Sharpton millieu.

I can understand what he was doing, and what he was careful not to do or say. He was not going to criticize anything, reveal any defense strategy, nor get into a tit for tat on any particular piece of evidence. All of that is understandable.

But, that left him nothing but to reply to Rev. Al's punching points. In such a set-up, MOM was in a strickly defensive posture as far as the verbal give and take, with an opponent has a limited understanding of the law, and a narrow racial prism from which he views the world.

However, MOM loses nothing by appearing in hostile venues. Everytime MOM does that, BDLR's arms start spinning.

The facts and the law are MOM's arsenal and are reserved for courtroom use.

When he is in the courtroom, he does not hesitate to call a liar, a liar, - but always, politely.

What is the likelihood TrayMom and TrayDad take the stand? I would think an impassioned plea by the "victims" "parents" would be somewhat influencing to those jurors who are swayed by emotion rather than facts and evidence, however, if they were to be called, would they not be in a perjury trap, given the text messages directly impeach their sworn statements? Would that allow the text messages in? What about the bus? Even if TCJ does not allow the text messages in, could O'Mara get TrayDad in cross and ask him how Trayvon got to Sanford? If he gives his sworn statement, could O'Mara not pull out a bus ticket, or video from the depot, or even an incident report assuming that the "cracka he put dem bangaz on" was the Miami to Sanford bus? I would assume there might possibly be a credit card trail? (If they used one). I have not heard this discussed yet, but very interested if the Prosecution calls either of them, as it would seem to be a door big enough to drive a Mac Truck through.

Other point, folks are trying to down play the fact that TCJ expressed doubt the messages are relevant and using this to cover for them being hidden, but even if they are just impeachment evidence, or open up additional avenues of defense, aren't they required to turn them over? Plus, folks are saying that because the .BIN file was turned over, there is no violation, however, didn't Don West needle TCJ to ask BDLR specifically if there were any "reports" not yet turned over in their possession, to which he replied in the negative. Am I wrong in thinking that even if that was all he did, that there is no getting around it (assuming the law is properly enforced?")

Wonderful news. Heaven knows I'm not bragging (!) but I did my part...

_________________
Getting facts right is a fundamental requirement of morality.
- P. J. O'Rourke

Just found this after some searching, and not seen it posted yet. The Greyhound 1154 Bus Schedule is a PERFECT MATCH timing-wise to the texts from Trayvon on 02/21/12 http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/discovery_3/extraction_reports/report4.pdf

Note, the times on the extraction are UTC-5 which is "Central Time", Miami and Orlando are Eastern Time, which is UTC-4, so you need to add an hour to the timestamp........

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I made a post but it got lost, but I don't care what BDLR does in his opening statement cause MOM can counter that. However, I would like to see MOM hold up this and go through what the State will fail to prove:

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interacti ... idavit.pdf

Also MOM need to clarify a few words ... like following.

Looking to see where someone went and following are two different things IMO and this has been screwed up by many including MOM six ways from Sunday.

and an explanation of what is necessary to prove Murder2.

Well said Ottawa...

Bumper stickers should be issued (to quote Neil Young)

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

What can they testify to that is pertinent to the 5 or so minutes in question? Anything they say regarding TM's character can be rebutted with his own texts and tweets. I suppose they can go on record as to whose voice is screaming in the 911 call, but Tracy is already on record as saying it was not TM.

BDLR would probably love to get Traymom and Traydad on the stand, but I don't see what they can say that can prove the prosecution's case.

Maybe Judge Nelson and/or Judge Lester could take the stand?

Lester could testify to the fact that the evidence shows that Bernie has a STRONG CASE.

Nelson could testify that Bernie always presents the best arguments, even though he flaps his arms and babbles incoherently?

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Is there anyway to get clearer shots of Martin in his thug get up from this video?

In a word...... No (or Yes)

I can't .....and those screen shots are from Defence discovery. It's not a great video to start with.

However... we have all seen movie stuff where FBI or whoever make clear pictures out of a blur....

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Further on Affidavit of Probable Cause .. the charging document:

Give you an idea:

Page 1 - 3rd P - “Martin then walked back to and entered the gated community and was on his way back to the townhouse where he was living when he was profiled by George Zimmerman.

First, correct me if I am wrong, but Trayvon was not "living" there, he was visiting there because he was on a school suspension and his Father put him on a bus to go there. How many days was he there before shot? 2 days? That's not LIVING there.

Second, GZ did not PROFILE him. He saw someone he did not know acting suspicious.

Page 1 - last P - “Zimmerman who also lived in the gated community, and was driving his vehicle observed Martin and assume Martin was a criminal”.

What proof do they have that Zimmerman assumed he was a criminal? Let's see apparently GZ KNEW that Trayvon either had already committed a crime, or was about to commit a crime. If he had commited a crime then YES, he's a criminal, but if he had not committed a crime, then he just looked like he was up to no good. He just said he was acting suspicious. Are we not urged to report suspicious activity? Acting like you're on drugs, looking at the townhouses, in the rain, never saw him before, intimidates GZ by circling his car, looks like something in his waistband?

Page 2 - 2nd P - “Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin …”

What evidence to they have that George disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin? Anybody?

Page 2 - 3rd P - “Zimmerman confronted Martin”

They have no proof that Zimmerman confronted Martin. None.

Isn't it funny that Trayvon never mentioned to DD that GZ was on the phone? Nowhere does she testify that Trayvon told her GZ was on the phone. GZ was on the phone for a good long time, including while Trayvon circled his vehicle, yet not even a mention of that.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Like I've said before, W8 said that TM had to get cover somewhere in order to put his hoodie on cuz it started to rain. Except he never took it off. He walked into the 7/11 with it on and he left with it on. It was also raining when he left the store. You can see it in the video.

Thug get up?

About 12 hours before he was shot I was down the street about a half a mile away from our house at a convenience store buying the Raleigh paper, wearing tennis shoes, khakis, and a grey Fruit of the Loom hoodie.

Oh, wait, mine was a zip up the front type rather than a pull over. That must be the thug/non-thug difference.

Sheeesh.