Timeline: Where Did George Zimmerman First See Trayvon

   A great video that addresses some timeline questions:

Prosecution Admits There Is No Evidence That George Confronted Trayvon

    In one of the prosecution's biggest embarrassments yet, lead investigator admits there is no evidence that George confronted Trayvon and there is no evidence George started the fight with Trayvon. The prosecution also admits they did not speak to their star witness until five weeks after the fact and never bothered to obtain the medical records verifying George's injuries prior to the first bond hearing.

What The Trayvon Mafia Doesn't Tell You About Witness #2

    We have been browbeaten for months about a mythological chase by the Trayvon Mafia. It does not help that butterfingers Bernie De La Rionda brings this fictional event up every opportunity he gets. There are however some very compelling portions of the witness 2 statements that Bernie and the Traybots intentionally leave out that I would like you to review.

    Before we get to how the details of her eyewitness account differ from law enforcement interview to interview, let’s establish a few facts. The first thing you need to know is that she was interviewed on three different dates: March 1st and March 9th by Investigator Chris Serino of the Sanford Police Department, and on March 20th by Investigator John Batchelor of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. There are a total of four audio files for her interviews, because there are two recordings by Chris Serino on March 1, 2012.

In terms of her actual testimony, here’s a quick summary of the contradictions:

She told authorities that she had taken out her contact lenses just before the incident. In her first recorded interview with Sanford police four days after the shooting, she told lead Investigator Chris Serino, “I saw two guys running. Couldn’t tell you who was in front, who was behind.”

She stepped away from her window, and when she looked again, she “saw a fistfight. Just fists. I don’t know who was hitting who.” [...]

That all changed when she was re-interviewed March 20 by a state agent. That time, she recalled catching a glimpse of just one running figure, she told investigator John Batchelor, and she heard the person more than saw him.

“I couldn’t tell you if it was a man, a woman, a kid, black or white. I couldn’t tell you because it was dark and because I didn’t have my contacts on or glasses…. I just know I saw a person out there.”

(click link to read original story)

Lead Scheme Team Conman Ben Crump Changes His Story

    For months lead scheme team attorney Benjamin Crump has been advancing the fabricated Dee Dee narrative stating that prior to Trayvon's encounter with Mr. Zimmerman Trayvon had sought shelter from the rain by the mailboxes. A fellow Zimmerman supporter has dug up footage of predatory ambulance chaser Crump telling a much different story.

Jose Baez Joins Zimmerman Case Filing Papers That Bernie Misrepresented Facts Of Casey Anthony Case

    Jose Baez, Casey Anthony's defense attorney, this week wrote a short snippy letter to the judge in the George Zimmerman case, accusing prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda of getting his facts wrong in court Friday when he said Baez had been held in contempt of court during the Anthony trial.

Baez was fined for failing to turn over evidence, he wrote, but was never found in contempt. And the fine had nothing to do with Baez's comments to the media, something de la Rionda suggested as he tried but failed to convince Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson to impose a gag order in the Zimmerman case.

"I am certain that Mr. De la Rionda was more careful with his other argument, however, I will ask him personally to please verify his facts in the future before recklessly attempting to tarnish any other members of the Central Florida legal community," Baez wrote in his letter to Nelson.



(click link to see Judge Nelson's receipt of the filing)

Were Sybrina Fulton And Trayvon Martin Involved In An Intimate Relationship?

    Sybrina Fulton, Trayvon Martin’s mother, will be a guest on “The Ricki Lake Show.” The nationally syndicated talk show airs at 4 p.m. Thursday on WRBW-Channel 65.

Martin was fatally shot by Neighborhood Watch volunteer George Zimmerman on Feb. 26 in Sanford. Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder. The trial is scheduled to start June 10.

In the Lake interview, Fulton discusses her feeling of loss and her son’s character.

“He was a very loving teenager … He still would sleep in my bed and talk on the phone,” Fulton says. “You know, he was just a regular teenager. … He used to call me Cupcake. … I just didn’t get enough kisses from him, enough hugs from him … My heart is just hurtful right now. I think I cried a pool of tears.”

(click link to see original article)

Martin Family to New Black Panthers: We Don't Want Your Support

Angela Corey Intentionally Edits Shellie Zimmerman's Statements To Bring Perjury Charges

    In a move inspired by George Soros's whackadoodle liberal lunatics at NBC News Special Prosecutor Angela Corey intentionally edited Shellie Zimmerman's statements in order to bring perjury charges against her to try to force George into a plea bargain.

(click link to see Angela Corey's probable cause affadavit which proves the video true)

Mark O'Mara Announces George Zimmerman Will Not Plead Out

    At the September Gun Rights Policy Conference where Mark O'Mara was a guest speaker, one thing was made perfectly clear. George Zimmerman will NOT be pleading out. George Zimmerman attorney Mark O’Mara who is adamant that, given the preponderance of evidence in his client’s favor, they’re not looking for a deal to avoid going to trial. In his estimation, the broken nose Zimmerman suffered at the hands of Trayvon Martin (moreso than the cuts on the back of his head) is proof positive the altercation was started by the Skittles-scarfing yoot, and that GZ acted in self defense. O’Mara also let slip that, in order to try to catch Zimmerman in a lie, the Sanford police told him they had a surveillance video of the whole thing. Only they don’t. And Zimmerman stuck to his story.

(Click link to read the original article)

Will The REAL Sybrina Fulton Please Stand up

    For months we have been bombarded with images of God fearing church lady Sybrina Fulton as she has tour the country soliciting donations in memory of the false portrayal of Trayvon Martin.........but there is also a Sybrina Fulton who is being hidden from you in much the same way that the true Trayvon has been hidden from the public

Will The Real Sybrina Fulton Please Stand Up!

Sybrina Fulton aka Ms Candy Partying at an undisclosed drag queen club

Photographic Evidence Of Tracy Martin's Gang Affiliation

    Just dug up some more photos of Tracy Martin and his street gang associates. It is a well known fact that Tracy recently had his "Crippin All The Time" Neck tattoo covered up recently.

 

Thirty Two Trayvon Martin Copyrights Have Been Granted According to US Copyright Office

    Anyone who doubts for even a moment that that scheme team plot to railroad George Zimmerman was a money making plot hatched by predatory gold digging opportunists only need to review the included link to the United States Copyright Office listing the 32 Trayvon Martin copyrights that have been granted so far.
(Click link to go to the Trayvon Martin copyright listings at the US Copyright Office)

Confirmation Bias

    As the eighth month of the George Zimmerman murder case comes to a close we have seen some exciting developments regarding the defense's discovery. The key players in the scheme team plot to extort a payoff by railroading concerned citizen George Zimmerman have been exposed in a court of law. As the scheme team's plan continues to unravel in the public forum we will certainly be shocked by the lengths these depraved opportunists have gone to deceive and defraud the global media audience. 

    The scheme team rhetoric has been effective in a certain crosssection of society and we continue to hear the Traybots hammer away at the same refuted or irrelevant arguments for months. The question before us is what compels the Trayvon Mafia to seek out these meaningless points and flooding YouTube and the blogosphere with their fallacious nonsense? The answer is confirmation bias.

confirmation bias

"It is the peculiar and perpetual error of the human understanding to be more moved and excited by affirmatives than by negatives." --Francis Bacon

Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs. For example, if you believe that during a full moon there is an increase in admissions to the emergency room where you work, you will take notice of admissions during a full moon, but be inattentive to the moon when admissions occur during other nights of the month. A tendency to do this over time unjustifiably strengthens your belief in the relationship between the full moon and accidents and other lunar effects.

This tendency to give more attention and weight to data that support our beliefs than we do to contrary data is especially pernicious when our beliefs are little more than prejudices. If our beliefs are firmly established on solid evidence and valid confirmatory experiments, the tendency to give more attention and weight to data that fit with our beliefs should not lead us astray as a rule. Of course, if we become blinded to evidence truly refuting a favored hypothesis, we have crossed the line from reasonableness to closed-mindedness.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that people generally give an excessive amount of value to confirmatory information, that is, to positive or supportive data. The "most likely reason for the excessive influence of confirmatory information is that it is easier to deal with cognitively" (Gilovich 1993). It is much easier to see how a piece of data supports a position than it is to see how it might count against the position. Consider a typical ESP experiment or a seemingly clairvoyant dream: Successes are often unambiguous or data are easily massaged to count as successes, while negative instances require intellectual effort to even see them as negative or to consider them as significant. The tendency to give more attention and weight to the positive and the confirmatory has been shown to influence memory. When digging into our memories for data relevant to a position, we are more likely to recall data that confirms the position (ibid.).

Researchers are sometimes guilty of confirmation bias by setting up experiments or framing their data in ways that will tend to confirm their hypotheses. They compound the problem by proceeding in ways that avoid dealing with data that would contradict their hypotheses. For example, some parapsychologists used to engage in optional starting and stopping in their ESP research. Experimenters might avoid or reduce confirmation bias by collaborating in experimental design with colleagues who hold contrary hypotheses, as Richard Wiseman (skeptic) and Marilyn Schlitz (proponent) have done.* Individuals have to continually remind themselves of this tendency and actively seek out data contrary to their beliefs. Since this is unnatural, it appears that the ordinary person is doomed to bias.

Sanford Police Had Asked Residents To Report All Suspicious Activity Due To Increased Crime

Residents say there is a rising tide of crime in their neighborhoods, and they are blaming the homeless population for much of it.

(click link to read original article)

Homelessness has been a mainstay on the streets of Sanford for decades, but the tattered economy has worsened the problem. At the last City Commission meeting, about 50 citizens turned out to voice their protest against the increased number of criminal incidents occurring every day, victimizing people and property.

“I live in the historic district and I have never seen it so bad,” said Linda Surdin, who is a leader in her Neighborhood Watch group.

She said residents have been harassed and attacked by the homeless and citizens are afraid, in their homes and in the community.

“Homeless people have taken over Centennial Park,” she said.

Meanwhile, Sanford resident Gloria Baskerville said crime is not limited to the historic district or perpetrated just by the homeless. She said drug dealing and prostitution is done in the open in her neighborhood.

And, as the City Commission listened to the crime stories being told, they nodded in acknowledgement.

“We hear a lot about this and it is time for us to figure out the best way to address this,” said Mayor Jeff Triplett. “It’s in your front yard and nobody knows better than you what is going on.”

While Surdin commended the Sanford Police Department for being “very responsive,” she said something more needs to be done. She asked commissioners to adopt tighter controls over panhandling and feeding the homeless.

City Commissioner Patty Mahany told the audience the city is ready to act. She said city officials are looking at implementing new rules governing the activities of the homeless, based on the Orlando law that was recently upheld by a higher court.

“It’s already in the works,” she said.

Mahany also has seen criminal activity taking over the community, including her own District 4. She knows crime takes place in the open in Derby Park and near Bentley Elementary School. At the Woman’s Club of Sanford, 309 S. Oak Ave., it is almost impossible to host weddings at the nearby gazebo because of people loitering.

The gazebo at Centennial Park is a favorite hangout spot for the homeless. On almost any day, all day, homeless people can be seen under the gazebo, seeking shade from the hot sun and a place to congregate.

Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee confirmed that crime is up as the economy continues to sputter. From April through June, more than 300 burglaries and 400 thefts have been reported in the city.

“We’ve got a significant problem with burglaries and thefts,” Lee stated.

And no one is immune, he said, adding that he himself has been a victim of crime.

Residents at the City Commission meeting recounted numerous examples of their own.

A homeowner who has lived on Elm Street for 26 years said crime is rampant. On Christmas Day last year, he left his home for only an hour, but he returned to find his entire set of lawn furniture gone.

“The crime in my area has been real bad,” he said. “The alleys are the hotspots.”

Another resident in the historic district also recently had their patio furniture stolen—along with a grill, lawn chairs, five trashcans and a jade plant that had special sentimental value because it came from her mother’s funeral.

A woman who lives on South Park Avenue has taken to riding her bike, instead of jogging, saying a bicycle allows her to better avoid being accosted, which happens regularly.

“I truly don’t feel safe anymore,” she said.

Businessman Sylvester Chang cited a litany of issues prevalent along French Avenue, including drug dealing, loitering, prostitution and homelessness. One of the hotels near 25th Street has become a “homeless hotel,” he said, attracting a bad element that also brings crime.

“If they don’t have a place to stay, they might have to find somewhere else to go,” Chang stated.

Other residents blamed charitable groups for drawing homeless people to the downtown area, saying the free meals offered also serve as a magnet. But the ‘enabling versus empowering’ debate was not going to be resolved on this night. Rather, the focus was on crime prevention.

But the answer does not lie solely with law enforcement, Chief Lee explained. Combating crime requires the assistance of everyone in the community.

“The police officers can’t do it all by themselves. We need your eyes and ears to let us know when things are going on,” the chief said. “It truly is a partnership.”

However, the police department has stepped up its patrolling to curb criminal activity. Recently, Chief Lee directed officers to use the department’s two golf carts to impede the spread of home burglaries. Normally used for special events, these miniature vehicles allow police added maneuverability to go down alleyways, into parks and up onto sidewalks to curtail crime.

Sanford Police Sgt. David Morgenstern said his department is aware of the safety issue at Centennial Park. He is also cognizant of an increase in burglaries throughout the city.

“Our burglaries are high. When that happens, it’s going to happen everywhere,” Morgenstern said.

“Golf carts give us the ability to be at the right place at the right time to catch burglaries in progress, which is rare.”

Bicycles are also useful to thwart property crimes, he said, allowing police to monitor areas quietly and thoroughly.

He added that the burglaries do not stem from the truly needy individuals who find themselves on the street.

“Those who choose to be homeless are the folks we deal with. That’s the segment we deal with the most,” he said.

Morgenstern also stressed the importance of citizen involvement.

“The public needs to call us if they see anything suspicious. When you see something that doesn’t look right, call us out there,” he said.

Citizens must avoid making it easy for criminals, he added. One homeowner had a boat parked on his property near the alley, with little thought given to security. Eventually, thieves stole an expensive fish-finder device from the boat.

“That just invites the criminal element. Don’t leave valuables out in the open,” Morgenstern said. “Don’t make yourself a target. These are mostly crimes of opportunity.”

To help homeowners protect their property, SPD provides a home-security check. The Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) program is a pro-active approach that offers residents tips on how they can reduce the chance of a home burglary. For more information on CPTED, contact Wendy Dorival, SPD volunteer program coordinator.

A citizen offered another pro-active suggestion to foil crooks.

Denny Gibbs said her family has had three sets of bikes and thousands of dollars of tools taken from their property. Neighbors need to watch out for each other, she said, and part of this defense is knowing their rights.

Door-to-door salesmen are required to have a city permit. If you see someone soliciting in your neighborhood, ask him or her for documentation, she said.

Still, residents say they are increasingly uncomfortable when homeless people approach them. And they are looking to the city and the police for protection.

New laws may make a difference, but homelessness remains a complex, societal dilemma that defies a quick-fix approach.

“This won’t be resolved overnight,” Mayor Triplett said. “Homelessness has been with us forever. It’s a very difficult issue.”

Read more: The Sanford Herald - Crime surge alarms residents

Judge Nelson DENIES Prosecutions Second Attempt At Gag Order

    It's official Judge Debra Nelson has denied the prosecutions SECOND ATTEMPT at a gag order in the George Zimmerman second degree murder case

(click the link to read the full article)

(click link to read Judge Nelson's official order)


SANFORD – Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson today refused to issue a gag order in the George Zimmerman second-degree murder case.

In a two-page order, the judge wrote that she found no "overriding pattern of prejudicial commentary" and noted that media companies who had opposed the order, including the Orlando Sentinel, were right when they argued that the state had failed to demonstrate prejudice.

The judge also noted that she had several tools to make sure Zimmerman's jury is impartial. She can move the trial to another county, have attorneys question potential jurors one at a time and away from other potential panel members and, once seated, she can give stern instructions about avoiding outside sources of information.

Judge Nelson Rules Only Medical Records Pertaining To Injuries Caused By Trayvon Martin Are Relevant

    After carefully reviewing George Zimmerman's complete medical record and considering the prosecution's request to have full access to those records Judge Debra Nelson has ruled that the State will only be granted access to medical records pertaining to injuries caused by Trayvon Martin.

(click link to read original Orlando Sentinel article)

(click link to read the official court order)

SANFORD – Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson is expected to announce her ruling on a state request for a gag order in the George Zimmerman second-degree murder case today.

In the meantime, her ruling on another issue was released today: She gave prosecutors fewer medical records than attorneys for Travon Martin's family had hoped. They had asked for all his medical records. Defense attorneys had squawked, saying that would violate Zimmerman's right to privacy. So the judge looked them over and handed to the state only those that she said were related to injuries Zimmerman suffered the night he shot the unarmed 17-year-old. So the judge looked them over and handed to the state only those that she said were related to injuries he suffered the night he shot the unarmed black 17-year-old.


"Any injuries received that night would clearly be relevant to a self-defense claim, as would any similar injuries present before that night or continuing symptoms after that night," she wrote. "Observations of the defendant's physical appearance surrounding the date of the shooting may also be relevant. However, other medical records relating to the treatment of untreated maladies should not be disclosed."


During a news conference on the courthouse lawn Oct. 19, about two hours before attorneys presented their case to the judge, family attorney Benjamin Crump called for the release of Zimmerman's prescription records.That would be key, he said, to understanding the mind of his son's killer.The judge's ruling, though, kept those under wraps.

Gag The Scheme Team Lawyers For Violating Judge Lesters Order

    In yet another high quality article Jerralyn Merrit at Talkleft discusses how the Martin lawyers have violated Judge Kenneth Lester's orders regarding extrajudicial comments and should be subject to a gag order. (to view the original article click the link)

an excerpt from the article:

As I wrote here, the Martin family lawyers are clearly involved with the prosecution. They gathered evidence for the investigation of Zimmerman -- such as Witness 8's statements about her telephone calls with Trayvon Martin the night he was shot. The state relied on Witness 8's statements for probable cause in its affidavit to charge Zimmerman with second degree murder. Crump's interview of Witness 8 was released in discovery along with the state's later interview of her. The state was unaware of Witness 8 until Crump announced her existence at a press conference on March 20 and played a recording of his interview with her, which he described to some reporters as an affidavit. The state has listed Witness 8 as a trial witness. Their clients, Trayvon Martin's parents, are listed as trial witnesses. Angela Corey, in her press conference announcing charges, thanked the Martins' lawyers for their "daily assistance" communicating updates from their office to the Martins. She said:

I want to especially thank Mr. Crump and Mr. Parks, who have stayed in touch daily with us on behalf of our victim's family. Remember, it is Trayvon's family that are our constitutional victims and who have the right to know the critical stages of these proceedings.

Judge Lester warned all lawyers associated with the case in his April 30 order denying the request for the gag order. He wrote that the lawyers for the parties (the state and Mr. Zimmerman) have acted with the utmost professionalism and no gag order on them is warranted. He then reminded lawyers "connected to" the case and "their agents" that they are also subject to Florida ethical rules for lawyers on extrajudicial comments and are subject to discipline if they violate the rules. He wrote:

All attorneys are ethically obligated to follow the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and may be subject to discipline for violating those rules. With regard to those attorneys connected to this case (or their agents) who choose to speak to the media must keep specifically in mind Rule 4-3.6, which states:

a) Prejudicial Extrajudicial Statements Prohibited.

A lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding due to its creation of an imminent and substantial detrimental effect on that proceeding.

b) Statements of Third Parties.

A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to make such a statement. Counsel shall exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, employees, or other persons assisting in or associated with a case from making extrajudicial statements that are prohibited under this rule.

Let's compare the state's list of public comments by O'Mara to just a smattering of those by Benjamin Crump and his associate, Natalie Jackson. (All transcripts via Lexis.com):

Benjamin Crump, March 20, 2012 Press Conference

“George Zimmerman, this neighborhood association loose cannon”

....“So this claim that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor is preposterous. And it cannot be allowed to stand because we have all the evidence now. We have three independent witnesses who say in their backyard -- and they came forward, they don't know the Martin family at all, they don't have a dog in this fight. They are just good people telling what they observed. What they heard. And what they heard was it was the kid Trayvon Martin, screaming out for help on that 911 call.”

.... “This young lady connects the dots. She connects the dots. She completely blows Zimmerman's absurd defense claim out of the water. “

....“ She says he is his regular self, all this stuff about him being high and stuff is preposterous. It's what Zimmerman wants you to believe so he can justify killing this kid in cold blood.”

....“Now, you go back and listen to George Zimmerman's 911 call, I request, I implore and I beg you on behalf of Sabrina Martin and Tracy Martin, I implore you to listen to him, listen how he's talking, how his words slur and you scratch your head and ask yourself, why didn't the Sanford Police Department do a drug and alcohol analysis on him?”

....“We have three independent witnesses who say in their backyard -- and they came forward, they don't know the Martin family at all, they don't have a dog in this fight. They are just good people telling what they observed. What they heard.”

“And what they heard was it was the kid Trayvon Martin, screaming out for help on that 911 call.”

Natalie Jackson on Nancy Grace New Developments in Trayvon Martin Case, CNN March 27, 2012: (Opining on George Zimmerman's supposedly different versions of the shooting and whose voice is on a 911 call):

JACKSON: The first story was Trayvon dragged him out of the car and attacked him. The second story was he was looking at -- he was looking for street signs to tell the police where he was, and Trayvon attacked him. Now we hear that Trayvon had somehow attacked him from behind and knocked him down.

Trayvon was found dead -- his body was found face down in the ground with his arms under him. That is not someone who was on top of a person beating them. It`s more consistent with the witnesses statements that Mr. Zimmerman was on top. There are witnesses that state that.

When they say there`s a 13-year-old boy who says that Zimmerman was there, we have evidence that the police told witnesses that it was Zimmerman, not who they thought, Trayvon on the ground. The police have totally -- they`ve totally been very inappropriate and conducted this so- called investigation...

Natalie Jackson on The Last Word for MSNBC April 9, 2012: (Opining on Gunshot and Voices on 911 Tape)

Lawyers Natalie Jackson and Benjamin Crump insisted then that they could hear two shots on one 911 call, a warning shot and a kill shot, and that that proved Zimmerman was a murderer.

"You hear a shot, a clear shot then you hear a 17-year-old boy begging for his life, then you hear a second shot," Jackson said.

GUN IN TEEN'S SLAYING FIRED ONCE, NOT TWICE Sun-Sentinel,March 20, 2012 (Natalie Jackson Claiming Police Coverup;and Opining on Evidence; and advancing theory as to why Zimmerman shot Martin):

“This is amazing,” family attorney Natalie Jackson said. “The police have been covering up from the start. The most alarming thing was hearing a 17-year-old pleading for his life and someone still pulling the trigger.”

She said calls from other witnesses who heard or saw the incident from their window appeared to back up their claim that it was Zimmerman who had the upperhand throughout the altercation. “Racism doesn’t make you go get a gun and shoot someone,” Jackson said. “Racism makes you profile them. What made him shoot was that he was one of them; he felt he was a cop.”

The state is completely ignoring its obligation under Florida's Special Rules for Prosecutors and ABA standards (adopted by Florida)(" Florida has adopted the American Bar Association Standards of Criminal Justice Relating to Prosecution Function. This is the product of prolonged and careful deliberation by lawyers experienced in criminal prosecution and defense and should be consulted for further guidance."):

b) A prosecutor should exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees, or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under this Standard.

The state should be complying with its obligation to exercise reasonable care in preventing those associated with the prosecution to refrain from making prejudicial comments prosecutors are not allowed to make by moving for an order restricting the comments of the Martin family lawyers. While the state's motion, if granted today, could well include them, the state has not once referred to their inflammatory, prejudicial and in many instances, highly disputed and dubious comments and Judge Nelson said she hasn't watched or read the news coverage of the case. So on her own, she would have no idea.

There is no need for a gag order on the defense. If one is issued, it should include all lawyers associated with the case. And the state should be taken to task for not alerting the court to the need for the Martin family lawyers' comments to be restricted.

Nor should the order, if granted, prevent Mark O'Mara from continuing to post publicly available pleadings on his website and inform the public as to the course of court proceedings. As the media points out and the commentary to Florida's Rule 4-3.6 states:

[The public] has a legitimate interest in the conduct of judicial proceedings, particularly in matters of general public concern. Furthermore, the subject matter of legal proceedings is often of direct significance in debate and deliberation over questions of public policy.

Don't be fooled by those claiming the Judge has no authority to restrict the comments of lawyers not representing parties to the case. It's done frequently. Examples: Roger Clemens and Kobe Bryant. Some judges even gag witnesses but not the lawyers. From the Kobe Bryant order:

A lawyer or law enforcement agency or officer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of this matter, the alleged victim, Defendant and witnesses shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer, law enforcement agency or officer, alleged victim or Defendant knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of (1) materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in this matter; or (2) interfering with the fair trial of the pending charges; or (3) otherwise prejudicing the due administration of justice.

About Those Two Forensic Audio Experts

    By now we are all familiar with the uninformed and typically uneducated Trayvon Mafia mindlessly parroting that "two audio experts proved that the screams for help did not come from Mr Zimmeran." In a largely undereported article The Daily Caller ran an article which refuted the nonsense spewed by the scheme team affialiated experts.

(click the link to see the original article)

Comparing apples to oranges

Dr. James Wayman, a San Jose State University expert in the field of speech science, told The Daily Caller that he questions the grounds on which Owen based his analysis.

Wayman also said he would be willing to testify against the admissibility of Owen’s findings on the grounds that they don’t meet the criteria required for evidence in federal courts.

“There is no history of, or data on, the comparison of a questioned scream to a known speech sample,” Wayman said.

The problem, he said, is that the two voice samples were recorded in difficult acoustic conditions over different cell phones.

“Even if we were to have Mr. Zimmerman recreate the scream under identical conditions with the same cell phone,” Wayman explained, “it would be difficult to attribute the scream to him without a sample of a similar scream from Mr. Martin under the same conditions. This is clearly not possible.”

Reached for comment, Owen told TheDC that he has conducted his own study — “The Owen Study” — of more than 400 different pitches, screams, and voice disguises. The study is unpublished.

He explained that he has attempted, without success, to obtain a “voice exemplar” from Zimmerman, consisting of recordings of both his speaking voice and a scream.

And Wayman, he said, “assumes that the voice software is not able to make a determination on each voice independently.”

Wayman fired back in a later email exchange. “There is no accepted standard regarding metrics for voice comparisons,” he insisted, “either if done forensically or using automated comparison software.”

‘Naïve’ voice recognition

The Sentinel also contracted with Ed Primeau, a trained audio engineer and registered investigator whose expert testimony has been used in dozens of criminal court proceedings. Primeau used a more intuitive approach to determine that Zimmerman was not the person heard screaming on the 911 call.

“That’s a young man screaming,” Primeau told the Sentinel.

Comparing the human voice to a symphony full of varying timbres, Primeau wrote on his blog that the “male voice yelling for help … cracks like teen male’s does when going through puberty.”

Dr. Philip Rose of the Australian National University told TheDC that scientific experts refer to Primeau’s method as “naïve voice recognition.” His influential 2002 book Forensic Speaker Identification draws a major distinction between naïve and “technical forensics” voice recognition.

“Naïve voice recognition is so prone to error that it is acknowledged that it is worthless as evidence,” Rose said via email.

A forensic expert’s job, he said, is to assess the strength of evidence, not to estimate the probability of a hypothesis. And “the value of the evidence depends … on the similarity of the samples.”

In a properly conducted analysis, he told TheDC, “you would still have to do the comparison using screamed and phone samples, with many speakers.”

One voice authentication expert whose work is commercial in nature told TheDC that screaming, stress, and a recording’s audio quality can “wreak havoc” on voice biometric software and its ability to interpret data.

And speaking of Owen’s findings, another industry insider said that “a legitimate biometrics expert would likely refute the contentions” and suggests that these were “incendiary publicity plays.”

George Zimmeran's "Many Different Stories"

    A common claim you will hear from the uninformed and uneducated Trayvon Mafia is that George Zimmerman has "changed his story" or "told many different versions of his story". The following exchange is taken from the transcripts at the first bond hearing where George is directly questioned if he has ever changed his story. The following COMPLETELY REFUTES the Traybot assertion that there are any significant inconsistencies or changes in George's story.

 Prosecutor: But before you committed this crime on February 26. You were arrested. I’m sorry, not arrested – you were questioned, right, February 26?

Zimmerman: The evening to the 27th.

Prosecutor: Is that correct?

Zimmerman: Yes sir.

Prosecutor: And the following morning, and the following evening too?

Zimmerman: Yes, sir.

Prosecutor: Would it be fair to say you were questioned about four or five times?

Zimmerman: I remember giving three statements, yes sir.

Prosecutor: And isn’t it true that when you gave some of those statements when you were confronted about your inconsistencies, you started saying “I don’t remember?”

Defense: Outside the scope of direct examination. I would object, your honor.

Judge: Give a little bit of leeway. Not a whole lot, but a little bit.

Prosecutor: Isn’t it true that when you were questioned about the contradictions in your statements, that the police didn’t believe you, you would say “I don’t remember.”

Judge: Gonna grant the motion at this time.

Defense: Thank you, your honor.

At this point in the exchange BDLR directly asks George if he has changed his story

Prosecutor: would you agree that you changed your story as it went along?

Zimmerman: Absolutely not.

After Zimmerman answers Bernie moves right along to the next line of questioning never once challenging George's stance that he has NOT changed his story.

Prosecutor: OK. Sir, you had a phone at some point and you agreed to turn over that to the police so they could make a copy of what was in there, right?

Zimmerman: Yes, sir.

Prosecutor: And in that phone did you receive or send text messages, sir?

Zimmerman: Yes, sir.

This exchange while George was on the stand and directly asked under oath if he has ever changed his story effectively REFUTES the Trayvonette claim that George has various stories or inconsistencies. The proof lies in the fact that when George answered "NO!", Bernie does not challenge Mr Zimmerman at all but instead moved on to another line of questioning. We all know from the example of Shellie Zimmerman that if George had in fact perjured himself Bernie would have leaped at this golden opportunity. YET ANOTHER TRAYVONETTE FANTASY DESTROYED !!!

Sanford City Commissioner Says Voice Calling For Help Is NOT Trayvon Martin

It's official. The voice heard in the 911 tapes in the Trayvon Martin case was that of George Zimmerman according to Police. This provides further support that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin in self defense. City Commissioner Patty Mahany represents the Sanford community where 17-year Trayvon Martin was shot and killed. She talked exclusively with FOX 35 (click this link for article) Tuesday about what investigators briefed her on and why she thinks people are jumping to conclusions.

"The limited knowledge I have of the case is that the Sanford Police Department is confident it is not Trayvon Martin crying for help on the tape, that it is George Zimmerman." She says she's also been told there was only one gun-shot, not two, the other sound appears to be a door being slammed.

Post Aquittal Rioting

    You will occasionally hear the Traybots threatening riots if Zimmerman is not convicted while uttering such phrases as "no justice no peace" and Florida will burn. This is nothing new from the ignorant and uneducated racebaiters and in fact it is a well established pattern of behavior by them.

Race Riots in the United States in the 20th and 21st Century

1900: Robert Charles Riots

1900: New York City, New York

1906: Atlanta Race Riot[40]

1906: Brownsville, Texas

1907: Onancock, Virginia

1908: Springfield Race Riot of 1908[41]

1909: Omaha, Nebraska anti-Greek riot

1917: East St. Louis Riot[42]

1917: Chester, Pennsylvania

1917: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

1917: Houston Riot

Red Summer of 1919

1919: Washington, D.C.

1919: Chicago Race Riot of 1919[43]

1919: Omaha Race Riot of 1919

1919: Charleston, South Carolina

1919: Longview, Texas

1919: Knoxville Riot of 1919

1919: Elaine Race Riot

1921: Tulsa race riot (Tulsa, Oklahoma)[44]

1923: Rosewood massacre (Rosewood, Florida)[45]

1927: Yakima Valley Anti-Filipino Riot[46]

1928: Wenatchee Valley Anti-Filipino Riot[46]

1929: Exeter Anti-Filipino Riot[47]

1930: Watsonville Anti-Filipino Riots, which inspired race riots in San Francisco, Salinas and San Jose and attacks elsewhere.[47]

1935: Harlem Riot of 1935

1943: Detroit Race Riot[48]

1943: Beaumont Race Riot of 1943

1943: Harlem Riot of 1943

1943: Zoot Suit Riots

1946: Columbia, Tennessee Riot

1951: Cicero Race Riot in Illinois

1958: Battle of Hayes Pond (Maxton, North Carolina)

1963: Cambridge riot of 1963 (Cambridge, Maryland)

1964: Harlem Riot of 1964 (Harlem neighborhood, Manhattan, New York City)

1964: Rochester riot (Rochester, New York)

1964: Philadelphia 1964 race riot (North Philadelphia section of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)

1965: Watts Riots (Watts neighborhood, Los Angeles, California)

1966: Division Street Riots (Humboldt Park neighborhood, Chicago, Illinois)

1966: Hough Riots (Hough community, Cleveland, Ohio)

1966: North Omaha, Nebraska (North Omaha community, Omaha, Nebraska)

Long Hot Summer of 1967

1967: Tampa Riots, (Tampa, Florida)

1967: Texas Southern University Riot (Houston, Texas)

1967: 1967 Detroit riot (Detroit, Michigan)

1967: Buffalo riot (Buffalo, NewYork)

1967: Milwaukee Riot (Milwaukee, Wisconsin)

1967: Minneapolis North Side Riots (Minneapolis, Minnesota)

1967: 1967 Newark riots (Newark, New Jersey)

1967: Plainfield riots (Plainfield, New Jersey)

Protests of 1968

1968: Orangeburg massacre (Orangeburg, South Carolina)

1968: Nationwide riots following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.

1968: Baltimore riot of 1968 (Baltimore, Maryland)

1968: Chicago (April 1968) (Chicago, Illinois)

1968: Louisville riots of 1968 (Louisville, Kentucky)

1968: 1968 Washington, D.C. riots (Washington, D.C.)

1969: 1969 York Race Riot (York, Pennsylvania

1969: Stonewall riots (Greenwich Village neighborhood, Manhattan, New York City, New York)

1970: May 11th Race Riot (Augusta, Georgia)

1970: Jackson State killings (Jackson, Mississippi)

1971: Camden Riots (Camden, New Jersey)

1972-1977: Escambia High School riots (Pensacola, Florida)

1980: Chattanooga Riot (Chattanooga, Tennessee)

1984: Lawrence, Massachusetts Race Riot: A small scale riot centered at the intersection of Haverhill and railroad streets between working class whites and Hispanics; several buildings were destroyed by Molotov cocktails; August 8, 1984.[49]

1991: Crown Heights riot (Crown Heights neighborhood, Brooklyn, New York)

1992: Los Angeles Riots (Los Angeles, California): In a reaction to the acquittal of all LA police officers involved in the videotaped beating of Rodney King and the murder of Latasha Harlins; riots broke out mainly involving black youths in the black neighborhoods and shop owners in Korean neighborhoods, but overall riotiing was mainly to get out the frustrations of the racial groups over the racial tensions that were building in the South Central Los Angeles area for sometime[citation needed].

1996: St. Petersburg Riots (St. Petersburg, Florida): After Officer Jim Knight stopped 18 yr. old Tyron Lewis for speeding, his car lurched forward causing Knight to fire his weapon, fatally wounding the black teenager. Riots broke out and lasted for about 2 days.

2001: Cincinnati riots (Cincinnati, Ohio): In a reaction to the acquittal of Steven Roach after the fatal shooting of an unarmed young black male, Timothy Thomas, during a foot pursuit, riots broke out over the span of a few days.

2003: Benton Harbor riots (Benton Harbor, Michigan)

2005: 2005 Toledo Riot (Toledo, Ohio): A race riot that broke out after the Neo-Nazi protest marched through a black neighborhood.

2006: Fontana High School riot (Fontana, California): Riot involving about 500 Latino and black students[50]

2006: Prison Race Riots (California): A war between Latino and black prison gangs set off a series of riots across California[51][52]

2008: Locke High School riot[53] (Los Angeles, California)

2009: 2009 Oakland Riots (Oakland, California): Peaceful protests turned into rioting after the fatal shooting of an unarmed black man, Oscar Grant, by a BART transit policeman.

Witness Number Six John's Statements

    The best witness for the defense is "John" aka Witness 6 who identified Trayvon Martin as the one assaulting George Zimmerman. In his full statement to FDLE John clarifies at least five times that he is absolutely certain that Trayvon Martin is on top of George Zimmerman and struggling with him. This statement combined with Tracy Martin's statement to Sanford Police Department confirming that the voice calling for help is NOT Trayvon clearly demonstrates that the true assailant and criminal perpatrator is Trayvon Martin.

Yes There Is Proof That George Zimmerman's Nose was Broken

    A common argument you will hear from the uninformed Trayvon Mafia is that George's nose is only "likely broken" and that it has never been proven. This argument is patently absurd on it's face and shows the absolute refusal by the Trayvonettes to actually look into the facts of the case. The proof of the broken nose lies in the ICD-9 codes listed on Mr. Zimmerman's medical reports from Altamonte Family Practice where he was treated after being savagely attacked by Trayvon Martin.

What Are ICD-9 Codes ?

 ICD means International Statistical Classifications of Diseases. ICD codes are alphanumeric designations given to every diagnosis, description of symptoms and cause of death attributed to human beings.These classifications are developed, monitored and copyrighted by the World Health Organization (WHO). In the United States, the NCHS (National Center for Health Statistics), part of CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) oversees all changes and modifications to the ICD codes, in cooperation with WHO.


What does that mean to us patients? It means that each diagnosis a human being may be given has a code, a numbered designation, that goes with it. That code means that every medical professional in the United States and many other parts of the world will understand the diagnosis the same way. So, for example, if I am diagnosed with GERD (acid reflux), it will be given the code 530.81. If I travel across the country and need to see a doctor for my heartburn, he will also put a 530.81 on my record. The 530.81 is the ICD classification.

If the diagnosis is for something acute, something that goes away with treatment like a rash or the flu, then the ICD code will be less important to us. Because the illness or condition will go away, the code will stay on our record, but won't affect future care. However, if we are diagnosed with a chronic or lifelong problem, like heart disease or diabetes, then the ICD code will follow us for most of our medical care, and will help our healthcare providers make determinations about our care. As electronic medical records are implemented across the country, these codes will affect our care more and more.

What ICD-9 Code is listed on George Zimmerman Medical Record submitted to the court ? (click this link to view the document pg 2 )


ICD-9-CM Diagnosis Code 802.0
Closed fracture of nasal bones
Short description: Nasal bone fx-closed.

ICD-9-CM 802.0 is a billable medical code that can be used to specify a diagnosis on a reimbursement claim.

Why Trayvon Martin's Troubled Past Is The Most Relevant Part Of The Case

    On October 19th 2012 a hearing was held in the courtroom of Judge Debra Nelson regarding the school records of Trayvon Martin as well as Trayvon's social media. The defense had also sought the social media of the states star witness known as "Dee Dee". Much to the dismay of the scheme team and the Trayvon Mafia Judge Nelson ruled that those records are in fact discover-able. I have included the case law citations to illustrate why the records were admitted and how they may be used to Mr. Zimmerman's advantage.

The Florida Evidence Manual:

Section 90.404(1)(b) allows evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of a crime to be offered by an accused; or by the prosecution to rebut the trait; or evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the aggressor.


 Dwyer v. State, 743 So. 2d 46, 48 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1999)

Generally, evidence of a victim's character is inadmissible, but a defendant who alleges self-defense can show, through the testimony of another witness, that the alleged victim had a propensity for violence, thereby inferring that the alleged victim was the aggressor. Smith v. State, 606 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); see also Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 404.6 (1999 ed.); Graham, Handbook of Florida Evidence § 404.1 (1987).
A defendant's prior knowledge of the victim's reputation for violence is irrelevant, because the evidence is offered to show the conduct of the victim, rather than the defendant's state of mind. Ehrhardt. Accordingly, evidence of one of the victim's reputation for violence was not prohibited by Dwyer's lack of prior knowledge of that victim's character traits.


Smith v. State, 606 So. 2d 641, 642-643 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1992)


Florida permits a defendant in a criminal case to introduce evidence of the violent reputation or character of a victim providing there is a showing of self defense on the part of the defendant. Hodge v. State, 315 So.2d 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). One legitimate basis for the admission of such evidence is for the purpose of showing that the victim was the first aggressor. Fine v. State, 70 Fla. 412, 70 So. 379 (1915). When a defendant offers evidence for this purpose, it is unnecessary for him to show that he had prior knowledge of the victim's propensities. Banks v. State, 351 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Pino v. Koelber, 389 So. 2d 1191, 1194 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1980)


Cornelius v. State, 49 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1950)

We hold that a witness who has testified as to general reputation or character may on cross examination be interrogated as to whether he had ever known or heard of specific acts of violence committed by the accused because the true purpose of such cross examination is to enlighten the jury as to whether the witness actually — as a matter of fact — knows the general

Martin Family Attorney Admits That Trayvon Attacked Zimmerman and Says Zimmerman Deserved It

    We are all familiar with the interview that George Zimmerman gave to Sean Hannity. The following day Hannity interviewed Martin Family attorney Daryl Parks to hear his rebuttal. In a not so widely reported statement Parks admits that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman and even goes so far as to say "Trayvon SHOULD have been on top of him". This kind of endorsement of violence by the scheme team and then turning around a playing the victim card with the public is dispicable. ( I apologize for the poor audio quality, Turn up the volume to hear better)

Zimmerman Defense Announces Law Enforcement Will Testify In Favor Of The Defense

On October 24th the Orlando Sentinel ran an article announcing that law enforcement will now be testifying in favor of the defense:

George Zimmerman's lawyers Wednesday notified prosecutors that their witness list now includes a who's who of the Sanford Police Department's chain of command at the time of Trayvon Martin's death, including the police chief, major crimes captain, sergeant and case detectives. So far, defense attorneys have subpoenaed eight Sanford officers, requiring them to appear. There is no indication that the officers have approached defense attorneys, saying they wanted to help Zimmerman.Wednesday's defense witness list has on it a dozen names, including former chief Bill Lee; Bob O'Connor, the major crimes captain who oversaw the investigation; Lt. Randy Smith, the former sergeant who supervised the detectives investigating the case; and lead Investigator Chris Serino. Defense attorney Mark O'Mara on Friday said he was surprised when Sanford police Sgt. Joseph Santiago testified during a deposition last week that after more than two weeks of daily meetings at the police department at which officers agreed there was not enough evidence to charge Zimmerman, Serino signed paperwork that he turned over to Wolfinger, saying he had probable cause to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter.

Detective Chris Serino and Chief Bill Lee Tell The Orlando Sentinel George Zimmerman Is Innocent

    On April 2nd 2012 the Orlando Sentinel ran an exclusive interview with Chief Bill Lee and Chris Serino who both publicly announced their belief that George Zimmerman is innocent. Here is an excerpt from the interview :

Two weeks ago, during an exclusive interview with the Sentinel, Lee disclosed certain details of the investigation and during that session, attended by Serino and others, Serino said his investigation turned up no reliable evidence that cast doubt on Zimmerman's account – that he had acted in self-defense.

"The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event," Serino told the Sentinel March 16. "Everything I have is adding up to what he says."

Armchair CSI Videos From State Of The Internet, LLMPapa, and Johnny Flexican Debunked

    Propaganda is a powerful tool when presented to an unwary audience and it has been used to great effect in the railroading of Mr Zimmerman. We have seen the consequences of such propaganda being fed to a willing audience in Nazi Germany which eventually lead to the second world war.

    The scheme team propagnda machine has spawned an interesting phenomenon which is the armchair CSI Investigator. Some are video makers such as Cabbage Patch Trent at State Of The Internet, LLMPapa, and Johnny Flexican. These three have flooded youtube with their absurd fallacy ridden theories. All of these videos can be dismissed as utter nonsense by following the formula below.

The False Cause Fallacy:

I.  False Cause:  the fallacy committed when an argument mistakenly attempt to establish a causal connection.  There are two basic interrelated kinds.

1. Post hoc ergo propter hoc:  (literally "after this, therefore because of this") the fallacy of arguing that one event was caused by another event merely because it occurred after that event.
1. I.e., mere succession in time is not enough to establish causal connection. E.g., consider "Since hair always precedes the growth of teeth in babies, the growth of hair causes the growth of teeth."
2. Consider also "Every severe recession follows a Republican Presidency; therefore Republicans are the cause of recessions."  Accidental generalizations need not always be causal relations.
2. Causal connections are difficult to establish; the nature of causality is an active area of inquiry in the philosophy of science.

Non causa pro causa:  (literally "no cause for a cause") in general, the fallacy of making a mistake about the ascription of some cause to an effect.  This is the general category of "false cause."

A straw man is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

A red herring is a clue which is intentionally or unintentionally misleading or distracting from the actual issue.As a logical fallacy, it falls into the broad class of relevance fallacies; it is related, but not identical to ignoratio elenchi. It is sometimes confused with straw man arguments as well, although the red herring does not involve any misrepresentation of someone else's position.


Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).[1] The origin of the term lies in well poisoning, an ancient wartime practice of pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army, to diminish the invading army's strength

Tu quoque  (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency, and not the position presented, whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit their position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument.

Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!

This fallacy is very similar to argumentum ad populum, the appeal to the people or to popularity. When a distinction is made between the two, ad populum is construed narrowly to designate an appeal to the opinions of people in the immediate vicinity, perhaps in hope of getting others (such as judges) to jump on the bandwagon, whereas ad numerum is used to designate appeals based purely on the number of people who hold a particular belief. The distinction is a fine one, and in general the terms can be used interchangeably in debate rounds. (I've found that ad populum has better rhetorical effect.)

Argumentum ad populum (argument or appeal to the public). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by showing that the public agrees with you. For an example, see above. This fallacy is nearly identical to argumentum ad numerum, which you should see for more details.


Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes.

At least in some forms of debate, quoting various sources to support one's position is not just acceptable but mandatory. In general, there is nothing wrong with doing so. Even if the person quoted has no particular expertise in the area, he may have had a particularly eloquent way of saying something that makes for a more persuasive speech. In general, debaters should be called down for committing argumentum ad verecundiam only when (a) they rely on an unqualified source for information about facts without other (qualified) sources of verification, or (b) they imply that some policy must be right simply because so-and-so thought so.


Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this). This is the familiar fallacy of mistaking correlation for causation -- i.e., thinking that because two things occur simultaneously, one must be a cause of the other. A popular example of this fallacy is the argument that "President Clinton has great economic policies; just look at how well the economy is doing while he's in office!" The problem here is that two things may happen at the same time merely by coincidence (e.g., the President may have a negligible effect on the economy, and the real driving force is technological growth), or the causative link between one thing and another may be lagged in time (e.g., the current economy's health is determined by the actions of previous presidents), or the two things may be unconnected to each other but related to a common cause (e.g., downsizing upset a lot of voters, causing them to elect a new president just before the economy began to benefit from the downsizing).

It is always fallacious to suppose that there is a causative link between two things simply because they coexist. But a correlation is usually considered acceptable supporting evidence for theories that argue for a causative link between two things. For instance, some economic theories suggest that substantially reducing the federal budget deficit should cause the economy to do better (loosely speaking), so the coincidence of deficit reductions under Clinton and the economy's relative health might be taken as evidence in favor of those economic theories. In debate rounds, what this means is that it is acceptable to demonstrate a correlation between two phenomenon and to say one caused the other if you can also come up with convincing reasons why the correlation is no accident.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc is very similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc, below. The two terms can be used almost interchangeably, post hoc (as it is affectionately called) being the preferred term.


Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments.

Nonetheless, this is a very popular fallacy in debate, and with good reason: the more times you say something, the more likely it is that the judge will remember it. The first thing they'll teach you in any public speaking course is that you should "Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em, then tell 'em, and then tell 'em what you told 'em." Unfortunately, some debaters think that's all there is to it, with no substantiation necessary! The appropriate time to mention argumentum ad nauseam in a debate round is when the other team has made some assertion, failed to justify it, and then stated it again and again. The Latin wording is particularly nice here, since it is evocative of what the opposition's assertions make you want to do: retch. "Sir, our opponents tell us drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, again and again and again. But this argumentum ad nauseam can't and won't win this debate for them, because they've given us no justification for their bald assertions!"


Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponents are fascists" with "My opponents' arguments are fascist."


Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true.

Whether or not an argumentum ad ignorantiam is really fallacious depends crucially upon the burden of proof. In an American courtroom, where the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, it would be fallacious for the prosecution to argue, "The defendant has no alibi, therefore he must have committed the crime." But it would be perfectly valid for the defense to argue, "The prosecution has not proven the defendant committed the crime, therefore you should declare him not guilty." Both statements have the form of an argumentum ad ignorantiam; the difference is the burden of proof.

In debate, the proposing team in a debate round is usually (but not always) assumed to have the burden of proof, which means that if the team fails to prove the proposition to the satisfaction of the judge, the opposition wins. In a sense, the opposition team's case is assumed true until proven false. But the burden of proof can sometimes be shifted; for example, in some forms of debate, the proposing team can shift the burden of proof to the opposing team by presenting a prima facie case that would, in the absence of refutation, be sufficient to affirm the proposition. Still, the higher burden generally rests with the proposing team, which means that only the opposition is in a position to make an accusation of argumentum ad ignorantiam with respect to proving the proposition


Special pleading is a formal logical fallacy where a participant demands special considerations for a particular premise of theirs. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency - in a lot of cases, this will be the fact that their argument contradicts past arguments or actions. Therefore, they introduce a "special case" or an exception to their rules.
While this is acceptable in genuine special cases, it becomes a formal fallacy when a person doesn't adequately justify why the case is special

Affirming the consequent is the fallacy of believing that an effect proves a cause, i.e. A -> B, B, therefore A.

Moving the goalposts is the fallacy of changing evidential requirements in an argument once they have been met, "what I really meant was..."





Once You understand the above fallacies you can properly discard Cabbage Patch Trent's, LLMPapa's, and Johnny Flexican's ridiculous videos into the garbage can where they belong as the prove absolutely nothing at all......besides that they too drank the kool-aide


The Like it Aint Podcast

    There are also online audio bloggers such as Pj Coble, Eric Jordan-Garrett,and Lesa C Ordaz on the Like It Is Now podcast who spew their hated filled vitriol and frequently drastically fumble the already established facts of the case. Facts Be Damned is the battle cry of the Trayvon Mafia who have eagerly swallowed the Kool-Aide fed to them by the black Jim Jones. Eric is also notorious for his useless Change.Org petitions which he has at least 30 petitions about the Zimmerman case alone.

The Twitter Twits
   We also have the Twitter Twits such as BigBoi, Princess6, Laura003 just to name a few. The twitter environment is fast paced and filled with outright fabrications by these whackadoodles further complicating the problem.

   At the heart of propaganda lies confirmation bias. Once the scheme team's seed had been planted those who drank the kool-aide began seeking out only information that confirmed the lie they had been fed. Thankfully NBC is going to be sued for the roles that they have played and I believe many other mainstream media outlets will as well.


Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).
A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

The Conspiracy Begins To Implode !!!

    On October 26th 2012 a hearing was held in the courtroom of Judge Debra Nelson regarding a gag order requested by lead prosecutor Bernie De La Rionda. In one of his most eloquent and compelling arguments yet, O'mara names names and outlines that plot against Mr Zimmerman. The foundation was laid for a malicious prosecution argument and the dismissal of all charges against Mr Zimmerman.

But There's a Problem

    In their quest for the "pot of gold at the end of the rainbow" the scheme team and their co-conspirators Tracy and Sybrina have told the public that Trayvon was profiled and killed for no reason and that their son had "begged for his life before being killed"......but there's a problem. Tracy Martin is already on record with the Sanford Police Department where he made an official statement that the voice calling for help is not his son.

   In order to begin deceptively selling their story to the the public, the Julison PR Firm crafted this slick animation about the shooting. Anyone who has experience dealing with the whackadoodles in the Trayvon Mafia know that the uneducated and uninformed bought this charade hook, line, and sinker.

A Willing Participant

   The scheme team needed a media strategy to begin selling their fabricated story about the events of February 26th 2012 to global media audience. With dollar signs in their eyes the scheme team attorneys hired the Ryan Julison PR firm to carefully craft a false narrative to feed to the public in hopes of extorting a big payoff. Julison and the scheme team carefully coached their co-conspirators Tracy and Sybrina about what to say and how to act in front of the camera to maximize the propaganda effect. In this video Tracy makes a very early media appearance alleging a police cover-up and sweeping the case under the rug.

The Scam Begins !

    The plot begins to unfold as Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump openly accuses the Sanford Police Department of fabricating the police reports which support the very clear fact that Mr Zimmerman acted in self defense after being savagely attacked by Trayvon Martin. Attorney Crump paraded around with a leaked police station video that had been edited by ABC's Matt Guttman to blur our the injuries sustained by Zimmerman while pandering to the global media audience claiming that George received no injuries at all. Days later the video was enhanced and we got our first look at the injuries as well as our first look at the lengths the scheme team is willing to go in order to railroad an innocent man.

Where's Trayvon's Voice Sample?

    One of the major controversies in the Zimmerman case is the cries for help which can be heard in the background of witness 11's call to 911 for forty seconds. Mr Zimmerman has provided several voice samples for the FBI to compare to the recording. As far back as March Daryl Parks of the scheme team has been promising to provide a known voice sample of Trayvon for comparison. As of this writing, the scheme team has still failed to provide a known voice sample of Trayvon Martin. The question is why?