Well now they've gone and done it.

You need to read this folks.  All parts.  Seriously.

I'll get to that link in a minute, but before I do I want to call on all people in this country who are of good character, who have moral fiber, no matter whether they're white, black, brown, green (Martian) or otherwise to stand up and demand -- here and now -- that any media or other person who has intentionally and willfully distorted what happened in Sanford be outed and held to account for all harm done to anyone in any relationship to this case, including incitement of hate crimes -- like this one.

Maywood, Ill. - Alton L. Hayes III, a west suburban man charged with a hate crime, told police he was so upset about the Trayvon Martin case in Florida that he beat up a white man early Tuesday.

Hayes and a 15-year-old Chicago boy walked up behind the 19-year-old man victim and pinned his arms to his side, police said. Hayes, 18, then picked up a large tree branch, pointed it at the man and said, “Empty your pockets, white boy.”

The two allegedly rifled through the victim’s pockets, then threw him to the ground and punched him “numerous times” in the head and back before running away, police said. Hayes and the boy are black; the victim is white.

It's well beyond the point where good people of character irrespective of race rise and say enough damnit.  We've had enough of Tawana Brawley, of the Duke Lacrosse case and similar intentional and willful abuses by members of the media and others who either intentionally or recklessly stir up through false pretense this sort of "story."

Simply put we of good conscience are not going to put up with it any more.  But unlike what those snakes foment, we're going to deal with it in a lawful and peaceful manner, by simply refusing to deal with those people at all.

And it is beyond dispute, at this point, that there was no racial overtone or issue in the Martin/Zimmerman case.  There is zero evidence to support any such assertion and the media has been caught trying to manufacture it.

What we need to tell these people is the following:

We won't service your cars, we won't sell you hardware, we won't cut your hair, we won't sell you gasoline, we won't sell you shoes or clothing.  We won't do your taxes, we won't cut your grass.  We won't sit next to you in church, we will cross the street so as to not make eye contact when you walk the sidewalk, we will give you the finger in traffic.

And we won't buy from advertisers who run ads on the involved media outlets either.

We're done; just as the Amish decide to "shun" we will do so as well.

Freedom of association includes the freedom to not associate.  And intentional distortion of the truth and manufacturing claims for shock value and to stir up a race war do not place you in a protected class.

The problem with manufactured evidence is that's not really "evidence" because it doesn't actually exist.  It's a story told to fit a prearranged narrative -- one that someone wants to sell to you.  This is done every day in various media forms and when it's done to sell you a product or service we call it advertising or "puffery."

But when it's done to hide the truth or injure someone it's wrong.

Remember that one of the key claims in the prosecution case is that "DeeDee" was "Trayvon's girlfriend" and that she "was so distraught she had to go to the hospital" when she learned of Trayvon's death.  That now looks rather unlikely, as her identity has been discovered and so has her Twitter timeline.  At best that Twitter timeline appears to indicate that Trayvon and her were acquainted -- but not romantically involved. In addition she was Tweeting away after the incident and far from being distraught to the point of emotional collapse seems to have dismissed the incident as a "that's a bummer" sort of thing that happened in her life.  Assuming that is really the person known as "DeeDee" only one word comes to mind: Oops.

But what's worse is the call logs which were used to claim that "DeeDee" was on the phone at the time of the alleged incident and which was cited in the affidavit as part of the root of probable cause have the following notation on the printed page:

In other words it appears that the conversation allegedly held at the time of the incident really took place three hours later, and not when the prosecution -- and the Martin's lawyer and the media -- says it did.

So says the business record right on the face of the page itself.

For those calls to have taken place at the claimed time with a time zone of PDT they would have had to been recorded three hours earlier!

That is, 7:12 PM EDT is 4:12 PDT; the recorded time, if in PDT, is 10:12 Eastern Time in Florida or three hours after the incident.

So says the actual printout:

THE DATE AND TIME FOR ALL CALLS CORRESPONDS TO PACIFIC TIME (PST/PDT).

If that notation on the printout is true then someone went looking for and found the phone, it was not locked, and that person was the one who made the calls.

If that log is accurate and in Pacific Time then "DeeDee" was never on the phone with Trayvon at the time of the alleged incident at all -- the entire narrative is a knowing lie.

Maybe that notation is wrong and maybe it's right.  It probably matters what sort of plan the phone was on (e.g. Prepaid .vs. Postpaid and if Postpaid what sort) as the billing center may differ.  T-Mobile is a funny company in that regard and their billing systems are, to put it mildly, "odd."

I think we need to see subpoenas for testimony of "DeeDee" and subpoenas of actual telephone company records, delivered with a nice solid chain of custody from both ends of those calls.  Trayvon's Dad needs to be subpoenaed too, since the obvious person who would have tried to use that phone to track down his kid (assuming he really didn't know there were police crawling all over the place) is him.  From this we should be able to determine if the call times are in PDT as claimed on the alleged printout or if they were really in the local time where the phone was (despite the statement on that page.)

The important point here is that if the timeline on those calls is impeached then the entire prosecutorial story collapses as an intentional fabrication.

This is a key piece of information and is in fact critical to the entire story.

So we have two problems:

If "DeeDee"s story of being "distraught" to the point that she required intervention is impeached then her story of the conversation she allegedly had is also impeached, and that's a problem.  If the time line on the calls is impeached then the prosecution's entire story line collapses.  These two points are critical to the case and, one would expect, to the defense's discovery efforts.

Let's find out what the truth is, shall we?