Research, absent of agenda, is quite interesting.   You  never know what you don’t know.
When someone else knows what you don’t know, yet knows you are seeking to find out what they know, it can be challenging to share.
Especially when what they don’t know you know, is as important as what they do know you know. Such is the discussion consideration when you know what they know, but they don’t know that you know what they know.
Early on in the background research of the George Zimmerman case, Bernie De La Rionda thought he knew what we know he knew. But he could never discover what we know he did not know we knew.
So we know Bernie opened up his computer each morning, seeking to find out how much about what he knew we now knew. But what he didn’t know was we knew he was doing this. Daily. As in, every day.
How we know this, is the aspect he will never know. But even in the writing of this, he now knows, that we know, what he didn’t know we knew.
So, HI BERNIE, now you know.
At first I used to be annoyed at people who could not fathom why I was adverse to writing directly what we knew. But if you now know that BDLR was actively seeking to understand the same knowns’, it might help you to understand why it was necessary to write certain aspects to never allow the opposition to know what we did not know.
“Opposition” in this sense are those entities, any entities, I call them ‘shadow dwellers’, who are hiding things and desperate to find out if anyone knows of what they are hiding.
There is a greater benefit to knowing they don’t know what you know they know. From that position it is possible to continue finding out where the TRUTH hides, without them knowing what path you are on.
It all boiled over in that one pre-trial Zimmerman hearing when Bernie realized that we knew what he knew about the documents provided to Smith/Serino, that were never actually going to see the light of day.
Not only did he discover that we actually knew what he knew, but he also recognized that we knew it well before he would have anticipated us knowing what he thought we did not know.   It instilled a sense of urgency in his approach.   We laughed.
Now we enter an entirely new phase of knowledge.
Knowing some of what we know, yet not knowing if we know all of what he knows (which we do 😉 ), there are people left not knowing what they are going to walk in to if/when they approach the upcoming sanctions hearing(s).
You see, the sanctions Bernie and Guy are going to face, are not limited to the context of what the State knew, and did not share, about a phone (ie. the bin data file). That is merely one end result appearing on June 4th just before trial.
What Bernie is now facing is a collection of what we knew;  And what he didn’t know we knew;  And when we knew it.

As only a few ‘keyed in’ may recognize, over a third of Rachel Jeantel’s testimony was laying the groundwork, under oath, for a series of events.
Getting the timing down was critical. Where and when exactly did the State became aware of things, yet never divulged to the defense.
We can call this BRADY stomping.
A great example, yet only one of MANY, will be the Trayvon Phone data. When Bernie would say things openly, like:

 … just “fuck em’, let them find out on their own, if they want the data, we are under no obligation to share more than they can prove we know”….

D’oh,…. and when he says this to John Guy, BDLR makes a fatal mistake. One that will taint young Guy probably for the rest of his career; Definitely one that will follow him long after the “it’s good to be queen” is removed.
As Bernie and Guy were figuring…. and assuming. D’oh. Definition’s of “prove” were constructed from their own frame of reference toward knowledge.  That reference is “what he thought they knew”. Unknown to Bernie, even still to this day, is the fact that many knew more than he thought they knew.
Still do.

So ‘provability’ was/is not relative in these assumptions – it was/is more a matter of waiting to see what was shared; And we know very well where that went don’t we?
We know with specific certainty what decisions were made in that regard. And we know the annoyance created when young Mr. Ben Kruidbos decides he does not want to be the fall guy in the event it all comes out.   After all, he’s responsible for the data stuff, and assumptions are risky when it’s your neck destined for the block.
Assumptions toward the Zimmerman defense like:

…they won’t buy the software to independently extract the data;  Therefore it is safe to deliver only a partial record, and we can assume plausible deniability behind any discovery if they do purchase it.

This is dangerous manipulative ground.  Especially when you are assuming all of those people in that loop of conversation are holding the same opinion as to the propriety of hiding the truth.
Things get sketchy when you are not aware who surrounds you, and what their fears are, as you are making that unethical and unlawful decision.   Against the risk of conspiracy, willful blindness and real big legal issues, crooked historical paradigms no longer apply.

I once saw a documentary of the amazon. The barely clothed jungle man looked quite skinny.

The filmmaker gave the man a chicken; There must have been some prior conversation between them because the skinny guy put the chicken on a string and then dipped it into a river or tributary of some sort.

The water went crazy – like you may have seen in PSA u-tube videos of people dropping a frozen turkey into a deep fryer.

Then, only a few moments later, it all stopped – just like that.

The man raised the string and the chicken was gone.

Apparently there are tiny, frenzied, angry, chicken eating fishes, lots of them, just below an otherwise calm surface. Without the chicken you’d never know they were there.

The filmmaker then left the scene headed off to film more Ripley-esque endeavors. He waved farewell to the skinny, now chickenless man; All the while taking pictures of the departure.

For posterity I guess.

I could not help but think the skinny guy with the odd smile would have benefitted far more from the chicken than the angry fish did.

Then again, what would be so unique in a documentary about a skinny guy eating a chicken.?

One string….

Four potential chickens….

Volunteers?

“Hey Eddie, be honest with me, ya’ think I need  to lose a little weight”?

The enemy of your enemy is not your friend; In actuality they are just your enemy’s enemy.
Churchill was no friend to Stalin.