If you have visited this site for any significant amount of time you know our position:

There are so many self-serving parties and affiliations within the Trayvon Martin shooting it is almost impossible to describe them all, and from the outset of our research and analysis of this now national case we have remained consistent with our approach.

We try diligently to present the information as it appears, to the best of our ability, without placing ourselves as a filter for the information.   We present the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of it all; and there is much ugliness as a direct outcome of money and financial positioning.

When approached by Ryan Julison we refused to be a part of the filtration system instead offering our site as a direct host for his perspective unedited.   To insure the absence of our perspective of his position bleeding into the narrative we asserted that we would not narrate his story, we would present it exactly as he presents.   He declined.  That approach is not within his paradigm.

There is enough filtering, and skewering/twisting of information; that approach is not within our mission statement.

Likewise when we were contacted by punditry we declined involvement, and again when approached by media we have consistently refused to inject ourselves into the story.  We will share interested parties’ perspectives, but we will only do so in their own words, not ours.

Our research stands alone, as it is factually known to exist.  We are not perfect, but as a direct consequence from our approach, so far nothing we have presented has been factually incorrect.   Even when it has angered readership, the truth of whatever “it is” still exists and stands alone.   All we do is turn the lights on, we do not manipulate the optic.

Whatever exists, whatever is visible when the light is turned on, exists because it is there, not because we put it there.

With that in mind we are privileged to be trusted to turn on a light in an area still under construction and present for your consideration an opportunity to preview some aspects of the Mark Osterman book that has yet to be released.

A person very close to the case against George Zimmerman has requested, and we have approved, a series of guest posts with proprietary insight into the upcoming book.

There are some alarming concerns, by various ‘persons of concern’, and various legal elements surrounding George Zimmerman, for the unintended consequences that can occur as a result of a book’s publication in a “pending criminal trial” with descriptions of events, behaviors and circumstances, while narrated by a person (Mark Osterman), who is anticipated to be a witness at trial.

In short there appear to be some factually incorrect, false and substantively flawed aspects of the book which are deeply troubling to the various Zimmerman contingencies.  Some outright lies have also been discovered which seriously lend concern about the intention of the author(s), editors, and publishers.

All of whom hold a financial stake in the sales of the book.

George Zimmerman stands to gain ZERO benefit from the publication of an unauthorized book.

According to the presenter, the book was NOT approved.   Nor was the release date approved.   And certainly nothing has been approved by George Zimmerman or any member of the legal defense team that would diminish his capacity to defend himself.

Subsequently a verbose deconstruction of the book is anticipated, along with a strong pre-release rebuttal of factual flaws and errors from a person with direct first-hand knowledge.

We have agreed to present these rebuttals and deconstructions unfiltered in a series of posts, one per day, to appear at Noon Eastern Time as each document is provided to us for site formatting.

At this time we still have not yet determined whether we will host, or provide, an uncopyrighted  draft of the book for review in advance.   There are multiple considerations to factor, as well as presentation logistics and server space.

However, the first “guest post” will appear today, 8/31, at Noon, and will essentially be an introduction to the process, an explanation of intent, and a highlight of why such action is being taken.