We’re working on figuring out why Judge Nelson wants Richard Conner kicked out ASAP. Using the “francining names” placed into trial records by Don West late last night we begin to find the unknown backstory.

From them we make a remarkable discovery. Unbelievably, it appears Trayvon’s Dad, Tracy, was actually one of the people talking to Trayvon about buying and selling a handgun. Considering the “conversation was mysteriously deleted” this appears to be a big effen’ deal. WOW. [ *Sidenote* We could also use help with crowdsourcing on these]:

Communications about GUNS [24:22 on video]

Ronquavis “Qua” Fulton





Spoonhead Zach





Jay





Ron





Dario





Diamond (probably Rachel Jeantel) But not about buying

And THEN the THUNDERCLAP name [@25:15 ]

“FRUIT”

WOW – as in Tracy Martin’s nickname is “Fruit“. Yes, you are reading that correctly – Trayvon Martin’s Dad’s nickname is “fruit“.

East St. Louis Il. The hometown of Travon Martin's father(Tracy "Fruit" Martin),Send out much love, support, praying that justice is served. — Christie Dale Smith (@BBALLR2) March 26, 2012

Why does that matter? Because during testimony about the exchange over gun purchases Trayvon was exchanging text’s with a person who’s nickname was “fruit”.

Yes, that means that Tracy Martin was texting his son, Trayvon, about buying and selling handguns. Large jpeg image HERE.

We also know “Qua” or Ronquavis Fulton who Trayvon was talking about buying and selling the .22 caliber handgun with [@24:22 of video above]:

Ronquavis, seen here holding a Marijuana blunt, has other twitter accounts. He goes by: @_782, @quakush and also @quabolean

Also during the Proffer testimony Richard Conner talked about [@43:00] fight conversations with Lavondia (spelling uncertain) and with Michael French.

We already knew where Michael French fits in. But we did not know he was specifically communicating with Trayvon over the Street Fighting. French’s name reference can be found at the 47:00 minute mark of the same video. We also have a picture from prior research of Michael French taken with Trayvon Martin – Date unknown – (Michael French is one in the middle).

Of particular attention is the DATE of this fb post with Michael French (middle of picture) with regard to Rachel Jeantel testifying about finding out about the shooting.

Rachel testified she heard about the shooting on Monday through “rumors” because “she has some friends who go around his school“, meaning Krop Senior High School. With Michael French posting about Trayvon’s death on 02/28/12 (Tuesday – night).

Coincidentally Michael French talked to reporters about Trayvon’s death in this Friday March 9th NBC report. (The same date the lawsuit was filed to get the now infamous 911 call recordings released) :

[…] Michael French, a classmate of Martin’s at Krop Senior High, said “he was smart and funny and he always kept to himself, too, so I know he wouldn’t start anything.” French said said the incident happened because Martin was black, “and it was a predominantly white neighborhood, so he looked suspicious. So that’s probably why.” (link)

Also, At the :15 second mark of this video Conner reveals that Trayvon Martin’s phone was actually a part of Sybrina Fulton’s family account plan. Sybrina Fulton was the account holder.:

Meaning it was not, as previously stated by the Scheme Team, Tracy Martin accessing his own phone records on 3/17/12 which could have revealed “Dee Dee”. Another BIG lie.

Which begs the question: When Benjamin Crump passed out partial phone records to the media on 3/20/12, they included the name of the account owner as Tracy Martin. How is this possible on the printed detail if the phone was actually under the account of Sybrina Fulton?

Call Crump to the Stand. The State has put the TM phone and Rachel Jeantel into evidence. Have Crump explain as a rebuttal witness to Tracy Martin and the State’s own evidence.

If you listen closely to the Richard Conner testimony you realize what he has found. The phone deletions were made around all of the attributes which would have affected the considerations in this case about character and reputation. Except for the porn pictures. The reason those were not found was because of how they were hidden in the phone. The person deleting would not have seen them as images and would have needed an application to understand the “bit” file which was password protected also.

Conner is outlining a very specific educated thesis that the phone was scrubbed of damning evidence after death. Meaning somehow a person intentionally removed, “deleted”, the data.

Obviously, Mantai objects when Conner is going there with his explanations – but the implication is crystal clear. If the state of Florida retained custody of that phone – then someone from FDLE, or in association with the chain of evidence, deleted the data.

THAT DELETED data was the data missing in the State’s discovery to the defense until June 4th. And even after that time, the essential summary of data, which was included in a written report, was devoid of mention to this specific data file of deleted evidence.

What does this mean? It lends to only one Occam’s Razor explanation: The STATE prosecutorial team intentionally deleted, the data, then delivered a partial file with the non-deleted data, then at the last minute before trial delivered the full data set, but omitted the deleted data from the written report summarizing the entire “bin” file.

Essentially, the State hid the evidence – and Don West has the specific understanding of how and who has falsely presented the manipulated information. They also falsely testified, pre-trial, to the data delivery and the process under which it was done. That’s what the Whistle Blower was trying to tell them – but was handcuffed in court explanation by the fact the Defense had yet to receive the manipulated data in the form the Whistle blower was describing it. It did not arrive until 6/4/13.

I have no idea how the Defense can, at this point, with this judge, get this level of deception to the light of day – it’ll have to wait until after trial. Unfortunately the date of the deletion cannot be clearly identified. If they do pursue it, and I hope they do, the evidence (phone itself) will have a chain of custody. That may narrow their search for the specific person. However, he actual download of the “bin” file probably does not have chain of custody – so while it may be possible to prove the construct of the deception, the actual person who did it may never be identified.