Listen, Subscribe, Share the show with friends, Donate. Help us keep this train rollin! Share and subscribe.
The Propaganda Report Podcast: DNB: Intentional Confusion, Another Old Rich White Democrat, People Receive Puzzling Text Messages Across The Country. Why?, & Trump Launches Black Voter Initiative In Atlanta (2019.11.08)
DONATE LINKS
If you find value in the content we produce and want to help us keep this train rollin, drop us a donation via Paypal or become a Patreon. (links below) Every little bit helps. Thank you! And thank you to everyone who has and continues to support the show. It’s your support that enables us to continue producing shows.
.
SUBSCRIBE LINKS
Subscribe on Google Play Music
Like and Follow us on Facebook
Subscribe to Binkley’s Youtube Channel
https://www.paypal.me/BradBinkley
https://www.patreon.com/propagandareport
https://twitter.com/freedomactradio
I’m thinking that those mystery texts provide the requisite ambiguity for plausible deniability of when a text was sent. Could come in handy at some point. (ex. “Well, before he died he sent me a text that said……but I’m just receiving it now…”)
Great point. Text messages as evidence in court has popped up in the news more and more, specifically in those cases where one person encouraged another to commit suicide. Don’t know that this could impact cases like that, but could definitely see it muddying the waters in other types of cases. Although I’m sure there’s a way it could factor into those suicide cases as well.
Just my opinion—but I have real problems with the concept of being found guilty of driving a person to suicide. Leaving that to the side for a moment, [serious question] I wonder if a strategically-placed “lol” could have gotten these people off?
The reason it’s a serious question is that when we’re dealing with text messages as evidence (not referring specifically to suicide cases), we have to make certain ASSUMPTIONS about context (as do the actual recipients). Among other aspects, can sarcasm be proved or disproved in a text by a jury of peers without first-hand knowledge of the entire context of the relationship between the sender/recipient? What if part of the conversation was in person which established the context and the texts were somewhat nuanced within that context (unknown to 3rd parties who only read the text exchange)?
LOL won’t save you …just ask Justin Carter…they only finally after many years resolved the case after the Parkland shooting because this case would have given the lie to the story that the parkland kid was flagged dozens of times but the law’s hands were tied https://www.businessinsider.com/teen-justin-carter-faces-trial-and-jail-for-facebook-comment-2013-7