The prosecution is going to have to massage the testimony of the girlfriend-on-the-cell-phone like it was a lump of pizza dough.
It’s all they’ve got. Unless they’ve caught Zimmerman in serious inconsistencies in his statements to police.
The testimony of the mother as to the voice crying for help will be contradicted by Zimmerman’s family and friends, who will say it was him. So the prosecution is not going to be able to get past reasonable doubt as to the identity of the person crying for help.
So it will all come down to the girlfriend, and trying like heck to discredit the eyewitness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.
>> So it will all come down to the girlfriend, and trying like heck to discredit the eyewitness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.
Which brings up a question:
A prosecutor’s job is not to win a conviction at all costs, but rather to *uncover the truth* — whatever that may turn out to be. For example, this is why a prosecutor is legally (as well as morally) bound to turn over evidence it uncovers that would exculpate the accused.
Therefore, why would the prosecution even *attempt* to discredit an eyewitness?
(Not that I doubt that they *will* try.)
Taking this line of reasoning one step further, Corey’s fawning all over Trayvon and his family was unprofessional to the Nth degree.
[[The testimony of the mother as to the voice crying for help will be contradicted by Zimmerman’s family and friends]]
It will also contradict hte father’s testimony that the voice was definately not hisw son’s voice