There is NOTHING the prosecution could have done to secure an honest conviction. NOTHING. George Zimmerman was factually innocent. No honest legal strategy can overcome that fact.
Let me back up a step. My original point was that statements to the police made by the defendant may generally not be introduced by the defense unless the defendant takes the stand, and the only way such statements are apt be introduced by the prosecutor is if either (1) they are unfavorable to the defendant, or (2) the prosecutor is failing to present its case as effectively as it could. Would that be a fair statement? The way in which George's statements were introduced in this case is unusual bordering on bizarre, and is decidedly not typical.
Would you agree that the job of prosecutors is to present the most effective case possible if they believe the defendant to be guilty, and refuse to present any case if they don't? That would imply that if prosecutors are going to bring a case, they should do so as effectively as they can. Can you offer any explanation for the prosecutors' behavior in this case other than incompetence or a lack of interest in actually winning? What could they have hoped to gain by introducing testimony about George's statements during the state's case? Even if the prosecution's goal was to hang the defendant on the slight inconsistencies among his statements, is there any reason to believe that would not have been more effective during a rebuttal phase?
Again, I am 100% aware that the facts of the case do not support a conviction. My question is whether there would be any reason for a competent prosecutor who believed that the facts did support a conviction would present a case in the manner this one was presented.