""but there were key moments in the trial that appeared to undermine the prosecution's case for conviction. Here are five of them.""

Error! The prosecution never presented a case for conviction. They deliberately threw the fight by not exposing the holes in Zimmerman's story.

""But in a surprise, the investigator was asked by Zimmerman's lawyer whether he believed Zimmerman was telling the truth, and the cop answered, "Yes."   ""

Objection your honour. The question calls for a conclusion by the witness. No objection from the prosecution? Abysmal! Then they gave the jurors till the next day to think about it, before asking that it be stricken. Incompetent!

""Serino testified that when Martin's father, Tracy Martin, first heard the tape he said it was not Trayvon. "He looked away and under his breath said, 'No,'" Serino told the court.""

Which could conceivably be the sotto voce expression of a father's grief at hearing his dead son pleading for his life.

Given that Serino ddidn't want to prosecute Zimmerman, Hell! He didn't want to investigate him, he just wanrted to release him and forget the whole thing, just how much credence should have been given to pro Zimmerman testimony from this half baked imitation of a cop?

Also, what judge worthy of the name would permit such cavalier abuse of the rules of evidential admissibility to go unchallenged by the prosecution.

Mind you, the judge also has questions to answer about refusing the balance of admitting the two voice recognition experts, against the admission of the evidence of eight "friends" of Zimmerman.

This whole case and everyone involved in it stinks of a pre-judged outcome.

Don T.