EXACTLY my point.....which has me flabbergasted.THAT part I totally don't understand. it's like they've come to trial with no real case. Their witnesses are either backing up zimmerman's story, not really that relevant, or totally not credible. They don't have any hard evidence, and they seem to be building some weird circumstantial evidence. I don't get it.
How could such a HIGH STAKES case look so completely lopsided?
The kind of stuff doesn't even happen in the movies......lol