I think the prosecution did their job. They presented the FACTS of the case for the jury to evaluate objectively. They did it with trying to badger witnesses or elicit responses other than their truthful facts or opinions.<quoted text>
You can bet she will deny it, even if just to keep racial harmony in Sanford, FL. But the prosecution side was weak, wimpy and assclowny, to say the least. They went out with a whimper too with that last one. That means it can only get better for Zim from here.
Do you think this is a "show trial" meant just to keep the peace? In other words that they looked and decided a trial was cheaper than race riots, so they went ahead with it knowing Zim would probably not get convicted.
It's damn hard to prove "wannabe cop syndrome". You can't read a person's mind. Whereas anyone can see that being jumped in the dark & beaten might result in serious injury or death. They were not able to unravel that version. In fact, they supported in with several witnesses.... prosecution witnesses! You can't "unring" that bell.
The defense routinely badgered, twisted and tried to get witnesses to say things did not say or mean.
I think the jury was able to see through the manipulations by the defense team. I know what people are saying and what they want to believe, but I think the prosecution did a far better job of presenting the facts of what happened, and that is what they are supposed to do. The defense looked much more desperate in their cross-examination tactics.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter what we think. It will be up to the six-woman jury and what they think and decide.