Meanwhile, Your Lying Eyes points out that the prosecution's strong suit is that the police apparently didn't interview the girl on the phone with Trayvon before Lawyer Crump got to her, so in a trial her testimony will be well coached, with little in the way of a pre-Crump record of statements to contradict the talking points Crump wants her to emphasize. For all the media fantasizing about "sloppy police work," that might be the cops' biggest failing, which could well redound to the detriment of Zimmerman.
As I've mentioned several times before, it's hardly impossible that Dee Dee heard Martin refer to the unknown man using a racist or homophobic slur, and that, therefore, by current law, the physical encounter may have begun as a hate crime on the part of Martin. If so, Lawyer Crump, I would imagine, would have made sure to have had a talk or two with Dee Dee about how not to mention any of that under oath.
Some sci-fi questions on my part: How closely would cell phone records be able to determine the whereabouts of Zimmerman and Martin in the minutes leading up to the shooting? Cell phone systems keep track of which cell a phone is in, so would that be precise enough to evaluate the "stalk" versus "double-back" narratives? What about GPS options on phones?
How do we know the National Security Administration doesn't have a recording of the Trayvon-Dee Dee phone calls? Back in the 1990s, I used to occasionally read of French government and corporate officials complaining that the "Anglo-Saxons" were listening in on their calls as part of "Echelon." Being young and naive, I dismissed such allegations, but, evidently, I was wrong. How do we know the NSA doesn't have a record of most cell phone conversations? I've never heard that they do, but nobody seems terribly interested in the question.