Her credibility has been long in question. In fact, she wasn't even deposed properly as a witness. Benjamin Crump essentially interviewed her outside of legal laws, and reported it as evidence himself as if he was a legally sanctioned investigator. This is the whole reason why omara wanted to depose crump as a witness, to see if there were any inconsistencies between what she says and what he said she said.     It was also proven that crump was essentially leading her in her testimony, by offering up statements then having her agree with them. He did this so he can then claim attorney client privilege while he trained her what to say. It also gave him a chance to hide things she said that he wanted to remove, which again is proven because the conversation he recorded with her is cut up and spliced. Crump didn't even admit this until O'mara dug further. Hell, the fact that Crump is trying to represent both a witness and the Trayvon family, is illegal enough as it is since it's a conflict of interest.     In her voice testimony, you can clearly tell she has an IQ below 70 and her testimony actually confirms Zimmermans story, while lending nothing to the Trayvons. She didn't even hear much in the first place, but she did hear the part where Zimmerman was yelling for help.     The prosecution knows she's a dud as a witness. Hell, the prosecution is only continuing with prosecuting, to save their own asses from criminal charges.    See, if a prosecutor knows they have no legal grounds to continue with a case, they must drop it. Based on the motion the prosecution used to file charges against Zimmerman, they didn't have any cause to continue with the case. By continuing the case, they are exercising malice against the defendant.     There's also dozens of other things pertaining to motions filed in the case that show prosecutor malice, down to the way they've handled discovery processes, and even tampering with and hiding evidence from the defense.     Who knows what they would have gotten away with if Judge  (mo) Lester was still on the case. That was probably their ace in the hole before he got booted. Lester was either bought or threatened into trying everything he could to damage Zimmermans credibility and to hinder the defense. With him in the Trayvons pocket, the case would have been a slam dunk for them because he would have allowed the prosecution to get away with things they otherwise wouldn't of been able to. Now the prosecution is just squirming. One thing is for sure, there is absolutely no legal precedence for the actions taken by the prosecution, they're almost entirely operating outside of actual law.    We have Zimmermans phone GPS....but Trayvons phone GPS was mysteriously deleted. Files given to the defense by the prosecution differed from files turned in by investigators, to the point where things crucial to the case were left out, and it's easy to see they were deliberately left out to hide facts and help the prosecutions case, which is again, a clear demonstration of bias and malice.     Even Trayvons internet accounts were mostly scrubbed; youtube, twitter, facebook......all of them. BUT many people did save most of this stuff before the had a chance to, such as Trayvons fight club wanna-be videos and other disgusting comments he made that reveal the content of his character. But they want to make it seem like they're hurting a victim by releasing this 'irrelevant' information. That's how the black community want it, so you can't judge them on the content of their character. If we can't judge people by the way they carry themselves, the way they talk, what they say, how they dress, and their actions......then how the hell do we judge them at all? We can't. Yet that's exactly what the Trayvons are arguing for, for the content of their sons character to be left entirely out. They only want you to see the picture they painted of him.     We have to remember that the prosecution works for the state, not some private entity. This means they have rules to follow and can't continue with cases that have no legal basis based on the evidence. If a prosecutor continues with a case they know they have no legal grounds to proceed with, they are acting with prejudice and malice, and open themselves to criminal charges.    The misconduct is soo ripe with Crump and Corey, that they have to keep trying to win otherwise their careers are in jeopardy, along with the risk of steep criminal felony charges that would result in lengthy prison sentences.....their whole lives would be ruined to the point to where they couldn't even get a job at Mcdonalds when they got out of prison, and rightly so.      Zimmerman just the other day, waived the stand your ground hearing that could have dismissed charges altogether. It was a smart move for O'mara, because now the prosecution will be forced to present and argue all the evidence before the court and a jury. This means if they really need to, they can later use the stand your ground defense as a waiver to prosecution.     See, they're only gonna get one chance to argue stand your ground as a defense, and it's better to do it after all the facts of the case are presented and argued, so that the judge can have a full picture before deciding on using stand your ground to dismiss the case. Normally this would be done before trial, but the prosecution has tried its hardest to keep the defense from being prepared. They essentially want to hide all the damning evidence from the court and defense so that O'mara is put on the spot when they try to twist it in their favor. They don't want him to be prepared for anything the prosecution seeks to use. This is why the discovery process is soo slow. It took literally 6 months for the prosecution to turn over stuff to the defense, stuff they had the entire time. As I said above, it was proven that they gave altered files and deliberately left out information investigators had obtained and turned in. The prosecution probably **** their pants when they hard Zimmerman was waiving the stand your ground hearing.    O'mara knows that he has strong enough evidence and witness testimony that even if a jury voted guilty out of bias, the judge would be forced to throw out the juries verdict. But even a biased jury would be hard pressed to stay biased in the face of such overwhelming evidence.