But Rachel was so flawed. How come the defense didn’t tear into her mumbling inconsistencies? Rachel was functionally illiterate and couldn’t have texted squat to anybody. Surely a lawyer could see that she was being led by the prosecutors and Crump, in the deposition if not the oral testimony in court. Why no objections to make her clean up her perjury?
Her inconsistencies, IMHO, were a large part of what swayed to jurors to acquit.
The defense attorneys did not need to do more, and they always were at risk of appearing to attack an obviously struggling "witness".
There is video of Rachel, attempting to confess her role to prosecution interviewers.
The interviewers would not listen.
Remember the whole establishment was invested in finding Zimmerman guilty, mostly because of fear of the Media and of being called "racist".
Joel shows, with his investigation and evidence, the conspiracy and the willingness to lie to the court.