I'm simply trying to demonstrate the spin the prosecution will try and put on the facts, given the chance.

The prosecution also tried to use the defendant's Vietnam records as indication that these were violent people.

The prosecution did not try to prove that the three defendants had been among those who attacked the couple.

They said the prosecution was trying to "torture" evidence to fit their theory of the crime.

By bringing up a series of mistakes, the prosecution was apparently trying to head off the expected challenge from the defense.

But the prosecution did not try him for robbery.

The prosecution tried to prove there was something wrong with him and they couldn't.

The prosecution is trying to present a square peg and put it in a round hole.

The prosecution has tried to portray the attack as racially motivated.

And I think that's exactly what the prosecution in this case is trying to prevent.