in GZ's story his credibility will be nil. Add to that the evidence that only he was an actor that night, only he wrongly identified a criminal, called 911, expressed frustration that the a$%holes always get away, followed said a$%hole despite being told not to and then confronted him as shown by the gf's call where he pops up again surprising TM.
No way would this prosecutor with her conviction record bring this case if she wasn't confident the evidence tells the story many of us here see clearly, that of an over-vigligant vigalante who sees a black boy walking, instantaneously decides he is suspicious, up to no good and on drugs (for good measure). In GZ's mind TM is always the criminal he decided he was. He was going to apprehend and detain him and be a big hero. This one was not going to get away. Not until after he shoots and kills him does he discover he doesn't have a weapon or proceeds of a robbery so then he needs this story that TM confronted him and, for no earthly reason and despite no history or propensity toward violence, decides to attempt to kill this stranger. Does not compute.
The standard of proof is not "absolutely had to happen this way" it's beyond a reasonable doubt. To me, it's beyond almost any doubt that GZ was the cause of every effect that occurred. He was wrong about everything and proceeded on that wrong assumption until he caused a wrongful death over it. Once it's established that it was TM screaming for his life and GZ aiming the gun at him and shooting while TM is doing nothing but pleading, I think that should about do it.
Reasonable poeple can easily conclude that what GZ did at every step was further and further from reasonable. I know it's not illegal to follow someone. But if you call 911 on them and then follow them with a gun because you've already decided they were a criminal a reasonable person will assume you mean to do something when you find them, especially when you have already expressed your angst over these a&^holes getting away. This is simple logic here and I think most people will stop "following" GZ's series of actions once he gets out of his truck with his gun. Most people will say, OK he called 911 even though there wasn't actually anything suspicious about this person but he's super sensitive or whatever so he called and police were on the way and so all he had to do was wait for them to show up and find out TM was staying there. Or, he could have asked TM himself while he was on the phone with 911 and TM was walking by his car. Gee, now that would have been reasonable for an armed adult neighborhood watchman type guy, ask the kid who he is, if he's lost, needs help etc.
GZ decided at every turn to act less and less reasonably and by the time he exits his car with a weapon he has, to many reasonable people, decided to apprehend and detain the person he has followed as that person is a criminal and the rest have gotten away. Even when you're engaged in lawful activity you are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of those acts. However, detaining a person is not legal if you're not a real cop. Now, everyone can say we don't really know what happened. But I think the lack of real injury which GZ came up with when he needed a self defense story rather than a capturing a criminal story will undo him. He was not injured in any serious way AND his stories conflict and also make it impossible that he was the last one screaming on the 911 tape as his story is that at that point TM has his mouth and nose covered and he was swallowing blood and couldn't breathe. Two experts and both parents have said it was Trayvon screaming for his life. I say thank you for that tape as I think it will ultimately be the kind of proof that anyone can understand, people with life experience can hear that and know it's not a person screaming in pain from a fight, it's a primal scream, the kind of scream that occurs when a young boy sees a gun pointed at him and knows this crazy guy is going to pull the trigger and kill him-which he did and that's when the screaming ended, suddenly and forever.
Again, you don't even need a story for this. You just need to "poke holes" in the opposing side's story. A *huge* hole in the "fact" that Zimmerman confronted Martin is that there's no proof, that we've seen, that it absolutely had to happen this way. To combine that with Detective Gilbreath stating, on the stand (bail hearing), that he has no evidence to say that Zimmerman confronted or attacked Martin, is huge. How do you come to a conclusion with no evidence to support it? How can you ask a jury to accept a conclusion based on no evidence?
