There is not one shred of evidence Zimmerman was defending himself

[wercal]

55. There is alot of conflicting evidence in this case

So people are tending to believe the evidence they like, and discount the rest.

Standing back and looking at what the jury has seen so far:

1. John Reed's testimony that the guy in red was on bottom, and screaming

2. The voice analyst's statement that the screams were definitely distorted, because the person screaming was in fear for his life...and it is not possible to fake this type of distortion.

3. Bloody nose and cuts on head

I understand that other witnesses have said conflicting things....but looking at that information, ask yourself - will the jury be confident enough to vote to convict? In order to convict, the jury would have to believe that Zimmerman started the confrontation...but the only evidence of that so far is Ms Jeantel's testimony...but you may have noticed that West got her to admit (without much protest), that she has lied in the past - lied to MArtins about her age, lied to Crump about her age, and lied to Martins about being in hospital. Is her testimony alone enough to establish that Zimmerman started the fight?

And it doesn't really matter if Zimmerman followed him. Zimmerman is a weirdo, who doesn't understand social conventions, especially when dealing with complete strangers. I know the type....I've got him pegged. We had a guy like that in my town...and he was brutally murdered by homeless people. But guess what? The trio that killed him were tried and convicted. Because you can't just deal with weirdos with violence. All the following and phone calls and weird actions leading up to the confrontation don't really matter. What matters is who made it violent.

Zimmerman has claimed that Martin dealt with him with violence...and so far there is very little evidence to the contrary. We will never know exactly what happened...and that favors Zimmerman.