General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: There is not one shred of evidence Zimmerman was defending himself [View all]Whiskeytide
(4,657 posts)The defense doesn't have to "prove" anything. They just have to muddy the waters with some doubt. The prosecution bears the burden of proof, and they must prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt". Its not supposed to be easy to put someone in prison, and our system is designed to give the accused the benefit of the doubt in almost every phase of the process.
What you have stated in the OP is a good analysis of how the defense may not be able to prove their theories, or at least an observation of the holes in their theories. But that doesn't matter if the prosecution doesn't meet their burden in the first instance, and there are holes in their theories as well. There is not a lot of solid evidence here either way, to be honest, and that means you have to speculate some to reach conclusions of guilt or innocence. Anytime speculation is part of the jury's decision making process, the prosecution is in trouble.
Someone up-thread stated that people here need to be prepared for a not guilty verdict. I suspect they are correct.