So in arguing for an acquittal from the judge it is customary for the defense to outright LIE over

[Honeycombe8]

17. That would be AFTER the initial interaction.

What she said first (as I recall) is that TM said a creepy ass cracker is following me. He then referred to GZ using the N word (for some reason). She then heard wind, so that she knew he was walking. Then he said "What's your problem?" or "Why are you following me?"

She also said the noise wasn't wind, but was the sound of Martin rolling in the wet grass. Lawyer asked her what rolling in wet grass sounds like. Then she said it may have been the wind, or something like that.

She also told TM family's lawyer that she was 16 (she's 19), to keep her name out of the papers. She's a major witness in a murder, and she intentionally lies about herself to the family's lawyer.

Then she says she heard TM say "get off get off." But she had not said that before in her accounts.

And even so, it doesn't mean that TM didn't hit first. She wasn't there and didn't see. She wasn't a very good witness, IMO. She changed her story in important ways and lied to the victim's own family's lawyer. She also acted oddly about her role at trial, posting things on the internet, like pics of her "court nails."