I think some people are in for a surprise Re: Zimmerman.

[anomiep]

99. I don't think the state has actually done so

I have been watching the trial daily. There are portions that I missed, of course, but I caught the majority of it, and I'm listening to the prosecution close right now.

I don't feel the prosecution has adequately shown that it wasn't self defense. To be clear - I do *not* think that means it has been proven that it was self defense. It is entirely *possible* that Zimmerman started the fight, etc. I don't think they've proven it, and I think that they at portions in the trial basically resorted to defense-like argument of 'it's also consistent with it happening this other way, right?" shows that.

I hope that the verdict comes back in line with reality, whether that's 'not guilty' or 'guilty'. (In other words, I hope that the verdict aligns with what actually happened, given that I don't think it's necessarily sufficiently proven one way or the other) - but with respect to what the state has actually proven, I don't think they've shown anything that is materially inconsistent with Zimmerman's story. Lawyers advise people not to do what Zimmerman did (make statements, be interviewed, etc) precisely because prosecuting attorneys will try to claim that small inconsistencies that you should actually *expect* from someone who is telling the truth (telling a story with too much consistency can be an indicator of a rehearsed story) are evidence of some huge deception.

I mean, right now, the prosecutor just argued that the fact that he knew the street at the time of a walkthrough means that he was lying about not knowing the street at the time of the event. Well, of course that could happen - the walkthrough was long after the event. He may well be lying about not knowing the name of the street - but what the prosecution just argued is not actually evidence of a lie.