There seems to be a lot of trouble understanding how speculation can be used as a tool. First off, speculation is not immunity from scrutiny. You can't just put forth a speculation and expect it to be unchallenged. Secondly, factual conclusions cannot be drawn from speculation. We can agree or disagree on likelyhoods and we can discuss how things are or aren't always what they seem but we cannot speculate x, add it to y and factually conclude Z.
So far, the way I see it and I don't think I am alone: We have George Zimmerman on the phone, reporting Trayvon's movements. GZ gets out of the truck, admits to following him on the phone, and then says okay when he is told that it was not necessary. From that point we can speculate that he is honest that he was looking at addresses and not following TM or that he was dishonest, but neither speculation holds much weight, in the grand scheme because we don't know.
Then we have the altercation. We have GZ's version; Trayvon approached him, hit him, climbed on top of him, and beat his head against the ground. We have one eye witness that can identify who was on top and who was on bottom, and who was hitting who. We have one eye witness that, from a distance, saw one person on top of another but cannot identify who was hitting who. We have another witness who did not see the altercation but claims that since she didn't hear a fight, the fight didn't happen. Finally we have a phone witness who heard an altercation begin, but can't say with any reasonable certainty, who started it. In all honesty, which witness is the most reliable? We can reasonably conclude that an altercation took place.
None of those witnesses can say who actually started the fight. That is where speculation comes in. "I think GZ started because x," "I think TM started it because X," or "I don't know who started it."
Then we have the moments after the shot was fired. Him having any wounds at all was certainly open to questioning, until the photos were released. The first videos, I can certainly understand the doubt. I can see how so many concluded that there was no major altercation because look at the police station videos. The mood quickly changed to, look, no wounds, GZ was lying. What broken nose? No marks on his face! Some people remained a little questionable, at this point. "Look, those are not exactly high quality videos so details are most definitely getting scrubed out." Wouldn't you know it, weeks later pictures of the back of GZ's head, moments after the fight emerge and there it was, blood dripping down the back of his head from wounds that were not visible in the low quality video. Police pictures, that everyone was so sure were never taken because they didn't get released, show a cut on his nose and some scratches on his face.
Now we have some room for more speculation. We don't know exactly what GZ's sworn statements claim but we have bits and pieces that suggest he was punched in the face, TM climbed on top of him, hit his head against the ground, and attempted to cover his mouth. You can't really tell from the pictures, if that's dried blood or scratches next to his beard and over by his ears, but if they are, that would be wounds consistent with the struggle he allegedly described. That is speculation. He has wounds on his nose that are consistent with a punch to the nose and wounds on the back of his head that are consistent with getting you head hit on a hard surface. So if X is true (x being the specific claimes of the assault) then y is true (Y being Trayvon Martin was assaulting Zimmerman). Room for debate is the severity of the assault and if the wounds are consistent. What is not open to debate, anymore, are the existence of wounds.
So evidence for GZ is corroborating eyewitness accounts; wounds that could be consistent the the assault we think he claimed, took place (very shakey at this point but can be clarified and moved accordingly, with the release of his statements), gunshot forensics consistent with his claim, according to the police; grass on the back of his clothes consistent with his claim, an eyewitness who claims he saw GZ on the bottom, calling for help, and the timeline starting from a rough guestimate of when the actual altercation started to the gunshot consistent with GZ's alleged story.
Problematic for either side is the timeline between when the police call ended and the beginning of the altercation, which, with the release of his statements can be clarified as either supporting his story or negating his story. At this point it's only useful in saying we have unanswered questions.
Now we have the evidence against Zimmerman. Two experts, using two different techniques claiming that it was not Zimmerman's voice. The first expert, I don't know there has been room for doubt. The second expert sounds like a bit of a quack. Then we have the FBI's technique that didn't appear to draw any reliable conclusion. There is room for debate.
We have the DA's claim that GZ's stories were inconsistent. Because we've seen none of the stories, I choose to withhold judgement. That doesn't mean I feel that the DA is lying or that the evidence is insufficient. I am saying that I would like to see the inconsistencies myself, before I decide if there is enough of a variation to call GZ a liar or if the variations are simple and honest variations that occur as time passes between the event and recollection of the event. Telling me that the prosecutor says so, so it must be true has been bunked by prosecutors in the past, going forward with cases on really bad evidence. That does not nullify the evidence in this case, it just makes me reluctant to jump on that bandwagon.
We have the girlfriend. I can't discount her story, completely, because of the events surrounding the release of her story, for the same reason I can't discount GZ's statements because of the circumstances around his story. Both need to be looked at with more scrutiny.
If I am missing evidence, feel free to add it on and I am more than willing to discuss. However, at this point, if I were sitting in a jury box, I don't know if I would even be able to vote yes on manslaughter, forget about Murder 2. My position is not solid. I've made no claims of innocence, I just feel that at this point there is not enough to vote guilty. If you choose to read that as pro Zimmerman, it is a fault in your logic, not mine.
