You are literally taking these things to extremes.
Memory studies are not proof of anything. You can never be sure. Some people have good memories some people have bad ones. Just like with most everything there is a bell curve.
We do know that, according to Z, he is on the lower end of that bell curve when it comes to memory. But then again, we have proof that he is a liar and a conspirator from the jailhouse phone calls.
I say they are a wash.
So, in light of that, and the size of the change in his story, and the clear motive for the change, I am going to have to err on the side of the he is trying to make his story show him in the best light as possible.
That's not to say that someone who truly used self defense wouldn't do the same as well.
There's just no way to know at this point if he is innocent or not.
I am not deciding innocence. I am saying if we have variations (some rather stark variations) in witness testimony, and we have stark variations in Zimmerman's testimony; where we can attribute memory in one, it must be admitted that memory is certainly possible in the other.
What I am confronting; Zimmerman is lying, how can anyone not know the name of the street?
Well, he certainly had trouble over the phone. Was that an elaborate setup, so he can later claim he didn't know or is it entirely possible that this guy really, really blows when it comes to directions?
His story has changed so he must be lying.
In the 911 call, "Are you following him?"
"yeah..."
In his initial interview, he states that he got out to get definitive address and to see what direction Trayvon ran, coincidentally, a moment after the operator asked him which direction he ran (which, IMHO, makes that claim plausible).
Now back to the 29th interview, he said, "once he said not to follow him, and I wasn't following him..." he emphasises following. "...I was just going in the same direction he was, once he said..." and then Serino cuts him off, then he says, "I thought he was long gone." Singleton says, at this point, the other day, you didn't tell me that you got out right after you said he was running. When I asked you if you looked for him, you told me no. In the first interview, she did not ask him that, directly, he did say he got out to get an address and to see which direction Trayvon ran. Then, he says that dispatcher asked, "where are you?" and he told dispatcher, "I am trying to find out where he went." In the second part of that interview, he says a shorter version of the same thing, the dispatcher asked him if he was following him, and he replied that he didn't know where he was at.
Lastly, if he lied once.... I think it is perfectly fair to lack trust in his statements. I think it's bunk to say well he lied once, so everything must be a lie. There is a difference in seeing where things are lining up and assuming he is telling the truth.
