It isn’t “proof that it did.” But the prosecution has to prove its case. If they don’t have evidence that confirms their assertions, then they can’t prove it. That means “not guilty” (not the same thing as “innocent”).
Remember the Casey Anthony case. She was likely guilty as sin, and the defense was able to posit a number of ridiculous theories as to what happened. The prosecution did not make their case; they didn’t have the evidence. So she walked.
Here, they’re asserting “facts” that there is zero evidence of. Good luck with that.
I am fully aware of the legal threshold...i have written often that z should not have been arrested based on what we know. My point is a simple one...because we do not know, we can not state as fact that martin turned and attacked. To many freepers this scenario, which is just one of many possibilities, is the indisputable truth.