Direct evidence for some elements of the alleged crime, but no direct evidence of who escalated the conflict into the range of lethal threat, which goes to both the depraved mind element and the self-defense argument. The jury will be instructed that they cannot convict on murder 2 without each required element being proven beyond reasonable doubt, and I don’t think the state has what it needs to get there, whether directly, circumstantially, or otherwise, based on Gilbraith’s admission.
However, a hole in the evidence of this kind actually serves the race baiters well. GZ will probably walk, but the troublemakers will, due to the lack of direct evidence on escalation, be able to project their racial stereotyping onto that blank screen. Those who would use this kind of event for political gain could care less about the fate of one or two individuals and their families. They only care about how they can leverage this into advancing their legislative and social agendas. They probably troll for cases like this on purpose; the greater the perceived injustice the better. Other, similar cases would be uninteresting to them if direct evidence precluded their ability to invoke the spirit of racial hatred from the haze of ambiguity.
There are some things are critical to the case. A prosecutor must be able to establish the elements of the crime so a jury can convict beyond a reasonable doubt. And thus far, I have not read anything that convinces me that there is any hope of a conviction. Who escalated the conflict is a matter of utmost gravity. In a just society, Zimmerman would have not been arrested and he would not have been in a position to necessitate him posting bail.