“Sorry but all you state is evidence that there was a fight and that Zimmerman was losing”
I’m sorry if you’re not aware that analysis of wounds can be used to suggest which party was the attacker and which defended themselves, and that this is considered evidence. But that’s the case, and if Zimmerman was the attacker you would expect to see different wounds on himself and Martin. The eye witness testimony is less robust, but it does show that at some point Martin was on top of Zimmerman, as Zimmerman said, and that at some point Martin turned into the aggressor if he wasn’t to begin with.
If Zimmerman was losing a fight he started, as you and Zimmerman agree he eventually was, he would have to have been losing from the very beginning. As in, he didn’t get in any blows, or any blows of great consequence, at all. Which is possible, but again, we’re only looking for evidence that Martin started it, not absolute proof.
You are correct to assert nothing proves beyond a reasonable doubt Martin was the attacker. But I’m not seeking to do so, and all you asked for was evidence Martin was the attacker. Well, there you go.
__________________________________
Please show where, in law, a suggestion is evidence.
The point is a simple one. There are many freepers swearing that Martin attacked Zimmerman and getting truly upset when asked for proof. Regardless of how upset they get, none can provide proof beyond 'suggestions'.