This is a classic "reasonable doubt" tactic - lawyers do it all the time. The prosecution is simply throwing out a whole bunch of implausible speculations in the hope that the collection of ideas as a whole might seem plausible. The total package of evidence clearly proves that George Zimmerman lawfully defended himself, and the prosecution is trying to introduce some doubt into that conclusion. Fortunately for Obama's side, federal pressure has flipped the trial, and Zimmerman's side is required to prove innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
And isn’t that demonstrable of what is wrong in this prosecution?
He is making reasonable doubt arguments.