[wtc911]

Sorry but all you state is evidence that there was a fight and that Zimmerman was losing. If you have actual evidence that Martin started the fight then please post it.

As for Zimmerman's statement...I don't believe it any more than I would have believed Martin's statement had he ended up the one still living. It is self-serving and, without any neutral corroborating statements, should be seen as such.

[ExTxMarine]

As for Zimmerman's statement...I don't believe it...

So you believe some of Zimmerman's statement(s), but not all of them. All of his statements are self-supporting, but let's ignore the FACT that the evidence supports his statements. All of Zimmerman's wounds would be consistent with being sucker punched and attacked.

Your suggestion that this could have also occurred had Zimmerman already brandished his weapon is simply preposterous. So, Zimmerman is brandishing or simply showing that he is armed, you speculate that Martin is going to punch him and then start punching and beating his head on the ground (eye witness testimony), INSTEAD of going directly for the weapon in a effort to disarm him? That is completely devoid of any kind of reality!

[Tublecane]

“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.

[Tublecane]

“As for Zimmerman’s statement...I don’t believe it any more than I would have believed Martin’s statement had he ended up the one still living. It is self-serving and, without any neutral corroborating statements, should be seen as such”

Ah, but you must know, I’m sure, the way these things are used is to test them against the evidence. If the defendant’s comments and testimony don’t jive with the evidence it doesn’t automatically mean he’s guilty, nor does it mean he’s innocent if they do. But his statements lining up with the evidence can in itself be treated as evidence of his innocence. And I’m not aware of one instance in which Zimmerman’s account of events is contradicted by the police report, the 9-11 tape, the medical evidence, eye witness testimony, etc.

Of course, one reason his story isn’t contradicted by what we know of who started the fight is that we don’t have any direct, inarguable evidence of who started it. But that doesn’t mean his statements fitting with the known evidence isn’t itself evidence.