Nothing is missing. I question the investigation’s thoroughness because there is no evidence that has come to light which supports Zimmerman’s claim he was attacked by the 17 year old unprovoked. A bloody nose and a kid lying dead are hardly evidence the kid started the incident. Unless people believe that someone who possibly initiates a confrontation, and then is on the losing end of the proposition, may then use a firearm to kill the person they are losing to and justify it by claiming self-defense? I want to know the facts of what actually happened before the fight and before the shooting. I don’t understand why that is seen as inappropriate to know.
Ah, I see. The problem is that it need not be proven that he was attacked unprovoked by Martin, because he does not need to be exonerated. Rather, the opposite is true - there must be probable cause that that Zimmerman attacked first to establish this.
The mere fact that it is unknown who attacked first does not establish probable cause for an arrest of Zimmerman.