“There you go again...please provide proof that Martin attacked Zimmerman.”
According to how our legal system works Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty, and no one has to prove Martin attacked him, just provide reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started it. It appears as if the prosecution has no evidence that Zimmerman did so, and probably won’t even try to, arguing merely that Zimmerman precipitated conflict by doing things that aren’t illegal and don’t allow anyone to use self defense against you: eg. following Martin, confronting Martin, and getting out of his truck.
That being said, there is evidence that Martin was the attacker. First, the medical reports and pictures that show Zimmerman’s wounds, Martin’s lack of wounds except to the knuckles and the bullet wound. Also, eye witness testimony that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. Furthermore, a certain interpretation of the 9-11 tape that has Zimmerman losing Martin and presumably on his way back to the truck shortly before the fight.
Finally, there’s Zimmerman’s story. Take that as you will.
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.