There is, however, some physical evidence. GZ is the only one with injuries. He had a broken nose, possible concussion, multiple hematomas, abrasions and excessive bleeding from his head and face. Martin had some knuckle scratches. What does that physical evidence tell you?
The only possibility is the arriving officers who took a picture of both men on the ground. Where GZ was laying vs location of his SUV and TM girlfriend’s father’s condo may give a clue on who is telling the truth. Jentel’s testimony said that TM per cellphone conversation said he was being followed by GZ. Despite her clumsy performance, GZ attorney could not shake her story. What happen after that, only GZ version is available, because TM is dead and no other witness saw otherwise. Now it is all down to forensic. Location of the two men, the SUV and TM girlfriend’s father’s condo unit.
I guess you are not following the trial, and have never read anything about it. Martin had enough time to get back to the home where he was staying, even at a slow walk, before Zimmerman ever got off the phone with police. Jeantel's testimony indicates that he did get there. Yet the fight occurred steps away from Zimmerman's car.
Of all the possibilities for what might have happened, Martin fleeing in fear is simply not one of them. It is, in fact, patently ludicrous. And not a single witness has materially contradicted Zimmerman's account of events.
I think TM was on top of GZ beating the daylights out of him and GZ had to use his gun to shoot TM. That is established by witness and injuries. Problem for GZ is what lead up to that fight and shooting.
It is like two guys in a bar fight. The CCW guy started an argument with another patron that resulted in a fight. During the fight the second guy grabs the CCW guy by the throat and start to choke him. Unable to break the hold and starting to get dizzy, the CCW guy pulls his gun and shots the attacker. Yes his life was in danger, but he is still liable for manslaughter because he started the fight.
GZ followed TM. Question for jury, did GZ action started a chain of events that lead to a confrontation, fight and shooting. Even if the shooting is defined as self defense, problem for GZ is if the jury concludes that following TM is the initiating event, GZ can be found liable for manslaughter just like the CCW guy in the bar illustration.
Same bar scenario. If CCW notice that the argument he started with the second guy is starting to get physical. If the CCW guy tells the other guy that he wants no trouble and starts to leave the bar. The other offended guy follows him to the parking lot and tackles him and then chokes him, the CCW fearing for his life shoots the attacker. He is not liable for manslaughter.
GZ claims he stopped following TM and was returning to his SUV when TM came up and ask him if he had a problem. GZ claims he responded no, and TM declares, yes you do and attacked him. If GZ version is the truth, since TM followed after GZ and confronted him before attacking, then GZ is not liable for manslaughter.
The next group of witness is forensic who will illustrate the crime scene with 3d computer graphics that will show GZ SUV location, location of where the cops found the two men laying in the grass, and the condo unit TM was trying to get to. Hopefully the locations will provide a clue to what happen that night.
I will say this once and say it again, when GZ decided to follow TM to find out where he went after the 911 operator told him it was not necessary he enter a legal no man’s land and gave the DA a scant reason to prosecute. That is something one never wants to have happen. One misstep and you can end up in jail or you can win but financially ruined.