Correction. Far more contradictions versus consistency in comparison to what you THINK his recorded call is. You have already proven that you ASSUMED certain things should have been addressed/mentioned by him during his call, and his lack of having mentioned or said them out loud and on the phone means that they did not happen, and his thought did not occur. In addition to this, you then critique him over minor unimportant inconsistencies that are going to occur at any level of interrogation about a very short period of time, especially considering at the time he was on the phone, he had no reason to commit every movement he made to memory in the detail oriented way that you are expecting him to.
No. Im not entirely ignoring contradictions. I am saying they are minor and irrelevant and not even noteworthy. I am laughing at those who find it important to bring it up as if it means something, it doesn't mean anything. It is not important, contrary to what you seem to believe.
I didn't back the wrong horse. I am backing the "Innocent until proven guilty" horse. Not the "Innocent until suggested that he possibly, might be, not based on evidence but "what ifs", guilty.
I am also backing the horse of "self defense" with a lack of anyone who witnessed the incident.
I can't possibly imagine a scenario in that our courts should convict a man of 2nd degree murder without being able to prove with EVIDENCE that he killed another person with malice.
I can't possibly imagine a scenario that I would be okay with convicting a man of killing another person, with malice, when they are claiming that they defended their own life, and there was nobody there to testify to the crucial moments of the confrontation but themselves. I can't imagine a legal system that was assume someone was guilty because "well of course they are going to say that, we "know" he is lying, even though we have no basis to prove he was lying other than suggestion".
It is my opinion as a police officer, that the state be required to not only explain that this person committed a crime, but explain how that crime occurred via witness or expert testimony. NOT via "he has to be guilty because a kid is dead and of course he would lie!! doh!!"