Which of course is an untrue statement and irrelevant.
Why you wish to inform us of the obvious, that you were born, is relevant.
There was no call for your comments.
You get in return what you give.
Herein lies part of your problem.
Cases are examined on the evidence. Zimmerman's claims are some of that evidence. When you have nothing left to go on, or anything that contradicts that evidence, that is what you are left with.
If you can not refute what that evidence says with other evidence, it stands as the only evidence.
Secondly you consider things like his account of what happen in relevance to, and in light of, the other evidence.
Or in other words, the evidence in toto.
Which his account is consistent with, the rest of the evidence.
On top of that you have the following being said after the "Procedural Capias" was signed by him so the Prosecutor could take over the investigation.
... Serino said his investigation
turned up no reliable evidence that cast doubt on Zimmerman's account – that he had acted in self-defense.
"The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says
the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event," Serino told the Sentinel
March 16. "Everything I have is adding up to what he says."
Trayvon Martin George Zimmerman: Orlando Sentinel
Is being the accused a reason to distrust and more closely examine his account.
Sure, that is a reasonable thing.
Do you think the police know that? Of course they do.
Which is one of the reasons interrogation/interviews are designed break down an interviewee and extract information pointing to one's guilt.
And under such scrutiny, his account adds up. See the detectives above statement.
Just being the accused can be rehabilitated by the circumstances surrounding the account, such as Zimmerman's is.
eg.
He cooperated and continued to cooperate from the start, especially when he didn't need to.
Voluntarily participated and withstood hours of adversarial interviews.
Passed lie detect efforts twice.
He didn't know how many witnessed, or what they saw, yet his account is consistent with theirs. You would not get that if he was lying. Especially after withstanding the hours of adversarial questioning.
The physical evidence is consistent with his account.
Of course he is believable. His account withstands scrutiny.
But you, because of some irrational bias, can't see that.
Irrationality is irrationality.
His account stood up to scrutiny.
Then we have the introduction of DD.
Not just her lies, but the circumstances surrounding her account make her account far more questionable then Zimmerman's.
Hell, even her testimony is questionable with her "you want that too" statement.
Her account, although being mostly consistent with Zimmerman's, was later added to. A little "get off" she says she heard. which she attributes to
™. Which is actually amazing considering the evidence as known.
From what we know, everything adds up to what Zimmerman said happened. The decedent was the primary aggressor.
Even she says
™ confronted Zimmerman first.
But she then later adds in, after the fact, this little "get off", attributing it to
™.
Yet we now know she is a liar. And that she participated in that purposeful deception when there was no apparent reason for it.
What is the motivation behind that and Crump's further lies about her, we most likely will never know, but her account is tainted by it.
Her account is questionable and has yet to be rehabilitated. Which is highly unlikely it could be, which is actually strange that no one has tried.
We already know from the evidence that Zimmerman was immediately struck and knocked down, stumbling a little distance as he fell.
With
™ following and jumping on-top of him.
We already know from the evidence that witnesses place Zimmerman on the bottom.
And we already know that Zimmerman got on top of Trayvon after he was shot (as witnessed).
And we know from common sense that the person being attacked or on the bottom would be yelling for help or saying get off.
Her saying
™ said "get off" isn't consistent with the known evidence.
So if she isn't lying again and really heard a "get off", as Zimmerman would already have been knocked down, it would have been Zimmerman telling
™ to get off.
I would say you need to examine the evidence individually, and comparatively.
You know, in toto.
