In the document thread here, at page 20, Serino discusses the photo pin.... I couldn't find any where that someone removed it and put it in his pocket - I do remember something about the pin being in Trayvon's pocket. Old mind..can't remember it all. http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/3 ... ts-ocr.pdf

DMS•10 PERSONAL EFFECTS
One (1) red "711/1 brand name lighter, photo button, bag of skittles, and headphones.
Located and collected from with in the victim's pockets.

"Absolute Irrefutable proof" is not the test for either side in a criminal case. For the state, it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ committed murder (or the lesser included manslaughter offense). That requires them to disprove GZ's self-defense theory.

There were no injuries on TM other than the gunshot besides a scrape on one finger. He does not display injuries of being physically confronted by GZ while GZ has injuries/marks/scrapes on the top, sides and back of his head, his face, and a broken nose to show he was physically attacked by TM.

As of now, no witness saw the onset of the altercation. No witness reported seeing George push or shove Trayvon. The state has not even alleged that. Zimmerman says Martin attacked him without provocation. Unless Zimmerman's version of events is not physically possible, how will it disprove his account? Not by saying "But this could have happened." The state needs evidence to support its theories. Inferences must come from the evidence. Reasonable doubt can arise from the evidence presented or lack of evidence presented.

You also need to realize that Florida law says that at trial, when the evidence concludes, if the facts present two reasonable explanations for what happened, one of which supports the Defendant's claim of self-defense, the judge should grant a motion for judgment of acquittal and not even submit the case to the jury.

While Zimmerman's account alone could be sufficient, the fact that W-13 (and I believe W-6) heard him say he shot TM in self-defense is considered corroborating evidence.

If reasonable people can view the evidence differently, the jurors likely will too, and if one of those views supports Zimmerman, it requires an acquittal.

The state's theory that GZ could have avoided any encounter with TM by staying in his car may be factually accurate, but it is immaterial, in my view, under the statutes and case law as to whether GZ acted in self-defense. TM could also have avoided the encounter had he not gone to 7-11 that night, or by going directly home. Zimmerman was in a place he lawfully had a right to be -- the public areas of his neighborhood. The state keeps saying TM wasn't doing anything unlawful. That's not the test. according to Florida law:
Quote:
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

So please stop confusing readers with "well this could have happened" and "this hasn't been ruled out." That's not the test.

Try to think of it from the perspective of: The state presents its case first. What evidence -- testimony and exhibits -- will it present to show murder or manslaughter? Assuming it makes a sufficient case -- then the defense presents its evidence of self-defense. What does the state have to refute his theory that amounts to proof beyond a reasonable doubt his self-defense claim is not valid?