I guess I'm a little confused. Wtf difference does it make where Trayvon's arms ended up. From testimony we know 100% that Trayvon was on top when the pistol was discharged. Whatever Z did with the positioning of his hands after the "kill shot" is highly inconsequential. Unless, he scrawled the N word on his forehead or dressed him up like a schoolgirl, it doesn't have much bearing on what happened BEFORE the shot.
So, there are inconsistencies in his recollection, fine, who wouldn't have inconsitancies under those circumstances? And since there was an eyewitness standing there staring at both of them, giving us a detailed account of what ACTUALLY happened, which happens to verify the IMPORTANT details of the encounter, who the fuck cares where and why his arms were in any position?
Before you start, I know it goes towards credibility. Fine, throw out all of Z's account. They still have to prove it happened differently than he said it did. And from what I've seen so far, they have NOTHING they can introduce as evidence that PROVES he wasn't defending himself. Unless you count a theory based wholly on the assumption that Z is guilty in the first place.
This trial would already be over if Z had only said "I got out of my truck to look for him, he attacked me and I shot him. I recall nothing else." When pressed for ANY other details his only answer is "I don't recall". Now prove that didn't happen...apparently, they wouldn't be able to do so. Cripes, their own witnesses are submarining their case so far.
I sure hope they have something big we haven't seen yet.