""1) What crime, specifically, do you believe Zimmerman committed? (Not a rhetorical question.)""

The jury are a red herring in this argument. They could have reached no other conclusion based on the evidence they were allowed to hear.

The defence was allowed to poison the trial with that trumped up witholding nonsense.

They were allowed to use Martin's past behaviour to paint him as an aggressive pot smoking thug!

The prosecution were not allowed (or didn't bother) to bring up Zimmerman's violent nature.

If Martin were alive to take the stand, he would have had a good case under "stand your ground".

It is significant that the defence wouldn't put Zimmerman on the stand, as a proper cross examination would have demolished him.

He is guilty at the very least, of manslaughter, but he will never reap the just reward for that, and there will never be justice for Trayvon Martin.

Don T.