I have almost nothing to add to the general discussion. Steve Sailer had comments indicating he would be willing to be convinced either way depending on the evidence, which seem constantly changing at the moment. I confess I do usually root for the side that says the MSM jumped to conclusions and got the story wrong, but not so strongly that I think it would affect much. I can imagine plausible scenarios of Martin being a merely troubled innocent or a sociopathic thug, or similarly for Zimmerman. Furthermore, it is entirely possible to be a thug but innocent of one particular crime, or a sweetheart but guilty. I may form an opinion once this settles down into known facts versus speculation.
When Ben was turning 6, we had him tested to see whether it would be better to start first grade or kindergarten. (Overprepared in reading and math, still very spacey.) When we were asked which way we hoped the test would come out, Tracy and I quickly realised that we just wanted it to be accurate, regardless of result. I want the Supreme Court to get it right, more than come to my favored conclusion, because future cases may hinge on this one. I want my lab results to be accurate, not just pleasant.
We know this, and agree with it when it is put that way, of course. But we often forget that getting it right is the goal. I agree with Sailer that the prosecutor’s statement is not reassuring in this regard.
Another puzzle, also from Sailer: “It looks like to me that the cases that most get people worked up over who is the good guy and who is the bad guy tend to be the cases that are most arguable.” Why is that? I have a theory involving the general activation of emotions in ambiguous situations, but don’t have evidence near to hand.