Bullshit - every single legal expert and even most attorneys said from day 1 this was a political prosecution - and people like yourself emotionally wrapped up in it refused to see the reality of what it was.
Personally, I feel anytime you shoot someone in the heart - and the crux of your defense is your WORD - and then multiple versions of your word appear showing exaggerated inconsistencies each time...
well...
I'd like to think that person goes on trial, because they're lying about a shoot. Period. If some dude capped your neighbor, and every time he told the story, the details got more violent, how many versions until you said "ya know, maybe that dude lied about fearing for his life?"
If he stuck to version 1, maybe he doesn't go on trial. But by the time he was telling version 3 (reenactment #2), it went from "he saw my gun" to "he reached for my gun" to "he grabbed my gun".
Um, those are some big differences. The difference between a shoot being legal and not legal
So yeah, if he sticks with first story, I have no reason to not believe him. When that 3rd tale arrived, prosecutors didn't have a choice but to charge. Did they overcharge? YES. But when a guy kills someone and can't make up his mind what happened, you have to charge him.