Newest Fox News piece: "Trayvon Martin's testimony wouldn't have changed anything in Zimmerman trial"

My Fox News piece starts this way:

In the days since 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by 28-year-old George Zimmerman, a common claim has been: "we will never know what happened between Zimmerman and Martin since the only person who knows the truth and is still alive is  Zimmerman."  

But this statement is not accurate.  The closing arguments in Zimmerman's case start today.  And the truth is, we know a lot about what happened on that fateful night. Trayvon Martin's testimony, could he have spoken, wouldn't changed anything. 

For those who have watched the trial, ask yourself: is there even one piece of convincing evidence that Zimmerman did not act to defend himself from a threat of “imminent death or great bodily harm”? 

There is a reason that the local District Attorney refused to bring the case against Zimmerman and an outside District Attorney had to be brought in to handle it. And that the chief of police was also removed from his job because he refused to charge Zimmerman with a crime. Also consider that the lead detective on the case told the jury he believed Zimmerman's version of the events that happened. . . .

UPDATE: There are several other points that I should have raised in this piece.  One is that there was no history of Zimmerman using physical force against anyone else -- if there was, the prosecution would have brought it up 50 times.  Unfortunately, Martin's history of violence could not be brought up.  At the time Martin was in Sanford, he was there because he had gotten into a fight with others at school.  There were multiple examples of Martin getting into fights with others.