I think Z's lawyer let him talk on tv in order to balance the jury pool poisoning that the Martins' had already begun. Don't know if Z was paid for this interview or not. Nobody said, one way or the other.
Z covered the altercation with M in detail. He made it clear that M had confronted him, used profanity, and struck him first in the nose and then tackled him, and then struck him about a dozen or more times during which Z was shouting for help, and M was smothering Z's mouth so he could not yell to the police, which were in the area somewhere. Finally M went for Z's gun. Then they wrangled for it, with Z getting control at that point and shooting M once. There is a witness who saw M on top when they were both on the ground.
We know there are also conflicting witnesses who tell different stories, as usual.
If there is a trail, since the prosecution goes first, they will likely call all the other conflicting witnesses, and paint a totally different picture.
Then the defense will cross examine the prosecution witnesses, and present their own witness, who will certainly include Z, and then we will see and hear what Fox News broadcast today.
Question is, whom will the jury believe?
At the end of the Fox interview, Z says that he does not regret anything and would not do anything any different. I am sure sure if that is what he really thinks or if that is what his lawyer told him to say. That part did not go over well with most viewers, I am sure.
This whole episode would have calmly ended with the police questioning and releasing M had Z only stayed within the safe confines of his own car. I am surprised that Z would not do that part over if he could. So that part makes little sense, and you can't tell if Z is telling the truth or not.
It seems like Z and his attorney are heading for a trial, and getting ready for it, with media events like this, to un-poison the jury pool in Florida.
If there is a trial, it will be the latest trial of the century. It will pre-empt all other broadcasting. It will dominate the evening tv commentaries. Same as the others did.
These lawyers on both sides are very skillful, at setting the stage, and manipulating public opinion.
Question is who will be better at manipulating the jury?