>> what we'll hear tomorrow is the issue of self-defense, so maybe there was a reason. that's the intent. that's the guiding conflict of this -- >> but as you pointed out, we don't know and still after all this trial, there is no definitive way of saying exactly what occurred. >> and i -- i followed this trial closely. sunny disagrees with me and thinks it's clear. i don't know what happened here, and i think that's bad for the prosecution. >> you may remember from the casey anthony trial, that's one of the things the jurors said in interviews afterwards, they said the prosecution couldn't tell us exactly what happened. does that mean that's the way the law is supposed to be applied? maybe not. but jurors focus on that. if they can't come up with a narrative and i respect sunny believes they proved that but if you weigh the narratives, fair or not, george zimmerman's narrative is much clearer than what exactly happened according to the prosecution, and i don't think they are concluding anything. i'm with sunny on this. they are offering alternatives or counter to the idea of whom