My thoughts on the first half: De La Rionda is making the defense case. His theme is assumptions. He starts with it and continues to repeat the theme throughout his argument. He says it's all about the unwarranted assumptions the defendant made.
But it's apparent what he is really asking the jury to do is find Zimmerman guilty based on assumptions the state has made -- both about Zimmerman's assumptions and state of mind.
By overusing the word assumptions, which will resonate in the mind of the jurors, I think they are more likely to use the same word when deliberating about reasonable doubt? If they have to rely on assumptions, the state hasn't met its burden of proof.
When he points out inconsistencies, he follows them with a question about what it could mean. He's trying to create a reasonable doubt about Zimmerman's version, but that's not his burden. His burden is to disprove Zimmerman's version beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think poking holes here and there accomplishes that.
I'd love to know how the jury is responding to De La Rionda. He's toned down his bombastic style and put some modulation into his voice. At least he's not screaming all the time.