I have found myself drawn into two different purposes in this discussion. One is to try to help clarify the legal issues that will arise in this case. The other is to respond to what have appeared to be expressions of prejudice in repeated and concerted attempts to blame Arbery for his own death - and often with false information. This case has become a cause celebre because, among other things, it is fraught with racial issues; it is unsurprising that this is reflected in the discourse.
Your use of the term "bad facts" is not one I would generally employ, but from how you have used it I take it to mean an acknowledgement of arguments that run counter to a preferred narrative.
I have generally argued the prosecution case here - firstly, because that case will be argued in the court, and, secondly, because I have read numerous comments that have sought to defend or justify the McMichaels - and often on specious grounds. I have also tried to indicate how the defense may try to play it out.
Setting that aside then, I consider the McMichaels' actions began with errors of judgment, that as citizens but not law enforcement officials they wrongly considered they had grounds to arrest Arbery, that their actions went beyond what a citizens arrest should have required, that they should not have used firearms, and should not have provoked a confrontation. In other words, it was a matter for official law enforcement and not vigilante action. The outcome proves that. Yet they probably thought they were doing the right thing.
On the face of it, their actions do not establish that it was a hate crime, as is also being argued. They probably didn't intend to kill Arbery until he resisted them. Yet the attitude they brought to these tragic events is key to why this case has shocked so many. I think they felt entitled to do what they did, and in their actions they reflected much of what has occurred in the imbalance in the power relationship between white and black in American history. I think it is so engrained in the culture that people like the McMichaels wouldn't know they possessed such attitudes; it is often unconscious and may simply seem "normal" to them. That is what I find most disturbing. I also see resonances of that attitude here.
So what are the "bad facts" that I am conceding? That the McMichaels be not demonised as racist monsters but people acting through poor judgement and out of turn, and according to motivations they are unlikely to be fully aware of. They may represent many like them in society. Inadequate, entitled and threatened - particularly by the stereotype of the black "criminal".
I have questioned your interpretation of the meaning of "lynching" and I am not saying I think you are wrong but rather that the term has a metaphorical and symbolic meaning as well as literal meaning, in the sense that it can describe acts arising out of the white and black imbalance in power that result in the summary and brutal destruction of a black person.
As for Arbery, I find his technical trespass to be immaterial to this case, and the efforts to blame him, based on mistakes he had committed previously in his short life, to not only be irrelevant in law but repugnant in the way such arguments attempt to diminish the wrong done to him.
I would agree with you that ideological rhetoric and stereotyping are not conducive to understanding what has happened in this case. The law may be clear, the facts indicative though yet to be established but the truth is much more complex and we may never get to the bottom of that. We have to be able to see into the hearts of men and not just their intentions and their actions. We need understand the society and culture they come from. That also means trying to understand ourselves.