What has any of that got to do with whether Martin struck Zimmerman? Even if Zimmerman is lying about the grabbing, smothering, and so forth, what does that have to do with the punching and bashing his head against the ground?
Also, if you want to claim that the lack of DNA proves he didn’t do it, you have to prove that there’s no other way that there could be no DNA there, not simply claim it. Why are you still ignoring the burden of proof on the prosecution?
Oh, and do you have any evidence that they even tested for the DNA? Because if not, this is just another smokescreen you are putting up.
The back of his head is coveredwith abrasions. The burden of proof that they did not occur per Zimmerman’s and witness accounts is on the state. The state has to have some indication that it occurred another way.
The evidence indicates that one person was on top of the other in a fight. One person has injuries consistent with being punched and his head slammed into the cement and one does not. Your suggestion that they “could” have happened some other way is not logical and lacks any proof that it did. In short, you’re making unsubstantiated claims.
BTW, since you can’t be bothered to cite anything I’ll do your work for you. Hereis where you can find the information regarding fingernail clippings. It’s on page 106.
Now explain why Martin would have DNA under his fingernails. According to zimmerman he was punched by Martin and his head was pushed into the cement. He never mentions being scratched by Martin. It wasn’t a cat fight. It was a street fight consistent with Martin’s hobby.
And that’s in a controlled situation where you can surrender. In a street fight, you’re toast if someone gets on top of you and there’s nobody around to stop it.
Fingernail scrapings, not clippings, and from one hand only. Basically, unless Martin scratched Zimmerman with his right hand at some point, there’s no reason there would be DNA residue there. I think someone’s been watching too many bad TV shows if they think DNA gives magic answers.
None of Zimmerman’s injuries appear to match a fingernail scratch, so there’s no reason we should expect his DNA to be there, even if his story is entirely true.
There is no logical reason for Zimmerman’s DNA to be under Martin’s fingernails unless he stuck a finger up Zimmerman’s nose.
There is no mention in Zimmerman’s story about being scratched. He was punched and his head was grabbed and pushed into the cement. The only possible place for blood would have been from covering his mouth if his nose was bleeding at that point and his fingernails would not be involved in this maneuver.
Ah, I see the problem. You read “Martin inflicted Zimmerman’s injuries” and turned it in to “Zimmerman’s story is the gospel truth”. I said nothing about Zimmerman’s story, I’m referring only to three pieces of evidence, none of which are his statement(s). I’ve remarked several times that I don’t believe Zimmerman’s account to be the infallible truth, because a) I don’t know him from Adam, and b) the stress he was under, guilty or not, makes his memory of the events highly suspect.
Yes, you can strike someone without getting their DNA under your fingernails.
Non-extreme declaration: The injuries to both parties, which are consistent with a fight, are the result of the fight that was witnessed.
Extreme declaration: The injuries to Zimmerman are the result of a spectacular pratfall, which injured the front and the back of his head. The injury to Martin just happened at some point pre-fight. The fight that was witnessed resulted in no injuries. Or, Zimmerman injured himself in front of witnesses, and presumably swore them to secrecy.
The issue of importance is whether you can attack someone the way Zimmerman claimed Martin attack him without getting their DNA under your fingernails. Even if the defense had a million dollars in the bank, I doubt they could find an expert willing to say this is even remotely likely.
What injuries to Zimmerman look like they were fingernail scratches? Where do you think the DNA would come from? And why do you think the likelihood of it has any bearing on the case?
No, that is not an issue of particular importance. I already pointed out that your approach of trying to find faults with details of Zimmerman’s account would be fruitless for the prosecution; you denied that it was your approach, yet here you go again. Zimmerman doesn’t have to prove his account, and the prosecution doesn’t have to disprove it. The evidence is what matters, not anyone’s narrative.
Is Zimmerman’s weight gain a problem for the defense? Does being bigger give the impression that he could handle Martin in a fight? That could be an issue in arguing self defense.
IIRC Z and Martin were similar sizes when they fought?
Did they ever report Martin’s size? The early reports were all based on how big he was at 12. They even used a misleading picture of him at that age to make him a sympathetic victim.
The more important part of that article is the further proof that the prosecution has been withholding evidence - and that the prosecution are so uninterested in justice that they’re threatening to sack the person who brought this to light.
