Quote:
Originally Posted by tony286
No Gz dna on trayvon, was he wearing gloves while beating gz to death.
|
That's not true. Both men have the other's DNA on their clothing.
And the only place that DNA would be on the hands of Trayvon Martin would be under his fingernails.
The prosecution is saying that because there was no DNA under Martin's fingernails then he wouldn't have been able to slam Zimmerman's head into the ground.
I'm thinking that "yes" I could very well have slammed his head into the ground by grabbing him by the top of his jacket (where Martin's DNA is found on Zimmerman's jacket)
Anyway...it's pretty interesting television if nothing else. And fun for all of us armchair legal eagles to pretend we know what we're talking about. lol
Since the police never thought Zimmerman was guilty of anything in the beginning...it sure does make the prosecution's case to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" much more difficult.
I don't think that they can. And if this was any other case, the judge would have probably already thrown this out.
But with the media spotlight on it...and CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, and MSNBC already having convicted Zimmerman in a lame attempt to curry favor with black leaders...the trial continues.
Not sure what the outcome can possibly be but..GUILTY.
I think that the elephant in the room is that everybody knows that whether or not the state can prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt", the jury knows that a lot of violence is going to happen if they find him not guilty.
That has to weigh on them.
Do they destroy one man (Zimmerman) by finding him guilty even though the state hasn't made it's case beyond a reasonable doubt? Or do they potentially destroy many lives by finding him not guilty when blacks start rioting and killing afterwards?
If it were me, I'd be strongly tempted to just say "Fuck it" and find him guilty to avoid the aftershocks.