Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Coleman2010, Sep 19, 2012.
Mr. Zimmerman would you like to change your statement?
I don't see anywhere that Zimmerman claimed Martin took possession of the gun, merely that he attempted to take the gun. The lack of DNA is not inconsistent with that story.
Yeah, nothing to see here.
I'm not saying that, but from the Defendant's perspective, the DNA evidence changes nothing. I am surprised there wasn't blood or other stuff (clothing, whatever) on the gun as Zimmerman's story, I think, was that Trayvon was on or above him.
It's helps the prosecution. If there was a struggle for the gun, there would have been DNA on the gun or the holster. How can you struggle for something without touching it? This will hurt the case for self-defense however it by no means makes this a slam dunk case. You know, like the DNA evidence helped the prosecution in the original OJ case. Wait.....
Maybe he reached for it and never actually got to it?
It's more likely that he didn't even know Z had a gun.
Its not really anymore likely than any other scenario, unless you were hiding in the bushes watching.