The liberal logic:
Ignore the facts if they do not agree with your ideology.
Slant, twist and distort the facts to fit your ideology.
Call names to those who do not agree with your ideology.
If Martin never scratched Zimmerman with his fingernails how could there be DNA under them?
WELL DUH!
Lack of DNA evidence means nothing in this case.
You have an eye witness that testifies that Martin was on top of Zimmerman pounding him.
That is direct evidence. Undisputed.
Zimmerman's blood was found on Martin's clothing.
What does that mean?
Sorry you were conned and misled as to the law as well as most everything else in this case.
How does it feel listening to the Martin attorney Crump to get your facts?
He has misled you from the start as he is after the 40% fee he gets for the civil settlements only and his own ambulance chasing law firm.
Prayers and thoughts to the Martin family that did nothing wrong in this, are entitlted to every penny of any and all civil settlements, lost a son and have been conned, misled and manipulated from the start.
Same for you.
You're wrong again, better read the reports.
The report says no DNA under the fingernails like you said and I state DNA is circumstantial evidence, not direct evidence.
A live witness is the best evidence as you can cross examine a live witness.
How does anyone cross examine a piece of paper?
Accordingly, the DNA evidence means next to nothing in this case.
Sorry you are a sucker for the CSI bull shit TV shows that fabricate drama court cases into 46 minutes for low information citizens like you that are not bright enough to understand THE LAW.
I am talking about the law, Florida statute and all statutes that state circumstantial evidence is by INFERENCE ONLY.
Now the jury can convict on circumstantial evidence but which is more reliable?
Direct live testimony by an eye witness or by inference only circumstantial DNA evidence?
Which has more weight in front of a jury?