The defense for George Zimmerman has claimed that Trayvon Martin allegedly grabbed for Zimmerman’s gun during that fateful struggle. Then why wasn’t Martin’s DNA found on the firearm?
"You were able to exclude Trayvon Martin having DNA on the pistol grip, is that correct?" asked prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda.
"Yes," said Anthony Gorgone, a Florida Department of Law Enforcement DNA analyst.
To make matters more confusing, Zimmerman’s DNA was not found under Martin’s fingernails, which may suggest that the fight between Martin and Zimmerman wasn’t nearly as violent as Zimmerman claimed. In fact, Gorgone testified that the only DNA he found on Trayvon Martin’s hoodie belonged to Trayvon Martin.
During cross examination, however, Gorgone admitted that it was possible to touch somebody else without leaving any DNA evidence. Gorgone also admitted that he detected “a very pungent odor” when he removed the clothing from the evidence bags, presumably because it was raining during the night of the attack and the evidence was stored wet. The stagnant moisture could have destroyed DNA evidence of a struggle. Gorgone added that evidence should ideally be air-dried.
Nonetheless, it’s surprising that there wasn’t any DNA considering just how brutal the fight apparently was. Pictures of Trayvon’s face after the lethal confrontation show bloody gashes on his nose and skull. How is it possible that Trayvon Martin’s clothing wasn’t covered in blood if Martin caused the wounds?
The DNA evidence (or lack thereof) doesn’t do much to condemn or justify Zimmerman’s actions. Gorgone’s testimony about the unreliability of DNA evidence and the musty odor from the bag cast doubt on the prosecution’s argument.
This evidence isn’t very conclusive. What’s your take on it? Do you think that this evidence hurts Zimmerman’s case, or is it too circumstantial to lead to a conviction?
Source: CBS News