|QUOTE (lil weasel @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 14:15)|
|The lack of DNA evidence instantly makes the accused innocent.|
In a prosecution case, yes. Not in a defence. Not when a claim of self-defence as mitigation for shooting someone dead can only really be demonstrated with physical evidence yet does not have any to corroborate it. You really seem to be struggling to understand this case and the importance of the DNA evidence to Zimmerman's defence.
The absence of DNA evidence to corroborate his story doesn't make him automatically guilty, but to suggest that because the evidence that could support his defence isn't there, he must be innocent is utterly illogical and quite frankly really stupid.