Quote Originally Posted by SkyStryker View Post
He was so angry he ran away. You think a jury would buy that? There was not much time that passed between T running away and Z coming face to face with him. Since T was running from someone in a vehicle, do you want us to believe T thought he could out run that vehicle?

Only thirty seconds passed between Z hanging up and the two meeting up face to face. Do you believe Z put his cellphone away knowing he was expecting a call from the cops?

It is not me that is hung up on the doubling back but the people defending Z claiming T doubled back when they have absolutely no evidence. Strangely, with all your objectivity you never seem to question any Z supporter on anything. Maybe you're just taking your time with addressing both sides?

What has me convinced it is a small chance T was punching Z is not just the absence of marks on T's hands, but the absence of any blood or DNA from Z. There would be nothing strange about Z getting his injuries from the two wrestling around on the ground. People kept saying wet grass doesnt cause lacerations so it MUST have been concrete and T must have been slamming his head on to it. The ems didn't see anything like that which is why they didn't send Z to the hospital. Now that we know the only blood collected was from the grass and a flashlight we have an explanation of the head laceration.

There was blood on Z's face and head. How can you reconcile the claim T was beating on him when there is absolutely no physical evidence connecting T's hands to Z's head?
I think it is perfectly reasonable to think T wasn't that scared just by his actions. Why didn't he run home? Why didn't he call the police?

DNA evidence isn't always present. Here is what is said about DNA evidence: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'm glad I could straighten that out for you....you're welcome.