LambChop
Former Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2008
- Messages
- 21,160
- Reaction score
- 30
You keep changing your point of reference. First you said fingerprints were circumstantial. They are. Then you said shell casing weren't. They are. Now you have leap frogged to GZs words, which aren't circumstantial they are direct evidence.
They would only be circumstantial if he did not admit shooting TM but he did. There is no inference GZ openly admitted he shot TM. So GZ's statements that he shot TM are direct evidence, so would be the shell casing, the bullet, the gun because GZ is not denying he shot TM. GZ fingerprints would be on the gun if he admitted he shot him, it's not a question, or a hint, or an inteference. I believe it would be considered direct evidence and a fact in terms of who shot TM. jmo