Here is an attempt to make a case that the DNA evidence implies Zimmerman's guilt. Capehart
'is a member of the Post editorial board and writes about politics and social issues for the PostPartisan blog.' That's a long way from being a forensics expert. I don't understand why Capehart gets so much attention.
In the column, Capehart only mentions one source he consulted on interpreting the evidence. That source is a former prosecutor, so also not a forensic specialist. Could Capehart not find one person who actually works in the field to say what he wanted? How much shopping did it take to find the source he did use?
The column doesn't mention the effect of the rain. The rain would wash away particulate evidence and, as Redbrow has pointed out, dampness promotes the multiplication of DNA-devouring bacteria. If Capehart asked his consulant how a rainy environment wold affect his analysis, he must not have liked the answers.
Near the beginning, this:
Despite claims that Trayvon grabbed Zimmermanís gun, Trayvonís DNA was not found on the weapon or its holster.
The link reveals that the 'claims' are those of Mark Osterman, not Zimmerman or his defense team. The subtitle of the book review is:
A new book written by George Zimmermanís best friend offers a sharply different account of the night Trayvon Martin died.
It's fifth sentence is:
Zimmerman never said that to the police.
This bit of disingenousness, and Capehart's incuriosity about the forensic impact of rain, together destroy Capehart's credibility in my opinion.