The wftv analyst just explained that the sequestration issue regarding John Donley (Viet Nam vet that testified for the defense) has been cleared up.
Sharp eyed viewers had screenshots of him in court a week or so before testifying. wftv reporters did some digging and Donley wasn’t served with his subpoena until afterward. The analyst (Bill Schaeffer) thinks there won’t be a sequestration issue. It seems likely the judge won’t make an issue of it.
I’m relieved. It seemed very unlikely O’Mara would screw up something this basic.
Two expert witnesses indicated that GZ was not a fighter. GZ’s MMA instructor stated that GZ’s physical condition was a “point 5” on a scale of 1 to 10 and the “use of force” expert indicated that GZ had no fighting skills.
The prosecution is still suggesting that “something else” could have happened. That’s not the job of the prosecution. They are introducing “reasonable doubt” to the jury.
*We the prosecutors, don’t know what happened and can’t prove what happened but TM could have been trying to get away (from the man he was straddling) (from the man he had been beating) (from the man with the gun). *
It seems that the prosecution has introduced more “reasonable doubt” than the defense team has.
How much training is required to raise one’s hands to protect one’s head from blows?
Imho, it requires no specialized training whatsoever. I have small children do it. It may be instinctive for all I know.
It also seems to me that since GZ was no making an effort to protect his head and face, if someone hit him a dozen or a couple dozen or however many times he would have ended up looking significantly more beat up.
At this point in the trial, there’s convincing testimony that TM was on top.
If the prosecution wants to convince the jury that TM was “trying to get away” at the time the shot was fired, the prosecution has go with the “TM was on top and leaning away” scenerio.
Or they could just introduce some other scenerio that would produce even more reasonable doubt in the juries minds.
Just to pick a nit - “Trying to raise his hands” vs “attempting to defend himself” imply different actions. I couldn’t raise my hands to defend myself implies that my arms were immobilized (trapped, injured) and my opponent was free to punch me at will. That would result in devistating injuries. Not being able to defend myself implies that no matter what I did (wiggling, twisting, using my arms/hands to block, shrimping(?)), I wasn’t able to stop every strike, most of the strikes, or some of the strikes. That would result in fewer injuries.
That was my point.
So just because someoone said that GZ couldn’t defend himself well, I don’t think it has any bearing on GZ’s refusal to shield his head with his arms.
If you raise your arms to protect your head, how does that work? Where do the blows land instead of your head?
Defensive injuries are what result from blocking blows to the head with your arms.
GZ lacked defensive injuries. GZ lacked a hamburger face.
So, to me, GZ story that he was on the receiving end of a dozen blows doesn’t hold water.
George’s dad seems to be the only witness that was formally asked by the state attorney to listen to the 911 call and id the cries for help. He testified that was the first time he heard it.
The Martin family heard it as a group in city hall and with no cops present.
Other witnesses heard it on tv for the first time. No cops or state attorney present.
Did anyone examine GZ’s arms to verify if there were or were not any injuries? I am not aware of any such testimony.
GZ was wearing a long sleeved jacket. I have no idea how thick it was and if it might have cushioned any blows. My guess is the jacket is not very thick as the weather in Florida wouldn’t demand much protection from the cold, but the jury should have access to the evidence to assess this.