Skip to main content

View Diary: Trayvon Martin Case (69 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The timeline will show (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil, Grabber by the Heel

    Good only watched for a very brief time at the very beginning of the altercation. There are 3 witnesses who saw him. Two are very detailed about what they did after they went back inside and saw Good going back inside. Serino timed w19's movements between the time she went back in side and the shot was fired. It was close to 60 seconds.

    Another problem with Good's account is that he claims to have seen a change in position in the 10 seconds he was watching. The problem with his testimony is that he fails to describe how they moved to this second position.

    Good's description is impossible and any martial arts expert will tell you that.

    The jury instructions for self defense includes physical capabilities.
    We have a 28 year old man who weighed 204 lbs at the time of the incident, and was carrying a gun.
    We now also know that GZ had been training MMA for 3 days a week 3 hours a day for more than a year.

    Trayvon was 17, weighed 158 lbs and was carrying skittles a drink and his cell phone. There is no evidence he had received any training in MMA.

    •  We will see if the prosecution makes these (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      arguments in its closing.  I didn't hear all of this in the testimony -- I heard Good's time line differently than you did, but the prosecution is very likely getting a daily transcript (that's almost always what you do in a big trial) so they will have access to exactly what the witnesses said, and will know if there's evidence  to support those kinds of arguments.  They know these facts better than you do or I do -- they've likely been living with this case 60 - 80 hours a week for months now.

      I'm not sure if they are going to argue that Good is lying or mistaken about seeing Martin on top of Zimmerman "throwing down" punches (although because of angle and lighting he couldn't see  actual contact between hand and head).  That would be very very very unusual, because they are the ones who called him and elicited all the facts that you say are not reliable.  It would be very unusual for a prosecutor to say, "remember that witness we presented to you? Don't believe what he said."  

      I also think it will be important to see what the forensics experts say.  Having a forensics expert testify what the gunshot damage on the shirt shows, and what the gunshot wound shows (angle?  how close?) will be important in either crediting, or discrediting, Good.

      One thing I think is still problematic for the prosecution is that they have not provided any explanation for the injuries to Zimmerman's head (which their witnesses acknowledged in testimony on Friday).  Their opening suggested that there WAS no injury to Zimmerman ("he shot for no reason other than he wanted to").  I think if they are going to meet their burden, they have to provide to the jury an explanation of the source of those injuries that the jury will believe beyond a reasonable doubt.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site