clo, clo,
these are the best efforts of the defence. i get it.
but they are tangential.
in a fight, z was being beaten to a pulp. whereas the autopsy indicates m was untouched. this was a one-sided beating. m targeted z's head. he continued after the point he had z in a helpless position. he was trying to do real damage. z was put in a position of choosing between grievous harm and survival. he had a single choice. he could risk death or use his weapon.
i know the defense is trying hard to minimise it. that is their job. but anyone looking at the photos of z after the event know he was being fiercely assaulted.
you have to be able to prove that z was not acting in self-defence. you have to address and get around this obvious fact. and it cannot be done when the person who was being beaten shows up with wounds of that type.
by the way, the police officer indicated z's demeanour was not unusual for the circumstances. so you are again supposing things that just ain't so.
| 
