Skip to main content

tv   The Lead With Jake Tapper  CNN  June 26, 2013 1:00pm-2:01pm PDT

1:00 pm
knew had happened? >> yeah. >> so you agreed to talk with ms. fulton and tell her what happened? >> yeah. i agreed. >> you didn't really want to? welcome to "the lead." i'm jake tapper. we're continuing our live coverage of the george zimmerman trial in the death of tray von martin. rachel jontell is on the stand. let's go back to it now. >> so this is -- >> i didn't want to see somebody cry. you wouldn't want to see people crime. >> of course. >> i'm not an emotional person.
1:01 pm
>> you knew then, when you had the meeting, it would be a tough one for her. >> yeah, i was the last one to even talk to her son. >> of course. you knew she would be very interested to know. >> and emotional. >> -- and emotional, because there were a lot more questions than answers at that point in the case. right? >> yes. >> so you wound up doing that, am i correct? that you met with ms. fulton? was that on march 19th? >> yes. >> did you tell her generally what you knew about the event? >> i told her a little bit. i just -- when i saw her i gave her the letter, and she didn't even open the letter. she just asked what happened. she wanted to know what happened that night.
1:02 pm
i had told her that tray von talked to me that night. >> were you trying to make it easy forehad to understand? >> yes. >> and she opened the letter. >> were you using the words that tray von martin spoke? >> what? >> when you told her what happened, did you use the words that tray von martin spoke? >> he was being followed? >> no, about the -- no. >> you cleaned it up, in other words? >> yeah, i cleaned it up. >> you said that a man was following him? >> yes. >> she had asked a law, in detail. >> i just told her that he was being followed. >> did you basically explain the short form -- the short version, that you had cleaned up the language and you basically had
1:03 pm
said that he was being followed. >> that's it. >> and then did you -- >> that is it. he was just being followed. >> did you tell her that you thought it was just fright? >> yes. >> did you tell her that tray von martin had said why -- >> no. i didn't tell her that. >> but you told her that -- >> i told her in the text -- not in the text, but the letter. >> and the letter is something that you and your friend wrote down? >> yes. >> that was a letter that you thought you might be able to give -- >> that's what i was planning, to give it to her. i didn't plan on seeing her. i just agreed. i said, okay, i'll just go. >> is that partly why you didn't go to the memorial service? it was because you didn't want people there to know you were the last person and that you
1:04 pm
didn't want to talk to ms. fulton about that? >> what? why didn't i go to the viewing? i didn't want to see the body. i did agree with my friend to go. you got to understand -- you've got to understand. you're the last person to talk to the person and he died on the phone after being talk to him. you've got to understand what i'm trying to tell you. i'm the last person. you don't know how i felt. you think i really want to go see the body after i just talked to him? >> i understand what you're saying, but what you did instead, instead of saying -- >> i did not even know he was
1:05 pm
out. i don't watch the news, i heard it was on the local news. i did not know about that. >> i know it was emotionally difficult for you to decide whether or not to go to the memorial service. >> yes. >> and you decided not to. rmts. >> i decided not to go. >> sure. then what you did in order to explain that to ms. fulton, and then to mr. de la rionda under oath is that you created a lie and said you had gone to the hospital? >> yes. >> so when you told ms. fulton what was happening on this march 19th meeting, you told her you had gone to the hospital? and that's why you didn't go to the funeral? >> i told her, yes. >> and then you gave her the letter? >> gave her the letter. >> had you agreed at that point to be interviewed by her attorney?
1:06 pm
>> yes. >> was your purpose at that point to do what you could do to assist so that george zimmerman goal arrested? >> yes. >> then what you did is you had a reported enter view with the family attorney. >> yes. >> you were supposed to see them in byrne. is that right? >> yes. >> you didn't go? or they changed the plan? why didn't you see them in person? >> they agreed it would be better on the phone. >> who agreed? >> first it was supposed to be a person, that's what she told me, meet somewhere else. some place. first she told me, and then i was about to leave to go to my friend's house -- >> and where were you supposed to meet them? >> i don't -- i don't remember. >> was it at a house?
1:07 pm
>> no. >> was it at a studio? >> i don't remember where. >> were you supposed to be recorded for division? >> no, i did not know about no television. >> you didn't know that your interview was going to be recorded for broadcast? >> no. >> so how did the plan change? you thought it was going to be an in-person meeting, but then it turned out to be a 268 interview. >> yes. who told you we're not going to do it in person, we're going to do it on the phone? >> jerome. did he give you a call and just say we've changed the plans? >> it was her number. it was her number, i think it was a three-way. >> you believe there was a three-way conversation that included ms. fulton and mr. crump? >> yes.
1:08 pm
and that it would be better to be recorded on the phone. >> before it was to be in person, but you didn't know if there was any plan to actually record you? >> they said they would report the -- abc report? >> right. >> no, i did not note about that. reporting -- yeah, he told me, talk louder, this would be recorded, and i7d, yeah. >> was that something that was worked out in advance, that you knew you were going to be recorded, and that there would be people there listening to the interview? >> the mother and the attorney, i guess. >> what the plan was with the interview with the family attorney was that you would be on the phone at one
1:09 pm
independence, and on the other end would be the family attorney who would be asking you the questions. >> and mr. martin and ms. fulton would also be there? >> um-hmm. >> did you know that anybody else would be there? >> hmm-um. >> nobody told you that no police officers would be present? >> no. i -- no. >> or other family members, even? >> no. >> so tell me how that came about, then, this is on march 19th, and you agree to be interviewed on the telephone. >> yes. >> and you agreed to be roshed? >> yes. >> you already had told ms. fulton basically the short version selfwhat had happened? >> he was being followed, the shortened version. >> of course. and you gave her the letter? >> yes. on the three-way call with the family attorney, had you sort of briefed them to the basics, including that you had gone to
1:10 pm
the hospital? >> well, one -- being the mother before, she had asked why i had not went to the wake. i -- i told her the truth about -- not why i didn't go to the wakening, so i lied to her. >> you weren't under oath. >> no, and i knew she wouldn't -- she was on the phone, so he had asked me why i was not -- why did i not go to the wakening. i had i lied and said i was tess hospital. >> is that during the three-way call that you're talking about? >> yeah.
1:11 pm
>> and you told mr. crump i had gone to the hospital instead of the wake, which was also a lie? >> yes. >> you also lied and told them you were 16? >> i don't remember saying that, but i did tell them that i did not want my age out. >> did you say you were 16 so you could maybe. >> so that maybe there wouldn't be as much public disclosure, as if you had said your true age of 18? >> y., so you told ms. fulton that you were 16? >> yes. >> did you tell mr. crump that, too? >> yes. >> and you told both of them that you had gone to the hospital instead of going to the wake? >> objection, asked and answered. >> sustained.
1:12 pm
>> yes. >> may we approach? >> yes. i'd like to make a speaking objection. >> you can't make an objection to your own question. you said you wanted to make a speaking objection. you want to respond? >> yes. >> yes, you may approach. while the attorneys conference with judge nelson in the trial of george zimmerman, i want to bring in cnn legal analyst jeffrey toobin to talk about what's going on on the stand today with this friend of tray von martin. rachel janpel, clearly trying to point out that she has told a
1:13 pm
number of lies, but i don't know that he's succeeding in completely painting her as not credible. >> she's a problematic witness. she's young, nervous, doesn't speak clearly. >> a lot with because she's a teenager. >> the core of the store is she was on the foreign, and he was explaining as this creepy, expletive, cracker, following him around. that part of her story is the key part. i haven't heard anything that discredits her on this part of the story, because it certainly portrays zimmerman as the aggressor in the confrontation. that's the key issue to the whole case. >> the attorney cleanly trying to paint her as not credible, because she's told these two lies, one having claimed she
1:14 pm
attended or went to the tray von martin -- went to the hospital to visit him, which she did not, and also that she had given her age as she's now 19, but had given her age as 16, when she was actually 18. she says that's because she thought she would have more protections as a minor. so those are the two lies. she's owned up to them, but clearly she's told lies and it's been established. >> you never know how a jury is going to read that. the jury may say she lied, but the jury may say she was a kid, she was scared, wasn't familiar with this whole world, the stakes were so much bigger than anything she had been involved in. of course she might have told a lie or two. that's a preview of the arguments, but at least so far i don't think the defense is discrediting her in some sort of profound way. i suspect the cross-examination will go on for some time, because she's an important
1:15 pm
witness, and it's hard to get clear answers out of her. i expect it will go on for on while. if you're just tuning in, while the attorneys confer with the circuit court judge, we're taking the break and ands the testimony of rachel jontell. she's saying he heard him why he's asked following him. a neighbor said also in a different part of the testimony that she heard a boy crying for help. it's unclear -- it's presumably tray von martin, but we don't know that for sure. how will the defense respond beyond just trying to paint rachel jontell as a credible witness because she -- >> i respectfully disagree a bit with jeffrey. i think she is being discredited a bit more than was just suggested. i'll share with you why. there is no dispute that
1:16 pm
zimmerman was in fact following tray von martin. there's knowledge really knew about that. >> i think that her credibility is questionable. when she said that she heard wet grass, i'm baffled by that, how anybody on a call outside -- >> mark, i'm going to cut you off right there. the trial has resumed. we're going to continue to watch. >> ms. fulton, i'd like to move to the actual recorded interview. that was done over the telephone. >> yes. >> was that the same day? >> march 19th.
1:17 pm
>> is that right? >> yes. >> and where were you when -- when you were being interviewed? >> a house. >> pardon me? >> my house. >> okay. do you know where the other parties were? >> no. >> would you describe for us how that interview took place? >> on the phone. >> of course. >> did they record you? >> yes. >> did you have a conversation before recording about the kind of questions you would be asked? >> no. >> did you have a conversation about who was going to be present in the room? >> yes. >> and what were you told who
1:18 pm
would be in the room? >> the parents and the attorney. >> is that all? >> yes. >> had you had consent at this point to having this interview recorded? >> yes. >> had you given any consent of having it broadcast or released to the public? >> no. >> was the interview done for the purposes of releasing parts of it to the public? >> no. >> i didn't know the public -- >> you didn't know that part of it would be used in a press conference? >> the situation, i never knew there was local immediate gentleman? >> did you know when gig the
1:19 pm
interview that parts of the recording would be released to the public in a press conference? >> no. >> were you told at different points in time during the interview to repeat things so that the person running the recorder could be sure to get them again or get them the way they wanted? >> yes. >> pardon me? >> yes. i speak low. >> so there were certain thing that the recording would be precise? >> and you were asked during the interview about what what happened during that even? >> yes.
1:20 pm
>> did you ever hear the press conference? >> the next day? >> whenever. >> i got a text from my brother. >> could you make a special effort to speak up? we're having such a hard time hearing you. >> the next day my brother had texted me saying we hear your voice on the television. >> i take it you didn't? >> no. >> so what did you learn about that? >> i was not paying focus on the tape. i was just shocked that my voice was on the television. >> the next day your face was on
1:21 pm
tv? >> no, my voice. >> do you believe that what was on tv was part of the recording of the interview the day before? >> the television didn't show all the recorder. they just showed -- not showed, but gave parts, and i wasn't really paying attention of how it started on that. i was just worried about my voice. >> so if i understand you, there was a television broadcast, it include parts of what was said on the day before, but they didn't have any pictures of it? >> no, because i had said i d not want my picture, my -- out to -- >> did they say in that recording that you were the 16-year-old girlfriend of trayvon martin? >> what interview? >> what was on the television. >> recorded between me and dr.
1:22 pm
>> no, what i was talking about now was what was play ed. >> on tv? >> right. >> that you had been identified as a girlfriend. >> no. >> that you had been in a relationship for more than a year? >> there was a person on the phone with him a moment before he died, a female was on the phone, a young lady, young girl was on the phone before -- a moment before he died. >> did you ever see the press conference that mr. crump gave? >> no, where he played parts of what he said. >> she's stated she doesn't know, so -- >> overruled, you can answer the question. >> let me finish it, first. did you every watch or see the press conference that mr. crump gave that he played parts of his interview with you? >> no. >> has anyone who watch it told you about it? >> yes.
1:23 pm
>> did they tell you how you had been presented, as a 16-year-old girl and the girlfriend of trayvon martin? >> yes. >> that wasn't true, was it? >> no -- >> none of it was true. you weren't 16 and you weren't his girlfriend. >> no, it seemed from the text message -- the text message, it seemed like it, because of my text messages between me and trayvon. it seemed like we were in a relationship, girlfriend, and then the phone calls, all the phone calls. yeah. he seen, and so -- >> when you say text messages, are you referring to the texts between you and trayvon martin? >> yes. >> i don't understand what you're saying. sorry. could you explain that again? >> it seemed like a friend
1:24 pm
texting another friend. it seemed like a relationship between a person and -- >> are you saying that the text messages between you and trayvon martin indicated that you were in a personal intimate relationship? >> yeah. yeah. >> did you give the text messages to anybody in the martin family or mr. crump? >> no. >> did you talk about that with them? >> no. >> you never told them that you were trayvon martin's girlfriend, did you? pinches did you think that you were going to be -- >> no. because there was another young
1:25 pm
lady that he was seeing. >> you knew that? >> yeah. >> so trayvon martin was in a relationship with another girl, another young lady? >> yeah. >> and the relationship with you wasn't like that? >> hmm-um, no. >> so you just considered yourself like phone friends or pals? >> friends. >> but there were so many texts, hundreds and hundreds? >> some of those texts are not even me texting him. my friend having gotten my phone and texted him.
1:26 pm
several things. >> like a three-way texting thing? >> what? no. texting him from my phone, and he's thinking that's me. >> are you saying that some friends would text trayvon martin and he was thinking it was you? >> yes. if i was busy or i was driving, he would text for me. >> so a lot of the texting then are from other people? >> just two. that's it. >> just two? >> yeah, two. >> but you were there with them when they made them? >> yes. they was in my house, yes. >> but there are hundreds and hundreds of texts. >> some are me. i'm not going to lie. some are me. some are not me.
1:27 pm
>> i kind of got offtrack a little bit there, because i was talking about the interview that you gave that was recorded. >> yes. >> have you ever listened to that interview? >> no. >> never listened to -- >> well, i -- >> even once? >> when i met you. >> right. >> yes. >> did you listen to it all the way through? >> during our interview? between me and you? >> well, let's set the stage a bit. we met at a deposition march of this year. >> march 15th? >> thereabouts. >> march 15th, wednesday, 2:00 something. >> right. >> and we didn't quite finish,
1:28 pm
correct? >> yeah, we -- we met around 6:00. >> and then met again the next month? >> no, we met again that friday. when you did not want to interview me that friday? >> hmm. i didn't want to interview you? >> well -- >> we didn't have an interview, did we? >> no. >> we hadn't finished on wednesday. >> you interviewed my brother. >> we were interviewing several people, and you knew that. >> yeah. but we agreed to that friday. and we had a scheduling -- >> this is what you said -- well, not you, but your partner said between trayvon's brother and me, it would be better if you interview his brother before me. we'll do it next time -- not
1:29 pm
you, but him. >> because of scheduling? >> no. he took four hours in my interview. the interview took hours, i could have made my four hours. >> i'm sorry that you were inconvenienced, but we did not have the interview on friday because of scheduling issues, do you agree with that? >> you should have picked me up on thursday. >> we then were able to meet again the next month. >> april 30th. >> okay. good enough. so what i'm trying to get at now is that you said you had in fact listened to your interview with mr. crump when we first met. is that what you're saying? >> yes. >> was that during the deposition itself or before? >> the day of the interview? >> but before you and i spoke? >> no, the same day. >> you hadn't ever listened to your interview that day?
1:30 pm
>> no the the whole interview, no. >> in the interview, there was a discussion what i mean is the interview that mr. crump did of you on the phone that was recorded on or about march 19th. >> yes. >> in that interview, you were describing for him what it was that trayvon martin said to the man, and you said -- units he did not say that. he just asked what happened that night. >> right. in response to that, you said that trayvon martin said to the man, why are you following me? and the man's response was, what
1:31 pm
are you talking about? >> i never said that. i do not say that -- i do not recall saying that. >> and then you changed it. then you said what are you talking about? >> i couldn't -- in the crump interview, i really did not want to do the interview with crump, so i hurried up on crump, because i really didn't want to be on the phone talking about the situation, the deadly situation, talking about death. so -- >> i rushed it -- i had told you from when we med i had rushed and told the state i rushed on the crump interview. the crump interview don't mean nothing to me. >> you didn't take it seriously? >> no. >> if you weren't going to take it seniorsly, why didn't you just refuse to do it?
1:32 pm
>> i'm already there on the phone. >> but you're at home, right? >> in the closet. you think i wanted to be in a closet that long? >> my question was, if you didn't want to do the interview, why didn't you just say no? i'll talk to the police was said. >> everyone was already there, i had already agreed to the interview, so why say no? it was already too late. >> so you felt at that point you were committed to it. >> yes. >> so you had to go through with it. >> yes. >> but you weren't taking it seriously? >> i wasn't paying attention. >> you weren't paying particular attention to what you were saying? >> i was. i was. >> so when you were telling mr. crump that trayvon martin said, why are you following me? the first response that you gave to mr. crump that's attributed to the other man, george
1:33 pm
zimmerman is, what are you talking about? then you changed it and said -- >> objection. >> if we could have a moment for the proper -- while the attorneys take a sidebar in the murder trial, we're going to talk about the case right now now the testimony
1:34 pm
of rachel jeantel, she is really the star witness. jeffrey toobin, cnn legal analyst, what is don west trying to achieve here, other than undermining her credibility talking about the lies she has told? >> i think it's two things, one she's simply a liar and not to be trusted. in addition, he is trying to portray her essentially as part of the martin family, the prosecution, that she basically signed a -- -- >> keep talking. >> -- that she basically signed on with the martin family and said what they wanted her to say in the most incriminating way about george zimmerman. that is the sort of larger purpose, in addition to saying she's an unreliable person. >> the picture they're wayning
1:35 pm
to paint is, for want of a better word, the publicity machine, and when they're citing the abc interview and other things, they're trying to paint this picture of this machine working forward that has nothing to do with justice? >> right. you know, i don't know how effective that has been. in a way, her naivete, her difficulty expressing herself, seems to me in a way to help her. >> makes her more credible? >> she doesn't seem calculating, she doesn't seem like she has a strategic vision of how to help her side of the case. she's just sort of trying to do her best, and the jury may find that sympathetic. we're going to take a very quick break. we'll be back with more live coverage of the george zimmerman murder trial. every day we're working to be an even better company -
1:36 pm
and to keep our commitments. and we've made a big commitment to america. bp supports nearly 250,000 jobs here. through all of our energy operations, we invest more in the u.s. than any other place in the world. in fact, we've invested over $55 billion here in the last five years - making bp america's largest energy investor. our commitment has never been stronger.
1:37 pm
but i feel skinnier, you know? not really. aaah! jessica! whoa! your friend's a rate sucker. her bad driving makes car insurance more expensive for the rest of us. try snapshot from progressive. snap it in and get a discount based on your good driving. [pop!] stop paying for rate suckers! try snapshot free at
1:38 pm
welcome back to "the lead" and our continuing coverage of the george zimmerman murder
1:39 pm
trial. we're going to go right back to the courtroom. it appears they're taking a two-minute recess. i want to bring? jeffrey toobin. george zimmerman, this is the witness that his team was afraid of the most. she is the one who was talking on the phone with trayvon martin right before the confrontation when he was killed? >> no doubt about it. she is the last person to speak to trayvon martin alive. it is through her that they are trying most of all to get the story that george zimmerman was the aggressor in the confrontation between the two. she is testifies about that conversation. that's the core of her testimony, but certainly there's a lot of other thing she's testifying about, how she happened to come to testify and the various versions of the story she's told over the months, some of which she now
1:40 pm
analogies was false. >> there were other witnesses. the trial started on monday. there was a day of witness yesterday. they were ear witnesses, people who had heard the confrontation and called the police, but nobody who had seen the scuffle directly. some of them said there was a loud, angry voice verse what sounded like a boy's voice. did that do anything in the case? we don't necessarily know whose voice was whose. >> that's been a bone of contention in pretrial proceedings. there was a big pretrial fight over the issue of, can you have expert testimony listening to the 911 call where there's a scream in the background? the question is, could you have an expert say, i think that's trayvon martin screaming for help. the judge i think quite properly excluded that testimony, because that's not real scientific testimony. there is no science of identifying a voice from a 911 tape. so the jury is going to hear all
1:41 pm
this testimony, including the scream on the 911 tape, and make up their own minds about who is screaming for help, whether it's trayvon martin or george zimmerman. >> i want to turn to our martin savidge, who is outside the courtroom. walk us through the highlights of trayvon's friend's testimony. what will the jurors walk away with? >> that's an extremely good question. it's extremely difficult to say. from talking to people in the courtroom -- i haven't been able to, because i've been waiting here, but they say watching the jurors ease expressions. there's a number of times you can see the parents of trayvon martin emotionally upset. nobody on that jury, i'm told, was emotional upset. that's not to say this testimony is not impacting them. it's just not impacting them in a way that people got emotional over. then listening to it, there will
1:42 pm
be some conflict here. first of all, you have to remember, this is the most anticipated witness of the entire trial. it has been talked about for days that this young lady was going to take the stand. i spoke to the o'mara defense team yesterday, and asked, are you ready? they said they've been ready for days. they knew the cross-examination would be critical. they also know that her testimony is crucial for the state, because she is the one person who as said that definitely it was george zimmerman who was the aggressor and that it was vail von she heard over the phone at the time saying get off me, get off me. so it goes completely in the face of self-defense, which is what the defense team has maintained all along. it's also why don west is trying to get her nailed down on what she said and when. and as jeffrey toobin pointed
1:43 pm
out, there are concerns that she's too allied maybe is the word to trayvon martin's camp and perhaps she's traded in some reliability, but as a teenager she might be saying things she thinks people want to hear rather than what she actually heard, which is why don west is trying to be careful here. i have to tell you, this could be a turning point, but just not sure which way it's turning. >> martin, what are we expecting to tomorrow? >> reporter: first of all, i think this cross-examination has some time to go, unless whatever has happened in the courtroom here, and it seems like something has happened action that i think don west still has many questions. he is still walking her through how did you get in touch with the family? when did you get interviewed? not touching on exactly what has
1:44 pm
transpired last night. we have potentially hours. we have to see what happens after this recess to see if there's been some action that disrupts the flow, otherwise you go back to the phone calls introduced earlier, they're the ones that showed george zimmerman had a history of showing suspicious people. the state will say that goes to his state of mind. they'll want to imply that he was increasingly frustrated that the suspects, quote/unquote, always get away. that's the state's point. that's why he went after trayvon martin. martin savidge, we're watching -- we'll go back to the courtroom right after this quick break. also ahead, another developing story. tight end aaron hernandez led away from his home in handcuffs, now charged with the murder of someone who was supposedly a friend. the new england patriots show no
1:45 pm
sympathy. we're live in that courthouse as well. [ male announcer ] this is bob, a regular guy with an irregular heartbeat. bob? not today. [ male announcer ] bob has afib: atrial fibrillation not caused by a heart valve problem, a condition that puts him at greater risk for a stroke. [ gps ] turn left. i don't think so. [ male announcer ] for years, bob took warfarin, and made a monthly trip to the clinic to get his blood tested. but not anymore. bob's doctor recommended a different option: once-a-day xarelto®. xarelto® is the first and only
1:46 pm
once-a-day prescription blood thinner for patients with afib not caused by a heart valve problem, that doesn't require routine blood monitoring. like warfarin, xarelto® is proven effective to reduce the risk of an afib-related stroke. there is limited data on how these drugs compare when warfarin is well managed. no routine blood monitoring means bob can spend his extra time however he likes. new zealand! xarelto® is just one pill a day, taken with the evening meal. and with no dietary restrictions, bob can eat the healthy foods he likes. do not stop taking xarelto® rivaroxaban without talking to the doctor who prescribes it for you. stopping may increase your risk of having a stroke. get medical help right away if you develop any signs or symptoms of bleeding, like unusual bruising or tingling. you may have a higher risk of bleeding if you take xarelto® with aspirin products, nsaids or blood thinners. talk to your doctor before taking xarelto® if you currently have abnormal bleeding. xarelto® can cause bleeding, which can be serious,
1:47 pm
and rarely may lead to death. you are likely to bruise more easily on xarelto®, and it may take longer for bleeding to stop. tell your doctors you are taking xarelto® before any planned medical or dental procedures. before starting xarelto®, tell your doctor about any conditions, such as kidney, liver or bleeding problems. ready to change your routine? ask your doctor about once-a-day xarelto®. for more information including cost support options, call 1-888-xarelto or visit
1:48 pm
welcome back to "the lead." we will return to the testimony in the george zimmerman trial, as soon as it starts back up. he was a rising star in the envelope who just signed a contract last year. today he's out of a job, faison murder charges. former patriots aaron hernandez was let out of her house in handcuffs this morning, charged in the death of oden lloyd, whose body was found last week. after the arrest, the patriots announced they were dropping him from the team. hernandez has never commented on investigation, but his lawyer says the evidence against him is circumstantial. let's go live to susan canned outist. can you tell us about some of evidence that was rea lead today at the raiment?
1:49 pm
>> jake, i tell you, this is simply a stunning scenario. if these charges are born out if proven, chuting to death execution style a friend of his and all the this because of allegedly something that was said at a nightclub that aaron hernandez simply didn't like. as the prosecutor put it, aaron hernandez orchestrated the execution. that's what it was. those are the works of the prosecutor, by putting five bullets in his friend, two of them in his chest as he was getting out of a car, shot him dead as he was trying to defend himself. the prosecutor laid all of this out in court and said he picked up his friend, aaron hernandez picked up his friend about a week ago, then they drove around and then went to this location
1:50 pm
that was near hernandez' house. he got him out of the car and shot him dead. they say they are tying him to this friend, because they found a car nearby -- excuse me -- because they found a wallet and keys on the victim's body. those keys came back to a rental car that was rented by and registered to aaron hernandez. so a lot to digest here, but as i said, this is just surprising and almost hard to believe. certainly a callous murder if these charges are borne out. >> susan, thank you. i want to bring in mike vello from "the boston globe." what are you heard? what is the evidence against aaron hernandez? >> there's a lot of surveillance video that ties mr. hernandez to the scene of the murder. it all begins early monday morning on june 17th, where there's surveillance video that
1:51 pm
shows mr. her nance, the victim and two other men in a car. mr. lloyd is transported through boston, brought down to north t attleborough, where the victim is shot. apparently there's video that shows hernandez, the victim and two other pen go into the area action and four individuals go in and three individuals go out. according to prosecutors, there's also video at the scene at the house, near the house, which shows that hernandez is clutching a handgun. it also shows the three men going into the house so there's significant video. there's also ballistic evidence record from the scene, five shell casings. they think there were two fatal shots. so there's a whole timeline on
1:52 pm
that monday morning that's been assembled? >> mike, thank you very much. i want to bring in rachel nichols, the news that the patriots were releasing hernandez hit about 10:30, about the same time we first heard the images of him being walked out. this is hardly the first trouble he's gotten into. did they take a chance on an athlete they knew was trouble? >> it's interesting. you go back and look, in hindsight the simple answer would be yes. this was a guy who had questions going into the nfl draft. there was questions about gang ties, some of his former affiliates, but on the other hand they are hundreds of young men who come from rough backgrounds, hundreds of men who are taught that violence is a part of their life. then there's the questions of which ones do you take the chance on. you mentioned the $40 million that the patriots gave to him
1:53 pm
just last year. in the press owner, robert kraft talked about what a good guy hernandez had become. in fact he donated $50,000 of the check he was getting to the patriots charity. everyone talked about what a nice act that was on his behalf. so not necessarily something that you could predict. however, there's no question the nfl has looked at this as a larger issue. right now, this very week, jake, they're holding something called the nfl rookie symposium. the idea is toffee rookies coming into the nfl, who might not be equipped with the friends or background or judgment, to make the right decisions when put in different situations, with better decision-making and putting better people around them. this is the 16th year of the sim poseual. some say it's really working, in some cases it's not. >> cnn's rachel nichols, thank you. i want to turn to jeffrey toobin here in the studio. we will turn back to the george
1:54 pm
zimmerman trial when it resumes. before we do, your thoughts on the charges against aaron hernandez. they're pretty strong. >> first-degree murder, he's not getting out on bail. that's almost for certain. >> one critical part of this case that we don't know anything about is the two other men that he's accused of big with. will they film against hernandez? they obviously are key figures. fascinating stuff. we're going to turn to the other murder trial, the george zimmerman murder trial, which is continuing right now. >> we're still waiting for the audio of the trial to come to us. >> just to get your thoughts again. what is the scenario if he is
1:55 pm
found guilty. >> life in prison. i mean, you know, the stakes are enormous for him. he's not eligible for the death penalty, but is eligible for life in prison which basically focuses the mind a great deal. i think a lot of people were surprised when the prosecutor brought those charges, because that suggests intentional killing, premeditated killing where, in a situation like this, you could see even if you believe zimmerman committed a crime, that it was more in the nature of manslaughter, unintentional murder, but one of the key parts to keep in mind about this case is when it goes to the jury, will the jury be given choices of so-called lesser-included offenses. you can be sure when jury instructions come around, that
1:56 pm
will be something both sides give thought to. >> since we're hopping ash what is the difference between the two? >> not really as big a difference as it seems. each states defines these terms somewhat differently. in massachusetts, first degree murder is intentional murder, premeditated. so in essence, it's the same charge as zimmerman is facing. >> except he might be for first degree, but not second degree? >> in florida he could be, but massachusetts doesn't have the death penalty, so that's not an issue there. >> the audio has returned from the courtroom where george zimmerman's murder trial seems to be resuming.
1:57 pm
any minute the attorneys have taken a sidebar. >> the jury is coming back into the courtroom.
1:58 pm
they are now walking back in, as the circuit court judge deborah nelson asks the attorneys to resume their questioning. that's defense attorney don west to resume the cross-examination of rachel jeantel, who is on the phone with trayvon martin, the last person to talk to trayvon martin other than george zimmerman. >> ms. jeantel, i would like to direct your attention to page 209 of the deposition. i'm going to give it to you to read, and take as much time as you'd like.
1:59 pm
this is the question about what you told mr. crump at the telephone interview. where trayvon martin said why are you following me. are you oriented a bit? >> as you can see here. >> you need to read it to yourself and let us know when you're finished. >> you can start with line 14 or 15. that's when you tape itself was played. do you remember that? >> yes. >> remember in the deposition we asked about this. >> yes. >> we actually played a recording. >> yes. >> for you? >> yes. yes. >> take your time to read it.
2:00 pm
we're continuing to watch the trial. i'm wolf blitzer in "the situation room." a key witness action rachel jeantel, is reading testimony she provided earlier, going through it, according to the requirement from the zimmerman defense team, they're asking her to go back and read it. we'll have the day's other news, t