Skip to main content

tv   CNN Newsroom  CNN  June 27, 2013 8:00am-9:01am PDT

8:00 am
back under way. and in the meantime what a day it has been. she was on the phone with trayvon martin in the final moments of his life and now she is back on the witness stand today facing a very tough cross-examination, especially for a teenager. all of this after recounting her friend's deadly fight with george zimmerman. two major stories developing. in africa, this hour, president obama taking the world stage as the man who inspired his political career, nelson mandela, clings to life. and michael jackson's 16-year-old son testifies his father often cried and said, quote, they're going to kill me. all of that right before he died. find out just who they are and if they are in trouble because of it. up until just yesterday, be she was a 19-year-old student in 12th grade, largely anonymous to
8:01 am
just about everybody. but in one day rachel jeantel has spent more time on television than the president of the united states and she is back on tv today. because she is back on the witness stand today. in the george zimmerman murder trial. she is the state's star witness because she is trayvon martin's friend and because she and only she spent just about the entire day on and off the telephone with trayvon right up until the moment he was shot dead by george zimmerman. her testimony has been contentious, frustrating, foggy, and gripping. but maybe most important, it's critical. george howell doing a live reporting for us in sanford, florida, following this gavel to gavel. give me the quick catch me up to speed if we're just tuning in right now how has the morning gone so far and what has she said? >> ashleigh, good morning. her demeanor is different. yesterday she seemed
8:02 am
8:03 am
8:04 am
8:05 am
you that he was running at that point because you could hear
8:06 am
wind? >> yes. >> and that's when the phone went off? >> yes. >> and then about 20 seconds later, you reconnected and you were able to talk with him? >> yes, mr. west. >> and you don't know where he was exactly at that point, correct? >> he had told me he's in back of his father's fiancee house. >> so what you believed at that point was, that when the call reconnected about 20 seconds later, he was already at the back of where he was -- >> by his father's fiancee house. >> by the by the back of the father's fiancee's house is where he was staying? >> yes.
8:07 am
while i department know where that was. your sense. >> yes, sir. >> after he reconnected that's where he said he was? >> yes, sir. >> and then did you continue to talk with him? >> yes, sir. >> and i know you think that's where he was but what could you tell about his voice? >> he was breathing hard. >> he was breathing hard. are you sure he was breathing hard or that might have been wind noise from the cell phone? >> no, it was him breathing hard. he sounded tired. >> he sounded tired from running? >> yes, sir. >> that was your impression? >> yes, sir. >> and that he breathed hard? >> yes, sir. and his voice changed, too,
8:08 am
didn't it? >> yes, sir. >> it got kind of low? >> yes, sir. >> almost like a whisper >> yes, sir. >> and then he continued to talk with you in that voice for a couple of minutes? >> yes, sir. >> and about a couple of minutes later he said he saw the man again? >> yes, sir. and he saw -- what he told you was the man was close to where he was? >> yes, sir. >> and that that's when trayvon martin decided to say to this man, why you following me for? >> can you repeat your question again? >> mm-hmm. >> objection.
8:09 am
>> could we have that read back? sorry. i lost track. >> the question or the answer? >> my question. >> and that's when trayvon martin decided to say to this man, why are you following me for? >> yes, sir. >> and he didn't say -- >> i'm sorry. i didn't hear you. >> he didn't say why you following me for, he said why you following me for? didn't he? >> no, sir, not that kind of way, sir. >> it was just a question? hey, mister, why are you following me for? >> he said, hey, mister, why you following me for. he just asked the question, why
8:10 am
are you following me for? the man replied in the breathing voice, what are you doing around here? >> we've already been over that, what he said and what you said he said, but let's focus -- >> i'm sorry, let her answer the question. >> did you finish answering your question? >> yes, sir. ma'am. >> you may ask your next question. >> you'd been talking to mr. martin on the phone for a couple of minutes at this point? >> yes, sir. >> he was talking kind of low in a whisper? >> yes, sir. >> and he said he saw the man close to him? is. >> yes, sir. >> and then he decided to say to the man, why are you following me for? >> objection. asked and answered. >> this will be the last time that question is asked. >> yes, sir. >> and at that point you heard a response of some sort? >> yes, sir.
8:11 am
>> either what are you talking about or what are you doing around here? >> what are you doing around here, sir. >> and that's when you heard what you described initially as a bump? >> yes, sir. >> when you talked to mr. de la rionda -- >> yes, sir. >> at one point in the interview you said to him, so the last thing you heard was some kind of noise like something hitting somebody. and your answer was yes.
8:12 am
is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> like something hitting somebody, correct? >> -- sir. >> i'll say it again. the last thing you heard was a noise like something hitting somebody. >> like trayvon got hit -- trayvon got hit. >> you don't know that, do you? >> no, sir. >> you don't know that trayvon got hit. you don't know that trayvon didn't at that moment take his fist and drive it into george zimmerman's face? >> please lower your voice. >> do you? >> no, sir. >> what you heard after that,
8:13 am
though, when you talked to mr. crump, was nothing else? that's when the phone cut off? >> yes, sir. >> that's what you wrote in the letter, correct? >> yes, sir. >> that's what you told miss fulton? >> yes, sir. >> however, on april 2nd when you were talking to mr. de la rionda in sybrina fulton's home with her sitting next to you, when mr. de la rionda says, okay, when you heard that noise, something hitting somebody, you didn't, did you, hear the man say anything or did you hear trayvon say anything? remember that question?
8:14 am
>> yes, sir. >> and up until that point you had never told anyone that after this hit that you heard anything else, correct? >> yes, sir. >> so as this questioning continues to get contentious, we are going to scoot in a very quick break because we don't want to miss the rest of this. we are back in just a moment and will continue to update you object everything that happens during the commercial break as well. ♪ even superheroes need superheroes, and some superheroes need complete and balanced meals
8:15 am
with 23 vitamins and minerals. purina dog chow. help keep him strong. dog chow strong.
8:16 am
so we're live back on the george zimmerman case. what you missed not much because the witness on the stand right now under this redirect examination by don west, his defense attorney, is a transcript of her conversation with prosecutors. what this attorney is trying to point out is discrepancies. so far it's been tricky for him to get there. not for lack of trying. here we are on day two trying to point out 0 inconsistencies with what this witness rachel jeantel has said in court and what she
8:17 am
has said to prosecutors hence the transcript. let's listen in to the live action. >> i've never seen that transcript. do you have an extra copy of that one? [ inaudible ] >> i don't mind. >> may i approach, your honor? >> yes, you may. >> take them both up there, how about that? may we do that? >> yes, you may. >> may i approach the witness? >> yes, you may. please don't block the view of the jury or get too close to the witness. >> miss jeantel, this is a transcript i believe of that part of the conversation we've been talking about that i was
8:18 am
referring to. and then this is the same part of the conversation from the transcript that mr. de la rionda had. would you take a moment and look at the pertinent sections of each of those? take your time. >> so this is the reality of a courtroom. you might see trial coverage that is very snappy but, man,
8:19 am
can they be dull in real life. here is why. this is critical stuff. she is reading her own words right now. sometimes they say, can i refresh the witness? this witness is getting refreshed as to her own testimony with prosecutors, her own interview that she had given to prosecutors before. here is why. there have been statements that have been made during this trial by this witness that were not made prior to this trial. that's critical. i want to bring in faith jenkins. if you can try to impeach the witness, that's one thing. but if you're refreshing, that's a whole other different thing. >> right. and he wants to obviously try to impeach her on any and every possible detail he can because every time he catches her in an inconsist inconsistency, he's going to stand up in summation and say, listen, look at what rachel said on this day. she changed her story on this day. he's going to go one by one by one and say, jury, how can you believe anything sle is saying? >> let's jump back in and have a
8:20 am
listen. >> all right. >> he asked me to make it clear -- >> to make it clear? >> to make it i heard trayvon s get off a little bit as i was calling his name. >> but the question was, didn't you say to mr. de la rionda on that tape recorded interview when he asked you if you knew who it was, you said -- >> it was trayvon. i heard him. >> i know that's what you're saying today, but i'm asking you -- >> objection. improper impeachment. >> if you'll read what she said on that date, that would answer that. >> i'm going to read both of them because there's an issue on that, thought the witness could straighten it out. so according to this transcript
8:21 am
that you just saw, where mr. de la rionda said could you tell who was saying that? you said i couldn't hear trayvon. >> i could hear. read the next page, sir. >> i got that. i'm talking about this one now, correct? >> yes, sir. >> on the transcript that mr. de la rionda has, on page 14, could you tell who was saying that, your answer was, i could of heard trayvon. i could of heard trayvon. >> objection. read the whole part as opposed to -- >> want to complete her answer, please? >> sure. >> could you tell who was saying that? i could of heard trayvon. >> i could hear trayvon. >> could of is what this says. >> trust me, they messed up.
8:22 am
i could hear trayvon. >> your honor -- >> what you said was, on that recording of that interview that you had a chance to listen to within the last couple weeks -- >> i had told them -- >> you said i -- >> stop. again one at a time. you need to finish your answer and then you can ask your next question. don't ask her a question while she's trying to finish her answer. complete your answer. and then the next question. >> because my voice is low, i had told them i could hear trayvon. can you read it? finish reading it, sir. >> on this transcript it says, could you tell who was saying that? >> right. >> let me finish, please. >> i did not write that. >> you need to do the same thing, wait until mr. west finishes his question. the court reporter can only take
8:23 am
down one person talking at a time. >> yes, sir. >> listen to the question. >> so, according to this transcript it says, could you tell who was saying that and your answer was, i could of heard trayvon. mr. de la rionda said, i'm sorry, as if he couldn't hear what you said or understand it. you then said, i could of heard trayvon. trayvon. >> i would ask that the -- thank you. >> read the next half of the page which gives a complete answer as to this issue. >> there will be lots of opportunities. what i would like to do is play the recording and let the jury decide what this witness said. >> is it in evidence? >> is it in evidence? >> i don't think it was premarked as in evidence, but we can offer it. we just want to play that part to see if it refreshes this --
8:24 am
>> i understand what you want to do. my question is, is it in evidence? >> no. >> you don't think it is. it needs to be marked -- needs to be marked for identification, the state needs to say whether they object or not and i'll make a ruling as to whether it gets admitted. if you want to take a moment to have it marked you may do so. >> your honor, what we -- okay. >> yet again, the chunkier part of a live trial when perhaps some of the evidence that's, you know, being read, actually needs to be listed. technical steps. >> approach the bench. >> good time to take a commercial break. you won't miss a thing. back right after this. rance tog. i'll just press this, and you'll save on both. ding!
8:25 am
ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, llllet's get ready to bundlllllle... [ holding final syllable ] oh, yeah, sorry! let's get ready to bundle and save. now, that's progressive. oh, i think i broke my spleen! home insurance provided and serviced by third party insurers. "that starts with one of the world's most advancedy," distribution systems," "and one of the most efficient trucking networks," "with safe, experienced drivers." "we work directly with manufacturers," "eliminating costly markups," "and buy directly from local farmers in every region of the country." "when you see our low prices, remember the wheels turning behind the scenes, delivering for millions of americans, everyday. "dedication: that's the real walmart"
8:26 am
8:27 am
welcome back to "newsroom" live trial coverage of george zimmerman second-degree murder case in sanford, florida, courtroom. you can see the attorneys are all up at the bench. so that means the mikes are dead. that's a technical and obvious thing because this is a private conversation that the judge wants to have with the attorneys but in the meantime the witness does not get to step down. she could probably hear a little bit about what's going on. we can't though. no mind. it's a perfect opportunity to make sense of exactly what's going on in this case right now joined by brian, who is not only a defense attorney but got a thing or two he knows about this case, following it along with faith jenkins here with me as well. brian, let me go to you. this is day two of a young woman, 19 years old, 12th great, who clearly i think as most people have said over and over again it's pretty obvious, doesn't want to be there. some people have weighed in this witness is cantankerous and combative, others have weighed in she's more likable the more you get to see her up there.
8:28 am
i want to get your take on her. >> well, i think she gets an awful lot of leeway because of her age. you have a young woman here if she was ten years old people would look at her as being cantankerous. >> she's 19 year old. we put 19-year-olds to death in this country. why does she get leeway because she's 19. >> people will forive her a little more for that. but it's important to say they are chipping away at her testimony, chipping away, making inconsistent statements and the reason that's important ashleigh is because there's going to be a jury instruction at the end of this case that says if a witness is willfully false in any part of their testimony, all of their testimony could be disregarded and that's what i think the defense attorney is going for right now, trying to undermine as much of that testimony as much as he possibly can. >> willfully false. that is a critical description. i want faith jenkins to weigh in on that. willfully false. i think we all agree that's bad.
8:29 am
but let's say you are a 19-year-old in 12th grade who was last year was 18 years old in 11th grade, not long ago tweeting about how much she drinks and smokes, willfully it's hard to nail down willfully false, isn't fit. >> make a comment about her demeanor. you take your witnesses as you find them. this is the real world, not a movie. they come all different backgrounds, ethnicities, ages, education levels and just because she is not the best communicator or the most articulate person in the world, that does not mean she is lying. a good prosecutor is going to argue that, do you believe her. the issues important to this case, do you believe her? i think the fact that you see she's not a professional witness here, that she's not the most articulate, may help explain some of these inconsistencies in her prior statements. >> good point. >> was she willfully lying or
8:30 am
just not thoroughly or completely communicating everything every time she recounts what she witnessed as a witness on the phone. >> it's a great point. not only that but she looks older and more mature than she is. at times next to impossible to even understand this young woman and i've learned that she can't read cursive either. she sounds like she is struggling, maybe with her education, because i mine you can just hear in her grammar at times the court reporter can't make out what's being said. jurors have asked i don't understand what she's saying, frustrating and making the testimony longer. george howell is watching this gavel to gavel and you have a better feel for this being in sanford, seeing these players every day, going in and out of court, george. >> ashleigh, absolutely. and watching this right now, this is interesting. we're hung up on two words is it could or could of. we're just hearing she heard trayvon martin tell her -- >> george, hold on one second.
8:31 am
george, there's an audio transcript they're playing. >> get off some stuff. >> you heard get off? >> get off. >> could you tell who was saying that? >> i [ inaudible ]. >> i'm sorry? >> i could of heard trayvon. trayvon. >> your honor -- >> and your question to miss jeantel is? >> that she said on the recording that i couldn't hear it was trayvon or couldn't hear trayvon or could of trayvon, whatever you can tell us that's said. >> i object. in terms of this witness being able to hear because the next part she clears up what it is. the answer. they have cut it off. >> that's true, judge, but the theory is that mr. de la rionda walked her down the path, suggested things to this witness under the circumstances she just followed along and agreed to. >> i asked what is your question to this witness? >> what did she say?
8:32 am
what did you say right there? >> i could of hear trayvon. >> i could hear trayvon? >> yes. >> let's mplay it again. >> >> did you hear the man say anything or did you hear trayvon say anything? >> i could hear a little bit. >> what could you hear? >> i could of just hear like -- i guess like the headphone because the headphone, he might have got off but i could still hear a little bit like -- >> what could you hear? >> like a little get off some stuff. >> you heard get off? >> little get off. but -- >> could you tell who was saying that? >> i -- >> what exactly did you say there? would you just tell us what that says? >> could hear trayvon.
8:33 am
>> that's your testimony? >> yes, sir. >> play it for the jury and make up their own mind what they say. >> any objection to this being introduced into evidence? yes, your honor. >> i object she stated what it is. the interpretation the defense arguing this says something different. >> please approach. i don't take speaking objections. >> i apologize. >> okay. so this is tricky. yet another tale of the tape. what's critical here is in an interview that rachel gave to the prosecutors, they're talking about what she says she heard over the phone before trayvon martin was shot, get off, get off, and when the prosecutor says who was saying that, now we're at a problem. because the way this young woman
8:34 am
speaks is so muffled at times it happened during this interview as well. could have been tray von or i could hear trayvon. that's what they're arguing over at this point and while the mikes are silent that's when we're going to go silent for a short break. we're right back as soon as the action is back right after this. the great outdoors... ...and a great deal. thanks to dad. (gasp) nope. aw! guys! grrrr let's leave the deals to
8:35 am
(nice bear!) ooo! that one! nice! got it! oh my gosh this is so cool! awesome! perfect! yep, and no angry bears. the perfect place is on sale now. up to 30% off. only at
8:36 am
do you remember when bill clinton said depends on what is is. that's a problem here too. watching a live picture as rachel jeantel is now taking a break from the stand. one thing that's critical to know, this happened actually during a side bar, the jury was asked to leave the room. there's an issue here with this tape. with what is said on this tape. and it is the tape of the interview that young woman gave a year ago to the prosecutors as they investigated this case and put their case together. and it's all about what words were used and what was being identified as the speaker that young woman could hear during
8:37 am
the confrontation with george zimmerman and trayvon martin. want to bring in sunny hostin, cnn legal analyst as well, this is really critical stuff. this is the kind of thing that can really bias a jury and they need to get this down before the jury is able to make sense of the stuff we're trying to make sense of. >> i think that's right and that's why the jury was asked to leave the room, of course, because these are legal matters at this point. these aren't factual matters. it's -- they're going to determine whether or not the tape is going to come in. i have to tell you, i was just in the courtroom, ashleigh, right before coming out to chat with you and this jury is riveted. they don't seem to be having a problem understanding what this witness is saying. they're leaning forward. they're listening to her. they don't seem to be agitated. they are looking at the defense attorney, two or three of them have looks on their faces like get on with it, get on with it. i have to tell you, i've spoken to several people out here in sanford, spoken to people in the
8:38 am
courthouse, everyone likes rachel. the longer she is on the witness stand, i think the more sympathetic she's becoming that the jurors are riveted, listening and they aren't -- they don't seem to be put off by her presentation. >> that is incredible, sunny. like we're watching two different trials. i've always said this, it is so different inside a courtroom. i'm here in tv land watching it on a monitor but i have watched this witness and seen a lot of witnesses take witness stands i find her to be rude, i find her to be sort of full of teenage angst, doesn't like this guy who keeps bugging her with these frustrating and annoying questions and also an immaturity she does not understand this process and how critical the record is. i want to bring in faith jenkins on that point. it is a big old hassle, faith, to get stuff on the record and make sure it is crystal clear for many reasons that a teenager might not understand. >> rachel seems to express out loud and for everyone to see what other witnesses sometimes
8:39 am
think when they're on the witness stand. so she doesn't have that filter sometimes to just keep things inside and keep it together. she just sort of expresses it out to everyone. the prosecutor i think can use rachel's -- what people may see as her weaknesses as a strenh in this case because they can argue listen, this is a witness who clearly does not want to be here, who clearly has not wanted to be involved in this process from the very beginning, why in the world was woo she embellish a story or lie about something to be a part of this case? >> you're right. oftentimes the witness that doesn't want to be there, doesn't typically have a dog in the fight. what this defense attorney is trying to say she has a dug in the fig-- dog in the fight beca she's tweeted things that have been specific about let's get that i can't say on tv. i want you to weigh in because you're doing the same thing i'm doing, watching this on a monitor and no not in the courtroom. what is your perception of how this witness is coming off? you heard sunny and faith's analysis and i said what i thought.
8:40 am
>> ashleigh, i'm concerned now for the defense attorney that he's making the mistake that every defense attorney, every lawyer who tries cases ultimately makes which is leaving a witness on too long, adverse witness on too long, get in, make your points, get out. i agree with what i've heard this morning, she's becoming more sympathetic. people are starting to fall in line with her. this could be a mistake for the defense. 30, 45 minutes ago this should have ended and gotten on with it and go on the with the rest of the cate. >> i hear you. you can overprosecute and you can overdefend at times in a courtroom and that may be a case of what's playing out now. we don't have the final strategy. break while the mikes are silent but the live action in moments. we'll be back in two. at od, whatever business you're in, that's the business we're in.
8:41 am
with premium service like one of the best on-time delivery records and a low claims ratio, we do whatever it takes to make your business our business. od. helping the world keep promises. it's the most powerful thing on the planet. love holds us in the beginning. comforts us as we grow old. love is the reason you care. for all the things in your life... that make life worth living. ♪
8:42 am
♪ sweet love of mine there was this and this. she got a parking ticket... ♪ and she forgot to pay her credit card bill on time. good thing she's got the citi simplicity card. it doesn't charge late fees or a penalty rate. ever. as in never ever. now about that parking ticket. [ grunting ] [ male announcer ] the citi simplicity card is the only card that never has late fees, a penalty rate, or an annual fee, ever. go to to apply. live back in the courtroom in florida where george
8:43 am
zimmerman waits patiently because he has no other choice as his case plays out and the star witness on the stand her words are parsed and torn and stretched and twisted and queried. the jury has just come back into the courtroom. the judge is requesting another copy of this much disputed transcript. george howell is watching this gavel to gavel and very unser moan nously cut you off before because the live action had begun but i want you to finish your thought, george howell. >> no. well, it deals with what we're looking at right now. could or could've. two words that could have distinctly different meanings. certainly we're just now hearing this term get off get off. she says that's what trayvon martin said, what she heard him say and now the question, the defense is trying to figure out, is it she could have heard trayvon say that or could've heard trayvon say that. you see the defense trying to get this tape admitted as evidence. that's why they asked the jury to leave, didn't want the jury
8:44 am
to hear this audio as they play it through. if this audio gets admitted and if they can decide what she said there, and you know, she can state exactly what she said, you know, it could be very crucial in this case. >> can i ask you george, as well, you're there and you're following this, as much as sunny hostin is there and following it, she made this comment that everybody she has spoken with and just fyi the play by play here, george zimmerman stood, the rest of the courtroom stood as they bring the jury back into the jury box and reintroduce them into the courtroom and testimony, the live testimony, she said -- sunny hostin said everybody she's asked or spoken with about this case says the longer this witness stays on the witness stand the more likable she becomes. do you get that sense? >> i think that could be a fair assessment. some people saw yesterday, a combative person, someone who was dismissive. today you're seeing a different person, more subdued. in fact, the longer she's there,
8:45 am
there are people who, you know, feel sympathetic for her going through all of these questions. again, she is articulated her thoughts, her opinions as best she can and now it's basically going back, reviewing everything she said, to try to determine exactly what she said, why she said it, why did she say certain things to benjamin crump, to investigators and why is she saying certain things now, you know, they're methodical and going line by line to figure out exactly what she said. a lot of people see her on the stand feeling sympathetic. >> here's a question i don't think an anchor person has asked you before, do you have kids? >> no kids, ashleigh. >> okay. this is the difference between you and me. >> didn't see that coming. we think about kids. >> here is why and it doesn't matter if you have nieces or nephews. i'm an angry mom when my kids 5 or 6 or 7 years old talk back to me and say yes, mom, i get
8:46 am
annoyed by it. they're following the words and saying the right words but copping an attitude and now i have hyper sensitivity to it. so maybe i'm seeing in this young student this woman this 19-year-old, 12th grader, what i see in my own kids and that is attitude. and faith, you mentioned yesterday it was worse. today not so bad. you still believe that? >> yes. i think she's actually much bett better. >> hold on george. want to get faith to jump in. >> i think her demeanor is a lot better today in terms of i think she's just more comfortable today. she's been on the witness stand now for -- >> i think she's more annoyed. >> she settled into testifying now. yesterday she seemed to just combat the process, question for question. today she seems to just sort of settle in and say okay, i'm here, i have to do this. let me just get through this testimony. >> this testimony would not have taken as long had don west perhaps truncated a lot of what
8:47 am
he was up to but had this witness done what she was asked to do and that is speak more clearly, be more articulate, and not have to repeat things for the stenograph fer and also sunny hostin said the jury is having no problem. yesterday a juror had to say stop, repeat, can't understand. this could have been shorter by her own action as well. speaking of short, nice and quiet right now. and we're waiting on the jury to be able to listen in to the testimony when it resumes so we're going to take a break and be right back. (girl) what does that say? (guy) dive shop. (girl) diving lessons. (guy) we should totally do that. (girl ) yeah, right. (guy) i wannna catch a falcon! (girl) we should do that. (guy) i caught a falcon. (guy) you could eat a bug. let's do that. (guy) you know you're eating a bug. (girl) because of the legs. (guy vo) we got a subaru to take us new places. (girl) yeah, it's a hot spring. (guy) we should do that. (guy vo) it did. (man) how's that feel? (guy) fine. (girl) we shouldn't have done that. (guy) no. (announcer) love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru.
8:48 am
8:49 am
>> you haven't missed a thing. we are hearing once again the tape you already heard but good to hear it a second time and this court is hearing it a second time, first time for the jurors, though. it is the audiotape -- rats. just ended. let's listen in live as don west asks her questions about it. >> did you hear that clearly enough? >> yes, sir. >> so at one point you said you could hear a little becaus the headphone might have got off?
8:50 am
>> on the grass, sir. >> right. but what you're saying here is the headphone, meaning you think that maybe the -- the -- >> headset fell. >> that's what you were thinking might have happened? >> yes, sir. >> >> yes, sir. >> you believe that it was not in the usual position? >> yes, sir. >> and that even though you think the headset was off or got off in some way. >> yes, sir. >> that you could still hear a little bit? >> yes, sir. >>nd what you said was you could hear a little like "get off, get off". >> yes, sir. >> and when mr. delronde said who was saying that, didn't you
8:51 am
say "i couldn't know it was trayvon or i couldn't hear it was trayvon". >> i couldn't hear it that well that it was trayvon but when i heard get off, get off, i started calling his name trayvon, what's going on? >> i couldn't hear it that will. it was trayvon. but when i heard get off, get off, and i start calling his name, trayvon, trayvon. >> because it sounded like his voice. >> yes, ma'am. >> sounded like his voice or kind of sounded. >> it sounded like his voice. >> help me understand this better. as far as what you said on the recording, when he said could you tell who was saying that, are you saying that what the jury just heard was you saying i could hear it was trayvon? >> yes, sir. >> and you didn't say i couldn't hear it was trayvon or i couldn't know it was trayvon? >> i said i could hear it was
8:52 am
trayvon. when i speak you cannot hear me that well. >> all right. you were having trouble hearing him because -- >> he had trouble hearing me. >> i am really confused. are you saying that -- >> the state attorney had trouble hearing me. him. the bald headed. >> that doesn't help much, does it? >> no. >> so i am sorry that i am not quite clear what you are saying. you are saying first of all to the jury that what you said is i could hear it was trayvon? >> i could hear it was trayvon. >> and that he asked you again and you said that's why i was calling his name. >> yes. >> by then the phone was disconnected? >> yes. >> so you heard -- when you gave
8:53 am
the -- when you answered the questions and gave for the first time that you heard this little get off on april 2nd, the phone cut offer right after you heard get off? >> you could hear grass sounds, wet grass, and you could hear trayvon saying "get off, get off," and i was saying trayvon, and the phone hung up. the phone ended. the phone had ended. ended. ended. >> so what are you saying is that after you heard something hitting somebody then you heard
8:54 am
grass? >> repeat the question again. >> after you say that you heard something hitting somebody, then you heard grass? >> i didn't say that. i didn't say somebody was hitting somebody. i heard get off. that's what i said. i heard somebody saying, trayvon saying get off, sir. >> at the beginning of the recording we just played he said so the last thing you heard was some kind of noise like something hitting somebody and you said yeah. do you agree? >> i said yes, sir. >> you just heard it. did you hear that? >> no, sir. >> could we play that again? >> no, sir. go ahead, sir. >> can we play that part again? >> go ahead, sir.
8:55 am
>> so the last thing you heard was some kind of noise like something hitting somebody. >> yeah, yeah. >> did you hear that? >> yes, sir. >> was that you? >> yes, sir. >> then when he said basically after that did you hear the man say anything or did you hear trayvon say anything and you said i could hear a little bit. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> so this is the point where in prior statements you said the phone cut off. correct?
8:56 am
>> yes, sir. >> today in ms. fulton's living room and he asked you could you hear anything else, you said yeah, as a matter of fact, i could hear a little bit. correct? >> yes, sir. >> the first thing you said, well, i should just hear like i guess because the head phone might have come off or hadn't gone off, so you are saying there that you heard the head phone in your mind came off. >> came off. >> and the next thing you heard was grass? >> yes, sir. >> can you describe that for me when you say you could hear grass or even wet grass like you said yesterday, could you tell me how wet grass sounds? >> what?
8:57 am
rolling all over. wet. >> when you describe the sound as you could hear wet grass, what is it that you actually heard that led you to make that opinion? >> somebody rolling all -- rolling on top of the grass. >> are you saying now that you heard people rolling on the grass? >> objection. >> sustained. you asked her to describe and she gave you what she could give as a description. >> let's hone in on that just a second. so you said in this interview and then you said today that after the sound of something
8:58 am
hitting somebody and you think the head phone might have been off, you heard wet grass. i want to know what it is you actually heard that made you form that opinion. >> the headset. >> i am sorry? >> the headset, all you could hear is somebody rolling on the headset because trayvon had his headset. >> are you saying now that you heard somebody rolling on the headset? >> on trayvon. it had to be with trayvon. that's where his headset would be at.
8:59 am
>> are you saying that the sound of wet grass that you used to describe this yesterday, as you describe it today you're saying that you believe that was people rolling around on the ground? >> yes, sir. >> what's that based on? what is the sound you heard that led to that conclusion? >> i really don't know how to describe it. i really do not know how to describe that. >> do you know how one of those headsets works? >> like this. >> right. so if something brushes against it, you can hear just like what you heard here. >> yes, sir. >> so it could have been fabric?
9:00 am
it could have been wind. it could have been 1,000 other things than somebody rolling on the ground, couldn't it? >> yes, sir. >> and for that matter you don't even know what get off means, whether that means somebody on top saying that the person underneath was saying get off or somebody was backing up and saying get off or -- >> objection, argumentative. >> let me hear the rest of the question. >> what may have been meant if in fact you even heard it? >> i did hear get off, sir. >> but you don't know what it meant because you didn't see any of this, correct? >> no, sir. >> and you don't know now how long that took from the point that you heard something hit somebody until you