Skip to main content

tv   CNN Newsroom  CNN  July 12, 2013 6:00am-8:01am PDT

6:00 am
easy, not guilty. i think you can get the point. i could ask you to read through it and nod your heads in agreement for each one. but the reality is until you get to the concept of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, you don't get it. what happens if you don't get here? what stays in place? it's not a civics exam, but that presumption of innocence that we talked about never dissipates, ever. the presumption of innocence never dissipates until the state proves their case beyond a reasonable doubt. which really makes sense. it took us from the king's days where he decided if you were guilty or not to your days where you get to. so, this is what happens in a criminal case. the state has to take you from somewhere down here before there's any evidence and he sort of presumed to be not guilty. all the way up the list in your
6:01 am
mind so that you have no doubt or no reasonable doubt to the essential elements of the crime and that george zimmerman is guilty a of secoof second degre. now, i said to you that i was going to tick off all of my because what i was going to say to you. i was going to say doing something else. i was going to show you or prove to you, and i've got not just my little conversation with you, but we'll start talking about evidence in a minute. but this. i'm sorry. again, this is what really matters for today. and that is this self-defense.
6:02 am
and it's interesting because i actually have another poster i will show you in a little bit. trying to figure out how to make self-defense make sense to you because it's sort of like disproving your negative. the state carries a burden without question of proving to you beyond a reasonable doubt that george zimmerman did not properly act in self-defense. and if i misspeak that mr. guy fix it. george zimmerman is not guilty, if you have, just a reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense. every -- this is where i'm going, just so you know. we'll spend ten minutes with me bringing you all the way up to here proving to you beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense. but i don't need to.
6:03 am
the state needs to convince you all the way down here. self-defense likely? reasonable doubt as self-defense. the self-defense suspected. well, we have a reasonable doubt as to self-defense, not guilty. may not be self-defense. you're not quite sure. not guilty. unlikely self-defense, but it might be. you have a doubt to whether or not it's self-defense. not guilty. less than likely is it self-defense? this was a 50/50, i wouldn't vote self-defense. this was a civil trial. highly unlikely that it's self-defense. but i have a reasonable doubt as to whether or not it's self-defense. not guilty.
6:04 am
the state has proven to me to you beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense properly. i have no doubt a reasonable doubt that the state has convinced me he didn't act in self-defense the way he should have. then he's guilty. and only then is he guilty. so, let's talk about my burden to prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt of his innocence. at the risk of confusing you, i'm going to request that you not allow me to confuse you as to the standards. but i want to show you what the evidence has shown concerning my
6:05 am
client, absolute, beyond question, beyond a reasonable doubt innocence. where shall we start? well, let's start, let's start before the beginning. let's start with what the state wants you to focus on. that he was a cop wanna be. and he did want to be a cop, he also wanted to be a prosecutor and wanted to be a lawyer and he wanted to continue his education and he wanted to help out his community. and he wanted to help out people by giving her a lock and he wanted to be involved. you even heard that he mentored some kids from officer serino. yes, he wanted to be involved. yes, he wanted to be a cop. he did apply for it. i think what you also heard, i would argue to you, you heard from the other officers who wanted to be cops and became
6:06 am
cops that it is a fairly noble profession. it is a profession that its moniker is protect and serve. it's apparent george is going to serve. i think it is. all the evidence that you do have supports that. and, actually, it doesn't support any of the contention that he wasn't. it also supports the contention that he's willing to protect. i think that's readily apparent from all the evidence. keep in mind the state had the opportunity. no, i take that back. they had the obligation to show you any piece of evidence that they thought was appropriate, that they could to show you that his actions were inappropriate. and what did they decide to bring to you? two professors. two professors who say, yeah, i taught him. i taught him. i don't know if he read that
6:07 am
book. but i definitely, it was in the class, or it was an online class and we spoke about it. and he told me that he wanted to be a prosecutor. and i think he said, he may not say this, he just seemed to be easy going or i liked him or something like that. the guy who was first on skype and then on cell phone. and then the other professor they brought in to say to you, oh, yeah, i taught him this. we talked about self-defense. yeah, we talked about it. and he knew about it. so, yeah, that's what they want you to focus on because this cop wanna be knew what self-defense is. so, they have that. what else did they decide to bring you about his background? he did make it as a cop one time. he works as a fraud guy at a mortgage company.
6:08 am
and what else did they show you that george zimmerman is before you act aing with ill will, hated and just hated, hated trayvon martin that night. what other evidence? i am not being sarcastic. i might be forgetting something as far as his background. the five phone calls to nonemergency. you heard them. you have them in. you also have the sixth one. because i put that in. because for whatever reason the state didn't present to you call number six. doesn't support their case, i guess, because just him calling and being concerned about the fact that kids are playing outside. not really complaining, just making some 4 year olds and 4 6 year olds out there. listen to that because you haven't heard it. i didn't play it to you, but it's in evidence. i think it just sort of rounds
6:09 am
out a little bit instead of having five of six you have six and six and you know what the state didn't show you. they don't have to show you good stuff about george zimmerman. let's not forget that. they told you in the beginning of this case that they were going to seek justice. so, you have the five phone calls and now a sixth one. i also put into evidence, but didn't shove in front of you yet, it's here. this whole pile of reports, police reports of what other things happen in the past year at retreat view area. they're there. i could have brought in other people, but we would just agree they would go into evidence. you have those and they'll show you. a lot of wrong calls and burglaries and the home invasion that she suffered through and they will show you, i think if you look at this, that in that
6:10 am
community there was a rash of people burglarizing homes. you know what else it's going to show you? it's going to show you a lot of the people who were arrested for it. the only people who were found and arrested were young, black males. we'll talk about race in a little bit, too. the reason why i mention that now is because we talked about assumptions and what you sort of bring into your world when you come into our world. because, certainly, you heard on the nonemergency call how george acted when he saw trayvon martin. we'll get to that in due time. so, what else do they have about george zimmerman and his past that they bring to you? i think that's about it. so, i would suggest that that's on the way towards absolute innocence. why? listen to the calls.
6:11 am
ang anger, frustration, hated, ill will, spite. get out here and get these guys. whatever absurdity it is that they want you to get from that. listen to the calls. do not allow them to give their words to your ears rather than george's. listen to what he said. listen to the cadence of his voice. listen to what he said. read those reports. look at a those pethose people through, not many of them were home, but what they came home to and then wonder whether or not frustration in mr. zimmerman's voice is inappropriate or appropriate. that's his past. how i convince you of his absolute innocence.
6:12 am
let's go to the 26th. undisputed. someone said he does it every sunday. just his regimen. makes his five sandwiches in little plastic containers. that's what he does. by the way, as to absolute innocence, tell me the witnesses who said to you that george zimmerman patrolled that neighborhood. we're going to go over the witnesses. i have a whole powerpoint presentation and i promise it won't take as long as it took me to make it. but there isn't a witness in there, not one, state's case. not one who will say to you george zimmerman, yeah, the guy who wandered around the neighborhood looking around, talking about bringing in your garbage can or absurdity like that. not one witness to suggest that
6:13 am
the guy they want you to believe the neighborhood watch wanna be. they may want you to assume that, it would seem. you would have to assume it because you certainly can't find it. so, you'll have to assume that this neighborhood watch guy was just some crazy guy walking the neighborhood. looking for people to harass. except, that's an assumption without any basis and fact whatsoever. not one. another note from mr. guy. if i'm wrong about that, let him tell you. let's show the point where mr. jones said, well, i was scared about him. didn't like the fact that he kept circling my house.
6:14 am
he said we just started this neighborhood watch. real problems with these sliding glass doors. here's a lock. you know what, my wife's home. she works. she's a nursing student or something. she's around. she's home, if you need to stop by. innocence. pure, unadulterated innocence. i would suggest that shows to you certainly as far as second degree murder or anything like it. so, in my quest to prove that he's innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, he is on his way to target and he sees somebody that was suspicious. so, does he jump out of his car, track him down, shoot him in
6:15 am
cold blood? no. he does what he was called to do. he calls nonemergency. no big deal, not an emergency. he did tell you in the statements and you know because it's in those reports that at that very same house. burglarized a few weeks before with a window open and door unlocked through the back. is it inappropriate for that to become a concern to somebody who is concerned about his neighbors? i left my house last week and there was a white truck down the street. i looked at it. i walked out of my driveway and took a right just because i wanted to see who it was. there was a pool sign on the side of it and i kept going. okay. well, in this case, he does what? he calls nonemergency and he says, knowing full well given
6:16 am
the history that the state gave you, they know it is being recorded. he says on the call what he says, i'm not going to play it for you again. you heard it more times than most people. actually, he said -- but probably in his mind in that group of people who in the past have gotten away. so he called and he spoke to the dispatch and he went through it. so, looking at the question of whether or not my client is completely innocent, provably innocent. what did he do? he stayed on the phone. cursed. yeah, definitely cursed and he cursed towards those people. maybe including trayvon martin, by the way. at least to him, maybe.
6:17 am
because he did match the description, unfortunately. and that's just maybe happenstance. we'll talk more about that, too. so, he calls it in and stays on the phone. like he's supposed to. that's what you're supposed to, describe him. think he's black, after being asked. black, white, hispanic. so, how do we move from i'm looking at a suspicious guy that i'm not sure. it's raining out. he's obviously not coming in the main entrances. maybe that's an issue. when you look at those reports, you'll see that there are points where some people come in to do bad things. and he talked to the nonemergency. and he basically stays on the phone all the way through.
6:18 am
so, where's the guilt? no, that's not my burden. where is the nonguilt? well, never screams. mr. guy screamed, de la rionda screamed. george zimmerman didn't scream on that call. then, to cover up his nonscream at one point mr. de la rionda suggested to you, no cell phone. under his breath. what he wants you to assume within that context, he said it under his breath because he wanted to say it, but he didn't want nonemergency call to hear it. and then he wants you to assume that what that means is guilt. serious seriously. here's the way you do that.
6:19 am
but it's just the fact that he was willing to say it on a recorded call to law enforcement. is evidence of nonguilt. it is oefevidence that he wasn' saying it in a way laced with ill will, spite, hatred or anything else like that. so, call continues. now we have the call. we have our first very large graphic. this is what happens when i get carried away with graphics. they get ten feet long.
6:20 am
what this is is the graphic representation of the significance o the phone call that started at 7:09:34 that night. you will have this back with you, so you can sort of go through it. it doesn't include every word that was said back and forth because it would have been 20 feet long. but it does have i'll argue to you or submit to you it has all the significant words. so, let's sort of go through it. you have the tape, i could play it for you. but you heard it many, many times. it starts, dispatcher. may i help you? and george says, some suspicious guy, whatever. then he says -- note down here that trayvon martin is on the phone with rachel.
6:21 am
yes, he's near the clubhouse right now. yeah, he's coming towards me. there was some confusion, i think, maybe it's been cleared up, that george zimmerman pulled into the clubhouse, backed out and went down the street and then parked. but this is just when he was sitting at the clubhouse. seems to be uncontroverted. and this is on here because the suggestion is that this cop wanna be was just so frustrated, so angry, so full of ill will and hatred that finally he cracked. finally, he broke. and i want to, i want to ask, will you go back to figure out where he broke. but maybe this is a spot.
6:22 am
maybe it was just after the dispatch said, okay, just let me know if he does anything else, okay? now, they want you to really focus. in a moment we'll get there. they want you to really focus on the idea that sean noffke said we don't need you to do that. but they don't want you to focus on the fact that the same law enforcement officer says, let me know if he does anything else? so, here's a thought. let me know if they do anything else. have i done anything else? please get an officer over here
6:23 am
is his response. ill will and hatred necessary you just want to go kill somebody because you hate them. please, please, get an officer over here. twice. let me know if he does anything else. twice. it makes sense. that's probably what they're supposed to ask. and then the person hearing that says, okay. or does something to let them know if he does anything else. i have a tape of mr. de la rionda and john guy saying it their way. i was going to play it for you. but it's so irrelevant, it's not evidence, obviously. what really a counts is the way
6:24 am
mr. zimmerman said it. listen to the tape. see if in that you walk away. this point right here, you walk away with ill will, spite, hatred and towards trayvon martin. he's running. okay. and the next second, which way is he running? so, not going to do it, again. but if i would ask you which way i was walking and i walked out the door and came back, what information would you have? that i walked out the door. why? because you probably watched me do it because i just asked you which way am i walking. so, ill will, spite and hatred or innocence? i would suggest that at this point, this is a conversation.
6:25 am
don't forget, when they're doing this conversation, they had no idea we were going to be here today. they had no idea that we would have a ten-foot graphic of every sentence that they talked about. they were just talking. what's he doing? let me know. where is he now? which way is he running? he gets out of his car. now, at this point, i think the state, maybe this is a another break point. this is a break point where george said, what's the movie? i have it, i just can't take any more. maybe that's when it happened. well, let's see. no, maybe not. gets out of the car. says down towards the other end of the entrance of the neighborhood. listen to that, see if there is this crescendo of hatred in his voice. which entrance? the back entrance.
6:26 am
then he says, we just got so used to using this in front of regular people. you know what he said, i'm not going to use the words any more. oversensitivity to you or panic to you but we use the words enough in this courthouse so far. and then he says, are you following him? what does george say in his anger and hatred and plan to track down and kill this unknown person. unknown is important because ill will and hatred and spite is difficult, don't you think, to really gain that for somebody you don't really know. how do you actually get to a level necessary for second degree murder when you don't know the person? ill will, spite and hatred. has it shown right here? we don't need you to do that. is that when he says -- no.
6:27 am
what 'cause does he say? okay. we'll talk. matter of fact, i put into evidence for you, one the state put in. i put in. the weather reports for that day because strange as it seems a year and a half later we want to make sure you know it's raining out, even though a bunch of people talked about it. but we also want you to know that the wind was up that night. you'll see that the wind was 6.8 to 7.2 miles per hour. you also hear wind during the re-creation video in the phone. you sort of hear the wind. because the question is, was george zimmerman tracking? was he running after him? we know he was following him because he said it. the question is, was he tracking him? and the wind noise, the running noise make, i will ask you as the state did. you guys get to decide that. but what i really want you to focus on is where this ill will,
6:28 am
spite and hatred comes in. does it come in here? and then he says, what's your name? george. he says he ran. did he say he ran and i'm running? is there any evidence to suggest, let me ask you a second. is there any piece of evidence that you have in this case that supports the contention that george zimmerman ran anywhere or that he ran after trayvon martin after he said okay. i have another challenge for the state. let them show you in the record of this case that they have evidence that he ran after trayvon martin, walked after him
6:29 am
after he said okay. because if it's there, i missed it. presumption, assumption, connecting the dots? sure. but you agreed not to do that. don't let them let you do that. and then tells him where the address is, apartment number. it's a home. now at this point, i think right around here is when he says, still want to have an officer? yes, i think he says. okay. where do you want me to meet him? clubhouse they talked about. at the truck they talked about. and then i guess in the state's presentation to you they have said and maybe will say, again, that at that point, that's the
6:30 am
ill will, spite and hatred, i guess. because at that point he says, no, no, no. no, i'm going to go track him down and shoot him or something. so, just have him call me. don't forget, 16 months ago, regular phone call, sean noffke. regular phone call for george zimmerman. and i'll tell you where i am. big deal made about the re-creation video and the numbers right behind him. by the way, one of the points on that, which witness, and this is going to sound as though i'm being a little sneaky. which witness told you that ms. lauer's lights were on that night?
6:31 am
so, the numbers that they want you to believe that mr. zimmerman walked by, just want to go after him. just so we're clear, the witness that showed you that ms. lauer was here and the state asked the question of her, just so we're clear because we really want to prove that he was doing this intentionally and trying to say something that we can catch him on later, please tell the jury that your lights were on that night. they never asked him that. they just didn't. because they want you to presume and assume and connect the dots and do whatever. now, is that sort of sneaky? this is their burden. they have to take away reasonable doubt. they have to look at this case and say to you, ladies and gentlemen of this jury, hi, we're the state. we have proved this case beyond
6:32 am
and to every reasonable doubt because we have connected every dot that forms a line that leads to nothing but conviction. and they just didn't. so, now what happens? along my path towards beyond a reasonable doubt, innocence. what evidence do we have? contend to you that though there was a minute in this tape or after this tape. he hangs up, 7:13:44. ms. lauer's call starts at 7:16:11. we know ms. lauer heard 15 to 20 seconds before she decides to make the call. testified it took 25 seconds to get the phone, dial it, try jeremy's phone first, didn't
6:33 am
work. tried hers, connect, 30 seconds. back it up another 30 seconds as to what george zimmerman was doing. now, we know that he said at a time that he didn't know that he had to protect his story that he said he had gone to the circle. makes sense, i would submit. and coming back with that little baby flashlight because the other one was not used as an impact weapon. this flashlight on his key chain that he had. he had this and it was on. you'll see the pictures of, you know now, i think, the pictures of the darkness that night. one is stunning in that if you sort of see here's the field of flash and then beyond it is almost like this black wall.
6:34 am
it was that dark. yeah, he had his flashlight with him and he had it on. and if that's evidence of tracking mr. zimmerman, let the state prove that to you. so, we know. we don't know. evidence seems to support that george is heading back towards his car and they don't have one shred of evidence to suggest otherwise. and if they had it, i presume that they would have presented it. so, where is it? what evidence do we have that it happened at the intersection? well, we have the flashlight, probably not a bad idea to start there. because somehow that flashlight got dropped right there. but not just george's, george zimmerman's story is there. we have jenna lauer who said i heard the noise, it was out that way, sort of towards the
6:35 am
t-intersection. did she look? no. did she hear? yes. mize manalo saying it was off to the right. she said it started sort of outside her window. so, we know that the altercation and certainly seems to have started and that somehow it got dragged down to the area where trayvon martin was actually shot. i am going to show you what mr. de la rionda mentioned. this is an animation. this is not evidence. does not go back there with you. it is just an overview of some of the evidence and how it may look in the context of it.
6:36 am
so, if it works, we're going to spend a moment to just look at it. it only runs about a minute, minute and a half. it does have a 911 call on it because it is used to sort of set the scene a little bit as far as timing. and then i'm going to come back and sort of explain some of why what is in there is in there. only if it works, though. what is the chance of that. if we disconnect one item and put on another. you don't know or it shouldn't? great.
6:37 am
may i have a moment, your honor? >> you may. >> okay. a couple assumptions and a couple problems with this. you'll see where they started. i have mr. martin sort of approaching, coming down the sidewalk. there is questions or conflicts about that. was it bushes, was it sidewalk, was it behind me.
6:38 am
and, of course, you can see it. it's lit. if it was real weather and lighting conditions, we would be looking at a black screen. so, some art fishiality i had to include in the animation is just things like that. but what i want you to look at is how the event happened at the t-intersection and how things progressed from there and how that is some of the evidence.
6:39 am
or not. >> the first, there is the shot to the nose, we contend. number one is where the flashlight is found. george's small flashlight on his key. didn't have any movement except to get them to the spot of the eventual shooting because we don't know what happened. although george zimmerman did say that he tried to push him
6:40 am
off and tried to push him away. i think from the video, there were movements like this that you saw. whatever. somehow they got those 25 or 30 feet to the area that we know things happened because this perspective right here, you see that column on the left-hand side. this is john's patio where he was standing and came out. the items match, just so you know, the items match precisely the areas where all the evidence was found and the numbers match the graphs that are already in evidence before you. so, you'll see 8, 1, 2, 3, all of those match up because they came from the same data. what i've done on this, i have now begun the 911 call because it's pretty close to time synced to john good's event because you remember he testified. what he saw, eight to ten
6:41 am
seconds. he went inside and decided to make a phone call to 911. used that 20 seconds or so. assumption, i agree, because jenna lauer said it took time to make the decision to dial 911. we have to figure out the timeline as best we can. >> there's just someone screaming outside. >> what is the address? >> address is taken out. >> now, this is when according to mr. good's testimony he came out and saw what he saw. what we have done is take away the animation and use different figures or positions because this is what he said he saw. he said when he came out he saw them sort of straddled on top of one another and then he saw them move towards the sort of parallel. we're having confusion with
6:42 am
perpendicular, parallel at trial. they were parallel and maybe on the concrete. that will come up next. >> is it a male or female? >> the second position where he said this is the mounted position or where the ground was occurring. this is where he said it happened, closer up to the cement. again, consistent with what mr. zimmerman was saying when he was talking to the officers. or you decide if it was consistent or not. >> sounds like a male. >> you don't know why. >> i don't know why. i think they're yelling help. but i don't know. just send someone quick, please. >> the third position is when john good, as he was leaving, said they had some sort come down away a little bit. mr. zimmerman said he was trying to shimmy or to get off, specifically being on the concrete. and this was also put in there.
6:43 am
again, there are some assumptions in this animation. because the next position that you're going to see is the position just after the shot. this is the position where we contend the shot happened. >> does he look hurt to you? >> i can't see him. i don't want to go out there, i don't know what's going on. >> the angle of those two people. one over the other. you remember people's testimony, because of the way the clothing is, that if leaning over was consistent with the gunshot. that being contact, but contact with the clothing and then about two to four inches away from the chest. >> you think you're hearing
6:44 am
help? >> yes. >> now you see we have george zimmerman on top with the red. his testimony was, shot him, that trayvon martin fell off to the left. you look at the scene photographs where you see trayvon martin's feet are in what someone call the bicycling position. they, i would argue, having been consistent fallen off to the left and then fell on to his stomach. george zimmerman then got on top, as he testified to, at least, to move out the hands. >> there's gunshots. >> you just heard gunshots? >> yes. >> how many? >> just one, two. >> now, this right here, by the way, what you're seeing is what is called a 50 millimeter perspective. the human eye see things at
6:45 am
about 49.5, well, i can't tell you that because i don't know if that's in evidence. it's a 50 millimeter perspective. similar to what people see when they look. which is what john good had and which is what this has right here because this is selma moore's perspective. this is the column she looked out and around and the timing is appropriate because we had it about six, seven, eight seconds from the time of the shot, which is when you remember mr. mora did her sort of walk around in the courtroom. she said, if you timed it, it was about eight seconds. there abouts. she heard the shot, walked around, go outside, shimmy through the door and that's what she saw. so, she would have seen george on top spreading out the hands. she said she saw the foot move.
6:46 am
she said at that point george zimmerman sort of got up, looked around. you remember her testimony. we'll talk about that in a minute, as well. so, this is what she saw. or at least her perspective. >> no, come here. >> this is now the rest of the 911 call. you heard it. it's not particularly significant to the events because nobody said that they saw anything of relevance beyond that, from this one. thank you, your honor. >> the animation, of course, is just that. somewhat made up. it wasn't that noiight. it wasn't a video.
6:47 am
george zimmerman hoped that there was. but it does give an idea. a perspective that at least is consistent with the evidence that was presented before you in the case. because it does show the probability, if not the exact certainty that this event started at the t-intersection and started with a shot to the face. trayvon martin against george zimmerman. and then it traveled down 30 feet or so, however they ended up there. we know that when they ended up there the only one that was injured at all, except for the gunshot, was george zimmerman. and that the only other injury that trayvon martin had on him was what seemed to be a fight injury from a couple scrapes to the knuckle. again, in my quest, my dangerous quest to prove my client's innocence beyond a reasonable doubt now we really get into what happened. you can argue and the state
6:48 am
will, all you want that george wanted to be a cop. and george's calls to law enforcement in the past just had some seeding anger of build up. but don't assume it. prove it, believe it. don't prove it. it just doesn't exist. and don't connect those dots if they have not been connected to you beyond a reasonable doubt by the state. now, let's look at what really happened that night. and let's see the graph is done. so, what were these people doing just before? spend a moment on that to start talking about my client's absolute innocence. this is about a minute and a half, something like that, after george's call. he was doing something.
6:49 am
whether he was going to get an address or had that flashlight on looking around a little bit. he said to the law enforcement officer, i do want to try to figure out where he is. i do want to at least keep a visual on him. whatever. that was about a minute and a half. it's really interesting, as well, about the, about the phone call is what trayvon martin was doing. because we haven't spent a lot of time on that yet. but the evidence is sort of compelling to what he was doing. we know he was on the phone with rachel jeantel and we know that ended and we have the time. it is all at a precise time and she said he was running. which, actually, coincides pretty straight forward with when george said he was running. some consistency there. so, trayvon martin was running
6:50 am
and he was running at about somewhere nearby because the altercation, if you look at when her phone call started, back it up to when she heard what she heard, she called it 7:16:11. give her 30 seconds or so to have started. we're going to take a break for a couple minutes. we're going to take a break, but before we take a break, here is what i'm going to do. we're going to sit tight, and
6:51 am
i'll tell you when we'll talk again. so try not to do much. starting now.
6:52 am
6:53 am
6:54 am
6:55 am
that's how long trayvon martin had to run. about four minutes. when he said he was running, that's how long. so let's talk about who was doing what and when. chad, first we talked to, said he could probably throw a football from the back of the backyard to the t in the intersection. we don't have evidence from the
6:56 am
state to how far away. i don't know who plays fob around here, but nonetheless, this is where he was staying. this is where george's car was parked. this is the t-intersection, and chad could throw -- he actually probably can't throw it, because it's a little further than that, but there are some good football players who probably could. he had four minutes. he told rachel jeantel that he was running. but since this is the state's case and not mine, did they show you, tell you, explain to you, any insight whatsoever on what
6:57 am
trayvon martin was doing four minutes before that fight started at the t-intersection? do you have a do about what trayvon martin and what he must have been thinking for four minutes? >> ladies and gentlemen, if you will please take your notepats facedown on the chair, we will take a 15-minute recess. sdploop there is george zimmerman at the end of the first half of mark o'mara's closing argument before the jury, the judge going into a research, she said for about 15 minutes, sometimes it lasts a
6:58 am
bit longer. we want to welcome in our viewers. i'm wolf blitzer in for carol costello. this is a special edition of "newsroom." we're going to return to the courtroom as soon as the defense attorney resumes his closing argument. the challenge he's phasing, convincing the jury that zimmerman was merely trying to defend himself. let's get some perspective on what the jurors have heard so far today over the course of the first hour, 20 mens or so of mark o'meara's closing argument. also joining us, page pate, philip snyder, and cnn's senior legal analyst jeffrey toobin. jeff, i'll start with you, how did o'meara do? >> first of all what an extraordinary contrast between the styles of the prosecutor and
6:59 am
the defense lawyer. yesterday we had a very rhetorical, formal, loud presentation. today, very conversational, very relaxed, almost chatty, and, you know, i get it depends on how you respond to that kind of speaking. i think, frankly marks om'mara s easier to listen to. where reasonable doubt is the very top. you just show how difficult it is to get to beyond a reasonable doubt. when i was a prosecutor, when i saw one of those, i always wanted to crawl under the table. i think they're very powerful, very effective. i think this has been a very good closing argument so far,
7:00 am
and he's likely to get better. >> everyone stand by for a moment. we'll resume our analysis of what we just heard and a lot more. we're gearing up for part 2 of the chloroargument. our coverage continues. announcer: where can an investor be a name and not a number? scottrade. ron: i'm never alone with scottrade. i can always call or stop by my local office. they're nearby and ready to help. so when i have questions, i can talk to someone who knows exactly how i trade. because i don't trade like everybody. i trade like me. that's why i'm with scottrade. announcer: scottrade- proud to be ranked "best overall client experience."
7:01 am
"stubborn love" by the lumineers did you i did. email? so what did you think of the house? did you see the school ratings? oh, you're right. hey babe, i got to go. bye daddy! have a good day at school, ok? ...but what about when my parents visit? ok.
7:02 am
i just love this one... and it's next to a park. i love it. i love it too. here's our new house... daddy! you're not just looking for a house. you're looking for a place for your life to happen. we're in a short break. we'll have full analysis of what we just heard. stand by, but i quickly want to catch you up on major stories, include the nsa leaker, edward snowden is asking human rights group to get temporary asylum in russia. we're getting our first look at snowden since he arrived in moscow. that was back on june 23rd. this photo was just tweeted out by human rights watch, the organization here. joining us on the phone from the moscow airport.
7:03 am
what has happened so far? >> reporter: these members of human rights groups have met with synoding, didn't last long, around 20, 30 minutes. i spoke to the activist who tweeted that photo that you mentioned, i asked her what snowden said. he said he wants their help to try to win asylum, at least on a temporary basis here in russia for a period of time, with the intention of then at some point moving on to latin america when he is able to do so. so he's asked these representatives to lobby russia's president putin to try to make that a reality, to try and get permission to stay in this country until he is able to somehow work out how he can move on to one of the latin-american countries who have offered him asylum. >> putin in the past, as you know, said he could only stay in
7:04 am
russia that doesn't do anything that would undermine the cooperative or friendly relationship with the united states. he would have to be silence as far as releasing more sensitive information. did he suggest he was ready to do that, snowden? >> reporter: we don't have the details, but you're absolutely right. had el had said that position. in theory he could apply for asylum and receive it, the united states. that was the condition that putin said, presumably now synoding is prepared to ask russia for asylum. remember at the time when he -- snowden officially withdrew his application for asylum, because he was not prepared to live by that condition set by the president. now, if, as we suspected, he has little choice, he has no way at the moment logistically traveling to one of these latin-american country that is have offer him asylum. no way of getting there without
7:05 am
being intercepted, so now he appears to have reversused his position. and you have to think if he's doing that, had el is not going to be speaking out on the issues that he has been ever since he fled the united states. >> interesting that he's having this news conference -- or this meeting with the human rights group at the moscow airport rye now phil black, reporting from moscow. other news we're following right now, the final pieces of the asiana flight 214 are being removed from a san francisco runway. planes could start landing there once again on sunday. earlier this morning, shortly after cleanup began, smoke started coming out of the fuselage of the wreckage site. it was quickly put out. cleanup resumed. we're getting a better picture of the final moments before the flight crashed as asiana pilots made not one, but two calls to abort the landing.
7:06 am
cnn's miguel ma questions is joining us from the airport right now with more on what we're learning. what else are we learning? there are deep gouges in the runway itself there, so officials are hopes to get it open by sunday, but there's no guarantee, because there is a lot of work form the plane also damaged some of the gear around the runway as well, as it came in. all that as we're learning more detail about what happened in that cockpit just seconds before the crash. >> this morning new pictures. remnants of a charred flight 214 after, the debris, joint rocks, pieces of the tail section and landing gear littering the runway. now we have the fullist picture yet of the flight's final moments. about 50 seconds out, the first officer comments about the sink rate. that's the speed alternate which the plane is descending.
7:07 am
at about 35 seconds out and 500 feet up, the pilot told investigators he saw a bright light and in response looked at the control in the cockpit, including the speed indicator. >> at about 500 feed, the airspeed was approximately 134 knotts. >> the 350-ton plane was already below the speed to which the pilot believed he had set the autotlolts. for the first time we are hearing at nine seconds before impacts 100 feet above the ground, one of the pilots expressed concern about the aircraft's speed. >> and almost immediately after that is the first comment regarding speed since we started sharing information starting at 500 feet. we are now learning there are two callouts before this. >> oh, my god, it's an accident. oh, my god.
7:08 am
>> reporter: a plane crash so significant that ntsb says it will put everybody it can into finding out what caused this crash. when ntsb came initially to investigate this, they said it may take as long as 18 months. now they're saying they want to get it done in as little as 12 months and reserve the right to make recommendation if they find something wrong mechanically with the plane or some other procedure they need to put into effect to avoid similar crashes to this, wolf? >> what an amazing story that is, miguel. other stories we are watching here in the cnn newsroom. the death toll in the train cash in a small quebec toll, about 34 are missing. they presumed dead, possibly vaporized in the explosion, the train carries crude oil rolled down the held, exploded, destroying much of the town, the
7:09 am
engineer in charge of setting brakes on the train has been suspended and faces a criminal investigation. 12 people are hurt when a fire started in a butte,tore? new york city's chinatown. part of the ceiling also collapsed. the fire department says there's evidence of an explosion, but it's not clear what caused the fire. three people suffered serious burns. we'll get back to the closing arguments in just a moment. let's check a couple other quick stores. paula deen is changing legal teams. "wall street journal" says she's hired a new group of attorneys to defend her in a lawsuit. the change comes after a month of very bad press following her admission of using a racial slur. to southwest china right now, where the search is on for more than 100 missing people after severe flooding triggered a landslide the size of a small town. rescue workers have pulled at least 31 bodies from the rubble.
7:10 am
the floods have feated 1.5 people, and 5100 homes are destroyed, and another 90,000 are damaged. let's go to egypt where supporters of the deposed president mohamed morsi. today the brotherhood plans to march on the presidential palace and head yar of the republican guard where morsist is believed to be held. mean you time, the interim prime minister is working to complete his cabinet. our reza sayah is in cairo watching the developments. what's going on? >> reporter: this is a big day for the supporters of morsi, and moving forward, wolf, every day is going to be critical for them. of course their critics see them as cornered isolated, and that's
7:11 am
the case, they'll have to put forth a show the strength and solidarity. that's what they're doing today with more demonstrations in several parts of cairo. they're coming out in big numbers, but nowhere near the numbers we saw in campaigns that ousted him a couple weeks ago. the meantime, where is morsi? no one has heard from him every since he was ousted. we briefly got to sit down with his son yesterday. he was very defiant. he continues to insist they plan to keep on fighting. he continues to insist the sxwrit leader of egypt is mohamed morsi himself. wolf? >> reza, thank you very much. let's go back to the courtroom, sanford, florida, the judge is there, you see george zimmerman. they're getting ready to resume the final arguments. he already did part 1 of the closing arguments, the first
7:12 am
half. the defense attorney mark o'mara making the kiss, now part 2, we'll see what he has in store then. that will then be followed by the prosecutors, who will have a chance for a final rebuttal. that will last for about an hour or so. the judge and then the deliberations will begin. jeffr jeffrey. i think i mentioned yesterday it was important to take the emotion out of it, and most important about the state's
7:13 am
burden. i think mr. o'mara is doing that. he's reminding the jurors if you still have questions, then the state has not done their job. >> he says, mark o'mara, i'm going to anger a lot of my defense attorneys by doing this, and he said, i'm going to try to prove his innocence, even though he doesn't necessarily have to do that. what do you think about the strategy? >> it's rhetorical. he's suggesting to the jury that his case is so strong, even if he had the burden, he would win. what he needs to do, though, in the second half, go back to the purpose of closing arguments. so he has to addresshe suggestion of racial profiling. philip sniper, how is he doing? >> i think he's doing a good job, when you look at post the
7:14 am
altercation. what the state needs to do is go back to the beginning, what happened prior to the altercation, and then you p because, jeffrey toobin, that was one of the most effective parts of the prosecutor's closing argument yesterday, that this profiling of the a young 17-year-old kid, he's walking back from a convenience store, yes, he's wearing a hoodie, but why did -- why did george zimmerman even begin this process, if you will, of following? >> well, that's obviously a huge question in this case. one of the things i thought -- it was so interesting about this closing argument, he took the exact same evidence as the prosecutor good about george zimmerman's background and put it in what he thought was a
7:15 am
sympathetic light. the idea of the prosecutor kept calling him a wannabe cop, and o'mara said that's a good thing, it's an honorable profession. he's working in his neighborhood to try to make the neighborhood safe. he talked about how this neighborhood had had a lot of crime problems. the jury heard from a woman who went through a terrifying experience where she was assaulted in her home and zimmerman had helped out, so he's trying to present zimmerman much more of a good samaritan rather than a vigilante, using basically the same evidence as the prosecutor. again, i don't know how the jury is going to respond to that, but it is a classic example of two good lawyers using the same evidence to point in precisely the opposite directions. >> page, he said ike going to put out thinks sun glasses, a big ring, put it on his pinky.
7:16 am
he was trying to get the jurors to think of impressions. what was he trying to achieve? >> mr. o'mara has not had a very dramatic if closing, but i think the silence was effective. you get jurors thinking about exactly how long things take, when they're watching a clock or watching mr. o'mara and figuring out how things would feel, or is it reasonable to then believe the state's arguments about what trayvon martin did or did not do. silence can be very effective in closing arguments, and i think it was here. >> that notion, philip snyder, of the animation, the re-creation, you want to demonstrate to the jurors, he seemed to have some major technical problems in the beginning, getting the animation to work, it seemed like it was taking it forever to get it going. was that an effective moment for
7:17 am
the defense in making a case to the jurors? >> unfortunately for the state, i think it's going to be a very powerful moment. what the state didn't do, they waffled to the exact methodology to how this incident ekurd. what the defense is doing very emphatically is saying this is the way it occurred. if you close your eyes, mark o'mara is doing what a prosecutor normally does. so i find that the animation saying a definitive way on how this occurred is unfortunately for the state going to be a very powerful fool for the jury. >> that's the animation right there. ittic be used as formal evidence, but can demonstrate what he says happened, the re-creation of this scene. everyone stand by. they're getting ready to resume part 2 of mark o'mara's closing argument. we'll take a quick break. we'll be right back. ♪ [ male announcer ] after pushing the limits of pushing buttons, introducing the button to end all buttons.
7:18 am
siri, do i have any text messages? [ siri ] you have a new message from chad -- "are you wearing my scarf?" ♪ tell me a joke. two iphones walk into a bar. [ male announcer ] the chevrolet sonic. the world's first car available with siri eyes free and hands free integration through your iphone. that's american ingenuity. to find new roads. through your iphone. [ dog ] we found it together.upbeat ] on a walk, walk, walk. love to walk. yeah, we found that wonderful thing. and you smiled. and threw it. and i decided i would never, ever leave it anywhere. because that wonderful, bouncy, roll-around thing... had made you play. and that... had made you smile. [ announcer ] beneful. play. it's good for you. we've been bringing people together. today, we'd like people to come together
7:19 am
on something that concerns all of us. obesity. and as the nation's leading beverage company, we can play an important role. that includes continually providing more options. giving people easy ways to help make informed choices. and offering portion controlled versions of our most popular drinks. it also means working with our industry to voluntarily change what's offered in schools. but beating obesity will take continued action by all of us, based on one simple common sense fact... all calories count. and if you eat and drink more calories than you burn off, you'll gain weight. that goes for coca-cola, and everything else with calories. finding a solution will take all of us. but at coca-cola, we know when people come together, good things happen. to learn more, visit
7:20 am
mark o'mara has just resumed part 2 of his closing argument. >> so 7:15:43, when rachel jeantel tells you the phone call ended because of a thump. four minutes to do what? to walk home? to run home? four-minute mile was broken when i was like 12. by somebody action i think he was in his teens, i don't know if he played football, but i do know you can run a mile in about four minutes if you're in decent shape. so we know with the opportunity to go home, that he did not. we know that. because it was a football throw
7:21 am
away. so let's talk about factual innocence, and i'll finally leave this behind. somebody decided they were angry. somebody decided they were ticked off. maybe somebody decided they had ill will, spite or hatred, for whatever reason, somebody did decide it wasn't over with the running. because it wasn't after all. hood only j.c. begun, right? it wasn't some cop wannabe. it wasn't some "i've had learned about how to talk aboutself defense and my god, stand your ground on hannity" let's convict them. the person who decided this was going to continue, was going to be a violent event was the guy that didn't go home when he had a chance to.
7:22 am
it was the guy who decided to lie in wait, i guess plan his move, it seems the state dared to tell you that trayvon martin had no decisions, that my client planned this? really? four minutes. four minutes of planning. and they want you to ignore that. factual and undeniable innocence, because with those four minutes now let's use your common sense. now let's decide what probably happened that night, because we know the result. now let's try to figure out the why.
7:23 am
maybe. maybe. not proven, but maybe. trayvon martin, four minutes, doing something we know he's on the phone and talking. i don't care that he called them some stupid name. he's 17-year-old. kids talk stupidly if they want. i'm okay with that. i'm okay with rachel jeantel being 16 or 18, whatever. who cares. he didn't want to be involved in this case, but the reality of what happened is very straightforward, and it proves absolute innocence in four minutes, led to something to him confronting george zimmerman. throw out everything that george
7:24 am
zimmerman said. forever it for a minute. he did what i probably would have told him to do if he called me on the 26th that night. shut up and don't say a word to law enforcement, i'll see you there in half an hour, would have thrown on a pair of jeans, said good-bye to my wife and ran out the door to see a potential client. and said, no, no, no, you are not talking to law enforcement particularly not talk about how you look and not having just shot somebody, so hush up, and now tell me. so let's make believe that happened, take all of his self-serving cop wand aby-created statements and throw them out. what do we have? you've seen the picture a lot, what we do have when mike wagner
7:25 am
went to her, can you pick out the guy, the potential shooter? she said no, go get me a picture. i'll look at the picture, but somebody who shot somebody? i don't want to say i know who that is. so we have this interestingly, and thankfully we have this -- we have the cleaned up photo, the one that doesn't show the significant injury. i don't know who put the nose back in shape. all i know is it looked like that afterwards. if we throw the statements out, we start with this. because this is undeniable. this is significant injury. and then we have the back of his
7:26 am
head and, you know all about that already. and what else do we have? we have 40 seconds of screaming. when i first got this case, i thought it was going to come and go in 20 minutes, because when i found out there was a 911 call with somebody screaming on it, it was game over. figure out who it is, and we're done, because the alternatives are it's trayvon martin screaming and my guy is some horrible extended torturing then eventual murderer for 45 seconds, something, if it was trayvon martin, something strange was happening for it to be him, some bizarre 45-second event where he would scream for help, yet still be able to batter george zimmerman, but i guess they'll tell you the
7:27 am
theory in the final closing. and if we could get a comparison, then it's done. unfortunately it couldn't be done, so now we don't have -- now, as was suggested, now you do get to decide, or not. and then who gets the benefit of that? so let's not forget about that standard. as wee wandering down that make-believe path. and the way he looked. if he was beat up, he just
7:28 am
looked strange. that's not what he said at all. i think what he said, and use your own memories, was that when he took the phone, because he had to drop it. drops the phone, and says words to the effect your husband has been involved in a shooting. what's the response from george zimmerman? shot somebody. i guess what he should have said, would have thinking throu through, it looked like he was out of breath. he should have said that may sound insensitive a year and a half from now.
7:29 am
i should have said that i had to shoot somebody -- i don't know, he told his wife he wasn't the one shot. unusual, inappropriate, somebody calls up and says honey, i was just involved in a car accident. what's your first response? are you okay? you don't only say, is the other person okay? it's just not natural. are you okay? do you ever say, is the car okay? you deal with what you know. don't -- somebody. so we have that evidence. we have smith who says right away he told him he was screaming for help twice. we go forward and we have medical personnel. going, screaming for help is
7:30 am
fine. here they want you to say this mastermind criminal, this guilty beyond a reasonable doubt second-degree murderer knew at that precise moment that he darn well better say that he was the one screaming. because after all, if he had killed the guy who was screaming in the state's theory, right? the real problem with that theory, unless the mastermind knew, when singleton mentioned in the interview that trayvon martin had passed? george was affected. i guess he could be part of the mastermind criminal behavior that he learned in community college. i guess it could have been, but let me tell you, if you have a doubt to whether or not that's true, you need to tell the state, don't ever come back before us again with a case like this.
7:31 am
because what we really have is what i said a while ago. we have factual innocent. you could do back there right now. look at the facts and say we're going to flip the standard upside down. we're not going to allow an acquittal for his client simply because the state handle proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. we're only going to allow mr. o'mara to get his acquittal if he proves to us beyond a reasonable doubt that his client is innocent. and you could.
7:32 am
so let's talk about the standard. i'm going to to get through it as quickly as i can. chad joseph. i'm just going to go through them. didn't have much to say. andrew, 5'10". that's important. we'll get to that in a second. you saw him stand next to me. he was 5'10" in the shoes he had on. he didn't know much about that event. talking to george was this guy. what did he say?
7:33 am
no anger, no animosity, no anger, no anything. quite matter of fact. a person trained to deal with stressful situation. and because sometimes these things turn serious quickly. what did he say? no. he even accepted the reality that george may have misunder, which way is he running that george zimmerman may have thought, i should go find out. next witness, he brought in for the five calls. nothing to do with burglaries. wendy duraval, interesting witness, a lady who set up the
7:34 am
neighborhood watch a few months before, because, as she said, they looked at the crime stats for that neighborhood, and it was being assaulted by -- and something needed to be done. so she went in and she did something, and she told us who might be suspicious from her experience and training. remember, this is her love, not her job. she does this as a volunteer, because she likes the idea of people being involved in the neighborhood helping keep crime out of your own home. somebody you don't know, could be a reason for suspicion, a person walking in the area so you don't belong. maybe. someone walking in the rain without purpose. i don't want to just have you acquit my client because i can show you that trayvon martin did something bad, but i'm also not going to allow you or the state
7:35 am
to ignore the realities of what actually happened that night. and describe mrs. zimmerman, to her knowledge as meek. and an interesting thing about this cop wannabe, they have the citizens on patrol program, where you get a uniform, you get a car, a little yettaw lights on it. they could be blue lights like we have with true law enforcement, but you get little yellow lights, and you get to drive around and act like a cop. and he said to that opportunity to be a cop wannabe in a cop uniform in a cop car with cop lights, and probably a little cop computer in his car, or at least a cop clipboard, no.
7:36 am
thanks, but no. i'm just -- i'm working, i'm going to school, i have my wife, i don't want your cop car, i don't want your lights, and i don't need your uniform. but this is the guy that the state is telling you ill will and hatred out of his cop-wand abe-ism? really? have they pro proven that to you? have they come close? except for speculation. how many times did you hear this is not evidence. that's why. you can go back and say john doe speculated, the judge allowed
7:37 am
it, i guess we can speculate. absolutely not. absolutely not. donald obrian, cop wannabe? it doesn't seem -- he doesn't want the cop car. involved citizen? sure. anything like that to foster their argument to you that he was doing something wrong? so where is the evidence? and they talked about the 17-year-old burglar getting caught action and thank god the stucco guy caught him. now george -- the prosecutor says that george zimmerman was frustrated ooh, i wanted that
7:38 am
one. darn. not real good. are you kidding me? are you actually kidding me that the state attorney's office representing the state is making that allegation to you? that that's ill will, because somebody else cause a burglar this okay, great. just tie it together, please. you've got two dots, and they're this far away. just give me a line. give me something. stucco guy caught him, george is frustrated. anything in between that ties speculation, assumption or i had yossy, anything? i would want him coming to a car accident that i was involved in, what a guy. what a cop. did everything he could, and did it without even thinking about it.
7:39 am
great cop. weather conditions wouldn't allow him to -- and fire -- i don't know that it turns out to be a big deal about you lack of evidence. you have an opportunity, you assigned credibility to the witnesses. you decide what to believe and who to believe, and whether or not they're credible. i would suggest, check out this woman's credibility. before you accept what she said. you saw her, heard her, saw her review the statements. first time, talked to mr. de la
7:40 am
rionda last week, oh, yeah, left to right. well, here's a thought. trayvon martin was running left to right when he came back from the area. you there's the possibility. could have been i don't know where she fits in, i don't know what she saw or what she said. or with me, but whatever. fit it in however you can. you know, so he heard three pops. is she lying? my gosh, she's lying because she heard three pops? no. let's get off this lying theme, because you have slight inconsistencies. she heard or thought she heard
7:41 am
what she thought she heard. okay. whatever. maybe it was fright, upset, who cares. she got it wrong. what else she got wrong actually what she really thought is mr. martin hadn't moved, because she saw the whole thing doesn't comport with a 911 call, again just stressful time for everybody. on the ground, never moved, shot was through the back, and that he never moved. it just doesn't make sense. that's okay. the advantage point. that movie, have you ever seen it, but it's a great movie.
7:42 am
and there's eight different people, seven different people watching it. everyone has a completely different story. they viewed it with the history, life experiences, what they were going through that day, and with what perspective they have. it's just different. that's okay. it happens. she heard voices 20, 30 feed to the right. seems to be consistent with and of course, what she did was what we all do. i'm not going to assail her for that, but what she did was make some assumptions based on some facts that she saw afterwards. she was liking at pictures of trayvon martin when he was 12. and if you looked at me when i
7:43 am
was 12, and compared me to anybody, i'm the guy getting beat up. no questions asked. but the reality is that she just had this vantage point of a child at 12 years old getting, i guess, the heck beat out of him by the other guy who was on tv, this big, heavy picture of george zimmerman. and she acknowledged, you know, now that you showed me the other picture -- here's the ones that i did look at and find out or think that it was trayvon martin being the small guy, now show me these other pictures, i could have been wrong. no, c'mon, just vantage point, just perspective.
7:44 am
that's why you're here. because you get to figure it out. rachel jeantel. let me give you my perspective. she didn't want to be involved in the case. she didn't want to be involved in the depositions. she didn't want to be involved in the trial. i think what happened, and they just conjecture. i'm not supposed to conjecture too much. i think her mom got with ms. fulton and said, go tell that lady what happened with her son. she didn't want to do that. that's why she wrote the letter. she -- i don't think she -- don't forget, it only reunited trayvon martin and rachel jeantel like two weeks before. they knew each other from school, but never really hung out. two or three weeks before is when they started talking again, so it wasn't perceived as the girlfriend/boyfriend. she just didn't think it was
7:45 am
much that night. interesting to me that, you know, if you asked me right now to explain to you the phone call that i had three weeks ago with my wife, or four weeks ago with my sister or last week with mr. west, i can give you the idea, and then my wife would say, well, we talked about dinner -- okay, all right, we talked -- no way do elf the recall. but if you're asked to have the recall, tell me what happened? this happened? didn't you say this? didn't you say that? well, you he didn't say what he was talking about. he said what he would do here, right? oh, yeah. that, too. ms. jeantel didn't want to be here, and i don't want to seem like i'm asking for sympathy. i'm sorry she had to involve her life in our lives in a way she
7:46 am
never wanted to be involved. unfortunately, she was a witness and we had to deal with it. and some of her frailties came out in the courtroom, on tv, and i'm sure she never wanted that. and probably every other witness. some witness it is wanted to be anonymous, you know, that they were concerned, and she's one of them. some of the stuff she said, i think she probably meant close as compared to the 7-eleven. it took him 45 minutes to go from the 7-eleven home, probably was hanging out. i'll show you the map between the two. somebody said, why are you talking about? i think that change occurred
7:47 am
because of way her initial interview was handled by one of the attorneys. horribly appropriate to not get this person to law enforcement. almost as bad as to have the moment on the couch next to you cry i crying when the state does the first interview. their call, but wow, to do it that way. of course she was concerned about ms. martin's feelings, and that's why she modified -- you're supposed to tell the absolute truth here, but not going to ask a -- someone like ms. jeantel not to come in and not acknowledge the sensitivities, and why she made it sound a bit better when telling the story of her son's
7:48 am
passing when telling the story to ms. fulton. she said something said something, blue car, red car, blue car, yeah, something like that, a little agitated, and movement down. that's where we got the movement down. she said, to -- down to the past, and john good said it happened in the front, and there was only one person yelling for help. that's significant. because there is no evidence, none to suggest it was more than one person yelling for help. and if so -- no evidence that more than one person was yelling for help.
7:49 am
she was talking about they are knowledge, lack of knowledge about the street signs. ms. moore said she heard what she heard and saw what she saw. we talked about him a lot. i think he's a significant witness, because he watched for 8 to 10 seconds, and he was the basis for the animation, the information that came to you through the animation. jon that manolo, same thing. it looked like he got his butt beat and staggering to the ground. ricardo ayala, the hands under the body, you know, if that is a concern of yours that he dared to testify in his statement that he took his hands out out of fear for a weapon, and that that
7:50 am
is contraindicated because trayvon martin's hands -- look at the picture, by the way, the other hand seams to be, that that is some inconsistency for which you should impute ill will, hatred or spite. that's absurd. and dr. dimaio said it was, 10 to 15 seconds of talking or moving, whatever d. not only is it possible, it's probable. stacy livingston, the emt, you heard about the injuries and what she did. timothy smith important because -- you remember him, he was on the scene, took george zimmerman into custody for his own protection. he talked to him twice about screaming for help before he knew that there was any the 11 call suggesting it. you know about the medical reports. she was the first one to mention the mma style.
7:51 am
we know about him, can't help you, don't do it, don't even try. fort that the even the fbi unfortunately the fbi couldn't even help out. and i think what was significant about that is george zimmerman's response to the christian issue, and to the fact she was the first person telling him that trayvon martin had passed away, and the statements are what the statements are. again, what he stated was in his opinion, and again he's the law enforcement officer in charge of the investigation, there aren't any significant inconsistencies is what he heard from george zimmerman. were there some? yes. were they significant in his mind? to what -- that they were lines? no, not even what he did to
7:52 am
challenge. let's talk about that challenge interview. the state said to you, george zimmerman knew those video cameras were not working so aha, it wasn't a bluff. it was, again, super cop, knowing everything, and just deciding i can get away with this. really? really? so when chris sarino -- this used to be a problem -- for a second. chris sarino -- i lost my train of thought. eyen going to catch up in just a second. he had said the inconsistencies
7:53 am
did not matter to him, and when george zimmerman said, thank god there may be a video tape, the state wants you to believe the perfect super-cop bluff response, because he knows -- he took a couple classes a couple years ago at a community college. absurd. i would suggest to you to make the suggestion to you that in that moment, when confronted with the potential of an actual video by mr. martin, that my client would do anything other than say thank got it may be there, and it's not evidence of innocence. marcoser man, i don't think he would lie for his friend, but was the one who testified about theself defense. i think you remember his testimony animated, but total you about everything he could about george zimmerman that night, that history is a bit
7:54 am
different from george's other stories. figure it out and figure out how significant it is, and whether or not it suggests second degree or anything. dr. bao, i don't know what to say, a minimum of four hits. you see the pictures. if he was only hit four times, fine let's take a moment on those four hits. you're going to get the statute and jury instructions. here's what they're going to tell you about the extent of the injuries that you have to find my client suffered at the time he decided to shoot the significance of those injuries, how life-threatening those injuries were, how soon my client presumed he was going to die from the injuries already inflicted upon him, are you ready? zero.
7:55 am
zero. no injuries necessary to respond with deadly force. not a cut on a finger. the statute is clear. reasonable fear of bodily harm. captain carter told, whoa, you can get reasonable fear of bodily harm when you're already getting your butt beat, that's certainly indication, but do you need a cut on your finger? no. of course getting cut on your finger doesn't allow you to just shoot somebody, unless you're in reasonable fear of ongoing great bodily injury. so the injuries icing on the case ofself defense, has nothing to do with the substance of
7:56 am
self-defense. you will not hear a word about inflicted injuries. you only hear that you must look at george zimmerman's state of mind when he did what he did. so even if i said to you i'll take dr. rao's testimony, though you can tell i wasn't taking dr. rao's testimony, but let's just say i was. it doesn't matter. ms. benson, print expert, there wasn't a lot. absence of prints doesn't mean no fingerprints or no touching, just that it's not there. environmental factors seven's rain could remove them. the lieutenant's application that was denyed because mr. zimmerman didn't have good credit. captain carter, criminal litigation coursework. he actually turned out to be a good expert to tell you what self-defense is and how getting your butt beat is really
7:57 am
probably a good indication that great bodily injury is coming, because it's already started. and he says not a good idea to wait until it actually you get attacked. the records custodian, gordon pleasant, we talked about the course online, amy seward, firearms, she mentioned the full complement of bullets, and anthony gargone of fdle talking about d. in a. the part of the problem is they got some, but missed some behalf way it was packaged. significant? i don't think it was that significant. i don't think that george skipper man was bleeding a lot that night, i don't think he was bleeding out that night, i think he was probably bleeding in, and then when he stood up, yes, it
7:58 am
started coming out of his nose. not a lot of blood on trayvon martin, probably not a lot to be expected, and there was no injuries on trayvon martin until the gunshot, so you wouldn't imagine there would be any blood on george. or any place else on any body. when trayvon martin was finally shot, he went up and over. so dna, we can go over some particulars about it, and i have some precise points about what was found on mr. trayvon martin's cuffs and what not, but generally speaking, not all that significant. ms. fulton, people asked why we even request questioned her. how dare you question the moment of a passed away 17-year-old. doctors cut people sometimes when they do their work.
7:59 am
that was something i had to present to you, to something about the way it happened and how it happened. and, you know, the impact and just how moments think about these things, both sides. because i know that both moms believe with their heart, with their soul that that was their son's cry for help. you have to. you want to, and it's just the way you get through it.. now he's more certain. again, i'm okay with that. i'm okay with people wanting to hear what they want to hear. dr. bao, that was the state's
8:00 am
decision to bring him before you as a medical examiner -- not really his decision. he was the one who did the autopsy. although there was some interaction there that might have been best been redone, you the only injuries were the injuresies we know about on trayvon martin, and that the wet clothes should not have been -- should not have been bagged in paper, and at the hands should have been bagged. we'll talk about the hands in a little bit. she told you that it was her son, as i'm sure you expected, before she ever got on the stand. mesa, interesting, because -- if you believe his testimony, he had are a computer listening, and the voice that he knew without question, and pleadly to be that of his nephew georger