tv CNN Newsroom CNN July 9, 2013 2:00pm-4:00pm EDT
something and not have any hemorrhaging at all. >> right. what i'm saying is you can get it or you cannot. if you have it and you live a couple of days you will be able to see it. but the thing is if it is not there it is not important. >> i think -- let me understand what you are saying. you can hit somebody and not leave bruising on your knuckles, correct? >> that's correct. >> in other words, george zimmerman could have hit trayvon martin and not left bruising on his knuckles. >> that's correct, sir. >> you were asked a bunch of questions and were shown photographs of george zimmerman's head, right? >> yes, sir. >> all parts of his head and you gave your opinion as to what that is or not. would you not agree that somebody that is familiar with his head like a doctor that had treated him in the past or like a physician's assistant would
know what was existing there before that thing or not in terms of the shape of the body or the head is? >> may or may not. you don't generally remember the shape of one of your patient's heads especially if you are seeing 20 or 30 patients a day. >> my next question regarding that, who is the best person that would see george zimmerman right then and there the next day would be able to describe what injuries he had or did not have? >> in theory if they do it correctly, yes. the problem is that emergency room records and doctors records are generally lousy in regards to describing injuries, very, very lousy. >> you agree that the fire rescue people do an honorable job in the sense they know what they are doing.
>> i'm not saying these people aren't competent. their job is to treat patients. they have a tendency not to document what they see. that is why they want to put forensic nurses in emergency rooms to document these injuries because doctors aren't interested in the injuries. they are interested in treating the patient. >> the fire rescue people are interested in injuries. >> they are interested just like doctors in treating a person. because if you read the records they mention two lacerations. they don't say where they are except in the back of the head. >> it was measured for you and that is how you were able to detail how little they were. >> then they didn't say which one was on the right side and which was on the left side or located exactly. so, you know -- >> you could tell, couldn't you, when you looked at the photograph?
>> yes. but they didn't do it. i couldn't tell which was the 20 and which was the 5 because the wound wasn't cleaned up when they took the photograph. >> are we talking about the same photograph? >> there were two photographs. the better one on the back of the head there was still blood there and you couldn't tell which one was the 20 millimeter and which was the 5 because one had clotted blood on top of it. >> you do agree with the treatment in the sense of didn't need stitches? >> i agree but my answer should be it is outside my area of expertise. i will agree that they didn't need treatment. >> you are sticking to your main thing is gunshot wounds, correct? >> well, i'm describing blunt force injuries. you are asking me about treatment which is different. you asked me about treatment and i don't treat people. >> okay.
you deal with them after they are dead. >> yes, sir. >> right? >> yes, sir. >> but you did review the fire rescue report regarding the treatment of george zimmerman, correct? >> yes, sir. >> when it says patient has a gcs of 15, what does that mean? >> that is the index. >> what does that indicate to you? >> it means that he is perfectly fine. everybody here has a 15 in this room would be a 15. >> and those are the fire rescue people that dealt with him right after this interaction between the defendant and trayvon martin. >> that's correct. >> now, did i understand you correctly that you are saying that the difference between the photograph at the scene, the bloody photograph that he has got -- do you have that big one
by chance? i know we have it in evidence but i believe they have a big one. thank you. you are saying this one right here that there is a difference between -- i apologize your honorer. may i approach the witness? the photograph with the front of the defendant's face with blood on it taken by police out there. you are saying that you believe there was something wrong with his nose, the right part of his nose, correct? >> yes, sir. if you look at the photograph taken about four hours later that marked deviation of the side of the nose is not there. it disappeared. >> do you need something to drink? >> no. >> your opinion is that you believe the fire rescue people just did it without them noticing that they did it or the defend, george zimmerman, realizing that they had put his
nose back in place. >> i said it is consistent with a fracture. since no one -- the ems thought there was a fracture. they said that. and if it is a fracture and it's now replaced that would account for the differences in the photographs. >> you agree that four hours later his nose is perfect. >> it is not swollen to the right side. it's still swollen a little on the right side but not as deviated as shown in the first photograph. >> it is possible it wasn't fractured at all? >> but then the swelling should still be there which it wasn't four hours later. >> did you know whether they gave him something to put on there to control the swelling? >> it is not going to change. >> now, you also talked about the injury to the back of his head. i think i am going to call them scratches.
>> lacerations. >> those are what? two inches and four inches? >> it is 20 millimeters which is a shade less than an inch. and the other is 5 millimeters which is about a fifth of an inch. >> one is smaller than this? >> right. >> and one is about that? >> correct. >> you are not saying that he would die from those? >> i never said that. i said it is indicative of a hard impact. >> or maybe hitting a tree limb or rolling around in the dirt? on the concrete? >> it's indicative of a hard impact. that is all i said. >> you don't know whether somebody hit him on the thing or him rolling around? >> it is a hard impact. that is all i can say. that is all i have said. >> yes, sir. now, you were aware he was
offered medical care in terms of going to see doctors and he declined to do that, correct? >> yes, sir. >> now, also i believe the fire rescue did not notice any kind of other injuries to the top of his head. do you think they dismissed it? >> no. there are two possible explanations. one is that the bleeding continued after he was seen by ems. so you are looking at something where it has been bleeding for four or five hours or they just didn't notice it because they knew there was an impact they considered significant. >> he went the next day to the facility where physician's assistant treated him.
she didn't notate all of the injuries you are describing. >> that is the problem that forensic pathologists pull their hair out from is that medical personnel don't describe injuries properly. my job is to look at injuries, not treat. >> the other thing that i wanted to ask you about this is -- may i approach the witness? the photograph that was taken at the scene -- i'm sorry of the defendant. he has blood there. >> right. >> i put my hand over that, right? what do you expect my hand to have on it? >> blood.
>> sir, wouldn't you agree that that photograph i just showed you that i put my hand over you said you would expect to see blood on my hand. wouldn't you agree if he was bleeding like that if he is standing the blood would go down. if he is bleeding from the nose. >> depends how profusely but eventually it would go down. >> if i am laying flat on my back and i am bleeding from my nose the blood would go inward. >> partially. >> so it would be more difficult for me to swallow or speak i'm assuming if blood is going down, correct? >> depends how profusely you are bleeding. >> assuming i had a bloody nose
or fractured nose and it is bloody the blood would go into my mouth eventually. >> it would be harder for me to swallow, talk. >> unless you start swallowing it. >> okay. now, did i understand you correctly that you did not view the video that was taken of george zimmerman, the defendant, when he was taken to the police station when he was being walked and he walked fine and had no problems walking or talking? >> actually, i have seen it. they kept playing it on tv all the time. >> i mean, he seemed to be walking tine and have no problems, correct? and able to communicate. >> that's right. >> i know the recording you saw of the defendant's interview was subsequent to that. i believe it was two days later. >> yes, sir. >> on that evening right after he was in the struggle with trayvon martin he was walking and talking fine.
>> yes, sir. >> you're not quibbling with that, right? >> no, sir. >> and you agree that there is actually no witnesses to the actualt shooting other than the person charged with the crime, george zimmerman and the person that is dead. >> that's correct. >> regarding the gunshot wound because i know that is your focus in terms of how close. i think you stated up to four inches max and then two inches. >> and when you say two inches you are accounting for the sweatshirt underneath and then the hoodie or sweatshirt with the hood over it, correct? >> no. >> you are saying the hole creates a barrier. >> i am talking between the skin
and the muzzle. >> now, have you ever worn one of those hoodies? >> not that type, no. >> you are watching the zimmerman trial. the prosecutor in the case trying to poke some holes here in the defense witness, really a very renowned pathology expert in his account and his analysis of the evening of the murder. we will be right back after a quick break. "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. 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.
is dna found in this area that apparently was mispackaged or whatever? >> no. >> okay. you said you did review the firearms report, is that correct? that was from fdle. you agreed with that in the sense the findings in terms of the range and stipplings or gun powder, whatever words you want to use. she just describes it. >> am i safe to assume that your opinion is that somehow after george zimmerman, the defendant, was punched or whatever, rolled
around, he had an injury to his nose, that you believe it may have been fractured or displaced in some way and somebody out there at the scene put it back in place. >> or he did. >> he could have done it himself. i'm assumingt that would have been painful. >> yes, sir. >> and so you believe he would have done it himself? >> i didn't say that. you asked me who could do it and i just added to your list. >> you are saying anybody could have done it. >> anybody could have done it. >> or nobody could have done it and it wasn't as bad as people think. >> if it is just swelling it shouldn't have gone down in four hours. that thing is so deviated it is most likely the nose is deviated because it is fractured. >> talk about another subject close to our hearts since we are both bald headed. i have been referred to as that bald headed dude.
i don't know if you have been called that before. my question is, when we bleed there, tell us about the bleeding. it is very profuse, isn't it? >> scalp bleeding is always profuse because the scalp has a lot of blood vessels in it. >> more than other areas of the body potentially? >> yes, sir. >> why is that? >> i have absolutely no idea. that is how the design is. you know. >> so the bottom line, sir, there are possibilities and one of the possibilities one you said and then there are other possibilities. >> to a degree. it is consistent with his account. >> and you are now saying he grabbed the gun and how he took it out. you are saying the gun is out already. is that correct? >> that is correct, sir.
>> i want to make sure the jury understands it. you are saying the time he had the gun out already and was pointing it at the person he ended up shooting, correct? >> yes, sir. >> at that point you don't know if trayvon martin was backing up in terms of providing an angle or whether he was going forward. you can't say. >> it is consistent with his account, mr. zimmerman's account. >> it is also consistent with trayvon martin pulling back in terms of providing the angle. >> i told you that, too, yes, sir. >> i think you are not here testifying about the holster and how that works. the reason i ask is because you are an expert in gun shots.
nor about the firearm itself. >> not about the firearm, either. no, sir. >> now, if the hoodie or the sweatshirt with the hood -- you need some water or something? >> no, sir. >> if people are able to grab it, in other words, they are going to grab it. it is big, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and i think you testified about the fact that your
expertise is -- you are not an expert to trauma to the head. are you an expert on that? >> trauma is pathology. i will testify on that. i won't testify to treatment. >> treatment on injuries to the head. >> i don't testify to treatment at all because i don't treat people. >> now, are you aware that out there at retreat of twin lakes where this happened there is also in addition to the concrete walk way there is also a sprinkler box. did you see any of those in the photographs? >> i didn't see any in the photographs. >> you mentioned knuckles to face a possibility, correct? >> yes, sir.
maio a pathology expert for the defense being questioned. this is redirect examination by defense attorney. >> whether they saw the actual moment when the shot was fired. >> that is correct, sir. i have to interrupt the objective evidence. i'm not going to base my opinion on the witnesses because witnesses are wrong all the time. >> have you had occasion where you have reviewed witness statements, people who have claimed to have seen something with their own eyes that was absolutely contradicted by the physical evidence that you knew to exist? >> all the time. they will say someone stood over a man and shot him and two architects and a secretary saw that. the bullet taken from the body did not match the gun of the person who supposedly stood over him and shot him and the bullet
that hit him was a ricochet that had to be fired from 30 feet away. i have a half a dozen of those cases. >> let's talk more specifically. a woman named sulean testified in the trial and didn't claim to have seen the individuals at the time the shot was fired. would that matterer to you at all? >> no. >> let's talk about jane. she said she was looking at the individuals outside her window some distance away and believes that she was looking at them when the shot was fired what she described was that at the time the shot was fired mr. zimmerman was on top of mr. martinez -- >> objection, leading and mischaracterization of the facts. >> can i finish my question
please? >> if it is a mischaracterization of the facts i need you to rephrase your question. >> it's not, your honor. >> that is for the jury to determine. >> she said she was looking out the window and that she believes she was looking at the individuals when the shot was fired. she said that at the time the shot was fired that mr. zimmerman was on top and that mr. martin was face down. is that possible given the forensic evidence that you know in this case? >> no, sir, it is not possible. >> mr. martin -- >> he was shot from the front. >> so would her statement have done you any good in this case? >> no, sir. >> in fact, that would be an
example of how an eyewitness just gets it wrong. >> yes, sir. >> you did consider john goode's statement to the extent that he was the person -- >> objection, leading question. >> sustained. >> john goode testified trial that when he looked out his back door he saw the person later identified as george zimmerman on his back on the ground and that he saw trayvon martin straddling him on his knees striking mr. zimmerman in some sort of mma style. and then he went back inside and some seconds later the shot was fired. is the position that mr. goode
saw trayvon martin straddling and striking mr. zimmerman with mr. zimmerman on his back consistent with the forensic evidence that you found at the time of the shot? >> yes, sir. >> that statement i take it is separate and apart from mr. zimmerman's statement describing essentially the same thing. >> again, i would not have used that to give my opinion. i have to use the physical evidence in conjunction with the statement of mr. zimmerman. you pointed out in your direct evidence that there were two lacerations on the back of mr. zimmerman's head and that you testified that you believed
those two have been from separate impacts. >> yes, sir. >> because you can see the sort of valley in between. >> yes, sir. >> those were the two blows that created the lacerations. >> in addition they were so separate that if you impacted one you couldn't get the other one. there were two reasons. >> your testimony was that was consistent with having mr. zimmerman's head struck at least twice on a surface like concrete. >> objection. leading nature of the question. >> setting the stage for the question. >> they are all still leading. you need to rephrase your questions. >> is the -- are the two lacerations with the valley in between on the back of mr. zimmerman's head consistent with at least two separate impacts on the surface like concrete? >> yes, sir.
>> and is it -- i'm trying to figure out a way to ask you about tree branches. were there any big tree branches that you knew in the vicinity of where this happened that were on the ground that could have been used as a club? >> no. you have tree trunks but there are no tree branches that i could see. that is why when i first answered the question i said there were no tree branches. >> for mr. zimmerman to have received those lacerations on the back of his head because of impact with a tree trunk what would have had to have happened if in fact that were possible? >> he would practically have to be upright sitting because you would have to hit the trunk. you would have to go back violently against the trunk on two occasions. so it would still be blunt trauma to the back of the head
twice. >> or it could have been from hitting his head on the sidewalk. >> objection. leading, argumentive. >> overruled as to argumentive. i'll overrule as to leading. please rephrase. >> is that scenario much more plausible and consistent with the physical evidence? >> the cement is more plausible especially when you look at the injuries on the side of the head which wouldn't be tree trunk because you have a pattern of abrasions. >> you commented, of course, that there is a different role that some professionals play in dealing with someone that's been injured. >> yes, sir. >> whereas -- >> we will be back to testimony in the george zimmerman trial right after this break.
we are beautifully imperfect creatures living in an imperfect world. that's why liberty mutual insurance has your back, offering exclusive products like optional better car replacement, where if your car is totaled, we give you the money to buy one a model year newer. call... and ask an insurance expert about all our benefits today, like our 24/7 support and service, because at liberty mutual insurance, we believe our customers do their best out there in the world, so we do everything we can to be there for them when they need us. plus, you could save hundreds when you switch, up to $423. call... today. liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy? ...and we inspected his brakes for free.
-free is good. -free is very good. [ male announcer ] now get 50% off brake pads and shoes at meineke. is it possible that maybe his nose wasn't deviated? >> he obviously has been punched nose and hit in the forehead. >> that is the injuries up here you are talking about? >> yes, sir. >> the gcs scale of 15, is that a reference to a paramedic note? is that what that -- >> it is probably an area on the form where you know a 15 means they are walking and talking and breathing and they have a heart
rate and they are not really bad. once you start -- most people come into emergency rooms are 15s. everybody in this courtroom is 15. to start going down you have to start getting into trouble. >> i take it you are not claiming in some way that mr. zimmerman wasn't able to walk or talk that evening not withstanding his traumatic injuries. >> that is correct. the type of injury he would get would be more of a stunning, not what most people think of as a significant concussion. that is why i tended to get away from the word concussion and went to the nonmedical word stunning-time injury. >> the idea of a concussion that might lead to hematomas or death happens some point in time after
the actual impact. >> objection. leading. >> please rephrase your question. >> the consequences of the blow those that develop over some period of time after the impact. >> usually concussions show up immediately but the problem is that they can be extremely subtle. and that is why sporting events like to have doctors there because lay people look at someone who has a concussion and will not pick up anything unusual if it is a mild concussion. as it gets more severe then it is quite obvious. >> when you're getting hit like that, are you feeling it? >> oh, yes. >> are you in some appreciation that you are being injured? >> yes. i mean, if you get punched in the nose, believe me, you know it. >> does that continue to hurt for a while? >> yes, sir. >> how about when you get your
head banged on concrete, does that hurt then and continue to hurt? >> yes. especially if you have a lot of lacerations. >> would someone at that moment when this is actually happening to them be able to know whether or not what was happening to them was life threatening? >> no because they are stunned. and you are in pain and you are in fear. so you can't interpret. even looking at them outside can say they are all right. it happened all the time. people think they are all right and then they die a few hours later. that's why police in this case should have taken mr. zimmerman to a hospital, not to the police station because if he had died in the police station they would have been sued and the family
would have won the lawsuit because he had head injuries that means you take him to the hospital. >> even if there is not evidence of a concussion that he is stumbling or falling down or not able to talk. >> if you have head injuries like that you go to an emergency room. you don't play around. i mean, people die in jail like that a lot of times. the jails always lose the lawsuits. i will tell you that. >> so if someone is in the process of being hit and having their head struck on surface like cement, they are having this stunning effect and the pain associated with it, in the moment of that not knowing when it is going to stop, are they able to say i can take three more of these before i need to do something about it? >> objection, leading and
argumentive. >> sustained. >> speculation. >> we will be right back to the george zimmerman trial right after this break. if you've got it, you know how hard it can be to breathe and man, you know how that feels. copd includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis. spiriva is a once-daily inhaled copd maintenance treatment that helps open my obstructed airways for a full 24 hours. you know, spiriva helps me breathe easier. spiriva handihaler tiotropium bromide inhalation powder does not replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms. tell your doctor if you have kidney problems, glaucoma, trouble urinating, or an enlarged prostate. these may worsen with spiriva. discuss all medicines you take, even eye drops. stop taking spiriva and seek immediate medical help if your breathing suddenly worsens, your throat or tongue swells, you get hives, vision changes
additional information as to whether or not mr. zimmerman's nose was actually bleeding at some point in time during the incident. >> that's correct. i mean, you get an impact to the nose you will eventually bleed but i can't tell you if you are going to bleed immediately or not. it depends on what hit you. >> where that blood goes may depend on the position that your head is in? >> yes. it does. >> now, you have also talked quite a bit in cross i guess and direct about if you find something that is important but if you don't the absence of finding it doesn't necessarily make the absence of evidence important. >> right. that's a general fact that is understood.
absence doesn't mean anything. presence does. because epelspecially if you do know the statistical probability. how often do you actually find something like a transfer of dna? how often does it occur? you have to know that before you can give a probability. if you haven't done that you can't give an opinion. >> do you agree that environmental conditions can effect whether or not dna is present on physical evidence? >> yeah. >> for example, in this case you can assume that it was about three hours from the event until mr. martin's body was transported. and during that time while it may have been -- the body may have been covered with a blanket or covering on the outside there was a period of time when the body and his hands were exposed
to the elements. >> right. and that is also how you inclose the body. do you wrap it tightly or put it loosely? again, putting it in plastic containers, plastic tends to rub and be stiff. you know, if it's there it is significant. if it is not there that is significant. >> you may also consider there has been testimony that the weather conditions varied from a light drizzle to a heavy rain during these events. and would the fact that it was raining to some degree, could that also affect whether or not there is biological dna evidence collected from mr. martin's hands? >> that is true. you know how the hands were handled and things like that. >> or perhaps even if they may have been washed prior to being
photographed? >> that's why the forensic pathologist is supposed to be with the body from the time it comes in. you should always be there. you should never leave the body even if you have assistants helping you. you don't leave the body. >> you wouldn't trust your assistants to do -- well, i guess what you are saying is while you may trust your assistants to follow the protocol you would confirm and verify. >> right. if you want the clothing removed you examine the clothing on the body before you say take it off. and then you stand there as they take it off to see if they are doing things appropriately and not maybe throwing it on the floor. you throw it on the floor anything on the floor is now on the clothing. and then you have it on a tray. you don't have the clothing piled on top of each other because if there is some
material on one piece of clothing and then another piece on top of it you can get transfer. you are supposed to be monitoring this the whole time. >> let me show you what is marked as state's exhibit 28 which has been offered into evidence. >> objection, beyond the scope of cross examination. >> i will ask the question. the state's exhibit 28 has been offered into evidence and it represents a picture of mr. martin's chest taken at the scene by the crime scene technician. and then i would like to show you state's exhibit 95 which is in evidence and has been represented as a photograph taken at the time of the autopsy but before any cleaning or
washing was done to the body. >> vincent di maio renounced forensic pathologist bringing into question how investigators handled the evidence following the death of trayvon martin. we are back to the zimmerman trial after a quick break. let's play: [ all ] who's new in the fridge! i help support bones... [ ding! ] ...the immune system... [ ding! ] ...heart health... [ ding! ] ...and muscles. [ ding! ] that can only be ensure complete! [ female announcer ] the four-in-one nutrition of ensure complete. a simple choice to help you eat right. [ major nutrition ] nutrition in charge.
let's get quick thoughts now from our legal experts in this case here. tonya miller. you are watching vincent di maio who you described as sort of an untouchable forensic pathologist bringing into question how investigators handled the evidence. >> absolutely. the state has the burden of proof and the defense is going to drive that home. through di maio through degradation by putting evidence in plastic bags, my mishandling
evidence at the forensic crime laboratory this evidence is missing from the trial which is reasonable doubt and evidence that the state is responsible for is going to hurt the state of florida. >> you said the defense is trying to have it both ways on whether zimmerman was bleeding from his nose. >> i did because the point that the prosecutor made when he stood up was this nose was bleeding. it was either coming out of his nose or going down his throat. if it is coming out of his nose according to george zimmerman at one point trayvon martin was holding his nose. if the blood was going down his throat how can george zimmerman be screaming for help so clearly on the 911 tape. it has to be one or the other. >> we will get a quick break in and be right back to the zimmerman trial in just a moment.
>> you are not disputing that. >> the photographs [ inaudible ]. >> do you have absence of evidence that anything was washed by the rain? >> it would have to be -- you would have to know how much it was raining there and you would have to have observation. >> pure speculation, correct? >> yeah unless you were there and saw how much it was washing in the rain. >> and there was an absence of vomiting. right? you were asked about john goode. you agree that a jury should rely on what he said on the witness stand? >> it is kind of interesting. if he has a good statement at
the time and testifies something else on the witness stand you begin to wonder. i think that is up to the jury to consider. >> question is john goode testified he neither saw nor heard anything on the sidewalk, does the physical evidence, is that what you rely on? >> i didn't rely on anything on the statement. >> you disregarded john goode. >> i disregarded the witnesses because what i was trying to do was essentially take mr. zimmerman's statement and see whether the physical evidence supported it or invalidated his statements. because the witnesses, they are all over the place. you can't use the witnesses to make autopsy decisions. >> but is it what george zimmerman, the defendant, is
relating to the police, is he a witness in terms of what happened? >> yes. but that's why you don't believe him and you do the tests and look at the autopsy to check what he said matches what you find at the body. >> right. and you relied on one of his statements. what you can say is the gun was out and it was two inches from the body. >> two to four inches. >> thank you. >> from this notion of the absence of evidence not being evidence of absence notion if mr. good e didn't testify that he heard george zimmerman's head hitting cement like this in some way, does that in any way mean mr. zimmerman's head didn't actually get hit on the cement? >> no.
>> same thing if mr. goode didn't hear trayvon martin hit george zimmerman in the head like this, does that mean george zimmerman didn't get hit in the head to cause the injuries that you saw? >> no. >> may dr. di maio be excused? >> yes, your honor. >> may doctor di maio be excused? thank you very much, doctor, you are excused. call your next witness, please. your next witness is? >> well, i had my ear to the screen hoping to hear the next witness because i can't wait to hear who comes next after an alarming day of point counter point from dr. vincent di maio. listen in, wait a sec.
we are going to ask him who the next witness is going to be. it is fun to watch how this plays out especially when you don't get the witness list in advance. it is a surprise to everyone of us when they walk through the big old doors as to who is going to take the stand next in this trial. i will let you know the entire wrap up shortly. next up we are waiting on two key witnesses we know could be called, benjamin crump. he has been out of the courtroom this whole time because they may have him testify. it is also not mr. robert zimmerman. let's listen up. >> do you swear the testimony presented will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god. thank you.
>> that didn't take long. we are in a side bar before we get the witness up and running. the damage that was done this morning throughout the course of just a couple of hours to the prosecution's case cannot be understated. the lawyers who are litigating this case are powerful and strong and smart but that was a very tough cross to undergo because that witness that we had all morning is an excellent expert witness. yes we had the questions you have been paid and you do this sometimes for a living. let's listen in. >> you may proceed. >> good afternoon, sir. state your name, please. >> norton bonapart. >> occupation. >> city manager. >> how long have you been so employed. >> a year and a half.
>> you were employed in 2012 when this event happened? >> that is correct. >> i want to focus your attention if i might on a very particular event, that is the event that surrounds the playing of what we now know to be a 911 call. understand there was some decisions made getting us to that point. we are not concerned or going to inquire into the reason. i want to talk to you about the actual event. my understanding is -- my understanding is that you were -- the decision was made to play the tape for the martin family, correct? >> the decision was made to play a number of tapes. >> correct. including there were several tapes played. police evidence tapes of the investigation surrounding this event, correct? >> 911 and the nonemergency
number. >> several of them, correct? >> that's correct. >> i want to focus your attention particularly on one although i realize several were played. when the decision was made to play the tapes who actually took care of the process of playing the tapes? >> it was the mayor's office and myself and the mayor. >> so both you and the mayor actually did the physical playing of the tapes, correct? >> to the best of my recollection. >> was there any conversation with law enforcement before that as to how to accomplish the playing of tapes for these witnesses before it happened? >> at that point they weren't witnesses. they were parents. >> is that a no? >> police repeat the question. >> the question was whether or not you had conversation with law enforcement as to how to play the tapes to these people. you say they weren't witnesses. let's just call them people. was there conversation as to how to accomplish the playing of the
tapes, yes or no? >> no. >> okay. did you and the mayor just decide on your own as to how they would be played? >> the decision was made to make them public. the purpose of showing them to the martin family so they heard it first as a courtesy to the family. >> absolutely. the courtesy and sensitivities. my focus is different than that. here is my focus. when the actual decision to make the tapes play for the martin family, was it your decision? was it the mayor's decision as to how that would occur? >> the decision was made to allow them to hear them. >> was there consideration to the idea of playing to the individuals separately? one separate to the other so as to not infect their view on what they heard one to the other? >> no, there was not.
>> so the way that it occurred, then, we know from other testimony was that the tape was played -- i know there were several tapes. the tapes were played with the entire family present in one room, correct? >> that is correct. >> you were the one playing the tapes? >> i don't recall exactly who was playing them. we used the computer. >> if you would give us the setting as to who was doing what with the tapes. >> it was a disk that we were using, a laptop so we could hear the tapes. >> who was doing what? >> i don't recall specifically. >> who was present? >> the mayor, the martin family and the attorneys, mr. crump and ms. jackson. and trayvon's brother and another individual. >> was there law enforcement present? >> no. >> was that a decision that you and/or the mayor made to keep law enforcement out of the room? >> we asked the family if they
wanted law enforcement and they said they would rather to not have law enforcement at the time. we obliged the request. >> did you discuss that with chief lee? >> at that point we informed the chief as well as other officers to not be in the same room. >> do you recall how many times the tape was played? >> which tape? >> let's focus on the 911 tape with the screams for help on it. >> i do not. >> were you there for all the times it was played? >> i was in the vicinity. i wasn't always in the room. >> was either you or the mayor in the room at all times the tape was being played? >> i do not recall. >> how many times was the tape played while you were in the room? >> i do not recall? >> more than one? >> the tape that has the screams, yes, that was played
more than once. >> was that at the request of anyone in particular? >> i believe at the request of the family. >> anyone in particular of the family? >> i do not recall. >> any reasons why they wanted to hear it more than once? >> i think they just wanted to hear it again. >> did you record or take notes as to responses regarding what they heard on the one tape of particular concern? >> no i did not. >> did you record the event of this happening of any form or fashion so that law enforcement or others might have it? >> i did not. >> was it on audio or video? >> no. >> was court reporter there? >> no. we were releasing it to the media that evening and we wanted
the family to have the courtesy of hearing it first. we did not have it recorded. >> i don't mean to banter with you. did you give consideration to the concept of recording it sot that if law enforcement or anybody else needed it it would be recorded the event of the first time half a dozen family members listened to the tape was recorded at all. is that a yes or a no? >> it is a no. >> just a moment, your honor. just to be clear the attorneys present were not city attorneys they were the martin family attorneys. >> that is correct.
>> no law enforcement or administration? >> that is correct. >> nothing further your honor. thank you. >> may i proceed, your honor? >> yes you may. >> there bonaparte, the bottom line was that it was the decent thing to do to play it for the family before it was released to the public? >> that was my intent. >> that is why it happened the way it did? >> that is correct. >> thank you, sir. >> redirect? >> thank you. may mr. bonaparte be excused? >> wow. >> this might be a time to take a break -- >> why don't you approach first? >> so i'm trying to listen to the bits and pieces here. so much happened so quickly.
they are a at a quick side bar dealing with the potential upcoming witness who they did not name. we will find out in a moment. this was strong. no matter how you cut this case it has race infused. people across this country are glued to it because there is a large element of race infused into this case. this may be one of the first witnesses to really bring it out without so much saying it but saying what happened while the case was being investigated. i want to bring in a profoundly wise criminal defense attorney here in florida. this is such a critical witness in this case. let me explain why for a moment. the city manager in this case brought that entire family into a room to listen to the 911 screams and let the family determine as a group who it was screaming. there has been a lot of argument over whether that is bad investigation, bad practice because in any kind of police
lineup it is an individual thing so others don't influence one another. in this particular case was the defense trying to quietly get towards all of this has to do with politics and pushiness? is that where they were going with this without so much as saying it? >> of course. let's just ask ourselves. when do you have a city manager and a mayor sitting in a criminal investigation and kicking the police officers out when there is a homicide investigation taking place? it doesn't happen. i have never heard it happening in the decades we have been practicing. when do you have a mayor and city manager, politicians kicking outlaw enforcement and then taking control of an investigation on their own? and not recording it properly. chief lee brought this oout and he has taken a lot of fire. >> he ended out fired. >> he stepped down over the controversy. i have to tell you he stayed very quiet. i think that he is -- from what
i am hearing wanted to do the recognize thing and wanted to conduct a proper investigation. when your bosses tell you no you are out. >> you're a prosecutor. i was waiting to find out how this masterful prosecutor would cross examine on this. and it was awesome. and it was short. he had a perfect explanation for it. he said it would be the decent thing to do to let the family hear a tape before the media gets ahold of it. that is pretty powerful stuff. >> absolutely. i mean i understand completely what mark is saying. i know that the vibes around it is politicly charged. bernie had to cross examine this witness. he had to let the jury know what he was doing was proper in the minds of the mayor and city manager to let these people listen to this and not have law
enforcement involve, not ask any questions and not ask specifically what is going on, just to be decent human beings. their son was killed. this was the final tape. and to allow them to almost grieve by themselves. while it takes on an effect of it is a politically charged prosecution, bernie did the right thing by bringing it back home. it is the decent thing to do. bring some humanity into it. >> no redirect after that. it just hangs there. right now i'm going to show the great seal of the state of florida because the great seal is all we have to go on right now. and it is likely the jury sitting and thinking about what they just heard, that very powerful cross. i said it a few times. i am going to say it again. i see a lot of stinkers for lawyers in trials. and these lawyers are great. i might go so far as to say these might be some of the best that i have seen lit gate.
i have a couple of highlights for you. if you missed any of this trial today buckle up and come right back. details are really important during four course. i want to make sure that everything is perfect. that's why i do what i do. [ male announcer ] it's red lobster's just $14.99. start your feast with a choice of soup, then salad, plus biscuits! next, choose one of nine amazing entrees like new coconut and citrus grilled shrimp or linguini with shrimp and scallops. then finish with dessert. your four course seafood feast, just $14.99. [ mortazavi ] everything needs to be picture perfect. i'm reza, culinary manager. and i sea food differently.
>> some of the live pictures of the music being played. these are thousands of people who decided to attend this private servicet at an arena in arizona. thousands more people are watching this service on giant tv screens positioned outside the arena. all of this because these elite hot shot firefighters, most of them in their 20s died while battling the wildfire. it was the deadliest day for firefighters since 9/11. also making news today it is hard to imagine what it must have been like to have been a passenger on board asiana flight 214 when that doomed jet smashed down on to the run way. sudden impact, the dust, the fire, the crazy trying to escape
a plane. you see in this video what was a desperate scramble to get out of that burning plane. we have video that shows the attempt to actually get down the emergency slides. this is some of the after math that you are seeing right here at san francisco airport. to add to the terror. look at that. jumping out and going down those chutes that you hear about during the announcements before flight time all the time. rarely do you see it. we are hearing reports that one of these slides did not function and instead deployed inside the plane. what happens then? door gets blocked. people got trapped inside. three young siblings on that plane know all too well what this was like because they tell cnn about this terrifying brush with death. >> just craziness. it was like we were all bouncing all over the place. i just remember there being dust
everywhere. i was freaking out. and then it just stopped. after everything stopped it was a relief. >> we were all reunited like my family and i, i was really glad because i started crying. >> i'll bet those kids looked over and saw their parents on the floor because their seats had actually given way and were on the floor. the question now everybody wants to know, what does the pilot who was at the helm of this plane have to say about the crash? the ntsb is telling cnn they want to know as well. they are planning to question that pilot when they get the chance a little later on today. remembering he was still technically learning to captain the boeing 777. >> the 777 will require the pilot to take some specific training. so when we look at that transition training for him we want to understand that.
we want to understand how different not just the ones before but what his expectations were. getting this initial operating experience, this on the job experience is really the last part of that before he is going to be a captain. >> so all of the other three captains who were on board, three pilots on board because this is a long haul flight and they have to do shifts, they have already been interviewed. stand by as we wait to get that information from the ntsb. they described a journey through hell and back. three young women breaking their silence two months after they were freed from the cleveland home where they say ariel castro tortured them and held them captive for nearly a decade. pamela brown has the story. >> in a four minute youtube
video amanda berry, gina de jesus and michele knight are speaking publicly for the first time to say thanks. >> i want to thank everyone who has helped me and my familyt. everyone who has been there to support us. it has been a blessing to have such an outpouring of love and kindness. >> i would say thank you for the support. >> thank you everyone for your love, support and donations which help me build a brand new life. >> reporter: more than a million dollars has been donated to the courage fund to help the women heal after a decade of alleged abuse and captivity by ariel castro. in the video made last week the women seem aupbeat, not bitter. >> i am getting stronger each day and having my privacy has helped. i ask that everyone continues to
respect our privacy. >> be positive. learn it is important to give than to receive. thank you for all of your prayers. >> michele knight held the longest appeared to suffer the worst abuse. she hints at the pain of the ordeal and what she learned from it. >> i will not let the situation define who i am. i will define the situation. i don't want to be consumed by hatred. with that being said we need to take a leap of faith and know that god is in control. >> they were once known only as silent victims. now amanda berry, gina de jesus and michele knight want the world to know they have a voice and have reclaimed their lives. >> she has done great work following that story. you will probably know by now ariel castro is accused of 329
charges. if you think that sounds like a lot, wait for it. because it is not unlikely that there may be more charges added to that count including one count of aggravated murder that he is facing, as well, that because of the allegations that he caused michele knight to miscarry when she was pregnant. he pleaded not guilty to everything. his lawyers went on tv saying he is not that bad a guy. his next pretrial hearing coming later this month. speaking of hearings you are not missing a moment of the testimony here in sanford, florida. it has been a riveting day. science was in the spot light. sometimes it is difficult to cross examine science. these are good prosecutors. we had one prosecutor stand up and take vincent di maio to task, the grand daddy of all forensic scientists in this country.
vincent di maio went head to head. coming up after the break we will see what happened. big plans. so when i found out medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses, i looked at my options. then i got a medicare supplement insurance plan. [ male announcer ] if you're eligible for medicare, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call now and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, it helps pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you thousands in out-of-pocket costs. to me, relationships matter. i've been with my doctor for 12 years. now i know i'll be able to stick with him. [ male announcer ] with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and you never need a referral to see a specialist.
so don't wait. call now and request this free decision guide to help you better understand medicare... and which aarp medicare supplement plan might be best for you. there's a wide range to choose from. we love to travel -- and there's so much more to see. so we found a plan that can travel with us. anywhere in the country. [ male announcer ] join the millions of people who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. remember, all medicare supplement insurance plans help cover what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you thousands a year in out-of-pocket costs. call now to request your free decision guide. and learn more about the kinds of plans that will be here for you now -- and down the road. i have a lifetime of experience. so i know how important that is.
welcome back to the george zimmerman second degree murder trial. i'm ashleigh banfield reporting live from sanford, florida. they took a brief break in this courtroom. they are trying to figure out how to handle the next witness. and it is a little bit of a mystery because there is some special way that this witness who remains unidentified is going to testify. nobody is saying who the witness is, what the witness is going to say or how the witness is going to say it. all very exciting. if you missed this it's awesome. it's vincent di maio, the former medical examiner of bexar county texas. he has testified in almost every top trial in the country. i have seen him on the stand too many times usually for the defense.
he is no joke. this guy is smoke. knows how to testify, does very well. he knows his science. he was testifying about how long a person can stay alive and talk and move after being shot in the heart. he gave some amazing testimony in the cross examination was -- have a look. >> even if i right now reached across, put my hand through your chest, grabbed your heart and ripped it out you could stand there and talk to me for ten to 15 seconds or walk over to me because the thing that is controlling your movement and ability to speak is the brain. and that has a reserve supply of ten to 15 seconds. that is minimum. that assumes no blood is going to the brain. >> now, did i understand you
correctly that if you came over here and you pulled my heart out that i could sit there and walk and talk for how long? >> ten to 15 seconds. >> so if you pulled my heart out now i could keep talking and just talking and talking and talking for and just talking and talking and talking without a heart? >> that's right. >> for 15 seconds or so. >> right. it's between ten and 15 seconds dependent on the oxygen supply. >> i told you bernie is a great prosecutor. have you ever gone up against him? would you want to? >> i would love to. credit where credit is do. he continues to make lemonade out of lemons to sound cliche. this doctor is just spectacular, as well. bernie was hitting every point he could to try to twist this
thing around and then the doctor throws in at the end that is why the s.w.a.t. team shoots for the head instead of the heart. >> some professional witnesses are better than others. >> he hits the point. that brings it back home. that is why s.w.a.t. hits you in the head because you can't fight back for ten or 15 seconds. >> ten or 15 seconds can mean getting a shot or where they were going in the defense is getting your hands under your body because that is where trayvon martin's hands were found. sthis is a great prosecutor. every time i think he is not going to be able to make it he slam dunks it. did you think he did enough? he said he got lemons. has he made the lemonade? >> i think you should be the president of his fan club because you adore him. i think a lot of people feel the same way you do. >> you can't -- i like great
lawyers. i like people who do their homework. i like people who show up with their game face. not only bernie but i'm going to say mark o'mara might be one of the finest defense attorneys i have witnessed because of his disposition. he is a nice guy. he is not rude or mean or rattles people. he gets what he needs out of his witnesses. >> i have been prosecutor for a very long time. when you are watching professional great guys and these guys are and you see a doctor like di maio take the stand. you don't sit there as a prosecutor and say he is lousy. you have to take it and let the people know that he is a good guy. you don't fight the credentials. there is no way to fight the credentials. he had a lot to say. he had to really back up zimmerman's story. it is the job as a prosecutor to say wait a second.
you don't know about the gunshot wound. the standard things that you cross examine an expert about. whether or not a jury bought into everything he said or whether or not bernie made points. he did a great job. he hammered zimmerman's story to a tee. he is a paid witness. i know that that sounds funky. listen, he is a great guy. he is still a defense paid witness. he did not do the autopsy. these are the ing things that you argue to the jury. >> you are right. it is one of the first questions that came out of the gate, as well. how much are you paid? $400 an hour. how much have you been paid so far in the case? only $2,400. i have to squeeze in a break.
trying to figure out the technicality of bringing in their next witness who remains a mystery. it is very perry mason esc. whoever the next witness is will be interviewed in a unique way. met with the judge about it. that is what the recess was about. since you are not missing testimony this is a great opportunity to go to one of our colleagues. ryan smyth, the anchor for "after dark" you are gavel to gavel and work late at night. give me your read on the day. >> it has been a great day for the defense. it is a great day when you can use science to back the story. that is essentially what they did with vincent di maio. the fact that george zimmerman sustained multiple injuries and might have had a concussion and different wounds that weren't identified by the physician's assistant. all of this for the jury could
add that george zimmerman was in fear for his life. >> so i want to show this moment that i thought was really captivating. whenever they put blow up pictures in a courtroom i think it under scores the evidence and what people talk about. the bloody broken, maybe broken at this point not sure. the very bloody nose of george zimmerman taken by one of the neighbors moments after the shooting of trayvon martin. i want to show you how this played out in court, how it was analyzed and what the response was. take a look everyone. >> the photograph that was taken at the scene -- i'm sorry. of the defendant. he has blood there. right? >> right. >> i put my hand over there. right? >> okay. >> what do you expect my hand to have on it? >> blood.
>> so this is one of those moments where the absence of evidence may not always indicate that there is evidence of absence. i only say that because at this point nobody took notes about the rain and what the rain did to the body of trayvon martin. i hate talking about him this way because he is a 17-year-old kid who never set out to hurt anybody that night and he is dead. there was no blood on his hands. if he did as george zimmerman said put hands over a punched out george zimmerman face where is the blood? >> exactly. that is the prosecution's biggest point in this examination, the they can say where was the blood? he was covering your nose and mouth. would be blood all over the place. the defense says because george zimmerman was laying down the blood could have gone back in his nose. the scheme of blood wouldn't have disappeared. there would have been a trace of
that on trayvon martin's hands. that is a powerful moment. you saw how prosecutor stopped talking, walked away, held the handout. that is his way of making effect for the jury showing them this doesn't make sense in george zimmerman's story. >> you are so clever when you say he stopped talking, let it hang in the air. he held up his hand and he walked away silently so the jury could have that a hamoment. it was very powerful and strong. and then the wonderfully talented mark o'mara said how about the bad autopsy business where they use plastic bags with wet clothes? how about the fact that they never were present for the entire time that that body was there? he listed shotty practices one by one. stand by for a second because as they try to get the witness up and running we will squeeze in a quick break so we don't miss a moment of testimony.
back live in sanford after this. . he doesn't have to worry so much about his mortgage, groceries, or even gas bills. kick! kick... feel it! feel it! feel it! nice work! ♪ you got it! you got it! yes! aflac's gonna help take care of his expenses. and us...we're gonna get him back in fighting shape. ♪ [ male announcer ] see what's happening behind the scenes at aflac.com.
will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god. >> i do. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i first want to thank you. i understand that you are home sick. i appreciate you taking the time with us today. so i think i have asked your name. tell me your name again. >> if you would spell your last name. >> dilligard. >> thank you, ma'am. and back in february of 2012 did you live at the retreat at twin lakes? >> yes. >> how long had you lived there at the point of february 2012? >> by that time about 2 1/2 years. >> you have sense moved out of
that location, correct? >> that's correct. >> i want to take you back to the time that you lived at the retreat at twin lakes and ask you if you knew somebody by the name of george zimmerman. >> i did. >> how long had you known him? >> ever since we moved in in october of '09. >> would you consider yourselves friends? >> he was my neighbor. we spoke on a friendly basis and had no problems with one another. >> okay. were there times that you became aware that he was involved in a program called neighborhood watch? >> yes. >> okay. did you ever see him in a neighborhood patrolling or doing anything like that as part of neighborhood watch? >> no. >> but you did know him as a friend or a neighbor? >> as a neighbor, a friendly neighbor.
>> okay. focus your attention now, if i might on february 26 which, of course, is the night that trayvon martin was shot. do you remember that night? >> i do. >> what i would like you to do if you would is to tell the jury what first brought your attention to the event that you eventually came to find out was the shooting we're talking about. >> i was coming from wal-mart to go to oregon and make a left. and a policeman approached me from the rear. i didn't do anything wrong only to find out he wanted to go around me. i pulled over. as i was coming up oregon to go into my neighborhood i noticed that the police were going into the neighborhood. so when i pulled in i looked down from the mail station down to the left and saw that there
was crime scene tape going up. and i didn't want to go directly down so i came around the right-hand side where i live to go around the back way. and asked a couple of guys that were standing outside. they told me they didn't know what was going on but there was another policeman coming so i had to go back around back by the mail station towards the crime scene area. >> do you recall what the weather was like during that time? >> it was very rainy that night. >> and at some point as you got closer to what you call the crime scene, did you notice any vehicles that were familiar to you? >> yes. >> and whose vehicle, what vehicles were there? >> it was george's truck. >> could you describe that, if you would? >> i believe it is a gray honda
ridge line. >> if you could, tell the jury as best you can where within this area you have noticed the truck. >> because of the way our road for retreat view circle, it was more like on the curb or nearing the curb down by where the crime scene was. >> let me ask it this way -- >> which i believe was on retreat view circle. i am not sure exactly. >> do you know the area that has come to be known as the section which is very close to where the incident itself occurred? >> yes. >> and though you may not have known the names then, there was a woman who lives in the end unit right there by the name of jenna lower. do you know her? >> no, i don't. >> if we were to -- i would ask you to accept as a premise that she was living in that first
condo or town home just at the intersection of the t intersection and the sidewalk, would you know what i was talking about? >> yes. >> and to fast forward a moment this was an area where you had testified in deposition that you had conversations with police. so i am just trying to locate if we were to presume that the town home was the first one in that row of houses, where was the truck parked in reference to that? >> if she was in the first one then the truck would have been parked looking towards the east it would have been slightly south of where her condo would be. >> if you were to walk out her front door would you be looking sort of right at the truck?
>> not right at it but you would have to look more to the right if you were walking out of her condo if her condo was facing retreat view circle. >> because that would then put the truck parked on the curb as you were walking out her front door on the right-hand side of that street? >> that's correct. >> okay. now, you say retreat view circle, is that the street that actually circles around or is the perimeter of the complex itself? >> it does. >> is ms. lower on a street that comes off of retreat view circle? >> if i'm visualizing exactly where you are talking about i believe her condo would be faci facing retreat view circle, yes. >> the front door, if i walked straight out her front door would i eventually walk into the clubhouse area?
>> no. you would have to walk down the street to the west. >> okay. let's talk, then, about wherever the truck was located and you saw it in reference to the crime scene you saw it in that area? >> yes. >> and we may come back to a map in a minute and see if we can show you a map of the area. let's move to the point where you came up to the area where the crime scene was. describe what you first saw. >> there were a few people standing on the sidewalk. there were people who were closer down to where the yellow tape was. and i kind of looked around, you know, to see if i saw george because i saw his truck. and after i didn't see him then
i just recognized the lady from one of the h.o.a. meetings and i asked her what happened. >> objection. >> when you hear one of us say objection that means the court has to inquire. didn't do anything wrong just want to check with the court. >> what is the objection? >> hear say. >> sustained as to what somebody else said. >> did you know the person's name who you spoke to? >> i don't know her. all i know is she was from -- >> you had a conversation with her about the events that she perceived? >> i simply asked her what was going on. that was her reply to me. >> at some point, then, did you
speak to any law enforcement officers? >> after i could not find or after i didn't see george i did attempt to talk to some of the other residents that were there. and after i felt like i'm not in harm's way, i was walking away and a policeman came up and said to me you don't want to talk to me. i turned around and i said i don't know what i am going to tell you because i wasn't here when anything happened. >> what did the law enforcement officer say to you? >> he then replied we are trying to find someone who may know the people involved in the shooting. >> okay. and did he have any further conversation with you or show you anything? >> he just asked me would i mind
staying and he was going to take a picture and bring it to the group of us who were standing there to see if we could recognize either the victim >> did that officer happen to identify himself to you by name, if you can recall? >> he did not and i'm usually pretty respective to look at a name badge but with everything going on, i don't remember. >> okay. so at some point, then, did he show you a picture or two of people who were involved in this event? >> he game back with what i believe was an iphone. i'm only saying that because i own one, with two pictures. i, along with the others standing there -- >> let me ask -- i'm sorry, let me interrupt for a moment to ask you if you can identify either by name or by description the other people who were present
during that time. >> there was a young caucasian man. i can't remember his name. it was either jeremy or jonathan. then there was a couple there. they were married but i did not get their names. >> were they present when the pick thursday were shown? >> they were. >> and were you able to identify either of the people in the pictures? >> i have. >> who was that? >> that was my neighbor, george zimmerman. >> i'm not going to show it to you right now unless i have to but was that a picture where mr. zimmerman had a bloody nose? >> he did have a bloody nose,
yes. >> and there was a -- describe the difference, if any, that you saw between the picture you saw that night and the george zimmerman who you knew before that night. >> his nose was very bloody and to me it looked very disfigured, like it was -- i'm looking at him. so it looked like it was somewhat to the left or right. but i know it was not the way i knew him. his face was very -- the nose was very disfigured and a lot of blood coming from it. >> did it take you a minute or two or how long did it take you to even figure out that that was the same person? >> um, i mean, his face still looked the same. the only different was the disfigurement and the blood in his nose. >> did you advise the law enforcement officer who was present, this person, of george
zimmerman's name? >> i said, yes, that's my neighbor george. >> and did anybody else, as you can best recall, identify the person as well? >> objection as to hearsay. >> sustained. >> we'll go right to break. >> after you identified george zimmerman as the person in the picture, were you shown a second picture? >> i was. >> now, was that anyone who you identified? >> i did not know the person's name. i had seen him in passing probably earlier that day but i didn't know who he was. >> and do you know now -- >> i want to take to you a quick break while we're getting this incredibly important testimony down. we want to squeeze in a quick break. when we come back, we'll try to figure out where he's going with this former neighbor of george zimmerman. and this park is the inside of your body. you see the special psyllium fiber in metamucil
an element of hearsay. what's interesting, though, mark nejame, talk to me about this. this witness, eloise dilligard, she talked to her neighbors, but no hearsay issues when the cops talked to her. why is that? >> there's various exception to the hearsay rule. if it's an exception, it's not hearsay anymore. >> do police get an exception? >> you just heard the defense argue and they were get being ready for a speaking objection, you want to show that it doesn't show the truth of the matter asserted. there are times when you go around it. this judge is very strict. you heard her comment and say "i do no take speaking objections." >> a speaking objection is like,
objection, i don't like bah, bah, bah -- no. objection, reason, period. >> state your legal grounds, objection hearsay, objection outside the scope of cross examination, whatever or direct examination, whatever it might be. and then that's it. and if the judge wants argument, she'll call you to the bench and then you'll make your argument or if it's a big issue, she ask the jury to leave. but she does not want the juries influenced because can you make very good arguments. you can lose the battle and win the war. >> real quickly, i know ryan smith you're watching at the same time. do you know much from the discovery in this case about eloise dilligard? >> it seems like she's an after-the-fact witness. notice how she says she's not a friend of george zimmerman, he's just my neighbor.
it suggests she doesn't have any bias here. what i'm seeing so far is she's describing his injuries. this is critical for his self-defense claim. george zimmerman's argument is i was in fear for my life. my perception was that i had to act in deadly force. so all these people coming up talking about his injuries helps to bolster that argument. she's not a doctor or an expert so expect the prosecution to pick on her and try to analyze what she saw and make the connection of, hey, that doesn't necessarily mean he was in fear for his life. >> we've seen george zimmerman in photographs before and after the fact. did we really need this neighbor to say that looked like george zimmerman with a broken nose? ryan, stand by for a moment. they're getting ready to get back at this testimony, deal with that hearsay issue. my time, though, is up. i'm flat out of time. at one minute to the top of the hour, i'm going to turn things over to my colleague jake tapper, who continue our