tv News Nation MSNBC July 9, 2013 2:00pm-3:00pm EDT
photos and asked about george zimmerman's injuries. >> is this injury consistent with mr. zimmerman's head having impacted a sidewalk? >> yes. you can see there's a swelling right here, very prominent. it's just below the area where he's got a small abrasion. >> is the injury you see in this exhibit consistent -- this is exhibit 79 -- consistent with having been punched in the nose? >> yes, sir. >> after a strong showing for the defense, then it was the prosecution's turn to question the witness. >> you're not stating here, are you, that everything george zimmerman said at the statement you saw, the re-enactment, is the complete gospel truth? >> that's correct, sir. >> want to get you back inside that courtroom again. it's dr. vincent demaio on the stand. >> a doctor that had treated him in the past or like a
physician's assistant would know what's existing there before that day and not in terms it of what the shape of the body or the head is. >> may or may not. >> okay. >> i mean, you know, you don't generally remember the shape of one of your patient's heads, especially if you're seeing 20 or 30 patients a day. >> well, my next question regarding that, wouldn't you agree that would be the best person that would see george zimmerman alive right then and there when it's happening, 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 it's not emergency room records and doctor's records. they're generally lousy in regards to describing injuries. very, very lousy. >> well, you agree that the fire rescue people do an honorable job in the sense they know what they're doing.
>> yeah, i'm not saying these people are incompetent. their job is to treat patients. they have a tendency not to document what they see. that's why they want to put forensic nurses in emergency rooms, to document these injuries. doctors aren't interested in the injuries. they're interested in treating the patient. >> sure. but the fire rescue people are interested in injuries, aren't they? >> they're interested just like doctors in treating a person. if you read the records, they mention two lacerations. they don't even say where they are except on the back of the head. >> well, ms. fulgate actually measured it for you. that's why you were able to detail exactly how little they were. >> right. 20 millimeters and 5 millimeters. they didn't say which one was on the right side, which one was on the left side, or located exactly. so, you know -- >> now, you could tell, couldn't you, when you looked at the photograph? >> yes, but they didn't do it.
>> okay. >> and i couldn't tell which one was the 20 and which one was the 5 because the wound hadn't cleaned up when they took the photograph. >> well, 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. you couldn't really tell which one was the 20 millimeter, which one was the 5. one of them had clotted blood on top of it. >> now, you do agree with the treatment in the sense of didn't need any stitches, right? >> i agree, but actually, my answer should be it's outside my area of expertise. >> okay. >> but i will agree that they didn't need treatment. >> you're sticking to your main thing, gunshot wounds, correct? >> well, i'm describing blunt force injuries. you're asking me about treatment, which is different. >> i'm sorry. >> you asked me about treatment. i don't treat people.
>> okay. you deal with them after they're dead. >> yes, sir. >> right? >> yes, sir. >> okay. but you did review the fire rescue report regarding the treatment of george zimmerman, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and when it says patient has a gcs of 15, what does that mean? >> oh, that's the index thing. >> what does that indicate to you, sir? >> oh, it means he's 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. >> correct? >> yes. >> now, did i understand you correctly that you're saying that the difference between the photograph at the scene, that bloody photograph he's got -- do you have that big one by any
chance? i know we've got it in evidence. i believe defense has a big one. the front. thank you, mr. o'mara. you're saying this one right here, that there's a difference between -- i apologize, your honor. may i approach the witness? >> yes, you may. >> this big photograph that shows the front of the defendant's face has some blood on it that was taken by the police out there, right? you remember seeing that. >> yes, sir. >> okay. you're 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's disappeared. >> do you need something to drink? >> no, no. >> your opinion is that you believe the fire rescue people just did it without them noticing that they did it or the defendant, george zimmerman,
realizing they had put his nose back in place, correct? >> if it's a simple -- i said it's consistent with a fracture. since no one -- the ems thought there was a fracture. they said that. and if it's a fracture and it's now replaced, that would account for the differences in the photographs. >> because you agree that four hours later, his nose is perfect. >> it's not swollen to the right side. well, it's still swollen a little on the right side. it's not as deviated as shown in the first photograph. >> and it's possible it wasn't fractured at all. >> but then the swelling should still be there, which it wasn't four hours later. >> well, did you know whether they gave him something to put on there to control the swelling? >> it's not going to change. >> okay. >> it's not going to change. >> now, you also talked about the injury to the back of his head, right? the two -- i'm going to call them scratches.
that's not correct. >> lacerations. >> okay. those are what? they were two inches and four inches? >> oh, no, no. if it's 20 millimeters, which is a shade less than an inch, and the other one is 5 millimeters, which is about a fifth of an inch. >> so one is about -- smaller than this? >> right. >> and one is about that? >> correct. >> you're not saying that those are -- that he would die from those? >> no, i never said that. i said it's indicative of a hard impact. that's all. >> or maybe hitting a tree limb or rolling around in the dirt? out on the concrete. >> it's indicative of a hard impact. that's all i said. >> but you don't know whether it was a hard impact somebody hitting him or him rolling around in it. >> it's a hard impact. that's all i can say. that's all i have said. >> yes, sir.
>> now -- and you were aware that he was offered medical care in terms of going to see a doctor at some point, and he declined to do that. >> yes. >> correct? >> yes. >> now, also, i believe ms. fulgate and the fire rescue did not notice any other injuries to top of his head. do you think they dismissed it? >> no. there's two possible explanations. one, that the bleeding continued after he was seen by ems. so you're looking at something where it's been bleeding for four or five hours. or they just didn't notice it because they didn't -- they knew there was an impact and they didn't consider it significant. >> but he went to the -- >> that's ems. >> he went the next day to the facility where he ran -- where a physician's assistant treated him. she didn't notate all the
injuries you're describing. >> well, that's the problem that forensic pathologists pull their hair out from. medical personnel just don't describe injuries properly. >> okay. >> which is nothing bad against them because their job is to treat people. my job is to look at injuries, you know, not treat. >> the other thing wanted to ask you about is -- may i approach the witness, your honor? >> yes, you may. >> the photograph that was taken at the scene. >> yes. >> i'm sorry, of the defendant. i apologize. he's got blood there, right? >> right. >> i put the hand over that, right. >> okay. >> what do you expect my hand to have on it? >> blood.
>> sir, wouldn't you agree that photograph i just showed you that i put my hand over, you said you would expect blood on my hand, wouldn't you agree that if he was bleeding like that, if he's standing the blood will go down, right? i'm assuming. if he's bleeding from the nose. >> it depends how profusely. eventually it will go down, right. >> now, if i'm laying flat on my back and bleeding from my nose, want blood will go inward, correct? >> partially. some will go out, some will go in. >> so it will be more difficult for me to swallow or to speak, i'm assuming, if blood is coming down, correct? >> depends how profusely you're bleeding. >> sure. assuming i was bleeding profusely, assuming i had a
bloody nose or a fractured nose and it was bloody and i'm laying down, the blood would go into my mouth, correct? >> yes, sir. >> so it would be harder for me to swallow, talk, et cetera, i'm assuming, right? >> yeah, unless you're swallowing it. >> now, did i understand you correctly that you did not view the video that was taken of george zimmerman, the defendant, when he was brought to the police station when he was being walked and he walked fine, had no problems walking or talking. >> actually, i've seen it, but they kept playing it on tv all the time. >> okay. i mean, he seemed to be walking fine, had no problems, correct? and being able to dmcommunicate. >> that's right. >> and i know the recording you saw of the defendant's interview was subsequent to that. i believe it was two days later. >> yes, sir. >> but on that evening right after he was in this struggle with trayvon martin, he was
walking and talking fine. >> yes, sir. >> okay. you're not quibbling with that, right? >> no, sir. >> and you agree there's actually no witnesses to the actual shooting other than the person charged with the crime, george zimmerman, and the person that's dead. >> that's correct. >> regarding the gunshot wound that i know is your focus, i think you stated it was up to four inches would be max and then two inches, correct? >> somewhere between two and four. >> when you say two inches, you're accounting for the sweatshirt underneath and then the hoodie or sweatshirt with the hood over it, correct? >> no. >> you're not because you're saying the hole kind of creates a barrier. >> right.
i'm talking between the skin and the muzzle. >> okay. now, have you ever worn one of those hoodies, those jacket sweatshirts? >> not that type, no. >> okay. have you seen people wearing them? >> yes, sir. >> don't they normally wear them a little big? >> yes, sir. >> okay. don't they kind of hang down? >> yes, sir. >> and if i had -- if the person wearing it has it hanging down and has something in it, wouldn't it hang down? >> objection, speculation. outside the scope of this particular case. >> your honor, i believe i'm allowed to ask. he asked in terms of possibilities. >> yes, sir. >> wouldn't you agree if i have something here heavy, it's hanging down, right? >> right. >> and that would make it a little tighter, right? >> yes, sir.
does your dog food have? 18 percent? 20? new purina one true instinct has 30. active dogs crave nutrient-dense food. so we made purina one true instinct. learn more at purinaone.com since aflac is helping with his expenses while he can't work, he can focus on his recovery. he doesn't have to worry so much about his mortgage, groceries, or even gas bills. kick! kick...
i want to get you back inside the testimony of dr. vincent demaio, being questioned about the break or fracture potentially of george zimmerman's nose, at least the injury of it in his estimation. take a look. >> talk about another subject that's close to our hearts in the sense we're both bald-headed. in fact, i've been referred to as that bald-headed dude.
i don't know if you've ever been called that before. my question is, when we bleed there, tell us about the bleeding. it's 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's how the design is. you know. >> so the bottom line, there are possibilities. one of the possibilities is what you said. then there's other possibilities of how that gunshot wound occurred. is that correct? >> to a degree. i said it's consistent with his account. >> right. and you're not saying the account where he says he grabbed the gun and how he took it out. you're saying when the gun is
out already, is that correct? >> that's correct, sir. >> i want to make sure the jury understands that. you're saying by the time he had the gun out already and was pointing it at the person he ended up shooting, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and at that point, you don't know if trayvon martin was backing up, backing away in terms of providing an angle or whether he was going forward. you can't say. >> all that i said was it's consistent with his account, mr. zimmerman's account. that's all. >> but it's also consistent with trayvon martin pulling back in terms of providing the same angle. >> i told you that too, yes, sir. >> and i think i already asked you this. you're not here testifying about the holster, how that works. the reason i ask is because you are -- i don't want to psi a
the body is dead, not while alive, in terms of trauma. you're not an expert on that. >> on -- >> trauma to the head. >> no, trauma is pathology. i will testify on that. i don't testify to treatment. >> treatment on injuries to the head. >> right. i don't testify to treatment at all. because i don't treat people. >> now, were you aware that out there at retreat at twin lakes in the area where this happened that there's also an addition to the concrete, you know, walkway, there's also sprinkler boxes. did you see any of those in the photographs you were provided? >> i didn't see any of those, no, sir. >> okay. you mentioned knuckles or fists, correct? as a possibility, correct? >> yes, sir.
>> if i may have a moment, your honor. do you know whether george zimmerman is right or left-handed? >> right-handed. >> okay. thank you very much, sir. >> okay. >> redirect? >> thank you. >> let's go ahead and bring in msnbc legal analyst lisa bloom. lisa, so far we have watched this defense witness provide a lot of holes in the prosecution's story. how do you think that the prosecution did in getting their opportunity to cross? >> first of all, you can see in shots of the courtroom -- we just saw it a second ago. george zimmerman sits at counsel
table and takes notes left-handed. when he's asked right or left-handed, he can look over and see he writes left-handed. there's been conflicting testimony about that. i think overall the prosecution has made a couple strong points on cross-examination. i see he's on re-direct, though. do you want to go back in? >> yeah, let's dive back in. >> -- which would be right in the middle of the normal range for a person his size. >> that's correct, sir. >> for example, you would have indicated that the location of the gunshot -- >> objection to the leading nature of the questions. >> sustained. >> would you have indicated for quick reference where precisely the gunshot wound was on mr. martin's body, for example? >> yes, sir, i'd put that down. >> do you need your notes to form your opinions once you have the facts before you? >> oh, no, no. >> do your notes include several pages of the photos that you
think were the most pertinent in assessing the trauma to mr. zimmerman? >> yes, sir. four of the pages are just photographs. >> have we shown those photographs it he here? >> yes, sir. >> the scope of your work, if you will, was to consider the statement that mr. zimmerman made to the police about how the shooting took place at the moment the shot was fired, and for you to consider the forensic evidence of that gunshot to determine whether or not mr. zimmerman's statement about what happened is consistent with the physical forensic evidence. >> leading and compound question. >> do you understand the question? >> yes. >> okay. you may answer. >> yes, sir. >> to do that, is it necessary in your mind to review every
witness statement regardless of whether they saw the actual moment when the shot was fired? >> that's correct, sir. i have to interpret 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 reviewed witness statements, people who claim to have seen something with their own eyes that was absolutely contradicted by the physical evidence that you knew to exist? >> all the time. you know, they'll say someone stood over a man and shot him, and two architects and a secretary said that. they saw it. the only problem was is that the bullet taken from the body did not match the gun of the person who supposedly stood over him and shot him. the bullet that hit him was a ricochet that had to have been
fired from 20, 30 feet away. so that's one case. i have a half a dozen of those cases. >> let's talk for a moment more specifically, since mr. de la rionda mentioned them by name. a woman testified in the trial and didn't claim to have seen the individuals at the time the shot was fired. would that matter to you at all? >> no. >> let's talk about jayne, for example. she testified in the trial and 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. martin -- >> objection, leading and mischaracterization of the facts. >> can i finish my question,
please? >> well, if it's a mischaracterization of the facts, i need you to rephrase your question. >> it's not, your honor. >> that's for the jury to determine. so please rephrase your question. >> okay. sure. she said she was looking out the window and 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 you know in this case? >> no, sir, it's not possible. >> mr. martin -- >> he was shot in 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, no matter how well intended, 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 good testified at the 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. >> right. but 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. >> the -- 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 could see the sort of valley in between. >> yes, sir. >> those were the two blows that created the lacerations. >> right, in addition they were so separate that if you impacted one, you couldn't get the other one. so 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 as to the leading nature of his questions. >> setting the stage for the questions. >> but they're 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 a 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. what you have is tree trunks, to be quite strictly speaking. but there's no tree branches that i could see. that's why when i first answered the question i said there were no tree branches. because there aren't. >> so 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? >> it would practically have to be upright sitting, maybe, because you'd have to hit the trunk. you'd 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 and argumentative. >> overruled as to argumentative. i'll overrule as to leading. please make sure you phrase your questions correctly. >> sure. 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's a different role that some professionals play in dealing with someone that's been injured. >> yes, sir. >> whereas, you may have a forensic approach, a treating doctor or pa may have a different objective. >> their objective is to treat somebody. my objective is to document the
injuries and interpret the injuries. you know, they don't care, really, which is fine. their job is different than my job. that's why they're pushing forensic nursing to put forensic nurses in emergency rooms to document the injuries correctly. >> we're going to jump in, take a quick break. we're back after this. you will never survive the running of the bulls... ( bull roar ) ...if you don't attend the running of the bulls.
rest get you back inside the george zimmerman trial again. it's dr. vincent demaio on the stand. >> what i'm saying is the type of injury he would get would be more of a stunning, not a -- what people would think of as a significant concussion. that's why i tend to get away from the word concussion. i went to to the nonmedical word of stunning. >> the idea of a concussion that may lead to hematomas or death is something that happens after
the actual impact. >> your honor, objection. again, leading. >> peas rephralease rephrase yo question. >> are 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. that's why sporting events like to have doctors there because lay people look at someone who's got a concussion and will not pick up anything unusual, if it's a mild concussion. as it gets more severe, it becomes quite obvious. >> when you're getting hit like that, are you feeling it? >> oh, yes. >> are you in some appreciation that you're 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? >> it can very well, yes. especially if you have lacerations. it will hurt for a while, yes, sir. >> 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're stunned. you know, you're in pain. you're in fear. you can't interpret. even looking at them outside, someone looking at them can say, oh, they're all right, but it happens all the time. you know, people think they're all right and then they die a few hours later. that's why the police in this case should have taken mr. zimmerman to a hospital, not to the police station. if he had died in the police
station, they would have sued, and the family would have won the lawsuit because he had head injuries. that means you take them to the hospital. >> even if there's not evidence of a concussion that he's 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. >> if some -- >> i mean, people die in jail like that a lot of times. and jails always lose the lawsuits. i'll tell you that. >> so if someone is in the process of being hit and having their head struck on a surface like cement, they're having this stunning effect, and the pain associated with it. in the moment of that, not knowing when it's 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
argumentative. >> sustained. >> speculation. >> under these circumstances with the trauma you've seen in this case, would it be somewhat overwhelming to the person that's on the receiving end? >> same objection. >> you gave three objections last time. which one of them is it? >> leading and argumentative. >> overruled as to both. >> yes. >> there was -- there were some questions about the packaging of the evidence, especially if it's
wet and has biological material on it. in this case, there's been testimony that the wet outer shirt in particular was sealed in a plastic bag while wet and then placed in paper bag on the outside of that. is that consistent with good evidence handling? >> no, sir. >> there was also system that when the bag was opened, it smelled very strongly of mold and ammonia-tiype odor. >> it's the composing. you air dry and put it in plastic -- in paper bags, not plastic. you don't want the decomposition. >> is the accepted forensic practice that subjecting evidence to that type of packaging -- now, you can also assume that it was in that condition for roughly a month --
that that would promote degradation or contribute to the likely degradation of the integrity of any dna evidence on that clothing? >> oh, yes. yes. >> mr. de la rionda mentioned that if trayvon martin had put his hand over george zimmerman's nose at this point in time when there was blood that there may have been some transfer of blood to mr. martin's hands. that's what that question was getting at. >> objection as to what i was getting at. speculation. >> sustained as to that part. >> if trayvon martin had put his hand over george zimmerman's nose and mouth when it was in this condition, is it your testimony that there may have been some transfer of blood to his hand? >> yes, sir.
>> i take it you would have no 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 eventually bleed, but i can't tell you if you're going to bleed immediately or not. it just depends on what's injured. >> and where that blood goes may depend on the position that your head is in. >> yes, it does. >> now, you've also talked quite a bit in direct about -- i'm sorry, in cross, i guess. and direct. about if you find something that's 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's
understood. absence doesn't mean anything. presence does. because -- especially if you don't know what the statistical probability that a thing is present is. 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 even give an opinion. >> do you agree that environmental conditions can affect whether or not dna is present on physical evidence. >> oh, 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. 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 then it's also how you enclose the body. do you wrap it tightly or put it loosely? you know, again, putting it in plastic containers, plastic tends to rub and be stiff. you know, if it's there, it's significant for most things. if it's not there, it's usually not significant. >> you may also consider on that issue that there's been testimony that the weather conditions varied from a light drizzle to a heavy rain during these events. would the fact that it was raining to some degree, could that also affect whether or not there is biological or dna evidence collected from mr. martin's hands? >> that's true. and, you know -- or 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're saying is, while you may trust your assistants to follow the protocol, you would confirm and verify. >> right. like, if you want the clothing removed, you examine the clothing on the body before you say, okay, take it off. then you stand there as they take it off to see if they're 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. then you have the clothing on a tray, but you don't have the clothing piled on top of each
other. if there's material on one piece of clothing and you put the other piece of clothing on top of it, you can get transfer. so you're suppose to be monitoring this the whole time. >> let me show you, doctor, what's marked as state's exhibit 28, which has been offered into evidence as -- >> objection, beyond the scope of cross-examination. >> i don't know what it is. >> i'll ask the question. 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. then i'd 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. >> same objection, your honor. >> if you'll please approach and show the pictures to the court. >> while they approach the bench right now to show those pictures to judge nelson, i want to bring in msnbc legal analyst lisa bloom. also, criminal defense attorney john burress with me as well. lisa, let me start with you. so far dr. di maio has provided good testimony for the defense, putting a lot of holes in what the prosecution presented with the medical examiner shiping bao. what would your estimation be of what he's done for the defense. >> i think this would be the best day the defense has had so far. this is the kind of hard, scientific evidence jurors tend to like. what he's testified to is that george zimmerman's story is consistent with the physical and the medical evidence that he's reviewed. he said that trayvon martin was
likely over george zimmerman in the position when zimmerman shot him. that's because the shirt was two to four inches away from the body based on the tattoo, the powder tattooing, as he calls it, stippling is another term. he said trayvon martin was likely conscious, capable of speech and motion 10 to 15 seconds after the shooting. that's consistent with george zimmerman's story that trayvon martin spoke and possibly moved his hands. and that george zimmerman's injuries are consistent with major trauma. he took those small lacerations that others have said are relatively insignificant injuries and said, no, it could be more significant than that. unfortunately, we don't have c.a.t. scans, x-rays, anything like that. all of that, at least on direct and re-direct, very helpful to the defense. >> john, the difference here with what di maio has been able to say and what bao said was in reference to the entry of the bullet wound, this fatal one
shot that injured trayvon martin's heart. because bao testified it could be four inches or up to four feet. that is a big difference in space. >> absolutely. you know, he really undermined that testimony from the medical examiner in a lot of different ways. that certainly was significant. for me, though, i think that the issue of reasonableness of zimmerman's conduct, i think that the -- this particular witness has helped a great deal by suggesting that you don't know how long -- the person who's being injured, like george zimmerman, doesn't know how long it's going to take and when it's going to end. he could certainly feel that even though these are not significant injuries, they're stunning enough it could cause him to believe he's going to receive great bodily injury. this particular witness has helped the defense a great deal around the most important issue in this case. that is whether the conduct, the shooting was reasonable at the time or had a reasonable belief that his life was in danger. >> let's dive back in because they're looking at the fatal
injury, the gunshot wound in the autopsy photos of trayvon martin. >> dr. di maio, the last two photographs that were shown -- >> yes. >> do you remember the ones that were shown? >> yeah -- i'm sorry, what? >> may i approach the witness? doesn't that show that the sweatshirt is up? >> yeah, but it's been pulled up. >> right. and if it's at the scene while they're transporting the body and the body comes to it the medical examiner's office with their sweatshirt down, wouldn't that absorb the blood there? >> may i see the other
photograph? >> sure. >> since it's not here, it's been removed, so it's been pulled off. if you're asking me could it have wiped the blood off as it was being pulled off, sure. >> in other words, you would expect the blood in the sweatshirt, correct? >> right. >> now, you were asked a bunch of questions by mr. west. do you agree mr. west testifying is not evidence, correct? >> yes, sir. >> okay. and would you use mr. west's statements to form your opinion? >> no, sir. i use the autopsy report and the laboratory reports. >> and the autopsy report, that was the one you mentioned prepared by dr. bao. >> and the photographs plus the firearms report. to form my opinion, yes, sir. >> and you agree there was an
absence of any x-rays or other actual proof of a broken nose, correct? >> that's correct, sir. >> and you agree there was absence of documentation of any kind of concussion or brain injury or brain bleeding, correct? >> oh, yes, sir. >> and you agree that there was absence of any proof of anything being washed off the victim's body. >> i can't say whether it was washed or not. what i said was is that if they -- if that shirt was lying on there and they pulled it off, it could have wiped off some of the blood. that's why you're not supposed to do that. you're supposed to take the photograph of the wound intact, before you clean it. so that was a big no-no there, either way. >> are you saying is at the scene the medical examiner
personnel should remove the clothing of the victim or should the clothing remain on the victim until he's transported to the me's office? >> no, what i'm saying is that the clothing should remain on the body so the photograph taken at the scene, that's proper. but when they got to the medical examiner's office, they shouldn't have pulled -- if they wanted photographs of the scene as received, they shouldn't have undressed the body or pulled anything off because they'd be wiping it. the whole chest is clean and such, so, you know, the techniques weren't exactly correct. let's put it that way. >> but you did rely on dr. bao's report in terms of his findings, correct? >> that's -- i had no other choice, sir. >> okay. and based on your observations of the photographs, they document what occurred in terms
of -- >> right. >> you're not disputing that? >> right, that the photographs of the wound were the best. >> okay. is there any absence of evidence that anything was washed by the rain? >> it would have to be -- you'd have to know how much it's raining there. you'd have to have an observation. >> pure speculation, correct? >> yeah, unless you were there and saw how much was washed away. >> okay. and there was an absence of vomiting, right? you didn't see any vomiting out there, correct? >> no. >> and finally, you were asked about john goode, what he testified. you agree that a jury that heard john goode's testimony should rely on what he said on the witness stand? correct? here's what i'm getting at -- >> it's kind of interesting. if he's got a good statement at
the time then he testifies something else on the witness stand, you begin to wonder. >> okay. >> i mean, i think that's up for the jury to consider. >> right. my question is, if john goode testified he neither saw nor heard any blows landing and neither heard nor saw anything being slammed on the sidewalk, is the physical evidence what you rely on? >> no, i told you i didn't rely anything on his statement. >> oh, you completely disregarded john goode? >> that's going to do it for this edition of "news nation." our live coverage of the george zimmerman trial will continue next on "the cycle." n. staying active can actually ease arthritis symptoms. but if you have arthritis, staying active can be difficult. prescription celebrex can help relieve arthritis pain so your body can stay in motion. because just one 200mg celebrex a day can provide 24 hour relief for many with arthritis pain and inflammation.
plus, in clinical studies, celebrex is proven to improve daily physical function so moving is easier. celebrex can be taken with or without food. and it's not a narcotic. you and your doctor should balance the benefits with the risks. all prescription nsaids, like celebrex, ibuprofen, naproxen and meloxicam have the same cardiovascular warning. they all may increase the chance of heart attack or stroke, which can lead to death. this chance increases if you have heart disease or risk factors such as high blood pressure or when nsaids are taken for long periods. nsaids, like celebrex, increase the chance of serious skin or allergic reactions, or stomach and intestine problems, such as bleeding and ulcers, which can occur without warning and may cause death. patients also taking aspirin and the elderly are at increased risk for stomach bleeding and ulcers. don't take celebrex if you have bleeding in the stomach or intestine, or had an asthma attack, hives, other allergies to aspirin, nsaids or sulfonamides. get help right away if you have swelling of the face or throat, or trouble breathing. tell your doctor your medical history. and find an arthritis treatment for you. visit celebrex.com and ask your doctor about celebrex.
visit celebrex.com and ask your doctor about celebrex. (announcer) at scottrade, our cexactly how they want.t with scottrade's online banking, i get one view of my bank and brokerage accounts with one login... to easily move my money when i need to. plus, when i call my local scottrade office, i can talk to someone who knows how i trade. because i don't trade like everybody. i trade like me. i'm with scottrade. (announcer) scottrade. awarded five-stars from smartmoney magazine. straight ahead in "the cycle," the defense's forensic expert is backing up george zimmerman's account of the night he killed trayvon martin. how is the prosecution countering his claim? we're going to break that down with our legal team. they're at the ready for the latest twists and turns this hour. meanwhile, congress