thinking. and that's why that's important. because in his mind, he already assumed certain things. that trayvon [ muted ]. you recall the prior calls? we brought in five, i think defense put on another one, six, within the last five, six months where crimes had been committed in the neighborhood. he was sick and tired of it. the law doesn't say, okay, take the law into your own hands. i'm sorry, i got the wrong guy. i'm so sorry. i thought he was a criminal. mr. martin, tracy martin, sybrina fulton, i am so sorry. i made a mistake. i didn't realize that trayvon martin was up to -- was minding his own business. i am terribly sorry. you know, the law doesn't say

that. the law talks about accountability and responsibility for one's actions. and that's what we're asking for in this case. hold the defendant responsible for his actions. hold him accountable for what he did. because if the defendant hadn't assumed that, and trayvon martin would have watched the basketball game. george zimmerman i'm assuming would have gone to target and did whatever he does on sunday evenings, and we wouldn't be here. the law doesn't allow people to take the law into their own hands. it doesn't allow, quite frankly, even the police to take the law into their own hands. the police had gotten called out there, they would have done -- they would have, okay, what are you doing here? can i ask you what you're doing? do you mind telling me? under the law, they're allowed to ask somebody that's walking the streets, the person can

ignore them or not. that's not a crime. most people say, listen, i live right -- i'm right here. i'm going home. want to come? but this defendant didn't give trayvon martin a chance. recall the testimony of this defendant in terms of the interviews. i'm going to play certain parts for you. but recall how he says that at one point, that trayvon martin is circling his car. and my point in saying that is, number one, you've got to determine whether that's true. but let's presume that part is true. and he says he's got something in his hands. why does this defendant get out of the car if he thinks that trayvon martin is a threat to him? why? why? because he's got a gun. he's got the equalizer. he's going to take care of it. he's a wannabe cop. he's going to take care of it. he's got a gun. my god, it's his community and he's not going to put up with it. the police are taking too long

to respond. he's going to handle it. now, did he go over there and say, i'm going to kill this kid, no. this isn't first degree murder. it's not premeditated. but his actions resulted in the death of a 17-year-old boy. did they not? i mean, do you have an innocent man before you? is it really self-defense when you follow somebody? first of all, when you profile somebody incorrectly. when you automatically label him a criminal because he's acting, in your mind and in his mind, excuse me, as suspicious because he's wearing a hoodie, because it's raining and he's walking the streets or not walking fast enough. i thought in this great country, no matter how stupid we might

think somebody's acting because it's raining and he's walking or doing whatever, that that's not against the law. he did have his hoodie on. it was raining. off and on. what's ironic in this case and what i want to spend some time talking with you about is the defendant's statements. because you might think, well, hold on. you're the state. what are you putting on his self-serving statements when he's denying committing a crime. when he's saying it's self-defense. we wanted to tell you all the evidence. we wanted to put in all the witnesses that saw something of value out there. because we wanted you to get the truth. we wanted you to get the complete story. but in doing so, i want to analyze the -- dissect with you the defendant's statements. why was it necessary for the defendant to exaggerate everything that happened? why was it that it took him a while, even at the very end, he

kept denying something. what? obviously he kept denying that he intentionally killed him. that it was, you know, he said self-defense. what was important even before that? what did he keep denying? that he followed him. because the defendant knew if he admitted he followed him, then that showed that ill will, hatred. that put him in that category [ muted ]. that's why he kept talking about, oh, i didn't know the name of the street. i was looking for an address. remember that vidvideo? i'm going to show you again. he's talking to the investigators like they're some fools or something. look, this is the back of the houses here. there's no addresses. well, right in front of him is an address. by the way, there's only three streets. how difficult can it be? he's the neighborhood watch guy. he's been living there four

years. he takes his dog down to that dog walk. he doesn't know the names of the street? he doesn't know the main street that you go in? because, see, when he admits something like that, then it proves one thing. that he was following him. that he had profiled him and he was following him. that shows he's guilty. because it shows that his actions led unfortunately to the death of trayvon martin. so you can't just say, okay, what happened at the actual interaction between them? again, we're going to talk about that. because unfortunately, and i stress unfortunately, there's only one person -- there's two people. one person's not with us anymore. there's only two really people who knew what really happened out there. and he, the defendant, made sure that other person couldn't come to this courtroom and tell you

what happened. he, the defendant, silenced trayvon martin. but i would submit to you even in silence, his body provides evidence as to this defendant's guilt. and why do i say that? because from dna, from lack of blood, other stuff, his body speaks to you. even in death, that -- and it proves to you that this defendant is lying about what happened. do you recall one of the things we talked about at some point with one of the witnesses? i think it was dr. di maio. the very impressive, distinguished doctor about this photograph the defense keeps berating? recall what i did? i said, what do you expect? blood. i'm going to show you the photographs. not just at the medical

examiner's because they're s saying, oh, that dr. bao, he's incompete incompetent. he didn't know what he was doing. i'm going to show you the photographs of the scene. which show what? no blood on his hands. they'll say, oh, it was raining that night. i guess the blood on the defendant's head just stuck there, right? on the victim it just kind of vanished. can't have it both -- can't have it like that. see, because what's important is the defendant in an attempt to convince the police that he was really shooting this man, this boy, in self-defense, he had to exaggerate what happened. that's why he had to at some point say, oh- thre, he was threatening me. it was almost like the levels of fear escalated. we'll talk about that. how he was then -- originally he hit him. he got him on the ground. then there was a struggle. then he got the upper hand. then, let's see, it got worse. and then he threatened to kill him. then he put his hand over his mouth, suffocating him. then he pinched his nose.

then he went for the gun. see how he's exaggerating everything? you don't believe this stuff? hold on. it was even more dangerous. because you know why? this defendant, as you heard, has studied the law. in terms of what's required for self-defense. and he's got all those bullet points in terms of what's required. so if you take one word out of here that i would submit to you shows this defendant's guilt, it's assumptions on the part of the defendant. the defendant assumed that the victim didn't belong at the retreat at twin lakes, didn't he? that the victim was committing or about to commit a burglary. he assumed and he profiled the victim as a criminal. he assumed that the victim was

one of those that always got away. he assumed also that he was an f'ing punk. and that the victim was going to get away before the police arrived. now, what didn't the defendant do? let's assume he was assuming that. again, assuming something is not against the law by itself. let's assume at that time he legitimately thought that trayvon martin might be committing a crime. okay. he called the police. nonemergency number. that's a good thing. what didn't he do? when this victim is coming up to him and, like -- he claimed circling his car. like, what are you doing, man? what are you following me for? he didn't say, hold on, i'm sorry. i'm with the neighborhood watch. can i assist you in some way?

you look lost or you look like you don't know what's going on. can i help you? can i give you a ride? let's say he was scared of him. he could have said do you live around here? can i call the police? can i call a friend? he didn't do that. he didn't take any action. because he already in his mind had assumed that he was a criminal. he wasn't going to give him any benefit of the doubt. he rolled down the window and identify himself as a neighborhood watch? say, listen, i called the police. i'm not a bad guy. i'm not a pervert. i'm not following you for anything, whatever your name is. the police are on the way. they're going to be here in 30 seconds or a minute. sometimes they take a little bit longer. would you mind waiting here? i'm a little suspicious of what you're doing. would you mind waiting? he didn't do that. did he wait for the police? no. did he wait inside his car? no. he let -- let's talk about

weighing the evidence. in terms of what the instructions the court will give you an opportunity to see and know. were the answers that the witnesses gave straightforward? did anybody have an interest in the outcome? did the evidence agree with other evidence? are there prior inconsistent statements? again, use your god given common sense. what do we have here? really what does it boil down to? you heard a little bit and we put evidence of the fact the defendant at one point wanted to be a police officer. i've been in law enforcement 30 years, prosecutor. there's nothing wrong. that's a good thing. we ought to encourage people to be police officers. it's an honorable profession. he applied in virginia. didn't get in. then he's doing other stuff. he's taking criminal justice credits. that's good. but, again, that doesn't say that the law allows a person to take matters into their own hand. if not, why are we here?

i mean, let's -- why do we have courtrooms? why do we have jurors? let's just let people handle it outside. oh, they're wrong? well, you know, sorry. i want to talk about the witnesses. before i do that i want to take a moment to thank you for your time of service. i think we started over four weeks ago. and in this process that we're all so fortunate to be able to -- to live in, you know, live the constitution in terms of asking people to come from their eve everyday lives and give up a lot. from work and from family. to serve as jurors.

so i think i speak on behalf of everybody, defense, the court and everybody. we thank you for your time and your patience. this case is very important to the state of florida. it's important to the victim's family. it's important to the defendant. and it's also important obviously to you. you probably realized that as you all are watching the juror -- i'm sorry. the witnesses and watching the trial, periodically the attorneys will watch you and the court will. and you guys were very attentive. some took more notes than others. but without a doubt nobody was falling asleep. you know, it's a long process. you've been here a long time. and we're towards the end. but i want to take a few moments and talk about what i would submit is how you arrive at a verdict. you know, we ask in this great country for people to serve as jurors without really any legal

experience. and n in a lot of countries, they don't have. they have lawyers or judges automatically plugged in as such. that's what they do. they have professional people to sit as jurors. we ask people to come from their everyday lives and sit as jurors. that's what i would submit makes this country great. so how is it that if you're asked to come and you really don't have any legal experience, how do you arrive at a verdict that speaks the truth? how do you arrive at a verdict that is just? i would submit to you, you do three things. number one, you rely obviously on the witnesses, the testimony, the evidence that you have, the physical evidence that you saw, and you'll be able to digest more if you want of the recordings, all that other stuff. number two, you rely on the law that judge nelson will read to you. you'll actually be provided a copy of it. number three, and perhaps most importantly, you rely on your god given common sense. you know, that common sense that

we just kind of use automatically without even having to think about it to make decisions at home and at work, the law encouraging you to do that in evaluating the evidence, determining what's valid, what's not and what makes sense. and when you do those three things, when you rely on the witnesses' testimony, the physical evidence and other stuff, when you rely on the law and when you rely and apply your common sense, i would submit to you you'll come back with a verdict that speaks the truth. a verdict that is just. and that verdict would be that this defendant is guilty of murder in the second degree. i mean, do you believe that there is an innocent man sitting over there right now? do you believe that he just assumed something, but he kind of overreacted a little bit but, you know, it really wasn't his fault? that trayvon martin is dead?

do you believe that this was just kind of a struggle or argument or discussion or fight that just kind of got out of hand? perhaps, but who started this? who followed who? who was minding their own business? again, of the two, who was the one that was armed? and who knew that they were armed? i hope you can see that from there. we -- i've got it right here, too. it's a timeline. it's going to kind of tell you a little bit about what happened there. it's a timeline showing the phone call. you'll be able to take it back there. it's in evidence. it's a timeline showing the phone call between rachel

jeantel and trayvon martin. there's two parts to it. it's color coded. hopefully we made it fancy so you alldecipher it. i'm old and getting used to the computer systems. hopefully it makes sense. you also have george zimmerman's calls. you have exact time in trms of the length of the call. you also have it broke up originally as you recall ms. jeantel talked of she lost contact and got it back up. then ms. lauer's call. that's when i was able to tell you unequivocally as to when the gunshot occurred. we were able to time when ms. lauer made the call. you hear the gunshot unfortunately in that call. you have other calls to mr. dyka. officer smith arrived at the retreat at twin lakes. you have mr. good's call. i would submit to you that's relevant in terms of establishing the timeline as best we can as to what occurred. now, are people off by a few minutes? possibly. but the phone records don't lie.

because my recollection was that we spent, i think, half a day one day and possibly half a day the next day hearing from one witness. her name was rachel jeantel. now, this young lady, i will submit to you, is not a very sophisticated person. she's not educated. she's a human being. she spoke as best she could. she happens to be haitian or of haitian descent. made a big deal about, oh, you can't read cursive. yeah, she can't. unfortunately. she's, what, 18, 19? but did what she tell you as best she could and make her english wasn't the best, maybe her speech, her language was a little colorful, i think she referred to me as that bald headed dude and referred to other phrases to describe other people. but did she speak the truth?

because when you think of it, she was the person that was speaking to the victim. and really the conversation that she had with the victim, nobody would know whether she's telling the truth or not other than her. i mean, we have the phone records that established it. that there's no dispute that they were talking. but what i'm saying is, she didn't have to -- she could have embellished. she could have lied about what the victim said and when she referred to the guy that was following, that creepy guy when she said to him, he's probably a pervert or a sexual something. why is this guy following you? and trayvon martin said he's [ muted ]. she didn't come in here and lie to you about that. i mean, she could have. nobody would have known the difference. it wasn't like her conversation was being recorded.

but, see, her use of colorful language doesn't mean that her testimony is less credible. just because she's not a highly educated individual. again, we have records that establish that that conversation took place. so there's no dispute about that. those records are up there. but let's talk about she spent hours on that witness stand. why? i guess an attempt to discredit her in some way. you decide whether she was telling the truth. disregard what she said because her family's from haiti? because she isn't sophisticated? because she can't read curvive, unfortunately? is that what you should do? i don't think the instructions are going to tell you that, but

you could decide. well, she's not very educated. i don't think she's -- i'm not saying that you will. but, i mean, why did we take so long in asking her questions? because we're trying to get to the truth. both sides. but i think the other witnesses, i guess, with many more sophisticated. it didn't take six hours or whatever. anyway, you decide. but did what she say comport or match up with the evidence that the other people were talking? i would submit that it did. i mean, think back, and it happened a while ago. but think about what she said. what she said trayvon martin said. and isn't it consistent with the evidence? i mean, is there any dispute that this defendant profiled, my word, you can use whatever word you want to use, but isn't it true that this defendant assumed

that trayvon martin was a criminal? i mean, he even tells the police that. isn't that consistent with what rachel yajeantel tells you? didn't even the defendant in his statements to the police say, yeah, the kid or however he referred to him, the guy, whatever, he's running away. didn't she say that? i had a dream that today a witness would be judged not on the color of her personality but on the content of her testimony. on the content of her testimony. just because she's got a colorful personality, just because she referred to me as the bald headed dude or whatever, that doesn't mean her story, her statements, aren't accurate. was the evidence consistent with what she said? wasn't she on a telephone with the victim? isn't it true the defendant was

following the victim? didn't the victim attempt to get away? didn't the defendant confront the victim? i don't think the defense will admit that. defendant to the police didn't admit that. but what did he say? oh, i was just looking for an address. oh, i was just looking for the street. oh, you were minding your own business, and all of a sudden this victim you were following decided all of a sudden to attack you out of nowhere. in fact, she went a little further, i would submit. she warned the victim that maybe he was a sexual pervert. again, colorful words were used by her to describe the defendant. in terms of what the victim had described the defendant as. i would submit to you that that's an example that she's

telling the truth. now, she did lie about funeral and about her age originally. to the police. to me. to the mother. why? okay. she's guilty of that. she didn't want to go have to see the body. she didn't want to deal with it. and she lied to the mother of trayvon martin. so you could disregard her testimony because of that. she lied about her age because she didn't want to come forward. maybe she realized that she might have to testify and people would find out that she can't read cursive. unfortunately. we have the defendant's nonemergency call. no dispute about that. that's recorded. i believe there might be a dispute as to whether the

operator told him not to follow or not. you decide. what was in that recording? [ muted ]. >> to say that under his breath. doesn't that kind of show, demonstrate, what the defendant was feeling at the time? i mean, that wasn't information that he was providing to the operator, like, okay, he is [ muted ]. why is he uttering that word?

other than that's how he feels? now, defense may get up here and tell you, oh, he was just angry. well, you decide. i would submit to you on behalf of the state of florida that's more than a little angry. that's frustration. that's kind of ill will, hatred, that you've made up your mind he's a criminal and you're tired of these criminals committing crimes. and, my god, he's not going to get away. [ muted ]. >> sir, what is your name? >> why was it necessary to, again, utter the words f'ing punk? if he hadn't already in his mind

determined that he was a criminal? that trayvon martin was a criminal and he was not fwoigoio get away. recall the testimony in terms of the entrance? again, we talked about the fact there's only three streets. this is one. this is the one, a circle all the way around. then there's another one. of course, he claims to not know the street that he comes in every day, in and out. he claims to not know that street. ladies and gentlemen, i'm going to show you in that interview with one of the interviews with the detective in the car, leading up to it, he makes reference to the street name. then, like, a minute later he's talking about i don't know the name of the street. he didn't add v-- he inadverten

let out the name of the street. he let out it was a lie he told the police so it would justify why he was following, why he is profiling, why he is tracking a young man. again, that's a close-up of where this happened right here. you're obviously very well familiar with it. we've got some more exhibits for that. we have ms. lauer's call, the 911 call. really, ms. lauer, what does she say? she didn't see anything. she stayed inside. i think at some point in that phone call she's telling her husband to be -- i think they're married now, jeremy weinberg, jeremy, get away from the window. get away. don't go out there. the bottom line is she recorded it. what does she say before the actual recording, before she called the police she heard something going on out there.

because, see, this wasn't like the defendant claims. that out of the blue the victim just kind of attacked him and knocked him to the ground and he started beating him. no, this started, i would submit, farther down. but it didn't start right at the "t" where the defendant claims it occurred. ms. surdyka. you heard from her, too. you've got the vantage point in terms of where her place was. my recollection was she's got a cat. i think his name was leo. who's got a ledge there. she was looking out. she was reading. she got up. she looked. she had a good vantage point. she did observe something. and what does she tell you? that in her opinion based on what she saw, she thought the bigger man was on top. and she told you that the voice she heard, she thought was of a

child versus an older person. now, is she an expert? had she ever heard these voices before? no. she's just telling you what she believes. just like you've had a bunch of other people come in and say, oh, that is george zimmerman east voice a's voice and that is trayvon martin's voice. you decide. but she told you as best she could what she observed. and what's consistent in terms of what she observed and what happened. because, see, the issue is at that time, when there was contact between the defendant and the victim, tid did it occu the defendant claims, first of all, you really have to believe he really wasn't following him and he was just kind of minding his own business. he was going out for a walk. his walk got interrupted because some guy attacked him. you've got to believe that. you've got to believe he wasn't following anybody. he wasn't up to doing anything. he was just kind of minding his

own business. as he was walking back, the victim for some reason just decided to go attack him. so you've got to have that assumption. it's got to be accurate. and then you've got to assume that then the victim just hit him and knocked him to the ground and just started beating him and -- and poor defendant, poor george zimmerman, he just kind of took it, boom, boom, just getting whacked over and over. he never did anything. compare the sizes. and then, oh, at the last moment, he was able to take out that gun, his concealed gun, and was able to just shoot him. you had the testimony of john good. did call 911. the time frame is important in terms of when his call was made. i think in opening statements the defense told you that --

represented to you that he is the eyewitness, he is the crucial eyewitness. he's the only eyewitness. i'll beg to differ. again, what's important is what you think. let's talk a little bit about john good. what did john good tell you? he saw what he believed was the victim on top of the defendant. now, he did not see the shooting. he saw prior to the shooting. i will submit to you when you kind of put all the witnesses together, that there wasn't just, like, the defendant knocking the victim down to the ground, staying on top of him, beating the hell out of him. i would submit to you there was contact between them. that there was a fight. there was a struggle. ironically, of the two, one of the individuals is the one that's had, what, 18 months mma fighting? oh, but, of course, he's just a

pudgy, overweight man. is, i think, what mr. pollack said. he really didn't progress beyond the first level. he's the one that's had mma training of some type. but, anyway, they interacted. they rolled around. and they fought. but, again, you can't just take that in a vacuum. why tdid this occur? what led up to this? and at the time of the shooting, was it necessary to shoot him? well, the defense is going to parade the photographs of the injuri injuries. i don't think i need to show you the one photo that counts, do i? the m.e. photo? who suffered the most serious injury of all?

you heard from mr. -- what does she tell you? i apologize. mr. good. he said he saw a struggle out there. he saw the victim, who he believes was the victim, based on clothing description. he didn't know him. on top of the defendant. and he saw the victim doing something to the defendant. he originally said it was mma style. but when asked specifically, did you actually see blows, he said no. i saw movement there. he may have been hitting him, but i don't know. what's also very important about what mr. good told you? he told you he could not see the defendant's hands. so did the defendant have the gun out at that point? was he trying to get it out? and was trayvon martin at that point, which is about, what, 25, 30 seconds or so before the shooting, was he trying to protect himself from that gun?

is that what the struggle was about? that at some point this defendant had the gun? the defendant claims at the very end, right before, unfortunately, he had to shoot the victim, that the victim grabbed the gun. unfortunately for him, the truth comes out. and it refutes what the defendant says. rule the testimony in terms of the dna. there wasn't any on the gun. recall what he told his best friend, mr. osterman. what the defendant told mr. osterman not, like, a month later. that same evening meaning the morning after when he picked him up at the police station and drove him to his house. that he -- the victim had grabbed the gun. not the holster. grabbed the gun. excuse me. in fact, mr. osterman told you he wrote a book about it with

his wife. my viador told you she heard something out there. ms. viador or ms. surdyka told you she heard something like, no. i think that kind of matches up with what ms. jeantel told you. you took great notes. you paid attention when the witnesses were out there. i'm not going to cover every minor point. it's consistent with what rachel jeantel told you. my recollection was she described she lives right here at 2841. she described movement this way. was the victim headed home as ms. jeantel told you? i need to show you the victim. you know what's ironic?

is recall even the defendant from the defendant's own mouth, they always got away from this exit over here. this other exit. the victim you might recall was staying over here. was he head there had and the defendant kind of cut him off? but it's consistent with what ms. viator told you in terms of from her back, left to right. and what did she see? she saw them struggling. that is the defendant and the victim struggling up right. defendant claims that trayvon martin is the strongest guy in the world. because he grabbed him, picked him up, then transported him, what, 20 yards? you saw the pictures. i'll talk about the diagram. he claims he pushed him, you know, or pulmoled him all the w over here. recall where all the items are in connection to where the victim ended up?

the manalos, mr. and mrs. manalo talked to you about what they observed. what they really didn't observe. my recollection is ms. manalo said the bigger person was on top. they made a big issue the defense in cross examining her, hold on. you did see photographs on tv. photographs of trayvon martin showed him playing football, in a football uniform. yeah, that's true. but i still think the person on top was the bigger person. now, she didn't see the shooting. my point is that there was a fight there. there was a struggle. at some points, it appears, based on the evidence, that the defendant was on top. and at some points the victim was on top. wrestling, struggling, whatever you want to call it. but why did it occur? why did it occur? if you believe he's an innocent

man, then you believe that the victim just decided to come up and just smack him. smack the defendant. the defendant fell to the ground. the victim just started beating him up for -- oh, we don't know. but for some reason. and that the defendant really wasn't following him. the defendant really was just kind of walking back to his car. the defendant was truthful when he was telling the police that he was kind of trying to find out what the address was. or he was trying to find out what that street name was. i apologize. mr. manalo told you he went outside. within seconds, i think it was like 20, 30 seconds of what he stepped outside, he observed the defendant -- and he said he thought the defendant was beaten up. he said the defendant was doing something acting, then he said

he asked him about the phone and talking about calling his wife. that's when he made that remark, just tell her i killed him or shot him. you might be thinking, hold on. if there was a fight, if there was a struggle, how does that factor? well -- and who started it? who was following who? who was chasing who? who had the right, if they were being chased? does the defendant have the right to self-defense? i'm sorry, does the victim? when he's being chased by this person? you'll hear the facts in this case. and you'll hear in terms of whether the defendant was chasing him or not.

you know, it was dark out there. there's no dispute about that. it was raining. no dispute about that. that's what these photographs show. it shows the distance from one sidewalk or dog walk to where the body was. you've got the diagrams and photographs. one thing i will submit these photographs show is the absence of blood on that sidewalk. the other big thing is, if the defendant was really having his head bashed in as the -- he claims to the police, and he has some injuries to the back of his head, and we'll talk about that. but i think, they were what, centimeters or less? why isn't his jacket all torn up?

or at least scratched up if he was being picked up over and over? why is his jacket all right, the back of his jacket? you think about that? or is he exaggerating what happened? flashlight with the key ring. that's the one that was still on. state exhibit 10 showing another angle in terms of the evidence out there. in terms of there apparently was some slope. we'll talk about the significance of that. based on what defendant told police. and, again, this is state's exhibit 15. so the body was covered up. that's the other flashlight that the defendant had. i think he's told the police that it stopped working or something. if you want to, check again his statements to the police. was he carrying it in one hand? why was he carrying it in one hand? okay. i guess he took it out there to see, track down trayvon martin.

then it swrus stjust stopped wo he didn't put it in his pocket, i guess he just carried it in his hand. that's the victim's phone. there's no dispute that he was talking on the phone. and this is -- i'll show you this photograph not to show you just that, but i'll show you that because i want you to focus on this. he was spikie in speaking on th. and he had ear plugs, whatever you call them. state's exhibit 22 is a close-up of where the gunshot was and also this photograph button. one thing i'd suggest to you that might be important to note on that is it was a big tedeal made about the jacket or the hoodie or the sweatshirt. how it had to be consistent with the can and how to do that.

well, that button might have something to do with the way that sweatshirt was kind of hanging. it's a little big on him. but also that might affect the angle of how much is sticking out, the sweatshirt. you decide. state's exhibit 23. why is that important? do you see any blood on his hands? on the victim's hands? state's exhibit 24. do you see any blood on his hands? i mean, is there any dispute that the defendant's mouth, nose -- i'm sorry, he had some blood on it. how come there isn't any blood on the victim's hands? because the argument was made or suggested to you in terms of the cross-examination of the medical examiner and all that, oh, he had to wash his hands. you all didn't know what you were doing there. right there at the scene, where was the blood? the other interesting thing is that i will submit to you just

based on the evidence, i don't know what you call this. i don't know if it's a draw string or what. why is one of them a lot longer than the other one. was the defendant maybe pulling on that. as the victim was trying to back out. it's ironic that you see how one is pulled all the way down. and which side is it on? state exhibit 29 shows some of the other exhibits out there. state's exhibit 33. i've put this in here because i thought and we talked about it, i believe we came up with the testimony that there's a street address right there. that's where the defendant claimed he didn't know, "a," the street name or he couldn't find an address. even though he's lived out there four years. he takes his dog out there or dogs out there to walk. but he doesn't know that there's

street addresses. because his isn't just, like, some fancy or regular neighborhood that all the houses are different. these are kind of cookie cutter. they're all the same. but he didn't know the addresses were out there. that's why he had to walk that long distance, to find the address or find the street for the police. state exhibit 36. some daytime photographs kind of showing the area in terms of what happened out there. state's exhibit 76. there's been a big issue about that photograph. shows how the defendant was bleeding. i believe mr. manalo took that photograph. why was the blood still on there and why would the blood not be on the victim's hands? it's interesting, too, the direction of the blood. we'll talk a little bit about that. in terms of what happened. state's exhibit 77.

this was, again, mr. manalo before the police got out there. where are the victim's hands? but under his body? what did the defendant claim to you? he used police jargon in terms of suspect and, well, the police, of course, they always spread out the arms, hands to make sure there's no weapon there. he's trying to tell the police that what happens is he was scared, and he at one point said, oh, i thought he had something in his hand so i was checking for that weapon. that's what i was doing. it's inconsistent with the physical evidence out there. defense may argue, hold on, didn't dr. di maio said you could take out a person's heart, you could live for 15 seconds, and the person could walk or do all this other stuff? take out the heart. the defendant moving him and spreads out his hands so he's taking even more blood pumping out. the victim appens to kind of lift himself up and put the hands underneath? i don't know.

you decide. why did he have to say that? because it's part of him wanting to be a cop. that's what police officers do. he wanted to shoot somebody. they usually handcuff them. even if the person is dead. they handcuff them just for security purposes. the other interesting thing is, you recall the flashlight the defendant had in terms of the relationship with the body was. again, the photograph i showed you, state's exhibit 79 i was showing. and state's exhibit 80. those were the two photographs that were shown out there. do you recall what we heard about that from an expert regarding dna? swab of the pistol grip matches

the defendant. and trayvon martin's excluded. that is inconsistent with what the defendant claimed to mr. osterman. told the police he was going for the gun. he told mr. oster than that he had the gun or grabbed the -- i think he described what part of the gun he grabbed. then there's other test results. no determination made on the other side. on the holster. you had it shall i would, i would submit, relevant fingernail scrapings of the victim in this case. what were the findings? no dna foreign to trayvon martin. no dna results at all pup so the victim in his struggle that tft claims he had with him when he was trying to kill hp, basically, or shut him up so that he couldn't speak, where did all the blood go?

where did all the defendant's blood go? while we're on that subject the defendant claims he was the only one yelling out there. all the cries for help were only him. decide whether it was him or trayvon martin or beet of them. had to be one of them. or both. but if he's yelling and if he's down and if he's got all this blood and he's swallowing the blood, how is he able to do all that? and why is there a consistent in terms of yells of help, help, help? why is is it muffled down? how is he going to talk? or is he lying about that? i will submit to you it's another lie. you saw that the hoodie jacket was checked. i'm giving you quickly the dna

results. you've got an exhibit there that's got them all in there. just to demonstrate to you how thorough the investigation was in terms of the florida department of law enforcement doing their thorough analysis of the case in terms of the evidence -- your honor, may we take a -- >> if you're ready -- if you're ready to take a break? >> i'm ready. >> we'll take a 15-minute recess. ladies and gentlemen, please put your note pads face down on the chair and follow deputy jarvis back into the jury room. the jury now being excused during this break in the closing argument by council for the state of florida. the lead prosecutor in the case, bernie day day la rhee --

>> please be seated. court will be in recess for 15 minutes. >> we're going to go for a quick break. we will be right back with some legal analysis by our legal experts in just a moment.

i'm brianna keilar. you are watching special coverage of the george zimmerman murder trial. the court right now is taking a break. the lead prosecutor in the case bernie de la rionda has been giving his closing argument in the case. as soon as he comes back, we're expecting that to be in about 10 to 15 minutes, the court will resume. the jury will come back in. we will bring that to you. but in the meantime, let's see how things are going. we'll talk to cnn legal -- pardon me. cnn senior legal analyst jeffrey toobin joining us from new york. the question at this point, jeffrey, how do you think bernie de la rionda is doing? >> i think he's doing a good

job. it's an aggressive job. there have been problems in this prosecution's case. i think everyone recognized that. but he is not backing off from the murder charge. that is, the top charge in this case. he is making the case that george zimmerman's conduct that is relevant here is not just the night of the murder. it's his building anger about finding people in the neighborhood who don't belong there. these punks. these people he doesn't like. and the murder of trayvon martin, he's claiming, is the culmination of weeks of frustration. i don't know if the evidence is there for that. but i think it's -- it's very significant that this prosecutor is going for the murder charge, not just urging the jury to settle on manslaughter. >> all right. let's fw let's get comments from our legal analysts in studio with me. tanya miller, holly hughes. let me start first with you, tanya. one of the things we saw bernie

de la rionda doing was try to kind of revive what was supposed to be, you could still argue was, his star witness, rachel jeantel. was he able to do it, you think? >> i think he did what he had to do with rachel jeante lerks. look, the jury is going to have an opinion one way or another about whether or not they liked rachel jeantel. whether or not she was an effective communicator. what he's telling them is, look, put aside whether or not you think she spoke well and whether or not you'd invite her to your house for dinner and evaluate whether or not she's credible. is she telling the truth? is she corroborated by independent evidence? he's telling them, yes, she is. >> holly, big issue in the case was george zimmerman's state of mind as he was in the car, as he obviously came into contact with trayvon martin. we heard bernie de la rionda say he didn't even try to revive the kid. was he effective in, do you think, building this case against george zimmerman? >> absolutely. because he's not just talking about the actions. he is talking about the words of

the defendant. brianna, trials and closing arguments are about facts in evidence. but they are about themes. and universal truths. and what he is saying to this jury is something we all know to be true. from the depths of the heart, the mouth speaketh. he is saying to these women, listen to what he said and listen to what he didn't say. okay? he didn't say, oh, i'm concerned about my neighborhood. he's using strong, incendiary language. dropping the "f" bomb. this is his attitude. then when he talks to john manola, just tell her i killed him. >> was he too cavalier? we'll see if the jury considers that. we will be right back after a quick break. we will bring you closing arguments continuing in the george zimmerman case in just a moment. mom, dad told me that cheerios is good for your heart, is that true? says here that cheerios has whole grain oats

that can help remove some cholesterol, and that's heart healthy. ♪ [ dad ] jan?

welcome back, everyone. i'm ashleigh banfield live in sanford, florida, at the seminole county criminal justice center where any moment the attorneys, the gallery, the jury and the judge will all be taking their seats once again for the continuation of these riveting closing arguments in george

zimmerm zimmerman's second degree murder trial. this is the end of the road before the jurors get to make their voices heard. silently and then very loudly. if opening statements are the framework into which all these pieces of the puzzle are going to fit in, then closing arguments are the narrative. they are the live story telling, the two-hour documentary of everything you just heard in a story that makes more sense than the legalese and the arcane arguments that are as much for the jury as they are for the record. so it's very easy to understand them. it's very easy to remember them. i want to bring in our senior legal analyst jeffrey toobin. jeff, i've been watching this. bernie de la rionda is a masterful attorney. he is one of the better ones i've watched live in action. i am trying to determine by listening to what he's saying if he is arguing before this jury more about second degree murder or if he is really hanging most of what he's trying to describe on manslaughter.

what are your thoughts? >> my thought is that he's actually going for second degree murder. i think, you know, all the time he spent at the beginning about how the crime really began when george zimmerman registered all the frustration with what was happening in the neighborhood and the punks and the fact that he -- these kids keep getting away, all of that is to set the stage for the -- for the argument that george zimmerman had hatred. he had ill will. that it was not appropriate, as the prosecutor said, just to look at the night of the murder, but you had to see it in the context of zimmerman's overall behavior. that argument is a second degree murder argument. it's not a manslaughter argument. >> ill will, hatred and spite. so critical to prove that malice that you're talking about to get to second-degree. you're absolutely right. but, jeff, we still have an hour to go. he was going to do about two

hours in his closing. and then don't forget, everyone. the prosecutors get to do a rebuttal closing. because they have the last word. they have got the burden of proof. jeffrey, i know as a former prosecutor that was probably the one excellent thing that you always could look forward to. that you got the last word in front of the jury. >> huge. >> huge, right? it can't be overstated how huge it is to leave it hanging with the jury, your final narrative. stand by for a moment. when he come back after the break i want to play for you exactly what jeffrey toobin just described. the description of hatred, ill will and anger and malice and all of these things the prosecutor needs this jury to understand if they're going to go for broke and go for guilt on the top count. we're back in a moment. ♪ [ male announcer ] you wait all year for summer. ♪ this summer was definitely worth the wait. ♪ summer's best event from cadillac.

let summer try and pass you by. lease this all-new cadillac ats for around $299 per month or purchase for 0% apr for 60 months. come in now for the best offers of the model year.

we come back, everyone. i'm ashleigh banfield reporting live in sanford, florida, as we await the proceedings to get back under way in the george zimmerman second degree murder

trial. the great seal is what the camera is showing now which means you are not missing anything. they are about to start up at any moment. in case you missed this, you must see it. because it is a critical part of the prosecutor's closing argument. don't forget that one of the key things they need to prove in second degree is that there was some kind of ill will, hatred, spite or evil intent. how can you prove that? by suggesting that george zimmerman was a profiler from the beginning. have a look at the prosecutor bernie de la rionda and how he put that right to the jury. >> he profiled him as a criminal. he assumed certain things. that trayvon martin was up to no good. and that is what led to his death. you know, this wasn't at 2:00 in the morning or partying somewhere. not that that would in any way minimize it. but he wasn't -- he was just doing a normal, everyday thing. he went to the store, got something, got some skittles and some tea or drink, and was just

walking back. it was raining. he was wearing a hoodie. last i heard, that's not against the law. but in this man's eyes, he was up to no good. he presumed something that was not true. >> guaranteed. defense counsel is making notes. because when it's their turn they're going to knock all of that down, you can rest assured. the great seal is still in our shot. we are watching for the live action to resume. they're starting to filter back into the courtroom. quick break. back with the live courtroom action right after this.

welcome back live in sanford, florida, everyone. a live shot of the courtroom. we'll show you front and center for the first time since this trial began, robert zimmerman sitting beside his wife, gladys zimmerman. they are the parents of george zimmerman. why for the first time are they now seated in the gallery? because the rules of witness sequestration dictate that you may not be in the courtroom if you're going to be a witness in the case. and both of them were. and they remained under the sequestration rules until the end of the testimony. so now they can finally sit behind their son and watch these proceedings. they're behind their son, and on the other side of the courtroom is, of course, the family and friends and supporters of trayvon martin who are sitting behind, and it's very sad to say, they are sitting directly behind some very large white evidence displays. one of them actually says "hoodie." very sad to see that. they can't see it from their perspective. the words "hoodie" are on the camera's perspective.

thank god they're shielded from that. but it is very odd and uncomfortable to see that. i want to bring in my colleague and one of the better criminal litigators here in the state of florida, mark nejame who's been watching gavel to gavel with me. you have a connection to this prosecutor, bernie de la rionda. your partner used to work for bernie de la rionda. i would never ask you to grade or judge people who you may end up working against. >> happy to do it. >> what i'd like to know is the strategy of this closing. the narrative he's been giving and how it settles with the average guy like me. >> i think he's doing the best he can. i think the skill sets of these prosecutors has been spectacular. i think their strategy has stunk. >> you do? >> i think it's coming back to bite them. i'll tell you why. they should have never as we've seen this case unfold gone with second degree murder. they should have gone from the very beginning, maintained their credibility with manslaughter. >> why did they? >> they thought they could

possibly get a second degree. then the jury would come back with a lesser. >> no, mark, no. that's normally the way it works. is that the way it works this time? or did it come from the special prosecutor? >> that's the trouble when you get politics involved in the judicial system. here we have a situation where if you'd gone in and said -- >> hold on. i'm only going to break into you because i want to make sure i hear the beginning of bernie de la rionda. he's resuming the second part of his closing. let's listen. >> i'm showing you a photograph of the left hand of trayvon martin. obviously in addition to the gunshot wound that was the only other injury that was observed when the autopsy was performed. as you can see from that photograph, there is a very minute or small injury right there. an even smaller one over here. abrasion on his left hand. you recall also the testimony was that he was right-handed. so if the beating was as severe

as i would submit mr. zimmerman claims, then how did it occur? i guess maybe -- well, we can speculate. i think even dr. di maio said, well, sometimes you hit something and you don't necessarily injure your hands. that's a possibility. that could also be true for george zimmerman's hands. the defendant, george zimmerman, two people. one shot to death and one repeatedly lies about how it happened. why might that be? you wonder? if one is shot to death and the other one lies, why would that person lie? he brought a gun to a struggle, to a fight that he started by following him and wanting to

make sure that the victim didn't get away. and now he wants you to let him off because he killed the only eyewitness. the victim, trayvon martin, who was being followed by this man who had the right to defend himself. defendant's interview. you obviously know he gave various interviews. i want to just quickly highlight certain parts that i will submit to you are relevant as to establishing why this defendant's lying and why he was caught in numerous lies. and then obviously why it happened.

>> i'm the coordinator. there's been a few times where i've seen a suspicious person in the neighborhood. we call the police. the nonemergency line. and these guys always get away. >> okay. what made them suspicious? any tape or recordings of vehicles that come in and out of that neighborhood? >> last time they were down. the cameras were broken. >> why did i put that thing about the camera there? because as you recall one of the ploys or tactics used by the investigator was to say maybe the victim had a recorder or maybe somebody videotaped it out there. he the defendant, he knew that didn't happen. because he knew about it. he's the one that told the investigators, hey, contact mr. taylor or leyland, whatever his name was. i'll give you his number. it's on my cell phone.

so he knew that there wasn't any videotaping out there of this. it wasn't like, oh, he's just -- he took a gamgamble, you know, he was really defending himself. he said, hey, i'll volunteer. go ahead and videotape it. or i wish there was. no. he knew there wasn't any. it wasn't like he was forthcoming with that information as, like, a truthful person. >> yes, ma'am. >> okay. >> i didn't know the name of the street that i was on. >> so you'd come off your street and gotten to another street? >> yes. it goes in, cuts through the middle of my neighborhood. >> okay. >> i didn't know the name of the street. or where he went. so i got out of my car to look for the street sign. and to see if i could see where he'd cut through so i could tell the police -- >> after he circled your car he disappeared again? >> yes, ma'am. >> okay.

>> two key points there. didn't know the street name. only three streets. he'll tell you, you'll see it actually from his own mouth when he's talking to the investigators out there, he names the street. but most importantly also or just as important is the fact that he's saying this man, trayvon martin, is circling his car. so he's in such dire strait or so feared that he gets out of the car to go follow him? so he's either truthful in saying he's circling the car, or he's lying about it. either way, it shows that he's not telling the truth. if he's really that in fear of him, why does he get out of the car? or is he saying that as another explanation as to why maybe he had to kind of confront him as to explain that maybe, oh, it was the victim that attacked him. you see the victim was already showing that he was going to do something because he started circling the car.

and that's what a person that's about to commit a crime does. that's what he wanted the police to believe. >> find out where he went. and he said we don't need you to do that. i said, okay. he said, we already have a police officer en route. i said all right. and i moved -- i had gone where -- through the dog walk where i normally walk my dog. and walked back through to my street, the street that loops around. he said we already have a police officer on the way. so i said okay. i told -- they said would you like a police officer to meet you, and i said yes. i told them where my car was. i was walking back through to where my car was. and he jumped out from the bushes. [ muted ].

he punched me in the nose. at that point, i felt it. >> okay. so a few key things to remember there or point out that i would suggest to you. number one is where he walks his dog. but he doesn't know the name of the street. in terms of getting there. it's only, again, three streets. number two, he's walking back. he's told not to follow him. so he decides to obey, even though he wasn't ordered not to follow him. he decides to go back to the car when this man came out of the bushes. you will see that he changes that and he catches himself. but you'll see it. it's coming up. number one as to where those bushes were. but he also at some point catches himself when he says i was going towards him -- oh, he came out -- he came towards me. >> getting ready to punch me. as soon as he punched me, i fell backwards.

into the grass. >> this man, trayvon martin, this teenager, came at him. now, he's out there in the darkness, and he's got a gun. but, of course, he hasn't taken his gun out. because that would be illegal. he's got the right to conceal it. because he suspects somebody of a crime, he's not a police officer, he can't go arrest them. but he's just kind of wandering out there in the darkness, even though this guy has circled his car. but he's not in fear. he's just kind of wandering. does that make sense? he goes out into the darkness after somebody he's scared of? and he's not on guard to what's going on? see, because he's got to convince the police, and by virtue of giving that statement to the police, convince you, the defense has got to convince you, that he was just kind of walking and the victim came out of nowhere. >> i'm going to object, your

honor. >> tell me your overall objection. >> improper presentation of the case law and the law concerning my client's obligations to prove anything. >> ladies and gentlemen, at the close of the it sha-- end of th attorneys' closing arguments i will instruct you on the law as applicable to this case. you will be given that law back to the jury room to compare with how you find the facts to be. thank you. go ahead. >> he's trying to convince the police that he hadn't done anything wrong. >> and on my nose and on my mouth. he says you're going to die tonight. >> again, now he's saying that the level of violence towards him is escalating. because trayvon martin just decides to shut him up by, you know, the amazing thing, i'm going to get to this in one of the slides that you will see or powerpoint presentations that you'll see, he must have had, like, ten hands out there or ten

arms. because he's able to do all this while the defendant's just sitting there. letting him put his hands over him. not doing anything. does that make sense? >> my jacket and my shirt came up. and when he said you're going to die tonight, i felt his hand go down on my side. i thought he was going for my firearm. so i grabbed it immediately and as he banged my head again i just pulled out my firearm and shot him. >> okay. and then what happened? did he -- >> so the gun wasn't exposed earlier. he's getting beat up. but he hasn't taken the gun out. it's only when the victim starts reaching for the gun. he thame thames tells osterman actually grabbed for it. he's holding one hand over my mouth, one hand over my nostril, i can't breathe, but i see it. he's got that third hand that he's going for the fun.

does that make sense? and the victim only went for the gun because the gun became exposed. your honor, with the court's permission i've had the deputy check the gun. i'll have them check it again. thank you, sir. he's got this gun in this holster. and you'll see in a few minutes, might be more than a few minutes, one of the things that he does, he demonstrates to the police where he had the gun. and it wasn't right here in the

front. it was towards the back. and it was hidden. and he'll demonstrate to the police out there where it was. look at the gun. look at the size of this gun. how did the victim see that in the darkness? where was it? it wasn't outside. it was tucked in behind. he'll demonstrate to the police where it was. how did the victim see this gun? or is it just another lie that he tells? >> once i shot him, i holstered my firearm and i got on top of

him and held his hands up because he was still talking. i said, stay down. don't move. and then -- >> a key point of that is that he tells the officers out there, the police station and later out at the scene, that he didn't realize originally that he had shot the victim. well, if he's in such fear and he hasn't -- he doesn't realize he shot him, what the heck is he doing holstering his gun? if he's so scared? or is that just police jargon? that's what police do when they shoot somebody. first they make sure the person's either dead or handcuffed. then they automatically holster the gun. but he's got that police jargon talking, and that's what the police are taught. but if he's so scared, what is he doing holstering his gun? because he claims at one point that the victim said, oh, you got me, or something. and he thought, oh, he's scared

of him. he's trying to convince the police that he really didn't intend to shoot him at that point. that, yeah, he was in fear but he really wasn't intending to shoot him. he was just kind of trying to scare him, maybe. >> it's always dark. they always come around nighttime. >> they always come around at nighttime. "they" being pardon my language the [ muted ]. when he profiled a 17-year-old boy. that had skittles. that's the crime he committed that evening. skittles that he didn't even steal from 7-eleven. he legitimately bought. you saw the videotape. he wasn't instilling fear into that clerk over there.

because he was wearing a hoodie. but somehow this man right here became suspicious of a 17-year-old kid who's wearing a hoodie. at 7:00 in the evening or 7:10 in the evening. >> straight through to see if there was a street sign that i could tell dispatch where i lost sight of him at. when i walked back, that's when he came out of the darkness. and i guess he was upset that i had called the police. >> he's starting to speculate or trying to convince the police, oh, i guess that's why he must have attacked me or why he came out. because he must have been upset that i called the police. see, he's trying to justify to the police why he did what he did. of course, it's not that he came to the wrong assumption originally. it's, no, i was just checking for the street sign.

i was just doing my job as a neighborhood watchman or just a citizen concerned about crime. and i guess he came out of there because he must have realized that i called the police. meaning that first assumption's still existing in his mind. he is a criminal. and that's what criminals do. they don't want to get caught. >> cell phone away. >> okay. >> and when i walked back towards him, i saw him coming at me. >> did you hear that? when i walked back towards him -- he switches mid-sentence. i saw him coming towards me. he acknowledges at that point he's the aggressor. he's the one going and pursuing the victim. but he catches himself when he says that, then he goes, oh, he walked towards me. >> and i went to get my phone.

i don't remember if i had time to pull it out or not. >> then he claims he went for the phone. because he's got to then explain why he being a 5'7", 204 pound perfectly healthy 28-year-old man is overpowered by this 5'11", 158 pound kid. and he being the one that's tracking him or following him, he's on guard. he's got two flashlights. he's got a gun. this kid is the one that's scared because this guy's following him. he's got to explain why this kid got the upper hand. oh, i was going for my phone. i just got distracted. was he going for his phone or was he going for his gun? were they in the same place?

defendant's interview that same day, part two. what tdid he do there? he true different areas and tracks in terms of where he was. where he claims he saw the victim. where the victim just came out of nowhere. where the victim was just kind of looking suspicious. and, you know, you've got that in evidence. i'm not going to spend a lot of time with that. but he drew the different places where he claims the victim was and what in his mind caused him to be suspicious of a 17-year-old boy. photographs taken of the defendant that you saw. defense made a big deal, oh, he was washed up. well, you've got this bloody photograph here, and you've got that. i guess, and according to dr. di maio, i guess one of the ems people out there just kind of put it back in place. put the nose back in place.

you heard from ms. fulgate, she didn't see anything. it might be fractured, i don't know. what she recommended is go get x-rays. that's how we verify it. defendant refused or declined to do that. that's his privilege. they're going to argue to you, oh, he had a broken nose. first of all, who was following who? who started the fight or struggle? i circled this because in reviewing the evidence, i thought this might be interesting to you. and what i've circled up there are his shoes. the defense claims defendant told the police that he was on his back the whole time and the victim was just whaling on him. well, you can look at the actual photograph. there's actually some grass on top, it appears wet as if he at some point was on top of the victim. some minor point. kind of corroborates some of the evidence, the witnesses'

testimony. the back jacket of the defendant. wow. where's all the scratch marks, something to reflect all this tension with this concrete that occurred out there? how come it's missing? back of his head. you recall in testimony there was two. how small were they? do you recall the testimony of the witness, ms. fulgate. i think i had her tell me how big it was. i think she was -- it was hard to keep -- anyway. she remembered. why are his hands not injured? if this 17-year-old young man is whaling on him, how come he's not defending himself? again, these are just little

parts of the interview that he gave. you obviously heard this. i just want you to take a second to read that. but he talks about these guys. he talks about not knowing the places. again, he's trying to make up one lie after another after another. yeah, he was circling my car. as soon as i saw him coming i rolled up the window because i was so scared of him. because he was a criminal. i didn't know the name of the street that i was on. then he talks about, you know, they remind him, we didn't need you to do that. had already gone through the dog walk. told them where my car was, make and model. jumped out of the bushes, hey, man, do you have a problem. jumped out of the bush. he grabbed my head and hit it

into the sidewalk. when he started doing that i slid into the grass still yelling for help. help, he's killing me! of course, this criminal put his hands over my mouth and said, you're going to die tonight. that's what, of course, led me to the gun. he's got that legal training. that he's aware of in terms of what he's got to say. he, the victim, said you got me, after being shot. and he was still talking. i said, stay down, don't muf. i got on top of him. he said, ow, ow. then talking about that he's telling the people that came out, i don't need you to call the police, i need you to help me with this guy. he holsters his gun, too, at the same time. it's always dark. you know, they always come out

around nighttime. and he talks about still not having seen the victim. he's struck in the nose. i screamed help probably 50 times. anything else important? no. you didn't try to make contact with him? no. you can see the map. you can track down when you looked at the timeline in terms of it said match when he's claiming where he's at when he's talking i would submit to you it opportunity. you rely on what the evidence shows. came out of the bushes. i don't recall if he came from the front or behind. he punched me in the face and i fell backwards. when i backed -- when i walked back towards him i saw him coming at me. he catches himself in mid-sentence. that is the truth. when i walked back toward him, meaning i was going towards where he was. then, oh, no, he was coming at me.

and that written statement again to the police. my purpose in showing you this is he now refers to the suspect. not, pardon my language, f'ing punk [ muted ]. suspect over and over. trying to impress the police. like he knows the stuff. hey, you know, i want to be a police officer one day. suspect this. suspect that. suspect that. fired one shot into his torso. you know, he's got all the language down. the detective or investigator followed him outside. had the flashlight but it was dead. you've got a problem? no. you've got a problem now. he beat him. started beating him.

smothered my mouth and nose. felt him slide his hand down. you're going to die tonight, mf. you got me. i spread his hands away from the body. still talking but i don't know what he said. let's talk about -- >> there's been a history of break-ins in that building. i called previously about this house. when the police arrived at this house, when i called the first time, the windows were open and the door was unlocked. the police came and secured it. so i said, you know what? it's better to just call and i kept trying. i passed him. he was -- he kept staring at me and staring around looking around. to see who else was -- i don't know why he was looking. >> did he walk off from there or did he stop there last night. >> he stopped. he, like, looked around. that's why i -- >> this is what he claims this

criminal is doing. >> where was he standing at? >> right there. >> on the sidewalk or in the grass. >> in the grassy area. >> that's a crime at rtl on sunday night. february 26th. standing out there in the grass. >> i went to the clubhouse. >> all right. >> when i got through, i parked at the clubhouse. >> all right. >> and they asked me, you know, where i was. i told them the clubhouse. i think i gave them the address of the clubhouse. >> where'd you park at? >> right up here next to that green truck. i don't think that truck was there. but i just pulled up. >> you just pulled up here? >> yes, sir. >> this is where you got out? >> no. this is where i just stopped to call. to call. then he walked past me and he

kept looking at my car. still looking around at the houses and stuff. then the dispatcher said, where did he go? what direction did he go? i said, i don't know. i lost -- because he cut down in here and made a right. i guess it's twin trees lane. >> did you catch that? did you catch him in one lie right there? he originally told the police over and over before and even after this interview, he didn't know the name of the street. then when they just kind of let him talk, he gives the name right there. it's common sense. there's only three streets. he's lived there four years. again, why did he have to lie about that? because he does not want to admit that he was following this innocent young boy. a 17-year-old. >> he made a right there. and they said what direction did he go. i said, i don't know, i can't see him. they said can you get to somewhere where you can see him?

i said, yeah, i can. so i backed out. >> all right. >> and i parked right about where that sign is in the yard. >> in front of the ford truck? >> yes. and i saw -- and i saw him walking back that way. and then cut through the back of the houses. he looked back and he noticed me and he cut back through the houses. i was still on the phone with nonemergency. and then he came back. and he started walking up towards the grass and then came

down and circled my car. and i told the operator that he was circling my car. i didn't hear if he said anything. >> right. >> but he had his hand in his waistband. and i -- i think i told the operator that. and they said, where are you? and i could not remember the name of the street. because i don't live on this street. >> right. >> retreat view circle goes in a circle. >> right. >> i said, i don't know. he goes, give me an address. i said i don't know an address. i think i gave them my address. >> two minutes earlier, a minute earlier he'd given him the street name. now he's telling this investigator that's the reason why he had to go and follow -- i'm sorry. not follow. he had to go find the address. because he wants to justify as to why he would go down that route. just by coincidence. it keeps kind of tracking where this criminal is going.

>> out and look for a street sign. >> right. >> so i got out of my car and i started walking. >> go ahead. >> i was still on the phone with the nonemergency. i started walking. >> okay. >> because i didn't see a street sign here. but i knew if i went straight through, that that's retreat view circle and i could give him an address. because i couldn't get the address of the house here in front of me. there's no address because these are the back of the houses. >> did you catch him there? did you see that? there's a -- there's an address right there to the right. but, of course, he directs the attention to the investigators, see e this is the back of the

houses. there's no address there. like they're just fools. >> and i didn't see him at all. i was walking. i looked around. i didn't see anybody. i told nonemergency, i said, you know what? he's gone. he's not even here. >> right. >> so i still thought i could use their address. so i walked all the way through. i actually walked all the way to the street. and i was going to give them this address, and they said, well, if he's not there, do you still want a police officer? and i said yes. and they said, you still want a police officer? and i said yes.

and they said, are you following him? oh, i'm sorry. back there they said are you following him? i said, yes because i was in the area. >> he's only following because he happens to be in the area. >> we don't need you to do that. i said okay. that's when i walked straight through here to get the address so that i could give the police officer. then they said -- i said, he's not here. they said do you still want me to come. i said yes. i pass here. i look -- i didn't see anything again. i was walking back to my truck. and then when i got to right about here, he yelled from behind me, to the side of me. he said, yo, you got a problem? i turned around. i said, no, i don't have a problem, man. >> where was he at? >> he was about there. but he was walking towards me. >> right in here? >> yes, sir. like i said, i was already past

that. so i didn't see exactly where he came from. he was about where you are. >> okay. >> i said i don't have a problem. i went to go grab my cell phone. i had left it in a different pocket. i looked down in my pant pocket. he said, you got a problem now. then he was here. and he punched me in the face. >> right here? >> up around here. >> okay. >> i don't remember exactly. i think i stumbled. and i fell down. he pushed me down. somehow he got on top of me. >> on the grass or on the sidewalk? >> it was more over here. i think i was trying to push him away from me. and then he got on top of me somewhere around here. and i started screaming help as loud as i could.

>> one of the sprinkler boxes, could that have caused some of the injury? >> and someone started screaming for help. i started screaming help as loud as i could. and then my jacket moved up. i had my firearm on my right side hip. >> did you see where he's pointing to? did you see where he's grabbing? where he's got his firearm? >> my jacket moved up. and he saw it. i feel like he saw it. he looked at it. [ muted ]. he grabbed it. i just grabbed my firearm.

>> one of his other versions is that he actually grabbed the victim's arm and removed the arm so he would have a better shot. again, he's able to do all this. i guess the victim has two or three hands or arms. see if that all makes sense, what he's describing. >> i don't remember. i got on his back. i moved his arms toward me. his hands were repeatedly hitting me in the face, in the head, i thought he had something in his hands. so i just it shall -- i moved his hands apart. >> you saw the photograph taken by mr. manalo. lying about that. because he's trying to justify to the police that he was searching because, of course, the victim had to have something in his hand. meaning some kind of weapon that

would have caused him to resort to the shooting him. >> he, like, sat up. yes, sir. he was on top of me like this. i shot him. i didn't think i hit him. because he sat up. he said, oh, you got me. you got me. you got me. you got it. something like that. so i thought he was just saying, i know you have a gun now. i heard it. i'm giving up. so i don't know if i pushed him off me or he fell off me. either way -- >> first he says he assumed he hadn't shot him. then he had to push him off of him. does that make sense? i guess when he said you've got me, he just kind of fell into him? when he hasn't been shot? again, this is just in written form some of the stuff you already heard. just to kind of remind you of some important stuff.

you've also got, and i'm not going to play it for you, but you've got a clubhouse video. it's very short. there's clipping of it. by coincidence it appears there's a vehicle going and you might even see a person. i don't think you see a full figure. that's just impressions or shadows. but you definitely see a car. around the area where? where the mailboxes are. by coincidence, what rachel jeantel told you all. in terms of where the victim was describing he was -- he was. under that shaded part when it was raining, he was in the mailbox. where he described the defendant looking at him. he kept yelling, that is he claims the victim kept yelling, of course, nobody else heard this, but he told the police it happened.

>> did mr. good say anything about when he came out that he heard the victim say or the person on top say -- watch the video. >> when the neighbor came up -- [ inaudible ]. >> did you position yourself strategically like that? >> no. he seemed nervous. [ inaudible ]

>> but you kept your arm away from him? >> just a minor, minor point. what was the relevance of that? why why did i think it was important for you to hear it again? she wanted to know what she was doing safeguard the gun, he's trying to be look a police officer. yeah, i'm one of you all. i can understand police officers. i have criminal justice stuff. you know how it is. you come into contact with people, you know, sometimes someone attacked you. he's trying to befriend them. he's talking that police jargon. he's curious about how to do that. the other thing that's important and you've seen it by the photographs and by the video that you're seeing, you saw how

he was. i think mr. pollack said, okay, he's this overweight person. he's a little overweight but he's fit there when you see him walking around. because you anyway contrast that in terms of, you know, if you see him in terms of he's big, he was pretty fit then. so appeared how he appeared then and most importantly compare how trayvon martin appeared in the m.e. photographs. >> very basic question. he didn't bother to ask, this guy was suspicious circling the car. didn't ask what he was doing. no, sir. he's a criminal! you don't have to ask criminals. you know what they're doing. >> you had two opportunities to identify yourself.

>> in his mind's eye he perceived you as a threat. he perceives you as a threat, he has every right to go into his pocket to grab his cell phone. >> very insightful question by investigator serino. you reach in your pocket, like gun? >> ever see him on neighborhood watch? >> no. >> did it not occur to you? >> no, i didn't have a problem. i started backing away from him. >> but you kind of did have a problem, that's why you were following him. >> i was scared. >> you were scared to tell him that you were neighborhood watch? you were afraid to tell him that is. >> yes, ma'am. >> i'm not trying to put you on the spot. >> now, when they're pressing him on that issue. oh, he's backing away and consistent with what somebody said earlier, he's scared of

them, he's scared of this person he's following all over. of course he doesn't have his gun out, nor does he feel the need to but he's scared of him. can't have it both ways. >> no safety feature, the gun was inside your pants? >> yes, sir. >> it was mounted on you? it was on your upper chest? >> when he was mounted on me but he had pressure on my nose to my mouth suffocating. and when he -- [ no audio ] i guess fear. i didn't want to confront him. >> you were afraid then? >> yes, ma'am. >> did you say he ran? >> yes. >> then you got out of your car and went after him.

>> i didn't run after him, no. i walked to find a street sign and he had already run -- cut out between the houses. so i knew that if i walked straight through that little sidewalk, i knew that was my street. but -- >> again, he does not want to admit at all that he is following him or chasing him or profiling him. [ no audio ] >> ask him what do you mean? >> you don't know why? >> i don't know. >> this is where he tells

investigator serino it doesn't sound like my voice in terms of the yells. again, we covered this already but i just wanted you to be able to read it, too. talking about the video camera, all i knew all along it was there. and they ask how did you not know the street name? oh, i have a bad memory. always has an excuse or they catch him in a lie or he explains it away or tries to. then when they confront him, okay, well, he didn't really circle the entire car.

and he tries to explain why this individual, trayvon martin, is suspicious to him. he's determined to go get that address. it's not to follow the guy. it's not to follow the victim. it's to just get the address. again, is it he just wants to catch the bad guy, the f'ing punk that gets away? is that why he's saying that? then we move on to july 20th, 2013. mr. hannity, heeasy questions, can't even get that right

because he tells one lie after another. listen. >> then we get to the issue where you said to the 911 caller he's running. you said that to the dispatch. is there any possibility if you look back, we also learned trayvon was speaking with his girl friend supposedly at the time, that maybe he was afraid of you, didn't know who you were? >> no. >> you don't think -- why do you think that he was running then? >> well, maybe i said running but he was more -- >> you said running. >> it was like skipping, going away quickly. but he wasn't running out of fear. >> you could tell the difference? >> he wasn't running. >> he wasn't actually running? >> no, sir. >> hannity just asked him a very simple question. well, perhaps trayvon martin was scared of you since you're following him and he's running away from you.

and so he realizes at that time, the defendant realizes, oh, that doesn't look good because that means i'm chasing him, that means trayvon martin is the one that's scared. that doesn't look good for me. so what does he say? oh, he's skipping away. la, la, la. that's what he's claiming. >> the unbuckling of the seat belt, hear you opening the car door. this dispatch asks you at that point and this became a very key moment that everyone in the media focused on and the dispatcher asked you "are you following him?" and you said "yes." explain that. >> i meant that i was going in the same direction as him to keep an eye on him so that i could tell the police where he was going. i didn't mean that i was actually pursuing him.

>> i'm not following my daughter when she's out in the street and i'm scared something's going to happen. i'm just kind of going in the same direction that she's in. >> i thought he would take -- he had -- after he couldn't hit my head on the concrete anymore, he started to try to suffocate me and i continued to take -- push his hands off of my mouth and my nose, particularly because it was excruciating having a broken nose and him putting his weight on it. that's the point in time when he started telling me to shut up, shut up, shut up. >> why did he tell you to shut up? >> i don't know. >> therewhere's all that blood trayvon martin's hands? so is he screaming or not? because why would,