i think you get the point. i could read through you and ask to you nod your head in agreement for each one. but the reality is until you get to about the idea, the concept of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that presumption of up sense never dissipates ever. in proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt. which makes sense. it takes us from the king's days when he decided if you were guilty. here is what happens in a criminal case. the state has to take you from down here before there is any evidence and he's presumed to be not guilty, all the way up the

list in your mind so you have no doubt or no reasonable doubt to the essential elements of the crime and that george zimmerman is guilty of second degree murder. now, i said to you that it was going to tick off all of my brothers and sisters because way was going to say to you -- i was going to say to you -- i was going to show you or prove to you -- and i have not just my little conversation with you, we'll be talking about that in a minute, but this ... i'm sorr sorry ... again, this is what really matters, which says

self-defense. it's interesting because i have another poster i'll show you in a little bit. trying to figure out how to make self-testifies make sense to you. because it's sort of like disproving a negative. the state carries a burden without question of proving to you beyond a reasonable doubt that george zimmerman did not properly act in self-defense. if i misspeak complete mr. guy fix it. george zimmerman is not guilty if you have a reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense. this is where i'm going, we are going to send about 10 minutes, proving to you beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted

in self-defense. the state needs to convince you all the way down here -- self-defense likely? reasonable doubt of self-defense. is self-defense detective? we have a reasonable doubt as to self-defense, not guilty. it may not be self-defense, you are not quite sure. not guilty. up likely self defense buff it might be. you have a doubt whether it's self-defense? not guilty. less than likely it's self-defense ... this was a 50-50 i wouldn't vote self-defense. this is a civil trial. highly unlikely it's self defense. but i have a reasonable doubt as to whether it's self-defense.

not guilty. the state has proven to you beyond another exclusion of every reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense properly. i have no doubt, a reasonable doubt that the state has convinced me he didn't act in self defense the way he should have. then he's guilty. and only then is he guilty. so ... let's talk about my burden to prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt of his innocence at the risk of confusing you, i'm going to request that you not allow me to confuse as to the standards. but i want to show you what the evidence has shown concerning my

client's absolute beyond question, beyond a reasonable doubt innocence. where shall we start? let's start before the beginning. let many start with what the state wants you to focus on, that he was a cop wannabe. and he did want to be a cop. he also wanted to be a prosecutor and he wanted to be a lawyer and awanted to continue his education and he wanted to help out his community, an wanted to help out people like giving her a lock an wanted to be involved. and he mentored some kids. he wanted to be involved. yet he wanted to be a cop. he even applied for it. i think what you also heard i would argue to you. you heard from the other

officers who became cops that it's a fairly noble profession. it's a profession whose moniker is protect and serve. it's apparent george is going to serve. every evidence you do have supports that. it doesn't support any other contention that he wasn't -- it also supports the contention that he's going to protect. i think that's readily apawrnlt from all of th -- readily appart from all of the evidence. the state had the obligation to show you any piece of evidence that they thought was pea appropriate that they could to show you that his actions were inappropriate. and what did they decide to bring to you? two professors who said, yeah, i taught him. i don't know if he read that

book, but i definitely -- he was in the class, it was an online class, and we spoke about it. and he told me he wanted to be a prosecutor. i think he said -- he seemed to be easy going or he liked them whatever -- the guy who was first on on the cell phone. that's who they brought in to say to you, i taught him this and we talked about self-defense. yeah, we talked about it and he knew about it. oh, yeah, that's what they want you to focus on. this cop wannabe knew what self defense is. so they have that. what else did they decide to bring you about his background that that he didn't make it as a cop one time. he works as a fraud guy as a mortgage guy.

what else did they show to you buttress their position zoom had i will ill and just hated, hated trayvon martin that night. what is their evidence? i'm not being sarcastic. the five phone calls to non-emergency. you heard them. you have them in. you also have the sixth one. the state didn't present to you the call number six because it doesn't support their case. he's concerned a bunch of kids are playing outside and kids are swinging out there. there are some 4-year-olds and 6-year-olds. listen to that because you haven't heard it, i didn't play it to you. but it's in evidence.

i think it round out. instead of 5 and 6 you have 6 and 6. they don't have to show you good stuff about george zimmerman. but they did say they are going to seek justice. let's not forget that. they told you they were going to seek justice. you have the five phone calls and now six phone calls. i also put into evidence, it's here, this whole pile of reports, police reports of what other things happened in the past year that retreat view area. it's there. i could have brought in people like the state did but we just agreed they would go into evidence. they will show. a lot of burglaries, the home invasion miss burdalong suffered

through. in that community there was a rash of people burglarizing homes. a lot of people arrested for it. the only people found and arrested were young black males. i'm going to talk about race. the reason i talk about that now. you talk about assumptions and what you bring inyour world when you come into our world. certainly you heard on the non-emergency call how george acted when he saw trayvon martin. we'll get to that in due time. so what else do they have about george zimmerman and his past that they bring to you? i think that's about it. so i would suggest that that's on the way towards absolute innocence. why? listen to the calls. anger, frustration, hatred, ill

will, fight, get out here and get these guys, i hate these young black males. that's what they want you to get from that. listen to the calls. do not allow them to give their words to your ears. listen to what he says. listen to the cadence of his voice. listen to what he says. read those reports. look at those people who lived through not many of them were home like miss burdalong and what they came home to. and wonder the frustration in george zimmerman's voice is appropriate or inappropriate. that's his past. so what have they shown you as to how he acted now? and how i convince you of his absolute innocence.

let's go to the 26th. on the chart. undisputed. someone said he does it every sunday. just his regimen. five sandwiche plastic containers. that's what he does. by the way, as to absolute unsense. tell me the witnesses who said to you that george zimmerman patrolled that neighborhood. we are going to go over the witnesses. i have a whole power point presentation and i promise it won't me as long as it took me to make it to present it to you. there is not a witness in there, state's case, not one who will say to you, george zimmerman, yeah, the guy wandered around the neighborhood looking around, talking about bring in your garbage cans. not one witness to suggest that the guy they want you to believe is the neighborhood watch cop

wannabe, not one. they may want you to assume that it would seem. and you would have to assume it because you can't find it. so you have to assume this neighborhood watch guy was just some crazy guy walking the neighborhood looking for people to harass. except that's an assumption without any basis in fact whatsoever. not one. another note from mr. guy. if i'm wrong about that, let me tell you, let's show the point where mrs. jones said i was scared about him, i didn't like the fact that he kept circling my house. what do they really have? he called miss burdalong.

i heard what happened. i just started this neighborhood watch. there are problems with these sliding glass doors. here' the lock. my wife's home, she is a nursing student or something. she is around. she's home if you need to stop by. innocence. purpure unaunadulterated innoce. in my quest to prove he's innocent beyond a reasonable doubt he is on his way to target and he sees that was suspicious. dose jump out of his car and unholster his weapon and track him down, shoot him in cold

blood? no. he does what he was told to do. he calls non-emergency. not a big deal. not an emergency. but he did tell you in the statement you know because it unless those reports that at that very same house, maybe coincidence was burglarized the day before. is this inappropriate for that to become a concern to somebody who is concerned about his neighbors? i left my house last week. there was a white truck down the street. i went out of my driveway and took a right just because i wanted to see how it was. there was a pool sign on the side of it and i kept going. okay. in this case he does what -- he calls non-emergency and he said,

knowing full well -- given the benefit of the evidence the state want you to use to convict him, he night was being record. they say in the beginning and he has done it before. he says on the call what he says. i'm not going to play it again. you heard it more times than most people. he called and aspoke to the dispatch and he went through it. so looking at the question of whether my client is completely innocent, proveably innocent, what did he do? he stayed on his phone, cursed? yeah, definitely cursed. he cursed toward those people -- maybe including trayvon martin, by the way, at least to him,

maybe, because he did match the description unfortunately and that's just maybe happenstance. we'll talk more about that, too. so he calls it in and stayed on the phone like he's suppose to. does what he's suppose to. describe him. think he's black. white, hispanic. where is the -- how do we move from i'm looking at a suspicious guy, i'm not sure, it's raining out. he's not coming in the main entrances. when you look at those reports you will see there are ingress and egress point where people do come in to do bad things. and he talks to non-emergency. and he basically states on the phone all the way through.

so where is the guilt? that's my my burden. where is the non-guilt? well, he never screams. mr. guy screams, mr. ronald reagade la riondascreams. and mr. de la rionda suggests to you that what he did is under this breath. what you want him to assume within that context he says under his breath because he wanted to say it, but he didn't want non-emergency calls to hear it and he wants you to assume that what that means is guilt. seriously? seriously? here is a way you do that.

it's just the fact that he was willing to say it on a recorded call to law enforcement is evidence of non-guilt it's evidence that he wasn't saying it anyway laced with i will will, spite, hatred or anything else like that. so, the call continues. now we have the call. now we have our first very large graphic. this is what happens when you get carried away with graphics. 10 feet long. this is the graphic

representation of the significance of the phone call that started at 7:09:34 that night. you will have this back with you so you can sort of go through it. it doesn't include every word that was said back and forth because it would have been 20 feet long. it does have all of the significant words, i submit to you. so let's go through it. you have the tape, i can play it for you but you have heard it's many times. it starts, dispatcher. may i help you? and george says some suspicious guy, whatever. then he says, no doubt here that trayvon martin is on the phone to his friend. we'll talk about it as we come down the line. now he's just staring at me.

7:10:21. a little bit less than a minute later. he's at the clubhouse, yeah he's coming toward me. there is some confusion, i think. george zimmerman pulled into the clubhouse be whack down it went down the street. and parked. this was when he was sitting at the clubhouse. it seems to be uncontroverted. this on here because the suggestion is that this cop wannabe was so frustrated and so angry and so full of of ill wil and hatred that finally he crack. finally he broke. i want you to go back to figure out where he broke.

but maybe this is the spot. just let me know if he does anything, okay? they want you to really focus -- in a moment we'll get there. they want you to focus on the idea sean said we don't need you to do that and that was a command of law enforcement. we don't want you to do that. but this same law enforcement officer said let me know if he does anything else. so here is a thought. let me know if he does anything else. have i done anything else? please get an officer over here. this is his response.

everything necessary you just want to go kill somebody because you hate him. please please get an officer over here. let me know if he does anything. twice. it makes sense. i think probably what they are supposed to ask -- and then the person hearing that says, okay, or does something to ... mr. rae la rionda and john guy say it their way.

what count is the way george zimmerman said it. listen to the tape. see if in that you walk away with ill will, spite, hatred and this animus towards trayvon martin. so not going to do it again. asked you which way i was walking. pain walked out the door and came back. what information would you have any walked out the door. why? because you probably watched me do it because i just asked you which way am i walking? so ill will, spite and hatred?

i ask you, don't forget, when they were doing this conversation they had no idea we would have a 10-foot graphic of every sentence they talked about. they were just talking. what he doing. let me know. where is he now. which way is he running? then he gets out of his car. at this point i think the state -- maybe this is another break point. maybe this is a break point where george said -- i have it, i just can't take it anymore. something like that. maybe that's when it happens. let's see. maybe not. gets out of the car. says down toward the entrance to the neighborhood. see. there is this crescendo of hatred in his voice. which entrance? the back entrance.

and he says -- we got used to using this in front of regular people. we know what he said, we are not going to use the words anymore. but we used the words enough in this courthouse so far. then he says are you following him? what does george say in his anger and hatred and plan to track down and kill his unknown person. unknown is important because ill will, hatred and spite is difficult for someone you don't even know? how do you get to a level necessary for second degree murder when you don't know the person? but anyway, ill will, spite and hatred. is it shown here? is that what he says, i'm sick and tired, i'm not going to take it anymore? no, he says okay, then we'll

talk about -- i put into evidence for to you look at, i put in the with the reports for that day because strange as it seems a year and a half later we want to make sure you know it's raining out. but we also want you to know that wind was up that night. you will see at the time of this event the wind was 6.8 to 7.2 miles an hour. you also hear wind during the re-creation video. but the question is was george zimmerman tracking? was he running after him? we know he was following him because he said it. the question is was he tracking him? the wind noise, the running noise -- i will ask you as the state did, you guys get to decide that? but what i want you to focus on is where this ill will, spite

and hatred comes in. so does it come in here? and then he says what many your name, george, and he says he ran. did he say i'm running? is there any evidence to suggest -- let me ask you a second. is there any piece of evidence that you have in this case that supports the contention that george zimmerman ran anywhere? or that he ran after trayvon martin after he said, okay? i have. >> the challenge for the state. i'll tell you about it. let them show you any record of this case that they have evidence that he ran after trayvon martin, walked after him

after he said okay. is it there or did i miss it? presumption, assumption? connecting the dots? sure. but you agree not to do that. and don't let them let you do that. and then tells him where the address is, apartment number, it's a home. at this point i think right around here is when he says -- you still want to have an officer? yes. that's what he says. okay ... where do you want me to meet him? clubhouse they talked about. at the truck they talked about, and then i guess in the state's presentation to you they have said and maybe will say again that at that point that's the ill will, spite and hatred.

i guess. because at that point he says no, no, no, no, no, i'm going to track him down and shoot him or something so just have him call me. don't forget, regular phone call ... not a regular phone call for george zimmerman. i'll tell you where i am. the re-creation video and the numbers behind him. one other point on that. which witness -- and this is sound as though i'm being sneaky. which witness told you miss lawrey's lights were on that

night? so the numbers said they want you to believe mr. zimmerman walked by and said i just want to go after him? so to be clear, the witness that showed you miss lawye lauer wase and said something like we can catch him later. please tell the jury your lights were on that night. they never asked him that. they want you to presume and assume and connect the dots and do whatever. is that sneaky? no, sorry. this is their burden. they have to take away reasonable doubt. they have to look at this case and say to you, ladies and gentlemen of this jury, hi, we are the state. we have proved this case beyond

and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt that we connected every dot. and they just didn't. so, now what happens on my path toward beyond a reasonable doubt? innocence. what evidence do we have? i would contend to you that though there was a minute in this case or after this case he hangs up, 7:13:44. we know miss lauer's call, there is some time in there, she heard 15-20 seconds before she decides to make the call. she testified it took 25 seconds to get the phone, dial it, tried jeremy's phone first.

connect, 30 seconds. back it up 30 seconds. as to what george zimmerman was doing. now, we know that he said at a time that he didn't know that he had to protect his [inaudible] he went to the circle, sort of made sense i would submit and he's coming back with that baby flashlight because the other one, the impact weapon point out by the state that was not used as an impact weapon, he used the flashlight on his key chain. and it was on him. you will see the pictures of -- you know now i think the pictures of the darkness that night. one is stunning in that if you sort of see here is the flash and beyond it it's almost like

this black wall, it was that dark. he had a flashlight with him and he had it on. if that's evidence of tracking mr. zimmerman, let the state prove that to you. so, we know -- we don't know ... evident seems to support george is heading back toward his car and they don't have one shred of evidence to suggest otherwise. and if they had it, i presume that they would have presented it. so where is it? what evidence do we have that it happened at the t-intersection? we have the flashlight. probably not a bad idea to start there because somehow that flashlight gets dropped right there. but not just george zimmerman's story about that is there. we have the witness who said i heard the noise toward the

t-intersection. did she look? no. did she hear, yes? is she close? yes. then we have miss minalo opposite side saying it was to the right, consistent with the t-intersection. we have miss dyker. there were questions about what she saw and when she saw it. she said it started outside of her window. we know the altercation seems to have started exactly where george zimmerman said it started. and that somehow it got dragged down to the area where trayvon martin was actually shot. i'll show you what mr. de la rionda mentioned. it's an animation. it's not evidence. it's just an overview of some of the evidence and how it may look in the context of it.

so if fit works we are going to spend a moment to look at it, a minute, minute and and a half. it does have a 911 call on it because it's used to set the scene as far as timing. i'll come back and explain what is in there, only if fit works, though.

okay, a couple assumptions and a couple problems with this before we look at it. i have mr. martin sort of approaching coming down the sidewalk. there are questions and conflicts about that. was it bushes, was it sidewalk, was it behind me? of course you can see it.

it's lit. it was real weather and lighting conditions we would be looking at a black screen. so some ar artificiality but i t you to look at how things may have happened at the t-intersection and how it progressed from there and how it comports with some of the evidence.

the first -- there is the shot to the nose we contend. number one right there is where the flashlight is found. george's small flashlight is key. we didn't have any movement to get them to the spot of the shooting. george zimmerman did say he

tried to push him off and tried to push him away. somehow they got those 25-30 feet to the area we know things happened because this perspective right here, you see that on the left-hand side is the patio. the item -- just so you know the items match precisely where all the evidence was found and the numbers match the grass they are already in evidence buff. so you will see all of those match up because they came from the same data. what i have done is i have begun the 911 call because it's pretty close to john goodman's

testimony, he took 10 seconds. went inside, decided to make a phone call to 911. we use that as 20 seconds or so. because jenna testified it took 25 seconds to call 911. we have to figure out the time line as best we can. >> they are screaming outside. >> what's the address? this when according to mr. good's testimony he came out and saw what he saw. this is what he said he saw. he said he came out and saw one straddled on top of the other. then they saw them move toward the parallel. we had confusion with parallel

and horizontal and i think they were parallel and on the concrete. that will come up next. >> is it a male or female? >> the second position where he says this is the mounted position. this is where he said it happened. closer up to the cement. again, consistent with what mr. zimmerman was saying when he was talking to the officers. you decide whether it's consistent or not. >> i don't know why, i think they are yelling help. i don't know. just send someone, please. >> the third position is when john good as he was leaving said they sort of come down away a little bit. mr. zimmerman said he was trying to shimmy to get off being on the concrete.

this also put in there. there are some assumptions in this animation because the next position that you are going to see is the position just after the shot. this is the position where we content the shots happened. >> i can't see him. i want to go out there. i don't know what's going on. >> the angle of those two people one over the other. you remember the doctor's test and mr. ruth testified that because of the way the clothing is it was consistent with the gunshot. that the contact with the clothing and then 3-4 inches. >> they are screaming. >> do you think they are yelling

help? >> yes. >> now, you see we have george zimmerman on top with the red. his tes -- his testimony was yoe trayvon martin's feet sort of -- some up with called it a bicycling position. they just argue consistent with being shot and fell off to the left and fell on to his stomach. george zimmerman got on top as he testified to to move out the hand. >> there is gunshots. >> is there gunshots? >> yes. >> how many. >> there is one. >> this right here by the way -- what you are seeing is what is called a 50 millimeter perspective. the human eyes sees these in

49.5 -- i don't know if i can tell that you. you have got a 50 millimeter perspective similar to what people see when they look. which is what john good had and which is what this had right here. this is thelma moore's perspective. this is the column she said she looked out and around. and the timing is appropriate because we had it about, 7, 8 seconds from the time of the shot which is when you remember miss moore did the her walk-around in the courtroom. she said if you timed it, it was about 8 seconds. that she heard the shot, reacted to the shot, shimmied through the door and walked out and that what's she saw. she would have seen george on top. spreading out the hand.

she said at that point george zimmerman got up, looked around. and we'll talk about that in a minute as well. so ... this i what she saw. -- this is what she saw. at least her perspective. and then this fist now the rest of the 911 call. you heard it. nobody said that they saw anything of relevance beyond that from this one. thank you, your honor. the animation is just that. somewhat made up. there wasn't a videotape, though george hoped that there was. george zimmerman hoped that

there was. but it does give taken idea, a perspective that is consistent with the evidence that was presented before you in the case. because it does show the probability if not the exact certainty that this event started at the t intersection and it started with a shot to the face. trayvon martin against george zimmerman. it traveled down 30 feet or so. however they ended up there. we know that when they ended up there the on one that was injured at all except for the gunshot was george zimmerman. and that the on other injury that trayvon martin had on him was what seemed to be a fight injury on the knuckle. in my dangerous quest to prove my clientments innocence beyond a reasonable doubt now we get into what happened.

you can argue that george wanted to be a cop. and george's call to law enforcement in the past just had some seething anger buildup. but don't assume it. prove it. and believe it. don't prove it, it just doesn't exist. and don't connect those dots if they are not being connected the beyond a reasonable doubt by the state. let's look at what happened that night. the graph is done. what were these just before? let's spend a moment on that's, talking about my client's absolute innocence. i'd's about a minute and a half after george's call. but he was doing something. whether he was wandering up to

rereef to get an address or whether he said to the law enforcement officer i want time to figure out where he is. i want to keep a visual on him. whatever. that was about a minute and a half. it's interesting as well about the phone call is what trayvon martin was doing. because we haven't spent a lot of time on that. but the evidence is compelling what he might have been doing. he was on the phone with rachael jeantel. she said he was running. which coincide pretty straightforward with when george said he was running.

some consistency there. trayvon martin was running and he was running at about somewhere nearby 7:11:47. because the altercation according to miss l aroundaccors lauer's phone call. she called at 7:15:11. give is 30 seconds to have started. somewhere around there. i'm going to take a break for a couple minutes. i didn't realize i would be talking for an hour, 20 minute. before we take a break here is what i'm going -- we are going to sit tight and we are not going to talk.

i'll tell you when we are talk again. so try not to do much. starting now.

>> that's how long trayvon martin had to run. about 4 minutes. he said he was running. that's how long. so we'll talk about who was doing what and when. chad, the first witness we talked to said he could probably throw a football from the back of his backyard and the t-intersection. we don't have evidence how far

that was. but it gave insight. i'm not sure who plays football but this is where he was standing. this is where george's car was parked. this is the t-intersection. he said i could throw a football. he actually probably can't throw a football that far. but there are some good football players who probably could. he had 4 minutes, and he told rachel jeantel that he was running. we know for the most part what george is doing there. but since this is the state's case and not mine, did they show you, tell you, explain to you, do anything to tell you

whatsoever on what trayvon martin was doing four minutes before that fight started at the t-intersection? do you have a doubt as to what happened and what trayvon martin was doing and what he must have been thinking for four minutes? time for a break, if i might, your honor. >> ladies and gentlemen, please put your notepads face down on the chair. we'll take a 15-minute recess.

>> please be seated. court will be in recess for 15 minutes. martha: you heard judge nelson. they are taking a 15-minute break. very interesting presentation this morning by george zimmerman's attorney mark o'mara as he begins to close his argument in this case. what we just witnessed was a 4-minute moment of silence if you want to call it that after which mark o'mara point out something on the time line. he says that's how long trayvon martin had to run, to escape. what was he doing during those four minutes? very interesting question that the jury will have to ponder here in terms of what he deliberated during that time and

what transpired next. i want to bring in andrea mcavoy and bernard coleman who have been watching this case with us. bradford, let me go to you first, how do you think he's doing today? >> you see very different styles between the prosecution and the defense. and generally the roles are reversed. number one you usually see the prosecutor be methodical, go through fact.. don't throw things up against the wall and you usually see the defense, they are always accused of we are trying to muddy the waters. in this one it's the direct opposite. the defense is going down the facts very methodically and exacting. i like to see a little moral emotion. i try to grab their attention and hold their attention. i don't know if he's going to go the full three hours like this or turn it up a bit. but he's effective in term of

the facts he's playing. i don't like him putting the onus on him about proving beyond a reasonable doubt. it's dangerous to say because the state has the burden. you should keep onus on the state. but overall he seems to be doing a great job. martha: he keeps reminding the jury that it's the state's responsibility to prove to you that george zimmerman did not act in self defense. george zimmerman says i acted because i thought it was going to die that night and that's why i did what i did. ann marie how do you think it's going? >> i think it many going well it was interesting the way he did the demonstration of how long trayvon martin had. that is a tremendous amount of time when you look at it. four minutes, and you say 4 minute and it doesn't sounds like ever. but when he demonstrated it by

being quiet in the courtroom it showed there was a lot that could have happened during that time. he could have moved around, he could have fled. there are so many things he could have gone the into a spot where he could have attacked and perhaps that is what the jury find happened. but it raises the fact that the state has failed to show what happened. they have to show the time line from the start to the end. at least some explanation of it that takes away the reasonable doubt. the defense is degree have very good job of showing, demonstrating, there is a lot of doubt here so they shouldn't be able to convict. gregg: if veteran trial lawyers use the time lapse of silence in front after jury pretty often because it's incredibly effective. i wouldn't call it a trick. but when you tie down a witness to a time frame and they say just a couple minutes, 3 or 4 minute. then you say, well, let's look at our watch and sit in siren

and see how long that feels. it's incredibly demonstrative as was the computer animation. it's not evidence, but, boy, it's in the mind of these jurors, brad, let me go to you on that. how do you think the defense did with that? did it work? >> i think it did. it's always tricky when it come to computers and wught on animation. i like to get there early to make sure all my stuff works. so it was awkward at first when he was fumbling around with it. but it's extremely effective. if you look at people's attention span with facebook and twitter their attention span is 30 seconds. if you can't capture them in 30 seconds they are gone. they love to watch cartoons and animation. when they see animation they can relate. even though they can't take it back to the jury room they will

associate it with those calls. i think it's an effective tool. i try to use it as often as possible. i think it was used effectively in this case. gregg: i never used it myself but maybe some day i'll try it. i want to try a sound bite. this is from close to the beginning. mark o'mara, the defense attorney says ladies and gentlemen of the jury if you go back there and can't figure out what happens that fundamentally and legally equals reasonable doubt because all the prosecution presented are assumptions. take a listen to this. >> i call this the case a bizarre case because it seems like it's upside down to me. not saying that you should agree with that. but just a perspective i have had in this case. how many could have beens have you heard from the state in this

case? how many what ifs have you heard from the state in this case? they don't -- they don't, i don't think, they don't get to ask you that. i don't think they get to say to you what do you think. no, no, no. what have i proven to you? what did i convince you beyond a reasonable doubt occurred in this case so much so that you don't have any reasonable doubt on those issues i presented to you? they are supposed to use word like certainty and definite. and without question. beyond a reasonable doubt. no other he can explanation. these are the word and phrases of prosecutors. i used to be one. i know. what aren't good word of good

prosecutors are maybe, what if, i hope so, you figure it out. could have been. because those are the assumptions that please do not make, do not cheapen your role in this case by doing unless less than holding them to the burden they said in the beginning of the case they would glad are you accept and prove to you. gregg: shortly thereafter he pulled out this large visual exhibit that almost quantified for the jurors how incredibly difficult the burden of proof is for the prosecution. a good move? >> i think so. it showed to the jury in a demonstrative way, it's not as simple as he probably did it. it's hard for jurors to understand or for any of us to understand, what is a reasonable

doubt? you can have doubt and you can have many levels of doubt. that's basically what o'mara did. he laid out the levels of doubt. and here is the level you have to get to before you can find he's actually guilty it was a good way to make them see it in a concrete way it's the idea of having to find out what is reasonable doubt. the prosecution is having to stretch and kind of come up with things. but the. >> at is there could still be a conviction. we have lots of cases where there isn't even a body. here we have a lot more evidence than there is in a lot of case.. if you have a homicide, within of your witnesses is dead. so, you know, prosecutors can certainly overcome that. but mark o'm laying out a lot of doubt at least in his mind. martha: when you think what we

can expect in terms of rebuttal. we are halfway through. you think about what the state would have to do to convince this jury. and bradford, i would suggest they need to convince them that george zimmerman had no solid reason to fear that he was going to die that night. when he stood up he said he didn't need to go to the hospital. he wawctd over to the police car. he tried to basically convince them he was okay. if you can convince this jury he had no fear for his life, that would be a pivotal moment in terms of what their argument would be, would it not? >> 100% if he had no fear for his life. it's a very, very tough uphill battle for the state and people are saying they did a nice job with what they had. but they were the ones who brought this case. they were the ones who decided they had enough. to me i think it's a huge burden for them to overcome. i don't think second degree is even going to be considered.

i think they will argue over manslaughter and that's based on emotion and emotion of the prosecutor who keeps saying he got fought of the car, he shouldn't have got out of the car, he shouldn't have followed him. he many the reason this kid is dead. martha: thank you. more coming up. breaking news now. gregg: the secretary of homeland security janet napolitano we have confirmed will resign. now, we don't know when that will be. we don't know the circumstances under which she will be doing this. but now we are getting some more information. she is heading to california to take a university position. so a very interesting series of events occurring in the administration. this is the latest cabinet official to resign. obviously in past presidencies when a second term begins sometimes there are new cabinet positions that open up.

people resign. janet napolitano, secretary of homeland security will be quitting. martha: in the middle of a huge immigration debate that continues to rage on in washington. we are also going back to this commercial free after this quick break because they are in a break for a few more minutes. we'll squeeze one in and get back with our live coverage of riveting closing arguments in the george zimmerman trial. in miami, coca-cola is coming together with latino leaders

to support hispanicize, and e adelante movement. teaching tools for success, and fostering creativity. these programs are empowering people to lead positive change, and helping them discover how great a little balance can feel. through initiatives like these, our goal is to inspire more than three million people to rediscover the joy of being active this summer. see the difference all of us can make, together. every day we're working to and to keep our commitments. and we've made a big commitment to america.

bp supports nearly 250,000 jobs here. through all of our energy operations, we invest more in the u.s. than any other place in the world. in fact, we've invested over $55 billion here in the last five years - making bp america's largest energy investor. our commitment has never been stronger.

martha: we are back. we are in a break that will end momentarily as mark o'mara, george zimmerman's attorney gets ready to continue what has been a compelling closing argument. it's 10:12 in sanford, florida. gregg, you and i were discussing the high points, the most compelling moments this so far this morning. what do you think? gregg: one of the highlight was

when o'm o'ma -- he tried to knk out the indifference, ill will, spite. listen to george zimmerman's voice on the 911 calls. not the exaggerated profane imitation yelling and screaming of john guy the prosecutor and bernie de la rionda when they mimicked it inside the courtro courtroom. no, george zimmerman, yes, he cursed, about it was sort of under his breath. o'mara said seriously in that's not guilt. that's not and plus toward martin. take -- that's not animus toward martin. >> listen to the call. anger, frustration, ill will, spite. get out here and get these guy, i hate these young black males.

listen to the call. do not allow them to give their words to your ears rather than george's. listen to what he says. listen to the cadence of his voice and listen to what he says. read those reports. look at those people who lived through not many of them were home like business burgalong, but look at what they came home to. gregg: he followed it up with just because george zimmerman had telephoned police a handful of times before that, alerting them to suspicious behavior, possible crimes, does that constitute, he said seething anger? and the answer of course rhetorically was no. martha: we'll have to see what the jury thinks as they take that in. let's go to phil key hog has been covering this throughout

live in sanford. this morning very interesting in terms of the closing arguments what we heard so far. >> reporter: and the demeanor on the defendant himself. george zimmerman is very well aware of the jury instructions, 27 pages long. in just a few hour the 6 women on the jury panel will take into the deliberations room which includes the second degree murder possible conviction and one of manslaughter per debra nelson. and that carries a prison term of 15-20 years for manslaughter. george zimmerman according to his attorney is not exactly confident going into this. he knows a lot is on the line. but at the defense table george zimmerman was smiling, talking with his attorney. sitting behind him, his wife shelley. his dad and mom are here as well as extended family. trayvon martin's family are on

their side of the courtroom watching mark o'mara's calm and gentle contrasting closing argument presentation contrasting the closing arguments of bernie de la rionda. we can show some of that computer animation that judge nelson did not allow o'mara to enter as evidence but did say as a demonstrative exhibit he could use it in the closing argument which they did. it opened up with the figures george zimmerman and trayvon martin at the t of the sidewalk and it shows trayvon martin throwing the first punch. there is no eye with itness to that happening. that was george zimmerman's version of events. after mark o'mara wraps up his

closing presentation 11:30 to 11:35, it's unclear whether the judge will break for lunch or have the state present their rebuttal. after that sometime this afternoon the judge is going to give the jury instructions to the 6 jurors. the 3 alternates sitting in the jury box for the past three weeks. they don't toe they are alternates yet. they will found out in a couple hours. and be thanks for their sacrifice and time but they will not be allowed to go into the deliberations room. it will be up to the 6 in florida. you only have 12 people on the jury panel. this is not a death penalty case. potentially this jury could come up with a verdict later this afternoon even into the night. martha: phil, things are just about to get back underway here. and do we want to just -- let's just go right back and listen. they are about to get started.

we are about halfway through in the closing argument. you can see the cutouts, we'll see what he has in mind for that part of his exhibit here this morning. george zimmerman wipes his brow as he gets ready for the second half of his really final argument to this jury in florida. let's listen.

gregg: the jury is entering the courtroom in sanford, florida. mark o'mara the defense attorney halfway through his closing argument. but the last word goes to the prosecutors. it will be john guy sitting second chair for the state as they present their case. they will have the final word. that's a tremendous rang for the government. let's listen. >> four minutes. that felt like a long time to you before we took a break and weep sat here and did nothing for four minutes? you get to think what trayvon martin was doing. you get to try and figure out why when he said 7:11:40, he's

running. 7:15:43 when rache hel -- rachal jeantel says there was a thump. the 4-minute mile was broken when i was 12 by somebody and i think he was in his teens. he was a defensive guy on a football team. but i do know he can run a mile in four minutes if he was in decent shape. we know with the opportunity to go home that he did not. we know that. because the football throwaway.

let's talk about factual innocence of my client. i want to talk about factual innocence. somebody decided that they were angry. somebody decided they were ticked off. maybe somebody decided they had ill will, spite or hatred. somebody did decide that it wasn't over with the running. because it wasn't after all -- it had only just begun. isn't that really what happened here? it wasn't some cop wannabe. i foreto say stand your ground on hannity. let's convict him. i didn't tell hannity about stand your ground. the person who decided that this is going continue, that it was going to be a violent event was the guy who didn't go home when he had the chance to. it was a guy who decided to lie

in wait, i guess, plan his move, it seems, decide what he was going to do and when the state told you that he had no decision, they dared to tell you that trayvon martin had no decision that my client planned this? four minutes. four minutes of planning. and they want you to ignore it. again, if you don't ignore that, factual and undeniable innocence. because with those four minutes now let's use your common sense. we note result. now let's try and figure out the why. george zimmerman probably heading back to his car.

not proven but maybe. trayvon martin. four minutes doing something. we don't know. we don't. we know he's on the phone. we know he's talking. we know rachel jeantel said he was saying. i don't care that he called him some stupid name. he's 17 years old. they get to talk stupidly if they want. i'm okay with rachel jeantel being 16, 17 years old. i don't care. she didn't want to be involved in this case. trayvon martin did something that led to his confronting george zimmerman. that, i will suggest -- not because george zimmerman said it. throw out everything george zimmerman said.

just forget it for a moment. it didn't exist. he did what i probably would have told him to do if he'd called me on the 26th that night, shut up and don't say a word to law enforcement. i'll see you there in half an hour. i would have thrown on a pair of jeanses, said good-bye to my wife and run out the door to see a potential new client. and i would have said, no, no, no, you are not talking to law enforcement. particularly not looking how you look, and particularly having just shot somebody and i don't know anything about it, so hush up. and now tell me. so let's just make believe that happened. let's just take all of his self-serving, cop wannabe created statements and throw them out. what do we have? you've seen the picture a hot, you're going to see -- a lot, you're going to see it again. what we do have is a thank god for jenna lauer, because when

mike wagner went to her can you pick out the guy, the potential shooter, she said, no. go picture. and i'll look at the picture. but somebody who shot somebody, i don't want to go say i know who that is. so we have this. interestingly and thankfully, we have this because if we didn't have this, we would only have the cleaned-up photo, the one that doesn't show the significant injuries, the one that says, you know, the nose is sort of back in shape. i don't know who put the nose back in shape. i don't know how it happened, but i do know it did look like that right afterwards. so if mr. zimmerman just created all the statements and we throw them out, we start with this. because this is undeniable. this is significant injury. and then we have the back of his

head and you know all about that already. and what else do we have? we have 40 seconds of screaming. when i first got this case, i thought it was going to come and go in 20 minutes. because when i found out that there was a 911 call with somebody screaming on it, it was game over. figure out who it is, and then we're done. because the alternatives are it was trayvon martin screaming and my guy is some horrible, extended torturing, then-eventual murder, for 45 seconds something, if it was trayvon martin, something strange was happening for it to be him, some bizarre 45-second event where he would scream for help yet still be able to batter george zimmerman. but they'll have their theory, i guess they're going to tell it to you in their final closing.

or there was george zimmerman. and if i could get this to whoever, fbi let's say, do a little comparison, and we're done. you heard from dr. nakasoni, unfortunately, it couldn't be done. so now we don't know. now, as mr. de la rionda suggested, now you do get to decide, i guess, or not, you could simply decide you can't decide, and who gets the benefit of that? mr. zimmerman. so let's not forget about that standard as i'm wandering you down my little make believe path of factual innocence. then what else do we have? we have his initial, immediate statement to mr. manolo and the way he worked. it was like he was beat up. oh, no, it looked like he was bending over. manolo, looked like he was beat

up, and he just looked strange. and then, of course, as mr. de la rionda said, oh, just tell her i killed a guy. not what he said at all. i think what he said s and use your own memories, was that when mr. ma manolo took the phone because he had to drop it because officer smith said hands out, on top of your head, behind your back, where's the gun? drops the phone, manolo gets it and says words to the effect your husband's been involved in a shooting. and what's the response from george zimmerman? tell her i shot somebody. i guess what he should have said and what he was thinking through, what he wasn't thinking through, whatever he was going through, whatever asthma knoll low said, he just looked like he was out of breath. he should have said, well, that may sound insensitive a year and a half from now. i should have said that i had to

shoot somebody, i don't know what he should have said. he told his wife he wasn't the one shot. unusual, inappropriate, somebody calls up and says, honey, i was just involved in a car accident, what's your first response? are you okay? you don't even say is the other person okay, right? it's just not natural. you okay? do you ever say, well, is the car okay? no. you do what you know. you do what you deal with on a daily basis. don't tell her i'm involved in a shooting. tell her i shot somebody. so we have that evidence. we have smith who says right away he told him he was screaming for help twice. then we go forward, we have the medical personnel. going for help is fun because

here, now the state wants you to say in this mastermind criminal, this guilty beyond a reasonable doubt second-degree murderer knew at that precise moment that he darn well better say that he was one screaming. because, after all, he had killed the guy that was screaming, and the state's theory, right? so he knew he took care of that problem. real problem with that theory? unless the mastermind knew -- when singleton mentioned in the interview that trayvon martin had passed, george was -- [inaudible] i guess he could be part of the mastermind criminal behavior that he learned in community college. i guess it could have been. but met me tell you -- let me tell you, if you have a doubt as to whether or not that's true, you need to tell the state don't ever come back before us again with a case like this.

don't ever do this to us. because what we really have is what i said a while ago. we have factual innocence. you could go back there right now, look at the facts of this case and say we're going to flip the standard upside down. we're not going to allow mr. o'mara to get an acquittal for his client simply because the state hasn't proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. we're only going to allow mr. o'mara to get his acquittal if he proves to us beyond a reasonable doubt that his client is innocent. and you could. because he is. because he acted in self-defense. it's not the standard, of course.

so let's talk about the standard to see how far afield from that very standard that the state is supposed to take on what they actually have accomplished. i'm going to first spend a moment on the witnesses. real quick, i'm going to get through it as quickly as i can. there's like 50 of them, and i could have the lights dimmed just a bit, your honor and, hopefully, this will work. chad joseph. i'm just going to go through them. didn't have much to say. he could throw about a football field, but that's it. you know him to be the sort of stepson of trayvon martin. andrew gaugh, 5-10. that's important. you saw him stand next to me, and i did that on purpose, to show i'm a few inches bigger than he is. all he really said, didn't know much about that event. sean, what did he say? interestingly, because the first time that somebody was talking to george was this guy, and what did he say? no anger, no animosity, no

hatred, no anything in george's voice. quite matter of fact. a person who's trained, by the way, to deal with stressful situations and to understand and to dynamically interact with people on the other line because sometimes these things turn serious quickly. and what did he say? nope. he even accepted the reality that george may have misunderstood when he said which way is he running that george zimmerman may have thought i should go with find out. he acknowledged maybe he was imprecise. whatever. next witness, ramona rump. she brought in records facility for the five calls. she also, you'll see the affidavit signed by her, of the sixth call. listen to it if you want. nothing to do with burglaries, george zimmerman being george zimmerman. wendy, interesting witness. the lady who set up neighborhood

watch a few months before because, as she said, they looked at the crime stats for that neighborhood, and it was being assaulted by burglaries. and something needed to be done. so she went in, and she did something. and she told us, you know, who might be suspicious from her experience and training. remember, this is her love, not her job. she does this as a volunteer. of course, she likes the idea of being involved in the neighborhood and helping keep crime out of your own home and out of your neighborhood. some of you don't know, could be reason for suspicion, a person walking in the area they don't belong. maybe. someone walking in the rain without purpose. i don't want to just have you acquit my client, because i can show you that trayvon martin did something bad, but i'm also not going to allow you or the state to ignore the realities of what

actually happened that night. she described mr. zimmerman, to her knowledge, as meek. other interesting thing about this cop-wannabe, they had this citizens on patrol program where you get a uniform, you get a car, little yellow lights on it. they can't be blue lights like we have for true law enforcement, but you get little yellow lights, and you get to drive around and act like a cop. and he said to that opportunity to be a cop wannabe in a cop uniform in a cop car with cop lights and probably a little cop computer in his car or at least a cop clipboard, no.

thanks, but no. i'm just, i've got what i'm doing. i'm working, i'm going to school. i have my wife. i don't want your cop car, i don't want your lights, and i don't need your uniform. but this is the guy that the state is telling you get ill will and hatred out of his cop-wannabism? really? seriously. have they proven that to you? have they come even close? except for speculation? how many times did you hear an objection on the standard of speculation? because we're not allowed to do that in court. can't bring a witness up there and say what do you think? maybe? because it's not evidence. that's why. it's not evidence for you. because then you go back and go, well, john doe speculated, and the judge allowed it. i guess we can peck late.

we can speculate. absolutely not. absolutely not. donald o'brien. hoa guy, george -- [inaudible] cop wannabe? i don't know. doesn't seem. he doesn't want the cop car. involved citizen, sure. any complaints, by the way, that the state brought to you about him just towing cars away, ticketing people, get your car off that yellow -- anything like that to foster their argument to you that he was doing something wrong? because, remember, we agreed not to assume. so where's the evidence? and they talked about the 17-year-old burglar getting caught and thank god the stucco guy caught him. and now george -- i'm sorry, mr. de la rionda says to you that george zimmerman was frustrated. oh, i wanted that one!

damn! darn! the stucco guy got him instead. not going to happen again. are you kidding me? are you actually kidding me that the state attorney's office representing the state is making that allegation to you? that that's ill will because somebody else caught a burglar? okay, great. just tie it together, please? you've got two dots, and they're this far away. just give me a line, give me something. stucco guy caught him. george is frustrated. anything in between to tie speculation, assumption or idiocy? anything? sergeant rah monodoe, i would want him coming to the a car accident that i was involved in. what a guy. what a cop. did everything he could and did it without even thinking about it. great cop.

likes his job. diana smith. problems with the evidence, the rain, we'll talk about that, but one or two things wouldn't allow her to process the items. firearm not given to her. i don't know that it turns out to be a big deal, but there is a lack of evidence here, and we'll talk about maybe why that's there and who gets the benefit again of lack of evidence? george zimmerman. celine, you'll have an opportunity and the instructions will tell you you assign credibility to witnesses. you decide what to believe and who to believe and whether or not they're credible. i would suggest that along this theme as we're going, check out this woman's credibility before you accept what she said. you saw her, you heard her, you saw her review all of her statements as i showed them to her. first time talks to mr. delaly onthat last week, first time in

court, what shows up? oh, yeah, left to rightful well, here's a thought. trayvon martin was running from left to right when he came back towards the area where george zimmerman was walking. there's a possibility. could have been. so i don't know where she fits in. quite honestly, i don't know what she saw, if she saw, how she saw it or why she said it. a year and a half into it rather than any other previous conversations with law enforcement or with me, but whatever. fit it in however you can. janker is die ca, you know, says she heard three pops. is she lying? oh, my gosh, she's lying because she heard three pops. no. let's get off lying thing because you have slight

inconsistencies. >> e heard or thought she heard what she thought she heard. okay, whatever. reverberations, fright, upset. who cares? she got it wrong. what else she got wrong was she felt big guy was on top. and, of course -- actually, what she really thought was that mr. martin, trayvon martin hadn't moved, because she saw the whole thing which, of course, doesn't comport with the 911 call but, again, stressful time for everybody. she seems particularly affected by stress, that he was on the ground, never moved, saw the shot, shot was from the top, shot was there the back -- through the back and that he never moved. be it just doesn't make sense. it's okay. that vantage point that was talked about, that movie have you ever seen it? it's a great movie because one event happens is the president getting shot by a marksman, and

then there's eight different people, seven different people watching it, and everyone has a completely different story. they all view the same event, but they drewed it with their history, with their life experiences, what they were going through that day and with what perspective they have. and it's just different. that's eric to. that's okay. it happens. ms. manolo. she heard voices 20, 30 feet to the right. seems to be consistent with starting at the t intereax. finish -- intersection. and, of course, what she did was what we all do, and i'm not going to assail her for that. but what she did was make some assumptions based upon some facts that she saw afterwards here in evidence, it'll take me about five minutes to find it. she was looking at pictures of trayvon martin when he was 12 when she said that. so i'll tell you right now if you looked at me when i was 12

and compared me to anybody, i'm the guy getting beat up. no questions asked. but the reality is that she just had this vantage point of a child at 12 years old getting,gm by the other guy who was on tv, this big with, heavy hickster of george zimmerman. and she acknowledged, you know, now that you've showed me the other picture -- here's the ones that i did look at and find out or think that it was trayvon martin being the small guy, now that you show me these other pictures, i could have been wrong. lying, perjury? no. no. it's not. just vantage point. just perspective. and then that's why you're here.

because you get to figure it out. rachel jeantel. let me give you my perspective on rachel jeantel. she didn't want to be involved in the case. she didn't want to be involved in the deposition. she didn't want to be involved in trial. i think what happened, and this is just conjecture and i'm not supposed to conjecture too much, i think her mom dealt with ms. fulton and said go tell that lady what happened to her son. she didn't really want to do that. that's why she wrote the letter. that's why she didn't -- she had or didn't have a -- i don't think she -- don't forget, they had only reunited, trayvon martin and rachel jeantel, like two weeks before. you know that. they knew each other from school but never really hung out. two or three weeks before was when they started talking again. so it wasn't what it was perceived to be, girlfriend/boyfriend thing. nothing to do with that. and she just didn't think it was

much that night. interesting to me, the one thing about ms. jeantel, you know, if you asked me right now to explain to you the phone call that i had three weeks ago with my wife, four weeks ago with my sister or last week with mr. west, i can give you the idea, and then my wife would say, well, we talked about dinner. no way. no way do you have the recall. but if you're asked to have the recall, tell me what happened. this happened, did this happen? didn't you say this, didn't you say that? well, he didn't say what he was talking about, he said what are you doing here, right? oh, yeah. you want that too. yeah. ms. jeantel didn't want to be here, and i am -- i don't want to the ask for sympathy. i'm sorry she had to involve her life in our lives in a way that she never wanted to be involved.

unfortunately, she was a witness, and we had to deal with it. and some of her frailties came out in the courtroom, on tv that i'm sure she never wanted out. and probably every other witnesses. you know witnesses want to be anonymous. you know all that. they were concerned. and she's one of them. some of the stuff she said was, you know, that it was close to the dad's fiancee's place. i actually think she meant close as compared to the 7/eleven. makes more sense. took him 45 minutes to go from the 7/eleven home. probably just happening out at some mailbox, i showed you the map between the two. doesn't make any sense he was hanging out at the mailbox at retreat view circle, but whatever. and her why you following me for, somebody said what are you talking about? then it changed. i think that change occurred because of the way her initial interview was handled by one of

the attorneys. horribly inappropriate to not get this person to law enforcement. almost as bad as to have the mom on the couch next to you crying when the state does their first interview of you. their call but, wow, to do it that way. of course, she even acknowledged that she was concerned about ms. martin's feelings which is why she sort of modified or smoothed over some of the more colorful language and the events that happened. that's okay. um, you're supposed to just tell the absolute truth here, but not gonna ask a, someone like ms. jeantel to come in and just not acknowledge the sensitivities why she may have made it sound a bit better when telling the story of her son's passing to ms. fulton.

ms. mcdonald, ms. lauer, she sort of without knowing about it, she gave me some pretty good information when she talked about this three-part exchange. because she was the one who said it before she had any idea about it actually happened. what she said was somebody said something, you know, blue car, red car, blue car. and, yeah, it sounded like that, a little agitated, and then the movement down. that's what got the movement down on the animation, by the way. she said t intersection, down the path and, of course, john good says it happened in front. and that there was only one perp yelling for help. that's -- one person yelling for help. that's significant because there is no evidence, none, to suggest there was more than one person yelling for help. and if so, mr.-- [inaudible] no evidence that more than one person was yelling for help.

and she was talking about her knowledge and lack of knowledge about the street signs. ms. moore we talked about, she heard what she heard, and she saw what she saw. by the time she saw it and ran around, that's what happened. greg mckinney, records custodian. john good, we've talked about him a lot. i think he's a significant state -- a significant witness because he watched it for 8-10 seconds, and he was the basis for the animation and the information that came to you through the animation. manalo, jonathan, same thing. looked like he got his butt beat and staggering to the ground. ricardo ayala, spd, the hands under the body. you know, if that is a concern of yours that my client dared to testify in his statement that he took his hands out out of fear for a weapon and that that is

contraindicated because trayvon martin's hands -- look at the picture, by the way. one hand's not really under him, but the other seems to be. that that is an inconsistency for which you should impute ill will or hatred or spite be, that's absurd. andty mayo, dr.ty mayo said it was. ten or fifteen seconds of talking or moving not only is it possible, it's probable. stair shah livington, the emt who was there, you heard about the injuries, what she did. timothy smith important because, you remember him, he was the first one on the scene. took george zimmerman into custody for his own protection. he was the one george zimmerman talked to twice about screaming for help before he knew there was any 911 call suggesting it. lindsay folgate, she was the first one who mentioned mma style.

nakasone said can't help you, don't do it, don't even try. fortunately, even the fbi couldn't help us out with that voice, so now it is sort of up to you on that. dora singleton -- doris singleton, initial activity with the interview, and i think what was significant about that was george zimmerman's response to the christian issue and to the fact that she was the first person to tell him that trayvon martin had passed away. and the statements are what the statements are. chriser is reno, again, what he stated was in his opinion and, again, he's a law enforcement officer in charge of the investigation, that will weren't any significant inconsistencies in what he heard from george zimmerman. were there some? yes. were they significant in his mind as to what that they were lies? no. not even when he did the

challenge interview. and let's talk about that challenge interview for a second. the state said to you george zimmerman knew those video cameras weren't working, so that haha. it wasn't a bluff. it was, again, supercop knowing everything and just deciding i can get away this. really? really? so when chriser is reno -- chris serino -- there seems to be a problem with this. i'm going to look at it for a second. chris serino said -- i lost my train. i'm going to catch up in just a second here. what he had said were the inconsistencies did not matter to him and did not change his

opinion. and when the confrontation interview occurred and when george zimmerman said north thad there may be a videotape, the state wants you to believe the perfect supercop bluff response because he knows this because, let's not forget, he took a couple of classes a couple years ago at a community college. absurd. i would suggest to you, to make the suggestion to you that in that moment when confronted with the potential of a actual video by mr. martin that my client would do anything other than say thank god, it may be there, and it's not evidence of innocence. mark osterman, good buddy, don't think he would lie for his friend. was the one who testified about the self-defense, and i think you remember his testimony. a little bit animated but sort of told you about everything he could about both george zimmerman that night, that he wrote a book about it, that his

story was a little bit different from george's other stories. figure it out and figure out how significant it is and whether or not it suggests second-degree or anything. now, dr. rao, i don't know what to say. minimum of four hits. okay. you see the pictures. if you think george zimmerman was only hit four times, fine. i think let's take a moment on those four hits. you're going to get the statute, you're going to get the jury instructions, and here's what they're going to tell you about the extent of the injuries that you have to find my client suffered at the time he decided to shoot. the significance of those injuries, how life threatening those injuries were, how soon my client presumed he was going to die from the injuries that are already inflicted upon him. are you ready?

zero. zero. no injuries necessary to respond with deadly force. not a cut on a finger. the statute is clear, reasonable fear of bodily harm. captain carter told you, whoa, you can get reasonable fear of bodily harm when you're already getting your butt beat. that's certainly an indication. but do you need a cut on your finger? no. of course, getting cut on your finger doesn't allow you to just shoot somebody unless you're in reasonable fear for ongoing great bodily injury. so the injury icing on the cake of self-defense has nothing to do with the substance of self-defense, not a thing.

you will not hear a word about inflicted injuries. you only hear that you must look at george zimmerman's state of mind when he did what he did. so even if i said to you i'll take dr. rao's testimony -- though you can tell i wasn't taking dr. rao's testimony -- but let's just say i was. it doesn't matter. ms. benson, wasn't a lot, environmental factors could remove fingerprints. lieutenant scott kearns, the application that was denied because mr. zimmerman didn't have good credit. captain carter, criminal litigation course work. he actually turned out to be a good expert to tell you what self-defense is and how getting your butt beat is really

probably a good indication that great bodily injury is coming because it's already started. and he says not a good idea to wait until it actually, you get attacked. jim cru zinn sky, records custodian. taught a course online to mr. zimmerman. amy siewart, firearms. she mentioned the full complement of bullets, and i think we had good testimony about that. anthony gorgone of fdle talking about dna. you know, the problem with part of that dna, they got some. i think they missed a bunch or at least some because of the way it was packaged. significant? i don't know. i don't think it was that significant. there may have been more blood. i don't think that george zimmerman was bleeding a lot that night. i don't think he was bleeding a lot out that night. i think he was probably bleeding a fair amount in and then when he stood up after the attack was

over, yes, they saw it coming out of his nose. not a lot of blood on trayvon martin. probably not a lot to be expected. and there was no injuries on trayvon martin til the gunshot, so you wouldn't imagine there'd be any blood on george. i'm sorry, george zimmerman's hands or any place else on his body because when trayvon martin was finally shot, he went up and over. so dna, we can go over some particulars about it, and i have some precise points about what was found on mr. trayvon martin's cuffs and what not. but generally speaking, not a lot of significance. ms. fulton. people ask why i even questioned her, how dare you question the mom of a passed-away 17-year-old. doctors cut people sometimes when they do their work, and that was something that i had to

present to you to something about the way it happened and how it happened and, you know, the impact and just how moms think about these things. both sides. finish because i know that both moms believe with their heart and with their soul that that was their son screaming for help. you have to. and you want to. and it's just the way you get through it. jahvaris fullson, the brother, he -- fulton, he really didn't know. i think he told you when he was talking to the nbc affiliate, it could have been him, not certain, might have been, i think it was. now he's more certain. well, again, i'm okay with that. i'm okay with people wanting to hear what they want to hear. dr. bao, that was the state's decision to bring him before you

as the medical examiner. really actually a decision, he was the one who did the autopsy. is although there was some -- so although there was some interaction there that might have been best been redone, the reality was the injuries were the only injuries we know about on trayvon martin and that the wet clothes should not have been, should not have been bagged in paper and that the hands should have been bagged, and we'll talk about the hands in a little bit. ms. zimmerman told you that it was her son as, i'm sure, you expected before she ever got on the stand. jorge mesa, interesting because that was unplanned by him, it would seem, if you believe his testimony sitting at a computer listening and then hearing the background voice that he knew without question and immediately to be that of his nephew, george zimmerman. i think it came across very