>> i'm tamron hall. the news nation is following key testimony in the second-degree murder trial of george zimmerman. we were just watching an interview george zimmerman did with sean hannity of fox news. i have lisa bloom standing by as well as john burress. lisa, let me start off with you. it's interesting. you hear george zimmerman in that interview discuss the media's role. yet, he was giving a very high-profile interview with his attorney seated next to him in an attempt at that time to describe what he says happened that night. >> that's right. well, he chose an interview with a relatively friendly interviewer with his attorney by his side. he gave that one interview answering all of the questions that were posed to him. what the prosecution is doing by putting this on as well as all

of the other witnesses is to try to establish inconsistencies in george zimmerman's story. every time he tells the story, there are some inconsistencies. the prosecution would say major inconsistencies which proves he's a liar. the defense would say minor changes in his story, which would be natural from anybody telling a story over and over. >> which brings me to the question, john. the interview given the night of the shooting, we saw this yesterday. this television interview. does this set the stage for zimmerman not to take the stand? >> absolutely. the prosecution essentially is playing all these statements that allow the jurors to see mr. zimmerman in different settings. of course, given that, there's no way he will testify, in my view now, because all he would do is give another story. to the extent -- and a jury obviously will see all these different stories. so from my point of view, from a defense point of view, i don't see any advantages for the defense to testify. of course, they would ultimately have to try to reconcile many of

these statements that appear to be minor from their point of view. but they will do that. the prosecution will try to make them big disskrep sis. certainly from the defense point of view at this stage of the game, there's no reason for them to call the witness -- the defendant, because he's testified five or six times already. >> and this is the chief medical examiner, dr. brown. before we listen to her testimony here, just quickly, lisa, back to the inconsistencies in george zimmerman's story from the hannity interview to other interviews and questioning. is there anything significant here? i know that zimmerman's team wants to justify it as, listen, his memory, you know, he's recalling a very traumatic situation. is there a bombshell difference you've heard so far? >> not a bombshell. i think one of the more important ones is whether he was following trayvon martin or not. in this interview he says he was just going to look at the street sign. he was going to look at a number so he could give that to the police. that's the story he did tell, but at other times he's

acknowledged he did follow trayvon martin. sometimes he says what part of the story you're talking about. i was following him early on. once the dispatcher told me not to, i stopped. the jury will have to decide if that's true or not. >> and this is the medical examiner. -- >> that's obviously true. i think what the defense has done through the prosecution witness is to suggest that mere following is not illegal. and so by putting forth that as a statement, then the jurors will be placed in a position of saying, at what point in time did this move from following to aggressive action? then you have rachel jeantel's statements that it appeared at some point a confrontation started. certainly the following -- i

think more is being made of that than it ought to be. at the end of the day it's not illegal. >> that's a great point. let me bring in craig melvin quickly. craig, i want to get some information on this picture sent out via twitter. it spread like wildfire over the weekend. it's from defense attorney don west's daughter. now it's been brought up in court. >> molly west, don west's daughter, she posted this picture on instagram last week. at the bottom of the picture it's, you know, stupidity celebration #dadkilledit. that picture was posted on the same day 19-year-old rachel jeantel testified. yesterday the state filed what's called a motion of inquiry asking judge nelson to essentially look into this. the state saying they were

concerned that this was something that was inappropriate. again, at this point the state not asking for sanctions, not asking for punishment, but they want judge nelson to look into this photo that was posted. we should note don west last week did apologize after this. we also should note we have not seen molly west back in court since that picture was posted. >> as it was reported, she was pretty much a staple in court on the front row there to support her father. thank you very much, craig. let's go back to this testimony. this is the chief medical examiner. let's listen in. >> a shot force is injury is caused by a weapon that is sharp. the sharp edge used to inflict trauma. this is the difference between sharp force and blunt force trauma. >> within blunt force trauma, are there different types? >> yes. >> what are those?

>> so the first part of it -- let's look at the progression of severity. a bruise, we're talking about a small bruise, is where the skin is intact and the blood vessels under the skin are injured and they bleed under the skin and get what you know as a bruise. the skin is intact. then you have a scrape where the skin is compromised and it's, you know -- for example a rug burn would qualify as an abrasion. then you have the lacerations, where not only the skin is torn but the underlying tissue is also torn, exposed to the outside. depending on the severity of the laceration, you will get varying degrees of bleeding and trauma. >> all right. are bruises referred to in your field as contusions? >> yes. >> and scrapes is the same as a laceration? >> abrasion. >> i'm sorry, abrasion. then there's lacerations. >> yes, which is basically --

laceration is a tearing of tissue. >> all right. have you ever been qualified in the courts of the state of florida as an expert in the area of conducting rape expectations and all manner of injuries associated with rape victims? >> yes. >> approximately how many times? >> hundreds of times. >> during your tenure as the medical examiner in miami, did you also examine other categories or sets of living victims? >> yes. >> explain what you mean by that. >> so for example, somebody alleging police brutality. the medical examiner, we're housed directly across a very large hospital in miami, jackson memorial hospital. sot police would ask if we could go and examine to see if the allegations were actually bourn out by the trauma. so we would go across the street. we would photograph, put out a report, and those reports come under consultations. also, child abuse cases,

especially if the clinical people thought that the child was going to die. they would ask us to come and take the photographs and do the interpretations. so we basically practice forensic medicine, not really forensic pathology where you're only looking at dead people. >> at this time i would tenure the doctor as an expert in the field of forensic pathology and pathology. >> i don't think that's necessary under current case law in this state. >> she'll be able to testify under those areas. >> thank you. were you asked to examine evidence in the george zimmerman case? >> yes. >> what were you provided in regards to that case? >> so i was given a whole series of things that i asked for, whatever is available, because i like to do the consult having as much as possible in the database before i form late an opinion.

so what i received was a re-enactment involving the incident of the fatal shooting. this was recorded on the 27th of february, 2012. i got a set of 36 photographs taken of mr. zimmerman documenting the clothing, the injuries, the medical records from the family practice clinic, and of course there were two records from this clinic. one was on the 27th of february and the other one was on the 9th of march, 2012. i got a dvd labeled "sanford pd lobby and others." it showed the vehicle going to the police department and mr. zimmerman being taken by the police into the department to be booked. a dvd labeled "medical examiner report and photographs." and this included the medical examiner report, the body

diagrams, the autopsy photographs, 26 autopsy photographs were taken, the toxicology report, and then a report that states two individuals were involved in a physical altercation in the yard and one of them fired a handgun and the recipient fell to the ground. the other items are the same. this is what i received. >> did you also receive two photographs of the defendant at the scene the night of the event? >> yes. >> when you said re-enactment, was that an interview where he conducted a walk through and led investigators through the scene and explained to them what happened? >> yes. >> after reviewing all of those items, in terms of severity, how would you classify the injuries to the defendant's head? >> they were not life threatening.

they were very insignificant. they did not require any sutures to be applied to mr. zimmerman. as i will refer to them, insignificant injuries. >> did you observe any lacerations to the back of the defendant's head? >> yes. >> how many? >> two. >> were those lacerations depicted in the photographs that you reviewed? >> yes. there was bleeding, so i was not able to look at them after they were cleaned because subsequently when he went to the clinic, they were covered by band-aids. >> and were you also provided the reports from the family clinic describing the injuries as they were viewed by physicians assistant the next morning? >> yes. >> all right. would you assist me with the lights? let me show you first state's

79. was that one of the photographs from the scene you were provided? >> yes. >> and state's 76. was that a photograph from the scene you were provided? >> yes. >> let me show you state's 57. were you also provided that photograph? >> yes. >> your honor, may i approach the witness? >> yes, you may. >> let me give you this pointer. just press that had button. explain for the members of the jury where the lacerations are located that you observed and were referred to in the family clinic report. >> okay. so we have one small injury right there and one injury right there, where the blood is streaming from. these were the two lacerations. >> all right. in the family clinic report, were you also provided with the measurements of each of those lacerations? >> yes. >> are either of those lacerations life threatening? >> no. >> why not?

>> because they were so minor that the individual who examined and treated mr. zimmerman told him that the sutures were not required. so she put a band-aid on each of them and that was the extent of the treatment. >> all right. are there also some contusions or a contusion on the back of the defendant's head? >> yes. >> and can you show the members of the jury where that is in the photograph? >> right there. >> is that a life-threatening injury? >> no. >> why no tt? >> the reason i asked for everything was i then looked at the entire case file. when he walked from the police car to the police department to be booked, he was not incapacitated in any way. he was very alert and walking, you know, in pace with the

officers. >> are the injuries you observed to it the back of the defendant's head consistent with his head having made contact with a concrete surface? >> yes. >> why do you say that? >> so, you know, i've looked at the other areas that were photographed. they have a sort of a pattern. there were little areas that came into contact with a rough surface. looking at the concrete area, again, the re-enactment that i was given, it's consistent with his head having come into contact with that rough surface. >> and are the injuries on the back of the defendant's head consistent with one strike against a concrete surface? >> yes. >> why do you say that? >> because if you hit the head one time, it is consistent with having gotten those two injuries at that one time. it's an area where it is

protruding because the head is a round surface. that one impact could result in the two lacerations that you see. >> and are the injuries you observe to the back of the defendant's head consistent with his head having been slammed repeatedly into a concrete surface? >> okay, so i'm going to give you my -- what i think based on the dictionary definition of slammed is. there are two definitions from two different dictionaries. >> let me object, your honor. if she's going to define a word from a dictionary, that would be hearsay. >> please approach. >> we are listening to interesting testimony from the chief medical examiner. let me bring in our panel, lisa bloom, john burress. this medical examiner says the

injuries at the rear of george zimmerman's head, in your opinion, are consistent with one strike against the concrete. she says that they were so minor he received a bandage and not stitches. your take on her testimony so far? >> well, i think it's very clear they are minor injuries. they're essentially two small cuts on the back of his head and the entire total medical treatment was the application of a couple band-aids. the real issue, though, is whether there was more than one slam on the back of his head on to the concrete or the grass or some other place. i think that's for the jury to determine. but she's the medical examiner, so she's a good witness for the prosecution. >> we look at those injuries and might say that appears minor. the defense has maintained that george zimmerman's head was pounded, slammed against this concrete and those injuries perhaps don't exactly reflect that but claim that is what happened there, john. >> absolutely. this is where the prosecution is trying to make their case here

on exaggerations on the part of george zimmerman because the way he has described it, you would think he was being slammed is multiple times and you would have multiple injuries. you don't have that. at the same time, the defense has made the argument that you don't really have to have a lot of injuries to believe that your life is in danger. i think -- so that's where the defense will go with this witness. it will be important to see how she functions later on cross-examination. >> let's listen to her again now. >> -- the resulting injuries are not great force. >> what type and extent of injuries would you expect to see if the defendant's head had been repeatedly slammed into a concrete surface? >> so if somebody's head is repeatedly slammed against concrete with great force, i would expect lacerations. i would expect a lot of injury that would bleed profusely that would necessitate suturing. i don't see that in this picture. >> all right. let me turn your attention to

state's 47. were you also provided that photograph? >> yes. >> and what injuries did you observe in this photograph, state's 47? if you would, just describe those for the jury. >> so there's a small abrasion on the bridge of the nose right there. it's a very small, little bump at the tip of the nose. >> can you circle that with your las laser, if you would. >> right there and right there. >> and are any injuries in this photograph life threatening? >> no. >> why not? >> he has no loss of consciousness whatsoever. he didn't have to go to the hospital. he went to a clinic. >> were there any contusions or abrasions that you noted in this photograph? >> yes. >> can you show us where those are? >> yes. right there and right there. >> all right. how would you characterize or

classify the contusions, the severity of the contusions or abrasions to his face? >> very small. >> could all of the injuries you observe in that photograph have come from a single punch or single blow? >> yes. >> why do you say that? >> if you look at the distribution of where the injury is -- and let's think that i'm the one inflicting the blow. if i was to punch myself right above here, i would get the injury on the nose and on the few contusions on the forehead. so one blow would be able to inflict these injuries. >> are the injuries you observe to the defendant's face consistent with the defendant having been beaten a dozen times or more in the face? >> you know, if he was beaten repeatedly but with no resulting trauma on the face, then yes.

but if the force is such you get trauma, then only one time. >> did you observe contusions to both sides of the defendant's head? >> on the sides, yes. >> all right. let me show you state's 75. was that a photograph you were provided? >> yes. >> and can you circle the area of contusion -- >> we are listening in to testimony of the chief medical examiner. she's explaining going through great detail some of the injuries she observed on george zimmerman right after the shooting. we're going to go to a break. we'll be right back and catch you up to speed and certainly get back into the testimony. ple throughout our lives. one a day men's 50+ is a complete multivitamin designed for men's health concerns as we age. it has 7 antioxidants to support cell health. one a day men's 50+. i've got a nice long life ahead. big plans. so when i found out medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses,

i looked at my options. then i got a medicare supplement insurance plan. [ male announcer ] if you're eligible for medicare, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call now and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, it helps pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you thousands in out-of-pocket costs. to me, relationships matter. i've been with my doctor for 12 years. now i know i'll be able to stick with him. [ male announcer ] with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and you never need a referral to see a specialist. so don't wait. call now and request this free decision guide to help you better understand medicare... and which aarp medicare supplement plan

might be best for you. there's a wide range to choose from. we love to travel -- and there's so much more to see. so we found a plan that can travel with us. anywhere in the country. [ male announcer ] join the millions of people who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. remember, all medicare supplement insurance plans help cover what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you thousands a year in out-of-pocket costs. call now to request your free decision guide. and learn more about the kinds of plans that will be here for you now -- and down the road. i have a lifetime of experience. so i know how important that is. o0 all this produce from walmart and secretly served it up in the heart of peach country. it's a fresh-over. we want you to eat some peaches and tell us what you think. they're really juicy.

it must have just come from the farm. this right here is ideal for me. walmart works directly with growers to get you the best quality produce they've ever had. what would you do if i told you all this produce is from walmart? wow! is it really? (laughter) find fresh peaches and all your quality produce. backed by our 100% money back guarantee. walmart. we're so choosy about the cuts of beef that meet our higher kosher standards that only a slow-motion bite can capture all that kosher delight. and when your hot dog's kosher, that's a hot dog you can trust. hebrew national. the cross-examination has just started with the chief medical examiner. mark o'mara has started to ask her now, was she appointed by the lead prosecutor in this case. listen to what's happening now. let's listen in. >> there was a yes to that, she apointed you to the interim

position? >> yes. >> you had another position as a medical examiner in the state of florida too, correct? >> yes. >> that was with the fifth district? >> yes. >> but you were not reappointed to that position by the governor, did you? >> i did not seek reappointment. >> and that was because of some of the problems that existed in your administration in that office, was it not? >> correct. >> okay. yet, you got the job in the same district where she prosecutes, correct? >> she's a state -- yes, yes. >> how much of your work is on behalf of the state attorney's office in that district? >> well, the medical examiner really does not work for the state attorney. we are separate, but most of the time we are called by the state. however, the defense can call us. you could call me on this particular trial, and i would be here for you just like i'm here for the prosecution. >> my question was, how much of your work is on behalf of the state attorney's office in the

county? >> we do suicides, homicides, traffic accidents, natural death where there's no physician to sieb the dea sign the death certificates. homicides are a small percentage of our cases. >> i'm sorry. let me clear that up. how much of the work that you do involve crime matters -- and i'm presuming the question that all of your crime matters are dealing with the county state attorney's office. how much of what you do is related to criminal activities? >> okay, so we have a total of 1,165 cases, autopsies. out of that, probably 110 homicides. so that is the proportion. >> okay. and in all of that work, you work with the prosecutes, correct? >> that is correct. >> i mean, these are the homicide prosecutors for that division or that office, right?

>> we have a whole series of state attorneys, yes. >> okay. >> but they are in that office. >> so they called you to look at this, correct? snc >> correct. >> did they have you look at anything having to do with trayvon martin? >> no. they sent me the autopsy report, so i saw that. >> but you're just talking about george zimmerman? >> that's correct. >> if i got it right, it's your position that george zimmerman may have only received as little as three -- what term did you use, smashing? >> sorry? >> slamming. three slamming into cement, correct? >> i didn't use the word slamming. >> i'm sorry. i thought it was your word. >>, no >> no, i got that from the re-enactment. >> what would you say happened? >> impact. >> so it's your position that there are at least three impacts between that head and cement? >> yes.

concrete. >> concrete. however, and you said it's sort of consistent -- so i'm going to walk you through some of that. i'm not going to use pictures right now. let's chat about it, okay? i think you used the suggestion if you hit yourself in the nose, it could all be one shot, correct? >> one blow, correct. >> okay. you're not suggesting that it was only one blow, correct? >> no, but consistent with. >> and you say consistent with to minimize the number of shots that it could possibly be, correct? >> not minimize, but if you gave me another scenario, i could look at that scenario. >> let me give you in scenario. he gets hit in the nose like this, just like that, but it does not go up here. so here's the first shot. and here's the second shot. how many is that? >> two. >> consistent with that picture? >> it could be, yes. >> is it anymore consistent or any less consistent than the fact that there was one shot?

>> i'm sorry, i didn't get that. >> i'm sorry. you said earlier that those injuries could be consistent with one shot. >> correct. >> i think you may have said it could be consistent with two shots. >> the way you have depicted it, yes. >> you don't know how mr. zimmerman was hit by mr. martin, correct? >> correct. >> so you're saying it's consistent with one, potentially. yes? >> yes. >> and it also is consistent with two, correct? >> if the way it was portrayed, yes. >> which you don't know. >> correct. >> so could you just say, is it consistent with two as well? >> it could be, yes. >> okay. and it could be consistent with one. >> yes. >> okay. and it actually could be consistent with another couple hits with a palm or, as you said, another couple hits with the fist that just didn't leave visible injuries. >> yes. >> so you're certainly not telling this jury that trayvon martin only hit mr. zimmerman in the face one time. >> i'm just telling you what the injuries are and what it's

consistent with. >> okay. did you notice in those pictures the cuts on mr. martin's knuckle on his left hand, both on the ring finger and our slight one on the pinky? >> okay. those are not cuts. those are abrasions. so -- because cut suggests sharp force injury. they're actually where the skin has rubbed off on trayvon martin's hand, correct. >> that was a yes, you did notice them? >> yes. >> okay. are those consistent with striking somebody? >> yes. >> so we have some injuries -- the only injuries, as a matter of fact, besides the gunshot wound are two injuries on his knuckles, correct? >> correct. >> since you had a chance to look at the autopsy, were there any other injuries on trayvon martin at all? >> no. >> any bruising injury? >> no. >> any laceration injuries? >> no. >> so you know for a fact

trayvon martin's -- no part of his body was in contact with cement, correct? >> well, i didn't see any injuries. you can have a contact, but without producing trauma that's visible. so -- >> as mr. zimmerman could have, correct? >> correct. >> a dozen of them even, right? >> sorry? >> a dozen even, correct? >> a dozen what? >> other impacts. let's get more specific. we've now talked about the potential of two -- you would even admit -- let me ask you this. is there a possibility that with a swat or a hit or a fingernail or something that even this abrasion on his nose could have been a third? >> anything is possible. >> well, you're here as an expert. >> yes. >> so i want you to give us your opinion. is that possible based upon your level of knowledge? >> okay, so i will ask this. i know i'm not supposed to ask you questions, but -- >> go ahead.

>> so then the next issue would be that each of the marks on his head could have been caused by, you know, a fingernail scratch or -- i mean, that would be the next question posed. >> i promise -- >> we are looking at the preponderance of the evidence and the opinion rendered thereby. so, you know, we can continue this -- >> let's move on. >> yes. >> but we'll spend a moment on the nose. so you saw on mr. zimmerman's right side there was a protroougs to his nose, correct? >> what does that mean? >> i'm using the word protrusion. it was the first photograph. let's see if we can take a quick look at this. do you see -- you have a

pointer, correct? >> yes, i do. >> see that spot right there? >> is that's the abrasion, yes. >> no, right below. that little swelling spot. do you see that? >> i don't see a spot, but i see swelling, yes. >> swelling, sorry. that swelling to an uninitiated view -- almost likes like there's a bone over there, but we know it's not, correct? >> there is a bone, yes. >> but the swelling is not movement of bone, is it? >> i don't follow that. >> i'm just asking you to explain. what is that swelling on the right side of the nose from? >> that's trauma injury. >> okay. and what happens is the body reacts to it by rushing fluid to it and all this other stuff to take care of the site of injury, trauma? >> yes. >> and that recedes pretty quickly, doesn't it? >> it depends on the extent of trauma, yes. >> well, we know in this case you acknowledged the trauma and the swelling there, right? >> yes. >> and you notice in the pictures after it that the swelling has receded, correct?

>> yes. >> so it does recede after a few hours? >> depending on the severity. here it was not severe, so the swelling rapidly declined. >> and you know that there was blood coming out of the nose as he was standing up, correct? >> correct. >> where do you think that was bleeding from? >> from inside his nose. >> where would that go if he's laying on his back? >> where would what go? >> the blood. >> well, it depends. if you are alive, if it went back in your throat, you would cough it out. >> or swallow it. >> well, i don't know. >> well, it's going back down your throat, isn't it? >> yeah, you'd cough it out. i don't know if you would swallow it. maybe that's a good suggestion. >> okay. so -- we have nose injury one. we have the potential of the injury up here that you identified could be a second shot, correct?

>> it's possible, yes. >> if i showed you a picture -- let's say we had a video and the video showed a smash to the head -- to the nose here and then sort of an overhand. let's say it was an overhand shot. if you had a video or an eyewitness -- >> the testimony continues with dr. rao. she is the chief medical examiner right now under cross-examination. we're going to take a quick break and get back to this testimony and have analysis with our team to take a look at this key testimony and at least the strategy from both sides. we'll be right back. sorry, i have gas. but you relieve gas, no? not me... that's his job. true. i relieve gas fast. [ male announcer ] gas-x is designed to relieve gas. gas-x, the gas xpert. [ male announcer ] gas-x is designed to relieve gas. wi drive a ford fusion. who is healthier, you or your car? i would say my car. probably the car. cause as you get older you start breaking down. i love my car. i want to take care of it. i have a bad wheel - i must say. my car is running quite well. keep your car healthy

with the works. $29.95 or less after $10 mail-in rebate at your participating ford dealer. so you gotta take care of yourself? yes you do. you gotta take care of your baby? oh yeah! lovely read susan. may i read something? yes, please. of course. a rich, never bitter taste cup after cup. 340 grams. [ sighs ] [ male announcer ] always rich, never bitter. gevalia.

never bitter. as soon as you feel it, weigh you down? try miralax. it works differently than other laxatives. it draws water into your colon to unblock your system naturally. don't wait to feel great. miralax. take the miralax pledge to feel better sooner. get a reward like a beauty treatment, a dance class or a $5 gift card with purchase of a specially marked pack. go to miralax.com for details. welcome back. testimony continues in the george zimmerman trial. dr. valerie rao, the chief medical examiner still on the stand under cross-examination. let me bring in john burress. the first question from mark o'mara's mouth in this cross-examination was essentially how dr. rao got her job, saying she was appointed by the state attorney who's the lead prosecutor in this case.

>> he wants to show to the jury she has a bias. that she was hired by the local district attorney and she's beholden to him and the analysis she's given is consistent with that employment. it's a classic argument people make. at the end of the day, i think that she will overcome that with her own basic testimony that seems to be pretty straight. >> and speaking of classic strategies, mark o'mara's strategy has been in cross-examination to essentially ask the same question over and over. with this dr. rao, at one point he's asking how does this abrasion happen, could it happen this way, could it -- and she stopped him and said, i know i'm not supposed to ask the questions, but i know you're going to imply the abrasions could have happened from a scratch or fingernail, kind of heading him off. this has been an interesting back and forth. >> she's more than capable of holding her own right now. so what mark o'mara's issue here with her is he needs to establish there are significant enough injuries that can happen

in different ways consistent with the kind of description that zimmerman has given. otherwise, he may be placed in a situation where he has minor injuries that cannot be supported and that would not justify the use of deadly force. he's not as worried about the second-degree as he is about the manslaughter. that goes this issue. >> lisa bloom, in this cross-examination, mark o'mara said to the chief medical examiner, listen, george zimmerman may have been punched more times and the physical effects of that not visible. for example, being punched in the nose once and then eventually hit where we see the scar. the cross examiner points out although trayvon martin had no abrasions on his body, that could have applied to him as well in injuries. >> and we've seen the defense dialing back in their questions the last couple of days about the extent of george zimmerman's injuries, using words like panic. well, he was panicked. he may have exaggerated. he may have innocently overstated the number of times

his head was struck on the concrete. i think we're going to continue to see that. they're going to try to reach a middle ground, that certainly he -- some blowing were inflicted. his head did impact with the concrete to some extent. probably not as much as he has said in his statements. >> in your estimation, is this one of the first witnesses called by the prosecution who's holding up under cross? >> she certainly is. she's doing well, but she's also had to concede that when she uses the medical language consistent with, that means his injuries may be consistent with the prosecution's theory of the case. they may also be consistent with the defense version of the case. that's how it is with scientific witnesses. the lawyers like me can be aggravating. >> we're going to go to another break quickly. we'll be back with more of the testimony. [ male announcer ] this is bob,

a regular guy with an irregular heartbeat. the usual, bob? not today. [ male announcer ] bob has afib: atrial fibrillation not caused by a heart valve problem, a condition that puts him at greater risk for a stroke. [ gps ] turn left. i don't think so. [ male announcer ] for years, bob took warfarin, and made a monthly trip to the clinic to get his blood tested. but not anymore. bob's doctor recommended a different option: once-a-day xarelto®. xarelto® is the first and only once-a-day prescription blood thinner for patients with afib

not caused by a heart valve problem, that doesn't require routine blood monitoring. like warfarin, xarelto® is proven effective to reduce the risk of an afib-related stroke. there is limited data on how these drugs compare when warfarin is well managed. no routine blood monitoring means bob can spend his extra time however he likes. new zealand! xarelto® is just one pill a day, taken with the evening meal. and with no dietary restrictions, bob can eat the healthy foods he likes. do not stop taking xarelto® rivaroxaban without talking to the doctor who prescribes it for you. stopping may increase your risk of having a stroke. get medical help right away if you develop any signs or symptoms of bleeding, like unusual bruising or tingling. you may have a higher risk of bleeding if you take xarelto® with aspirin products, nsaids or blood thinners. talk to your doctor before taking xarelto® if you currently have abnormal bleeding. xarelto® can cause bleeding, which can be serious, and rarely may lead to death. you are likely to bruise more easily on xarelto®,

and it may take longer for bleeding to stop. tell your doctors you are taking xarelto® before any planned medical or dental procedures. before starting xarelto®, tell your doctor about any conditions, such as kidney, liver or bleeding problems. ready to change your routine? ask your doctor about once-a-day xarelto®. for more information including cost support options, call 1-888-xarelto or visit goxarelto.com. because all these whole grains aren't healthy unless you actually eat them ♪ multigrain cheerios. also available in delicious peanut butter. healthy never tasted so sweet. welcome back. testimony resumes right now as you see there. let me bring in lisa bloom and john burress again. i want to the get more perspective on the questions to this chief medical examiner under cross as far as how these

injuries were sustained -- or how these injuries happened, i should say, in particular where she believes it's one strike against the concrete. she refers to them as minor and insignificant injuries as well. >> well, they're minor injuries in that they required only band-aids. that was the sum total of the medical treatment. zimmerman was not hospitalized. he refused any further medical treatment. i think everybody would have to concede they were minor. we also saw the video. she referred to this in her testimony of him at the police station that night walking and speaking with the police in a normal way. that doesn't resolve the question legally, though. you could have no injuries whatsoever and still prevail on a self-defense claim. if the jury believes that he was reasonably in fear of imminent either death or great bodily harm, they can acquit him. the defense has made so much of these injuries, showing the photos over and over again to the jury. of course the prosecution needs to minimize it. >> and that's because, lisa and john, it means you have credibility to the fact you believe your life is in danger.

john, our minds logically would say, yes, one punch may not feel good, but does that mean my life is in danger? and to propel their argument, the defense, they've had to explain these injuries as leading up to george zimmerman believing his life was in danger ralter than him believing he was just being beaten up. >> that's important because, you know, he does pull out a deadly weapon. so you have to have a basis to believe that. you can't just be in a fight and all of the sudden pull out a gun. his argument is not only was i getting beat up, but he went for my gun too. so from that point of view, he really is thinking his life is in danger. that's the argument they're going to make. the prosecution has to minimize those injuries to suggest a reasonable person would not have believed their life is in danger unless they had a state of mind that was ill will or aggressive and was already determined to believe this person was a criminal and so therefore you juxtapose these opinions on that person and that hype and your

interest in believing your life was in danger. >> and lisa, we know these photographs were made public well before this trial. they've been talked so much about, particularly with george zimmerman because of the stream of blood and many people thought, look at that. that is proof he was attacked. but hearing this chief medical examiner say, yes, you might see a lot of blood there, but that doesn't mean that this is a severe injury. it is intriguing because we know, again, when these pictures were initially released or leaked out, the zimmerman attorneys really heavily pushed, look at this, this is bloodstreaming from his head. this is how badly he was being beaten up. >> that's right, tamron. this medical examiner has said something i think comports with all of our common sense. you can get a very small cut, and it can bleed a lot. if the blood is dripping down and you're photographed with a couple streams of blood dripping down, it looks much more serious than it really is. once you wipe that away and see it's a tiny cut, that's what we're talking about in this case.

>> that applies to the injury of the nose as well. the first picture where it's clearly enflamed to the second picture that the chief medical examiner looked at where she said, listen, the swelling had gone down because it wasn't significant. >> i think that's true. a slug in the nose can be disorienting to a person as well as having your head bumped against the cement. doesn't have to be that hard. if you hit your head trying to get in a car, which i've done on more than one occasion, it can cause you to be disoriented. he does have that as an argument that will be made. >> but that's why the chief medical examiner points out she watched video of him walking alongside the officer, in her words, walking in pace with the officers, showing he was not incapacitated in any way. >> absolutely. that has been the visual that we've all seen from it the very beginning. he never looked like a person who had been beaten up. he never walked like one. he never talked it like one. he certainly didn't display that kind of outrageousness or even injuries that you would think that a person had been in a fight for their lives. that's a visual the jurors are

going to see time and time again. >> all right. let's listen back to the testimony happening with dr. rao under cross. >> could that have been a different impact? >> it's possible, yes. >> it's possible, yes? >> consistent, correct. >> how much of a distance are there between those two points of impact? >> i think it's not just the disattentidi distan distance. one has to look at the curvature of the head when you are -- when i'm giving an opinion, i'm not only looking at the distance between the two contusions, but i'm looking at the contour of the head. >> that's what i was curious about. let's talk about that. the contour of the head is somewhat sphere-like, is it not? >> oval, yes. >> oval. so if you have two points on a sphere or an oval, correct -- >> correct. >> it's convex, is it not, the skull? >> yes. >> if you have two points two

inches apart, why is there not a continuous bruise or scarring all the way across? >> okay. so it's not scarring. scarring is a different terminology. >> i apologize for the misuse of the term. why is it not one long -- if it came from one contact, why is there not one long injury? >> okay. because the force applied to one area because of the contour may not be equivalent to the force in the other area. so in one site, the force may be sufficient to cause a contusion but it's not -- you know, you're not like computers. you do something and you expect this result. we are dealing with a different configuration of the head. so i don't think that follows. it's a nice thing to be able to say, but i can't say that. >> certainly it could have been two separate injuries, correct? >> it's possible, yes. >> okay. and looking at state's 69, i

want you to pay some attention to what seems to be a view of mr. zimmerman's skull, correct? >> scalp, yes. >> that's right. his skull would be underneath. i want you to pay attention to the top of the picture and tell us what you believe that protrusion to be, my term, not yours. >> okay. on the other side, we are actually looking at a photograph of the left side of the head and the top of the head. we actually are getting a view on the right side of that bruise that we talked about. so that's the same bruise. >> do you see the swelling, is my question? >> yes. >> so there's swelling. okay. you're suggesting -- i would like you to be clear about this for the jury's consideration -- that in exhibit number 69 you do acknowledge swelling that seems

to be to the right side of the midline of the scalp, correct? >> correct, but you got the bruise, which, if you want to say, well, this is swelling, but there is no bruising there. if the swelling was o severe that you are looking at on the left side, then you would have a significant bruise that we don't see. there it's a small bruise, but you can see the swelling. so you can't separate one from the other. so it's together. >> look at number 70, which we've talked about already, and tell the jury which bruise you believe that swelling is connected to. >> okay. i think it's that one. because -- >> i just want to be clear. you're thinking to the one that is behind the ear. you pointed to the one that is two inches or so behind the line of the ear. >> i think because that's such a distorted photograph. you know, we are able to see

very well the right side. so why are we looking at a photograph of the left side and trying to draw that conclusion? i think that's extremely unscientific. >> i apologize for that. >> it's not your fault. >> i want to be clear about one thing. it is your testimony here today that the swelling that's on the 69 on the right side of the midline of the scalp, that is the bruising that is the same bruising as exists with what you've identified now as the bruising behind the ear line on state's 70, correct? >> it could be. but like i said, it's very difficult for me to, you know, give an opinion on the photograph. it's just so distorted. >> got it. could it be a completely separate bruise? >> which one? >> this one, the one on 69. >> well, if it was, why are we not able to see it from the right side?

>> let's take a look at 71 then and see what you see on that photograph. >> okay. so this is again the abrasions we talked about. that is the bruise -- we have to overlap. >> let me show you at the very top of the crown of the head there, almost out of the top of the picture, is that not the bruise that we -- or the swelling that we see on 69? >> you know, i find it difficult when half the photograph is cut to give an opinion. i would like to see what the injury is before i tell you that that's the injury. so why are we looking at distortion and half photographs when we have the fullside to be able to look at and to render an opinion. >> well, i certainly only want to do and have you give us as good an opinion as you can. do you have a photograph that better shows the injuries that we've now seen by looking at 69 which shows the swelling that seems apparent?

>> no, i have the same, but i have just copies. >> that doesn't show the swelling, doesn't it? >> they're the same photographs. so i'm not sure. they are the same photographs. how can it be different? >> i'm asking you, as you're hear today, to tell me what picture you have of the right side of his scalp that shows or doesn't show the swelling that was apparent in state's exhibit 69. >> okay. so i have the same photographs you have. except mine are, like i said, copies. so this is the photograph you are describing. >> i'm trying to find the one in evidence, if i might have a moment, your honor. >> yes, you may.

>> let me ask you to compare, if you would, the picture that you were just showing with state's exhibit 70. do you have that one? >> i'm looking. >> this is the chief medical examiner reviewing several photographs of george zimmerman's injuries. this has been a fascinating cross-examination for many reasons. most, though, this particular chief medical examiner has really gone toe to toe with mark o'mara in his cross-examination. we've seen this strategy throughout several days where he

really presses one of the witnesses called by the prosecution in an attempt to fluster them. she's maintained her view of how these injuries were sustained with george zimmerman and even challenged why she was receiving what she said were distorted photographs of the injuries and not show the entire face. so it's been very intriguing. we're going to continue to follow the coverage. this is "news nation." i'm tamron hall. "the cycle" is up next. that. well, did you know that old macdonald was a really bad speller? your word is...cow. cow. cow. c...o...w... ...e...i...e...i...o. [buzzer] dangnabbit. geico. fifteen minutes could save you...well, you know. i've got a nice long life ahead. big plans. so when i found out medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses,

i got a medicare supplement insurance plan. [ male announcer ] if you're eligible for medicare, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, it could save you thousands in out-of-pocket costs. call now to request your free decision guide. i've been with my doctor for 12 years. now i know i'll be able to stick with him. you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and you never need a referral. see why millions of people have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp. don't wait. call now. a body at rest tends to stay at rest... while a body in motion tends to stay in motion.

staying active can actually ease arthritis symptoms. but if you have arthritis, staying active can be difficult. prescription celebrex can help relieve arthritis pain so your body can stay in motion. because just one 200mg celebrex a day can provide 24 hour relief for many with arthritis pain and inflammation. plus, in clinical studies, celebrex is proven to improve daily physical function so moving is easier. celebrex can be taken with or without food. and it's not a narcotic. you and your doctor should balance the benefits with the risks. all prescription nsaids, like celebrex, ibuprofen, naproxen and meloxicam have the same cardiovascular warning. they all may increase the chance of heart attack or stroke, which can lead to death. this chance increases if you have heart disease or risk factors such as high blood pressure or when nsaids are taken for long periods. nsaids, like celebrex, increase the chance of serious skin or allergic reactions, or stomach and intestine problems, such as bleeding and ulcers, which can occur without warning and may cause death. patients also taking aspirin and the elderly

are at increased risk for stomach bleeding and ulcers. don't take celebrex if you have bleeding in the stomach or intestine, or had an asthma attack, hives, other allergies to aspirin, nsaids or sulfonamides. get help right away if you have swelling of the face or throat, or trouble breathing. tell your doctor your medical history. and find an arthritis treatment for you. visit celebrex.com and ask your doctor about celebrex. for a body in motion. hi, you're watching msnbc, which means you're in full coverage of the george zimmerman murder trial. we have our legal team of experts on manned today. of course, we have all eyes on the courtroom where the chief medical examiner is under cross-examination right now. so let's listen in. >> we see the swelling that you say may be connected with one of the bruises that could be separate, correct? >> i don't think so, because underlying the bruise you have the swelling.

it's so -- it's so impossible to get a bruise and swelling and say, well, that was two different sites. now, the swelling is separate from the bruise, yes, but they are one injury. >> okay. presuming that the bruising on state's exhibit 69 and 70 that the bruising that we see matches up in the jury's mind with that point of swelling, correct? you're making the premise -- >> it does. >> okay. in your opinion -- >> well, you can see it. >> okay. the jury, of course, will make that determination, right? >> correct. >> okay. then there could be -- how many maximum times could the back of the head have been hit on the cement? >> well, to me it was consistent with one, but you suggested by turning the head in different ways it could be two. that is possible.