hour. meanwhile, congress has returned to washington after hearing and earful back home about the doubling, yes, doubling of student loan interest rates. now comes the real test. did they learn any lessons? also, tropical trouble. the atlantic's third named storm is now on the move, but will chantal make her name in south florida? "the cycle" starts right now. and we begin this afternoon in sanford, florida, with the george zimmerman trial. testimony has just wrapped up from a forensic pathologist who, as you may have heard, specializes in analysis of bullets and firearms. he testified that the concentration of powder marks around trayvon martin's gunshot wound backs up the zimer man story that martin was on top of him, on some of zimmerman, during their struggle that fateful day.

the next witness is taking the stand now. let's turn to lisa bloom. i think we have a minute here, lisa. what's your latest update? >> well, you're right. he was very good on direct examination, saying that george zimmerman's story was consistent, and that's the buzz word, consistent with the medical evidence. it's also consistent with some other possibilities. . that came out on cross-examination. for example, if trayvon martin was pulling away and george zimmerman was holding his shirt at the time, the medical and scientific evidence would be consistent with that scenario. he also said that george zimmerman could have hit trayvon martin and not have any bruising on him. absence of evidence does not mean evidence. and that he didn't review all of the evidence in the case. that, perhaps, was one of his weaknesses. he didn't review all of the witness statements. he didn't even review all of george zimmerman's statements, simply his last one. he's just left the courtroom. >> all right. stay with us. we're going to listen back in to

this new testimony. >> -- investigation surrounding this event, correct? >> there was a 911 at the nonemergency number. >> several of them, correct? >> that's correct. >> i want to focus your attention on one, although i realize several were played. when the decision was made to play those tapes, who actually took care of the process of playing the tapes? >> it was the mayor's office and myself and the mayor. >> so both you and the mayor actually did the physical playing of the tapes, correct? >> to the best of my recollection. >> okay. was there any conversation with law enforcement before that as to how to accomplish the playing of these tapes for the witnesses before it happened? >> at that point, they weren't witnesses. they were parents. >> is that a no? >> please repeat the question. >> oethe question was whether o not you had any conversation with law enforcement as to how to play these tapes to these people. you say they weren't witnesses. let's call them people. were there any conversations with law enforcement as to how

to accomplish this playing of the tapes, yes or no? >> no. >> okay. so did you and the mayor just decide on your own as to how they would be played? >> the decision was made to make them public. the purpose of showing them to the martin family was so they heard it first as a courtesy to the family. >> absolutely. i understand both the courtesy and sensitivities you were dealing with. my focus is a little different, okay? here's my focus. when the actual decision to make the tapes play for the martin family, was it your decision, was it the mayor's decision as to how that would occur? >> the decision was made just to allow them to hear them. >> okay. was there any consideration given to the idea of playing them to those individuals separately, one separate from the other so as to not infect their view or what they heard one to the other? >> no, there was not.

>> so the way that it occurred, then, we know from other testimony, was that the tape was played -- again, i know there are several tapes. the tapes were played with the entire family present in one room, correct? >> that is correct. >> and were you the one playing the tapes? >> i don't recall exactly who was playing it. we used a computer. >> well, if you would, give us the setting as to who was doing what with the tapes. >> it was a disk that we were using, a laptop so that they can hear the tapes. >> yes, sir. and who was doing what? >> i don't recall specifically. it was either myself or the mayor. >> who was present? >> the mayor, the martin family, and the attorneys, mr. crump and ms. jackson and trayvon's brother. then there was another individual and i don't know his name. >> was there any law enforcement present? >> no. >> was that a decision that you and/or the mayor made to keep

law enforcement out of the room? >> we had asked the family -- i asked the family if they wanted law enforcement. they said they'd rather have law enforcement not in the room at the time. so we obliged their request. >> and did you discuss that with chief lee in regard to his desire to be in the room? >> at that point we just informed the chief as well as the other officers to not be in the same room. >> do you recall how many times the tape was played? >> which tape? >> let's focus on the 911 tape that had the screams for help on it. >>, no i do not. >> were you there for all the times it was played? >> i was in the vicinity. i wasn't always in the room. >> okay. was either you or the mayor in the room at all times the tape was being played? >> i don't recall. >> how many times was the tape played while you were in the room? >> i do not recall. >> more than one?

>> the tape that has the screams, yes. that was played more than once. >> and was that at the request of anyone in particular? >> i believe it was at the request of the family. >> anyone in particular in the family? >> i do not recall. >> did they give you any reasons for why they wanted to hear it more than once? >> i think they just wanted to hear it again. >> did they make -- did you record or take any notes as to any responses they had regarding what they heard on the one tape? >> no, i did not. >> did you record the event of this happening in any form or fashion so that law enforcement or others might have it? >> no, we did not. >> was it recorded by audio or video? >> no, it was not. >> was anyone there, like a court reporter, just to document exactly how it occurred? >> no, it was not. >> was any consideration given by you or the mayor at all to do it in a fashion that could record it should law enforcement or anybody else need it for future purposes?

>> we were releasing it to the media that evening. we just wanted the family to have the courtesy of hearing it first. >> i don't mean to banter with you. my question was fairly specific as to whether or not you gave any consideration to the concept of recording it so that if law enforcement or anybody else in the future needed it, it would be recorded, that event of the first time half a dozen family members listened to that tape was recorded at all. is that a yes or a no? >> it's a no. >> just a moment, your honor. and just to be clear, the attorneys you say were present were not sitting attorneys. they were the martin family

attorneys. >> that's correct. >> the only two people representing anybody in sanford from law enforcement to the police -- i'm sorry, law enforcement to the administration, was yourself and the mayor. >> that is correct. >> nothing further, your honor. >> thank you. cross. >> may i proceed, your honor? >> yes, you may. >> the bottom line was that it was the decent thing to do to play it to the family before it was released to it the public. >> that was our intent. >> that's why it occurred the way it did, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> thank you, sir. >> any redirect? >> no, your honor. >> thank you. may the witness be excused? >> yes. >> thank you, sir. you are excused. please call your next witness. >> i need to approach. there's a witness we want to appear in a unique way. i want to talk to the court about that, if i might. this might be a time for the jury to take a break. >> why don't you approach first.

>> msnbc's craig melvin is at the courthouse in sanford. craig, we were just hearing some testimony from a city manager about the original playing of that now infamous recorded call of the data, the killing. what can you tell us about what you thought of that exchange? >> norton is the city manager here in sanford, florida, for the past year and a half. he was a witness called by the defense. although, after that tense exchange, you have to wonder whether he and mark o'mara are christmas card buddies. it was a short exchange. basically, what i took from that was that the decision to play the tapes for the family members, for the half dozen or so family members, that decision to play those tapes before they were made public was a decision made out of consideration for the family.

also, the decision not to play those tapes with law enforcement present was a decision that was made at the request of family members as well. so again, not on the stand for very long at all today. somewhere between five and ten minutes. before that, i think you guys were talking about dr. vincent di maio, who to this point has probably been arguably the defense's strongest witness. >> all right, craig melvin. thanks for that. stay with us. let's check in with our legal team. patrick murphy is back. seema ire is back. paul henderson is back. paul, i know you want to jump in. what do you got? >> i think why they put him on, because the defense team wanted to marginalize the identifications from it the family identifying that was trayvon's voice. they're just planting the seeds of doubt in front of the jury that maybe the tape should have been played differently. maybe the family communicated with each other to bolster the recognition that they had of the voice that they've testified to. so that's why they had him on there. so we'll see how the prosecution

takes that, but that's the argument i expect from this witness from the defense. >> all right. this conference breaking up. not sure how much more time we have. quickly, seema, i want to talk to you for a second about judge nelson allowing the toxicology report in and then the defense said, no, we don't want to bring it in, partly because, perhaps, marijuana is known to be a calming depressant. although, some jurors might say, well, if you smoke marijuana, you got to be a bad person. >> i am surprised they are retracting this application because of this. there are proven studies that show marijuana does make some people aggressive. there are toxicologists out there who could testify to support the defense theory that whatever level of thc that was in trayvon martin's system -- >> but that's surely not the dominant understanding of how marijuana works in america. >> your experience with marijuana may be different from everybody else's. i don't know if you're trying to testify here. >> let me break things up. here it's a case of six in one,

half dozen in another. one side clearly helps the defense show it's a depressant, that he wouldn't be aggressive towards george zimmerman. on the other side, you have six jurors, all middle-aged women, who might say, if this guy has traces it of drugs in his system, he does do drugs and shades what might have happened. >> i know five of the jurors are moms. i heard one of them has eight children. surely within their breadth of experience, there's some personal experience with somebody who smokes marijuana and knows it to be a depressant. do we have lisa bloom on this point? >> yes, you do. >> what do you think about this? the judge allows in the toxicology report and the defense says, no, no, no, we don't want to bring that up after all. >> this is all a great discussion. i think the reason why the defense elects not to put it in is because it opens the door to george zimmerman's prescription drug use. you might remember that the physician's assistant who treated him the following morning had some information in her records about his

prescription drug use. the judge did not allow that to come in, but if it comes in for one, it comes in for the other, argu arguably. the defense just elected, we're going to stay away from that. >> let me ask you, seema, having prosecuted cases and serving as a defense attorney, how common is it to see this kind of legal application where one side gets basically clearance from the judge to bring something in, which is the first threshold question, and then actually says, no, we're not going to do it. unwind that for us. >> number one, it's incredibly rare for anything about the victim's past and/or character and/or conduct to come into evidence. the reason it did here is because the medical examiner stated that the level of thc could have affected mr. martin's demeanor. >> conduct. >> right. that conduct goes exactly to the elements of self-defense that is the defense in this case. it's relevant and material in this case. >> another point here. a lot of folks say, if the

toxicology report can come in, what about the fact george zimmerman was arrested for resisting arrest a few years ago? >> those are two different -- >> you're not going to get it the legal path that way. >> exactly. just because one thing happens doesn't mean everything else comes out on the other side. >> lisa, am i right there's another trial or hearing going on within this? trying to figure out whether or not this animation that the defense created can be brought in. what's going on there? >> that's right. there was a hearing that went for about two hours this morning. finally the judge said, we got to bring the jury in and get witnesses on the stand. we're going to continue this later in the day. maybe after the close of court today at 5:00 or 6:00. the defense has a forensics animation expert. this is what he does for a living. he does reconstructions of events, brings it into the courtroom, and testifies to it. he has all kinds of high-tech gear, animation, motion sensors, even a drone, a photographic drone that flies over sites and collects evidence. this would clearly be something

that would be relying on the defense point of view. the jury would understand that. on twitter today people have been saying to me, oh, this is crazy, this would all be just for the defense. that's right. we're in the defense case. so it would be for the defense. of course, the prosecution could cross-examine and explore all of that. but it would be to show that george zimmerman's version of events is possible. because there's been a lot of questions about how could he have reached for the gun, you know, how could he have shot from below as he says? is all of this possible? how is it that the body of trayvon martin is so far away from where he says he was? i assume the animation would be putting all that together to show the jury one plausible scenario. >> paul, before we go to break, what do you think generally, even at a policy level of that kind of tool when we see it deployed in cases? everyone understands the prosecution's job is to prove a picture. the defense's job is not to necessarily prove a counterpicture, although lisa is explaining how that might work.

but to really poke holes in the picture that the prosecution has tried to put forward. where do you come down on these kind of videos or how effective they can be. >> i think in a case like this, it can be very helpful. everyone is sitting in that courtroom. the jurors probably would love to see a video that's an interpretation of what is possible and what could have happened. just for that reason, as lisa mentioned, it's not a possibility, it's the defense's possibility that they're trying to offer up to the jury. that's why the prosecution is trying to keep it out. to me, from my perspective, i believe it's just one more tool to allow them not to have zimmerman on the stand because they'll have that video that they want jurors to rely on. my concern and challenge with it is, well, whose version of events is going to be shown in that video? zimmerman has several versions of what could have happened. the witnesses that have testified so far have had several versions that is in conflict with what zimmerman has said in the past. as a prosecutor, i would be fighting very hard to keep that

video out because i don't want it in. i don't want it to mislead the jury as to one of the possibilities that could have happened based on whomever is going to be offered to authenticate the video. i want the juror to determine for themselves by listening to the evidence and keeping the pressure on the defense team to put zimmerman on the stand that they can come to their own conclusion without that video. >> and that's the issue. it can be difficult to cross-examine a video. stay with us, everyone. we're going to take a quick break, talk more about this testimony and probably see more from the court. stay with us. ke being sold to. the last thing i want is to feel like someone is giving me a sales pitch, especially when it comes to my investments. you want a broker you can trust. a lot of guys at the other firms seemed more focused on selling than their clients. that's why i stopped working at my old brokerage and became a financial consultant with charles schwab. avo: what kind of financial consultant are you looking for? talk to us today.

yeah? then how'd i get this... [ voice of dennis ] ...safe driving bonus check? every six months without an accident, allstate sends a check. silence. are you in good hands?

what are you guys doing? having some fiber! with new phillips' fiber good gummies. they're fruity delicious! just two gummies have 4 grams of fiber! to help support regularity! i want some... [ woman ] hop on over! [ marge ] fiber the fun way, from phillips'.

welcome back. let's take a look at the testimony that's taken up much of the day today in court. dr. vincent di maio, a physician in forensic pathology. here are some highlights. >> what you know is the muzzle was in contact with the clothing at the time of discharge. the gun was not against the skin. it was not a half inch away. it was more than an inch. based upon the concentration of the marks and the size of the pattern, it's my opinion that the muzzle of the gun in this case was two to four inches away from the skin. the most important point is the nature of the defect in the clothing and the powder that uw tattooing. that is, if you lean over

somebody, you notice the clothing tends to fall away from the chest. if, instead, you're lying on your back and somebody shoots you, the clothing is going to be against your chest. so the fact we know the clothing was two to four inches away is consistent with somebody leaning over the person doing the shooting and that the clothing is two to four inches away from the person firing. >> lisa bloom, this doctor testified he was paid about $2,000 for his testimony today. did the defense get their money's worth? >> oh, absolutely. that's very low for an expert witness. so, you know, i don't think anybody is going to complain about his rate. i think he did establish that the muzzle of the gun was two to four inches away. i don't think the prosecution budged him on that. of course, there are a lot of

other explanations for that that are possible, some of which the prosecution didn't get into. we know that trayvon martin was wearing two shirts, the hoodie that's become famous, and a shirt underneath. the shirt underneath gathers at the bottom, as many sweatshirts do. then it kind of puckers out. the hoodie on top had the arizona fruit drink in the front pocket. that also could have caused the sweatshirt to pucker out over that. we're talking about two to four inches. two inches is not very much. i think there are other explanations other than necessarily that trayvon martin was over george zimmerman. that's one possibility. i think there are other possibilities too. >> lisa, i want to toss to seema. we keep hearing about the potential of trayvon having been on top of george zimmerman at the time he was shot. wouldn't there then be blood all over george zimmerman? >> not necessarily. it depends on the injuries and the impact of the bullet. i think this is really important. what takes place here -- if you've ever -- and maybe patrick

has in his career -- observed autopsies. i've actually assisted in hundreds of them. because trayvon was so thin, there's such a short distance from his sternum to his heart. so that's why the two to four inches is so important in this case. trayvon martin is above george zimmerman and it takes two to four inches from contact with his clothes to get to his body to his heart. does that make sense? that's why i think it's even more compelling and it's what the defense will sum up on. >> you mean compelling for the defense case? >> oh, huge. >> go ahead. >> if it was the other way around, if zimmerman was on top, okay, then the clothes lay flat when you're lying down. the gun is on top of his shirt. there's such a tie any little distance because trayvon martin is so thin. he has such little body fat that it would get to the heart presumably in less than two inches. >> not necessarily.

can i take seema on? my dear friend seema. we're talking about relatively thick sweatshirts, okay, that are at least a little bit wet, possibly a little bit stiff and baggy. i mean, these are baggy clothes. even if you're lying down, they're not necessarily both pressed against you. certainly, if you're standing up, every bit of that fiber isn't pressed against you. >> my point, lisa, is that when you're looking at the body in the autopsy, the amount of cellulose, the amount of fat is so minuscule in trayvon martin's body. that's why i'm saying the two to four inches becomes significant as opposed to maybe someone like me who would have a lot more. >> seema, i want to bring in patrick. i still don't understand why you could -- how you could shoot millibar from close distance in the heart and not end up with their blood all over you. do you understand that, patrick? >> i'm not sure why there wasn't more blood spattering. i would say when you look at the

broad picture, the defense has now put on 13 witnesses. this is clearly their best witness. he's done a fantastic job. there's two pieces of evidence that come into play. one, the fact it was two to four inches here today. the earlier testimony when it was shown that george zimmerman had grass stains and was wet on the back to show that he was on his back. i'm not saying that's what the defense is alleging. we don't know. >> wait, let's apply that legally. does the prosecution have to change in some way, does it have to make some other set of claims, at least with the manslaughter charge, that he may have been mounted but this was still an unjustified manslaughter killing? where does that fill in? it seems like what the defense has done well as an act of lawyering is really take this on and poke so many holes that everyone in the courtroom here -- forget the media -- the courtroom seems to be spinning on the axes of a story line.

is it possible he could be mounted and it still be manslaughter? >> let's get paul in. >> i think it's absolutely possible. as we all know, we've all seen fights. i think that maybe at the moment trayvon was shot, he could have been on top. as you know in a fight, you roll back and forth. there could have been times when zimmerman was on top as well. you see one of the things that the prosecution did with that witness was really try and limit him to the specific things he could talk about, which is just the gunshot. so that's why they were really asking him and pushing him, hey, you didn't consider all of these other versions of the story, you didn't consider all of these other possibilities. you only considered this one shot, and that's the goal. you're going to hear them tie this up later. that's what they were doing with that witness because they want him to just be as strong and as effective as he was, they want to limit his scope so he's not adopting all of zimmerman's story. he's only focusing on the

objective, scientific information that they got him to admit. he was in large part relying on the reports from their witness that was there earlier. so i think that stuff is really interesting. he was a very strong witness for the defense, in my opinion. >> all right. we'll have more with lisa and seema and patrick and paul when we come back. stay with us. we're going to hear more from the george zimmerman trial in a few moments. in the meantime, we're going to get you caught up on the other news going on in the world today. that's next. soft would be great, but we really just need "kid-proof." softsprings got both, let me show you. right over here. here, feel this. wow, that's nice. wow. the soft carpets have never been this durable. you know i think we'll take it. get kid-friendly toughness and feet-friendly softness, without walking all over your budget. he didn't tell us it would do this. more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. right now, get whole-home installation for just 37 bucks.

yeah... try new alka seltzer fruit chews.

they work fast on heartburn and taste awesome. these are good. told ya! i'm feeling better already. [ male announcer ] new alka seltzer fruits chews. enjoy the relief!

time now for the tuesday news cycle. the ntsb is meeting again with the four pilots on that asiana airlines flight that crashed over the weekend in san francisco. we are expecting another update from investigators later this afternoon. the three cleveland kidnapping victims are breaking their silence in a new video posted on youtube. they were held captive for more than a decade. in a video that was produced and distributed by their attorneys,

all three thanked the public for their moral and financial support and asked for continued privacy. >> i may have been through hell and back, but i am strong enough to walk through hell with a smile on my face and with my head held high and my feet firmly on the ground. >> it's been a blessing to have such an outpouring of love and kindness. i'm getting stronger each day, and having my privacy has helped immensely. >> thank you for the support. >> 52-year-old ariel castro is facing hundreds of charges, including kidnapping and rape. he also fathered a child with one of the women. castro has pled not guilty. now, the obituary of a columbus, ohio, man, who passed away last week has gone completely viral. scott entsminger worked for general motors but his real legacy was as a tireless

advocate and fan of an nfl team that has sadly never won a super bowl. here's the parting shot. a lifelong cleveland browns fan and season ticketholder, he wrote a song each year and sent it to the cleveland browns as well as offering other advice on hour to run the team. he respectfully requests six cleveland browns pal bearers so the browns can let him down one last time. always good to have a sense of humor in your final days. now, millions of students and parents are feeling let down by congress, which has failed to act on student loan interest rates. they have now doubled to 6.8% as of last week. now, today harry reid took to the senate floor and blamed republicans for the holdup. tomorrow, the senate is set to vote on the democrat's short-term fix, which would restore the interest rate on some federally subsidized loan back to the 3.4% rate people liked. however, it's not likely to get the 60 votes you tend to need

nowadays in the senate because of a lack of gop support. house republicans have passed a bill of their own. that was back in may. it would basically float rates with a use of market conditions. it would basically move around a little more. the senate has not scheduled a vote on that plan. a political standoff with students paying the price. puts you in a bad mood if you're a student. let's bring in nbc's luke russert. you have a strong student following around the country. >> it's great you have a show today. i was assigned two weeks ago. we were blown out by the zimmerman trial. nice to see you have air time today. >> so tell us, what's going on with the rates. what should students keep an eye on? why should families care about this standoff right now? >> there's two things, obviously. the idea here is that any type of solution could then be retroed back and cover any of the students who have had to pay higher loans since july 1st. the idea and why congress is

networking extra fast on this is because a lot of students won't be affected until they go into the fall term. now, what exactly are they working on as we speak? harry reid is going to try to put this one-year extension. that's going to go down. there's a bipartisan bill in the senate. that essentially is a sort of compromise as to where students would pay a little bit more, there would be a cap at 8.25%, which is different from the gop bill in the house, which has no cap in terms of tieing it to a ten-year treasury note. the idea is that students could go off of that rate. it saves the government some money. students would have to pay more over the course of time. however, they would still be rather cheap loans. also, any savings from that compromise bill would go back into the student loan fund instead of deficit reduction, which is a change from the house gop bill. >> luke, let me ask you, in a one or two-sentence answer, do you think students are going to be payer this higher rate for several months, several years?

what's the best outlook here? >> i suspect they'll be paying it for at least throughout july, possibly august until there is some sort of solution. i'd be very surprised if they have to pay this coming into the fall. house republicans are going to hold their ground. they don't have an election. they don't have a mitt romney telling them to back off the last time they had this problem. if there's a bipartisan solution from the senate, that becomes the bill the white house will ultimately try and get behind. but really, the debate has been in the senate between real liberal senate democrats and the more moderate ones like mansion and angus king who had a bill they all thought was going to be the way forward. we have to see what happens with that king, mansion, burr, alexander bill. harry reid says he doesn't like it. >> we'll keep an eye on it. luke russert, thank you for the update. >> take care, buddy. >> looking back to the george zimmerman trial, let's get back to lisa bloom for more on what

to expect now. >> i'm hearing there's a witness who's going to testify by skype. it make mess cringe a little bit. you may remember the last time we had a witness testify by skype. trolls came in. they saw on screen the skype name, and they started bombarding that person with calls and had to end the skype call then continue it by audio. i'm hoping that we have that worked out this time and they don't have similar technical problems. >> all right. that would be excellent. thanks for that, lisa. we'll be back where you and more of this trial in a moment. hey linda!

what are you guys doing? having some fiber! with new phillips' fiber good gummies. they're fruity delicious! just two gummies have 4 grams of fiber! to help support regularity! i want some... [ woman ] hop on over! [ marge ] fiber the fun way, from phillips'.

[ woman ] hop on over! (announcer) at scottrade, our cexactly how they want.t with scottrade's online banking, i get one view of my bank and brokerage accounts with one login... to easily move my money when i need to. plus, when i call my local scottrade office, i can talk to someone who knows how i trade. because i don't trade like everybody. i trade like me. i'm with scottrade. (announcer) scottrade. awarded five-stars from smartmoney magazine. all right. let's go back to the george zimmerman trial, where we're going to have a witness testify via skype. >> back in february of 2012, did you live at the retreat at twin lakes? >> yes. >> how long had you lived there at the point of february 2012? >> by that time, it was about

2 1/2 years. >> okay. you have since moved out of that location, correct? >> that's correct. >> i want to take you back to the time that you lived at the retreat at twin lakes and ask you if you knew somebody by the name of george zimmerman. >> i did. >> and how long had you known him? >> ever since we moved in, in october of '09. >> would you consider yourselves friends? >> he was my neighbor. we spoke on a friendly basis, had no problems with one another. >> okay. and were there times that you became aware that he was involved in a program called neighborhood watch? >> yes. >> okay. did you ever see him in the neighborhood patrolling or doing anything like that as part of neighborhood watch? >> no. >> but you did know him as a friend or neighbor?

>> as a neighbor, a friendly neighbor. >> okay. and focus your attention now, if i might, on february 26th, which of course is the night that trayvon martin was shot. do you remember that night? >> i do. >> what i'd like you to do, if you would, is to tell the jury what first brought your attention to the event that you eventually came to find out was the shooting we're talking about. >> i was coming from walmart down rinehart to go to oregon and make a left. a policeman approached me from the rear. of course, i thought, well, i didn't do anything wrong. only to find out, he wanted to go around me. i pulled over. as i was coming up oregon to go into my neighborhood, i noticed that the police were pulling into the neighborhood. so when i pulled in, i looked

down from the mail station down to the left and saw that there was crime scene tape going up. i didn't want to the go directly down, so i came around the right-hand side where i live to go around the back way and asked a couple guys that were standing outside. they told me they didn't know what was going on but there was another policeman coming. they proceeded to come back around and go back around by the mail station toward the crime scene area. >> okay. and do you recall what the weather was like during that time? >> it was very rainy that night. >> okay. and at some point, as you got closer to what you call the crime scene, did you notice any vehicles that were familiar to you? >> yes. >> and whose vehicle -- >> i do. >> and what vehicles were they? >> it was george's truck. >> and could you describe that,

if you would? >> i believe it's a gray honda ridgeline. >> okay. if you could, tell the jury as best you can where within this area you noticed the truck. >> because of the way our road is -- or retreat view circle -- it was more like on the curb or nearing the curb down by where the crime scene was. >> okay. let me ask it this way -- >> which i believe is retreat view circle. i'm not really sure exactly. >> okay. do you know the area that's come to be known as the "t" intersection, which is very close to where the incident itself occurred. >> yes. >> and though you may not have known the names then, there's a woman who lives in the end unit right by that "t" intersection by the name of jenna lauer. do you know her? >> no, i don't. >> okay.

if we were to -- i would ask for you to accept as a premise that she was living in that first condo or town home just at the intersection of the "t" intersection and the sidewalk. would you know what i was talking about? >> yes. >> okay. and to fast forward a moment, this was an area where you had testified in deposition and had some conversations with police. i'm just trying to geographically locate. if we were to presume that jenna lauer's town home was that first one in that row of houses, where was the truck parked in reference to that? >> if she was in the first one, then the truck would have been parked looking toward the east. it would have been slightly south of where her condo would be. >> so if you're to walk out her front door, would you be looking

sort of right at the truck? >> well, not right at it. you would have to look more to the right if you were walking out of her condo if her condo was facing retreat view circle. >> okay. because that would then put the truck parked on the curb as you walk out her front door on the right-hand side of that street. >> that's correct. >> okay. now, you say retreat view circle. is that the treat that actually circles around or is the perimeter of the complex itself? >> it does. >> okay. is ms. lauer on a street that comes off of retreat view circle? >> if i'm visualizing exactly where you're talking about, i believe her condo would be facing retreat view circle, yes. >> okay. how did the front door, if i walked straight out her front

door, would i eventually walk right into the clubhouse area? >> no, you would have to walk down the street to the west. >> okay. let's talk then about wherever the truck was located. you saw it in reference to the crime scene. you saw it in that area. >> yes. >> okay. and we make come back to a map in a minute and see if we can show you a map of the area, but let's move to the point where you came up to the area where the crime scene was. describe what you first saw. >> there were a few people standing on the sidewalk. there were people who were closer down to where the yellow tape was, and i kind of looked around, you know, to see if i saw george because i saw his

truck. after i didn't see him, then i just -- i recognized the lady from one of the hoa meetings and asked her what happened. she said -- >> objection -- >> stop for just one second. >> when you hear one of us say an objection, that means the court has to inquire. just hold on to your testimony for one second. you didn't do anything wrong. just want to check with the court. >> okay. what is the objection? >> objection, hearsay. >> sustained as to what somebody else said. >> all right, your honor. did you know the person's name who you spoke to? >> i don't know her. all i know is she's from pembroke pines. >> so you had a conversation with her about the events that she perceived? >> i simply asked her what was going on. that was her reply to me.

>> okay. at some point, then, did you speak to any law enforcement officers? >> after i could not find -- or after i didn't see george, i did attempt to talk to some of the other residents that was there. and after i felt like, well, okay, i'm not in harm's way, i was walking away and a policeman came up and said to me, you don't want to talk to me. i turned around and said, i don't know what i can tell you because i wasn't here when anything happened. >> okay. then what did the law enforcement officer say to you? >> he then replied, well, we're trying to find someone who may know the people involved in the shooting. >> okay. and did he have any further

conversation with you or show you anything? >> he just asked me would i mind staying and he was going to go and take a picture and bring it back to the group of us that were standing there to see if we could recognize either the victim and/or the suspect. >> did that officer happen to identify himself to you by name that you can recall? >> he did not. and i'm usually pretty per sp t september active ceptive to look at a name debaclbadge, but at that point i didn't remember. >> did he show you something involved with this event? >> he came back with what i believe was an iphone, and i only say that because i own one, with two pictures. i, along with the others standing there -- >> i'm sorry, let me interrupt for a moment to ask if you can

identify either by name or by description the other people who were present during that time. >> there was a younger man. i can't remember his name. it was either jeremy or jonathan, and then there was a couple there. they were married but i did not get their names. >> okay. and were they, then, present when this picture or these pictures were shown? >> they were. >> okay. were you able to identify anybody in either of those two pictures? >> yes, i was. >> and who was that? >> that was george zimmerman, my neighbor. >> okay. we have seen those pictures here quite a bit in the courtroom. i'm not going to show it to you directly right now unless i have to, but was that a picture where mr. zimmerman had a bloodied

nose? >> he didn't have a bloody nose yet. >> okay. and describe the difference, if any, you saw between the picture that you saw that night and the george zimmerman who you knew before that night. >> his nose was very bloody, and to me it looked disfigured like it was -- i'm looking at him, so it looked like it was somewhat to the left or right. but i know it was not the way i knew him. the nose was very disfigured and a lot of blood coming from it. >> did it take you a minute or two, or how long did it take you to even figure out that that was the same person? >> i mean, his face still looked the same. the only difference was the disfigurement and the blood in

his nose. >> did you advise law enforcement who was present of this person, george zimmerman's name? >> yes. i said, that's my neighbor george. >> and did anybody else, as you can best recall, identify the person as well? >> objection as to hearsay. >> judge: sustained. >> don't answer that. after you identified george zimmerman as the person in the picture, were you shown a second picture? >> i was. >> was that anyone who you identified? >> i did not know the person's name. i had seen him in passing probably early that day, but i didn't know who he was. >> okay. and do you know now that that person was trayvon martin? >> yes. >> after you identified george zimmerman, what is the next thing that you did or who did

you talk to about that event? >> are you talking about that night? >> yes, ma'am. >> if i remember krecorrectly, think the first concern was where his wife was, if his wife was there. >> was that your concern, you mean? >> yes. because i knew he was married and i didn't see her, and they're my neighbors, and once i saw his face and, you know, what looked to be, you know, been hurt, my first concern is, where is his next of kin, his wife? >> and what did you do about that? >> well, after, you know -- there was nothing else i could do at that point once i found out that, you know, as i thought i was no longer in harm's way because my husband was in town.

i went to george's residence and knocked on the door to see if his wife was there. i heard the dog, but nobody came to the door. shortly thereafter, shellie drove up perpendicular to the driveway. she didn't go in because i was walking away. and she asked me -- >> objection, here. >> judge: sustained. >> your honor, i would ask to be heard on that hearsay objection. it's not the truth of the matter of what mrs. zimmerman may have said. >> judge: i don't want speaking responses. please approach. >> yes, your honor. >> lisa bloom, we have a witness here. not quite sure why this person is here. i have a guess. i wonder if you have the same hunch. >> well, you know, i often wish during trials that lawyers could just stand up and explain why a

particular witness is being called. i mean, we're getting to her conversation with shellie, george zimmerman's wife. we don't know yet what that is. there is a hearsay objection. if she's going to say what shellie said, that would be hearsay unless it falls under one of the many exceptions, like an excited utterance. so i'm anxious to hear what your reaction is. >> i wonder if they want a black witness to speak to who he is. thanks to lisa, seema, patrick and paul, our entire team. we continue to pick up the george zimmerman trial after this break. that's how we make our living and that's how we can pass the land and water back to future generations. people should make up their own mind what's best for them. all i can say is it has worked well for us.

humans. we are beautifully imperfect creatures living in an imperfect world. that's why liberty mutual insurance has your back, offering exclusive products like optional better car replacement, where if your car is totaled, we give you the money to buy one a model year newer. call... and ask an insurance expert about all our benefits today, like our 24/7 support and service, because at liberty mutual insurance, we believe our customers do their best out there in the world, so we do everything we can to be there for them when they need us. plus, you could save hundreds when you switch, up to $423. call...

today. liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy? humans. we are beautifully imperfect creatures living in an imperfect world. that's why liberty mutual insurance has your back, offering exclusive products like optional better car replacement, where if your car is totaled, we give you the money to buy one a model year newer.

call... and ask an insurance expert about all our benefits today, like our 24/7 support and service, because at liberty mutual insurance, we believe our customers do their best out there in the world, so we do everything we can to be there for them when they need us. plus, you could save hundreds when you switch, up to $423. call... today. liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy?

the george zimmerman trial continues today with the second full day of defense witnesses. it's been dominated by the evidence of forensic pathologist dr. vincent di maio. the jury was not called into the court until 10:30 this morning so the defense could hear arguments about whether an animated depiction of george zimmerman describing the shooting was allowed to be seen. let's go now to msnbc's craig melvin who has been following the trial in sanford. craig, we just had via video link the testimony of elloise dilligard, who was a resident in the twin lakes area and knew george zimmerman as a member of neighborhood watch. >> reporter: yeah, and martin, what you just said is about all we've gotten so far out