nonemergency person. but what he was doing was verbalizing what he was thinking. and that's why that's important. because in his mind, he already assumed certain things. that trayvon martin wasn't going to get away this time. the prior calls brought in five, i think defense another one six within the last five or six mont months, he was sick and tired of it. but the law doesn't say, okay, take the law in your own hands. okay, i'm sorry, i've got the wrong guy. i'm so sorry, i thought he was a criminal. mr. martin, tracy martin, i'm so sorry, i made a mistake, i didn't realize that trayvon

martin was minding his own business, i'm terribly sorry. you know the law doesn't say that. the law talks about accountability and responsibility for one's actions. and that's what we're asking for in this case. hold the defendant responsible for his actions. hold him accountable for what he did. because if the defendant hadn't assumed that, trayvon martin would've watched the basketball game, george zimmerman i'm assuming would've gone to target and does whatever he does on sunday evenings and we wouldn't be here. the law doesn't allow people to take the law into their own hands. it doesn't allow, quite frankly, even the police to take the law into their own hands. the police had gotten called out there, they would have, okay, what are you doing here?

can i ask you what you're doing? do you mind telling me? and under the law they're allowed to ask somebody walking the streets. the person can ignore them, or not, that's not a crime. most people say, listen, i'm right here, i'm going home. you want to come? but this defendant didn't give trayvon martin a chance. recall the testimony of this defendant in terms of the interviews. and i'm going to play certain parts for you. recall how he says at one point that trayvon martin is circling his car? and my point of saying that is, number one, you've got to determine whether that's true. but let's presume that part is true. and he says he's got something in his hands. why does this defendant get out of the car if he thinks that trayvon martin is a threat to him? why? why? because he's got a gun. he's got the equalizer. he's going to take care of it. he's a wanna be cop. he's going to take care of it. he's got a gun.

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

i thought in this great country, no matter how stupid we might think somebody's acting because it's raining and he's walking or doing whatever that that's not against the law. he did have his hoodie on, it was raining off and on. what's ironic in this case and what i want to spend some time talking with you about is the defendant's statements. because you might think, well, hold on, you're the state, what are you putting on his self-serving statements when he's denying committing crime saying it's self-defense. we wanted to tell you all the evidence. we wanted to put all the witnesses that saw something of value out there. because we wanted you to get the truth. we wanted you to get the complete story. but in doing so, i want to analyze, dissect with you the defendant's statements. why was it necessary for the

defendant to exaggerate everything that happened? why was it that it took him a while even at the very end, he kept denying something, what? obviously he kept denying that he intentionally killed him, that, you know, he said self-defense. but what was important before that? what did he keep denying? that he followed him. because the defendant knew that if he admitted he followed him, then that showed ill will hatred. that's why he kept talking about, oh, i didn't know the name of the street. i was looking for an address. remember that video? and i'm going to show it to you again the part where he's walking and goes to the detectives like the investigators like they're some fools or something. look, this is the back of the houses here, there's no address.

well, right in front of him is an address. and by the way, there's only three streets, how difficult can it be. he's been living there four years and he takes his dog down to that dog walk. but he doesn't know the name of the street, he doesn't know the main street you go in. because, see, when he admits something like that, then it proves one thing that he was following him. he profiled him and was following him. and that shows his guilt. because it shows that his actions led, unfortunately, to the death of trayvon martin. so you can't just say okay what happened at the actual interaction between them. and again, we're going to talk about that. because, unfortunately, and i stress unfortunately, there's only one person -- well, two people, one person is not with us anymore, but there's only two people who knew what really happened out there.

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

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

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

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

sorry, i'm with the neighborhood watch, do you, you know, can i assist you in some way, you look lost or look like you don't know what's going on. or let's say he was scared of him, do you live around here? he didn't do that, he didn't take any action because he already in his mind had assumed he was a criminal. and he wasn't going to give him any benefit of the doubt. just say, listen, i'm not a bad guy, i'm not a pervert, i'm not following you for anything whatever your name is. they're going to be here in 30 seconds or a minute, sometimes they take longer, would you mind waiting here i'm a little suspicious of what you're doing, would you mind waiting. he didn't do that.

did he wait inside his car? no. did he let the victim know -- let's talk about laying the evidence. the answers that the witness gave straightforward? are there prior inconsistent statements? and, again, use your god given common sense. what do we have here? really, what does it boil down to? we put evidence of the fact that the defendant at one point wanted to be a police officer. i've been in law enforcement for 30 years, prosecutor, there's nothing wrong, that's a good thing. encouraging people to be police officers. it's an honorable profession. he applied in virginia, didn't get in and then he's doing other stuff. he's taking criminal justice credits, that's good.

but, again, it doesn't say that the law allows a person to take matters into their own hand. if not, why are we here? why we have courtrooms, why do we have jurors? let's have people handle it outside. oh, they're wrong? well, sorry. so i want to talk about the witnesses. and before i do that, i want to take a moment to thank you for your time and service. i think we started over four weeks ago in this process that we're all so fortunate to be able to ask people to give up a

lot from work and from family. to serve as jurors. i speak on behalf of everybody, we thank you for your time and your patience. this case is very important to the state of florida. it's obviously important to you. you probably realized that as you all are watching the witnesses and watching the trial, periodically the attorneys will watch you and the court will. you guys were very attentive. without a doubt, nobody was falling asleep and it's a long process. you've been here a long time and were towards the end. but i want to take a few moments and talk about what i would submit at how you arrive at a verdict. you know, we ask in this great

country for people to serve as jurors without any legal experience. in a lot of countries, they don't have. they have lawyers or judges already automatically plugged in as such and that's what they do. they have professional people that say, jurors, we ask people from their everyday lives to sit as jurors. that's what makes this country great. how is it if you're asked to come and don't have any legal experience, how do you arrive at a verdict that speaks the truth? how do you arrive at a verdict that is just? i would submit to you that you do three things. number one, you rely obviously on the witnesses, the testimony, the evidence that you'll have, the physical evidence that you saw, the recordings and all of that other stuff. you rely on the law that judge nelson will read to you. and number three and perhaps

most importantly, you rely on your god given common sense. you know, that common sense that we just kind of use automatically, we're not even having to think about it to make decisions at home and at work. the law encourages you to do that in determines what's valid and what's not and what makes sense. and when you do those three things when you rely on the testimony, the physical evidence and other stuff, when you rely on the law and rely and apply your common sense, i would suggest you come back with a verdict that speaks the truth and that verdict would be that this defendant is guilty of murder in the second degree. i mean, do you believe that there is an innocent man sitting over there right now? do you leave me just assumed something but kind of overreacted a little bit? it really wasn't his fault?

that trayvon martin is dead? do you believe this was just kind of a struggle or an argument or a discussion or a fight that just kind of got out of hand? perhaps, but who started this? who followed who? who was minding their own business? and, again, of the two who was the one that was armed? and who knew they were armed? i hope you can see that from there. and i've got it too, it's a time line. and it's going to kind of tell you a little bit about what happened there. it's a time line showing the phone call. and you'll be able to take it

back there. it's in evidence. but it's a time line showing the phone call between rachel jeantel and trayvon martin. and it's color coded so you can decipher it. you know, i'm old and getting used to now the computer systems, but hopefully it makes sense. but you also have is -- you also have george zimmerman's calls, the exact time in terms of collectively call. and you have ms. jeantel talked about losing contact and you have the call. and i was able to tell you as to when the gun shot occurred because we were able to time when she made the call and you hear the gun shot, unfortunately, in that call. and then you have other calls that you heard speak and then you have when officer smith arrived at the retreat at twin lakes and mr. good's call. so i would submit to you that's relevant in terms of establishing the time line as best as we can as to what occurred.

now are people off, you know, by a few minutes, possibly, but the phone records don't lie. because my recollection was that we spent, i think, half a day one day and possibly half the day the next day hearing from one witness. her name was rachel jeantel. now, this young lady i will submit to you is not a sophisticated person. not the most educated. but she's a human being. she happens to be, what, haitian or of haitian descent and made a big deal about, oh, you can't read cursive. yes, you can, unfortunately. she's what, 18, 19? but did what she tell you as best she could and maybe her english wasn't the best? maybe her speech, her language was a little colorful, i think she referred to me as that

bald-headed dude and referred to other phrases to describe other people. but did she speak the truth? because when you think of it, she was the person that was speaking to the victim. and really the conversation she had with the victim nobody would no know whether she's telling the truth or not other than her. we have the phone records established whether or not they were talking. but what i'm saying is, she didn't have to -- she could've embellished, she could've lied about what the victim said and when she referred to the guy that was following him when she said, to him, he's probably a pervert or something, why is this guy following you? and trayvon martin said he's a whatever, she didn't color it. yeah, when she talked to the victim's mother, she didn't use that language, but she didn't come in here and lie to you

about that. i mean, she could've and nobody would've known the difference. it wasn't like her conversation was being recorded. but, see, her use of colorful language doesn't mean her testimony is less credible. just because she's not a highly educated individual. again, we have records that establish that conversation took place. there's no dispute about that. and those records are up there. but let's talk about she spent hours on that witness stand why? i guess attempt to discredit her in some way? you decide whether she was telling the truth. do you just disregard what she said because her family's from haiti? because she isn't sophisticated and can't read cursive,

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

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

was the evidence consistent with what she said? wasn't she on the telephone with the victim? isn't it true that the defendant was following the victim? didn't the victim attempt to get away? didn't the defendant confront the victim? i don't think the defense will admit that. the defendant and the police didn't admit that. but what did he say? oh, i was just looking for an address. oh, i was just looking for the street. oh. you were minding your own business and all of a sudden this victim that you were following just decided to all of a sudden attack you out of nowhere. but she warned the victim maybe he was a sexual pervert. again, colorful words were used by her to describe the defendant in terms of what the victim had described the defendant as.

i would submit to you that that's an example that she's telling the truth. now, she did lie about her age originally to the police, to me, to the mother. why? okay. she's guilty of that. she didn't want to go have to see the body. she didn't want to deal with it. and she lied to the mother of trayvon martin. so you can disregard her testimony because of that, she lied about her age because she didn't want to come forward. maybe she realized that she might have to testify and people would find out she can't read cursive. unfortunately. we have the defendant's

nonemergency call. no dispute about that. that's recorded. i believe there might be a dispute as to whether the operator told him not to follow or not, you decide. what was in that recording? >> they always get away. >> why was it necessary to say that under his breath? doesn't that kind of show, demonstrate what the defendant was feeling at the time? i mean, that wasn't information he was providing to the operator, like, okay, he is a -- pardon my language, asshole, so when the officer comes he can

go, where are you? that wasn't a description so the officer could identify him, was it? why is he uttering that word? other than that's how he feels? now, defense may get up here and tell you, oh, he was just angry. well, you decide. i would submit to you on behalf of the state of florida, that's more than angry, that's frustration, that's ill will, hatred you've made up your mind, he's criminal and you're tired of these criminals committing crimes and he's not going to get away. >> are you following him? >> yeah. >> okay. we don't need you to do that. sir, what is your name? >> why was it necessary to, again, utter the words, f'ing

punk? if he hadn't already in his mind determined that he was a criminal that trayvon martin was a criminal and he was not going to get away. recall the testimony in terms of the entrance? and again, we talked about the fact that there's only three streets, this is one. this is one that circles all the way around and there's another one. now he claims not to know what street he comes in. and every day in and out -- he claims not to know that street. and, ladies and gentlemen, i'm going to show you in that interview with one of the interviews with the detective in the car leading up to it he makes reference of the street name and he's talking about, i don't know the name of the street.

he inadvertently let out he was aware of that street because he let out that was a lie that he told the police so that it would justify why he is following, why he is profiling, why he is tracking a young man. and, again, this is a closeup of where this happened right here. obviously very well familiar with it. and we've got some more exhibits for that. we had the 911 call and ms. lauer, she didn't see anything. she stayed inside, i think at some point in that phone call, she's telling her husband to be -- i think they're married now, jeremy, you know, get away from the window, do something, don't go out there. but the bottom line is, she recorded it.

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

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

you've got to believe that. you've got to believe he wasn't following anybody, he wasn't up to doing anything. he was just kind of minding his own business and as he was walking back, the victim for some reason decided to go attack him. so you've got to have that assumption and it's got to be accurate and then you've got to assume that then the victim just hit him and knocked him to the ground and started beating him and poor defendant, poor george zimmerman, he just kind of took it boom, boom, getting whacked over and over. he never did anything. compare the sizes. and then, oh, at the last moment, he was able to take out that gun, his concealed gun and was able to just shoot him. you have the testimony of john good who did call 911 and the time frame's important in terms

of when his call was made. i think in opening statements the defense told you that he is the eyewitness, the crucial eyewitness. he's the only eyewitness. i'll beg to differ. but, again, it's important what you think. let's talk a little bit about john good. what did john good tell you? >> he saw what he believed was the victim on top of the defendant. now, he did not see the shooting. saw prior to the shooting. i would submit to you when you kind of put all the witnesses together, that there wasn't just like the defendant knocking the victim down on the ground and staying on top of him and beating the hell out of him. i would submit there was contact between them. that there was a fight, there was a struggle, ironically, of the two. one of the individuals is the

one that's had 18 months mma fighting. oh, but of course, he's just a pudgy, overweight man, i think is what mr. pollock said. he's the one that's had mma training of some type. but, anyway, they interacted, they rolled around, and they fought. but, again, you can't just take that in a vacuum. why did this occur? what led up to this? and at the time of the shooting, was it necessary to shoot him? well, the defense has photographs of the injuries. i don't think i need to show you the one photo that counts, do i?

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

seconds or so before the shooting, was he trying to protect himself from that gun? is that what the struggle was about? that at some point this defendant had the gun? the defendant claims at the very end right before, unfortunately, he had to shoot the victim that the victim grabbed the gun, unfortunately, for him, the truth comes out. and it refutes what the defendant said. we recall the testimony in terms of the dna. there wasn't any on the gun. recall what he told his best friend what the defendant told him. not like a month later, that same evening, meaning the morning after when he picked him up at the police station and drove him to his house. that the victim had grabbed the gun. not the holster, grabbed the gun.

excuse me, in fact, he told you he wrote a book about it with his wife. she told you she heard something out there, heard something like, "no," i think that kind of matches up with rachel jeantel told you about get off of me or something to that effect. you all took great notes, i'm sure you paid attention to when the witnesses were up there. so i'm not going to cover every little minor point. but it's consistent with what rachel jeantel told you. and she described my recollection was that she described she lives right here at 2841, she described movement this way. was the victim headed home as ms. jeantel told you?

and i need to show you the bigger diagram. you know what's ironic? recall even from the defendant's own mouth that they always got away in this exit over here the other exit. and the victim you might recall was staying right here. was he headed there and the defendant kind of cut him off? but it's consistent with in terms of her back left to right. and what does she see? she saw them struggling, that the defendant and victim struggling upright. the defendant claims that trayvon martin is the strongest guy in the world because he grabbed him, picked him up and transported him, what, 20 yards, 30 yards? you saw the pictures and i'll talk about the diagram. but he claims he pushed him or pulled him all the way over here. recall where all the items are

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

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

was beaten up. he said the defendant was doing something, acting, and then he said he asked him about the phone and talking about calling his wife. and that's when he made that remark. just tell her i killed him or shot him. you might be thinking, hold on, if there was a fight, a struggle, how does that factor in? well -- and who started it? who was following who? who was chasing who? who had the right if they were being chased? does the defendant have the right to self-defense? i'm sorry, does the victim? when he's being chased by this person? you'll hear the facts in this

case and you'll hear in terms of whether the defendant was chasing him or not. you know, it was dark out there, there's no dispute about that. it was raining, no dispute about that. and that's what these photographs show. it shows the distance from one sidewalk or dog walk to where the body was. it shows where several items were. and you've got the diagrams and you've got the photographs. one thing i'll submit these photographs show is the absence of blood on that sidewalk. here the big thing is if the defendant was really having his head bashed in as the -- he claims to the police, and he has some injuries to the back of his head and we'll talk about that, but i think they were what sent

meters or less, why isn't his jacket all torn up? or at least scratched up if he was being picked up over and over, why is his jacket all right? the back of his jacket? you think about that? or is he exaggerating what happened? flashlight, that's the key ring and that's the one that was still on. state exhibit 10 shows another angle in terms of evidence out there, in terms of there apparently was some slope. and we'll talk about the significance of that because based on what the defendant told police. and, again, this is state's exhibit 15, so the body was covered up. that's the other flashlight that the defendant had and i think he's told the police that it stopped working or something. if you want to, check again his statements to the police. was he carrying it in one hand?

why was he carrying one hand? i guess he took it out there to see, track down trayvon martin and it stopped working so he didn't put it in his pocket, carried it in his hand. that's the victim's phone, there's no dispute he was talking on a phone. and this is how when he attempted to save his life he was turned over. i'll show you this photograph not to show you just that, but i show you that because he was speaking on the phone. and he had whatever you call them. state's exhibit 22 is a close-up of where the gun shot was and also this photograph button. one thing i'd suggest to you, there was a big deal made about the jacket or the hoodie or the

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

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

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

about that. in terms of what happened. state's exhibit 77. mr. manalo before the police got out there. where the victim's hands? under his body. what did the defendant claim to you? he used police jargon in terms of suspect and, well, the police, of course, they always spread out the arms and hands to make sure there's no weapon there. because he's trying to tell the police that what happens is he was scared and he at wasn't point said, i thought he had something in his hands, i was checking for that weapon, that's what i was doing. well, that's inconsistent with the physical evidence out there. now, defense may argue, hold on, didn't dr. demayo says the person can kind of walk and do all this other stuff for 15 seconds. so then the defendant kind of moves him and spreads out his hands and taking more blood pumping out and the victim just kind of happens to just lift

himself up and put the hands underneath? i don't know. you decide. why did he have to say that? because it's part of him wanting to be a cop. and that's what police officers do. you want to shoot somebody, you usually handcuff them. they handcuff them for security purposes. the other interesting thing is that's, do you recall the flashlight the defendant had in terms of -- in relation to where the body was. and, again, the photograph i'll show you state's exhibit 79, and state exhibit 80, those are two photographs that was taken. the defendant's gun. do you recall what we heard

about that from an expert regarding dna? swab from the pistol grip matches the defendant and trayvon martin is excluded. that's inconsistent with what the defendant claimed. he told the police he was going for the gun. he told the officer he had the gun or grabbed the -- i think he described what part of the gun he grabbed. and then there's other test results, another determination made on the other side. in the holster. you had also fingernail scrapings of the victim in this case. what were the findings? no dna foreign to trayvon martin, no dna results at all. so the victim in the struggle that the defendant claims he had with him when he was trying to kill him, basically, or shut him up so he couldn't speak, where

did all the blood go? where'd all the defendant's blood go? while we're on that subject, the defendant claims he was the only one yelling out there. so all the cries for help were only him. you've got to decide whether it was him or whether it was trayvon martin or whether it was both of them. it had to be one of them or both. if he's yelling and if he's down and got all this blood and he's swallowing the blood, how is he able to do all that? and why is there a consistent in terms of yells of help, help, help, why is it muffled down? why is he able to yell if the defendant claims the victim -- how is he going to talk? is he lying about that? i will submit to you that's a

lie. you saw the hooded jacket. you've got an exhibit there that's got them all in there. but just to demonstrate to you how thorough the investigation was in terms of the florida department of law enforcement doing their thorough analysis of the case in terms of the evidence -- >> if you're ready to take a break. we'll take a 15-minute recess. ladies and gentlemen, please put your note pads face down on the chair and follow deputy jarvis back into the jury room. right now, as you can see, court is about to take 15-minute

recess. let me bring in our panel, lisa bloom, let me start off with you. we're 52 minutes thereabout into the closing arguments from the prosecution at this point. what stands out to you? >> well, he has a particular style, which is asking a lot of questions of the jury and asking them to put it together rather than making more declarative definitive statements saying this is what the evidence show. we'll see if that plays with the jury or not. he's clearly made a big point thus far of the lack of blood on trayvon martin's hands, the lack of blood under his fingernails. and he is clearly standing by rachel jeantel spending a little bit of time going over rachel jeantel's story saying she says trayvon martin said he was being followed he said get off, get off and puts it all together with a time line to persuade the jury that trayvon martin was the victim here. he was the one being followed and essentially that the jury should disbelieve george zimmerman's story. >> let me bring you in. i think lisa does bring in a great point.

asking so many questions, leaving them open-ended and not stating specifically what he believes, what the prosecution says happened that night. he's still leaving it up to the jury which is their responsibility ultimately, but should he be buttoning this up more? >> i'm surprised with that approach. but that is his style. some prosecutors have that approach. i prefer as a prosecutor to sort of tell the jurors through inference as what it really means. i would be less inclined to leave open-ended questions like that. i would tell them what it is. now, i'll say for him, what he has done is a very good job in letting the jurors know that the victim here was about trayvon martin. and he was being profiled and basically viewed by zimmerman in a suspicious manner. i think that's important for the jurors to know that he was minding his own business and at the end of the day, he was, in fact, being profiled by george zimmerman. now he's tieing it all together.

but, you know, everyone has a different style. i can't be critical of it. >> and lisa, that is what we're seeing from bernie is that he's giving a tick-tock, starting with the phone call where zimmerman verbally said these blanks always get away. and he's pointing out to the jurors, the intent, if you will, the mindset of george zimmerman and pointing back to the jurors that if george zimmerman had not followed the course of actions he did that night, that none of this would've happened. the debate over who was on top, who was on bottom would not have been an argument because this situation would not have happened. >> if i'm on the jury, though, i think it's pretty clear that george zimmerman did profile trayvon martin and followed him. but as the fight was going on, did he shoot in self-defense or not? and i would want him to get to that point and show me from the prosecution's point of view why that's not true, that is the prosecution's burden to disprove

self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. we're now about an hour and a half into the closing argument. we haven't gotten there yet. and we haven't gotten the prosecution's theory of the case yet. if they're going to tell us their version of what exactly happened in this fight, so far, we don't have that -- >> isn't it their theory it was a profile situation and they don't have the answer to all of these holes, but they know, for example, at least in what we heard in these closing arguments that george zimmerman's told stories that were not consistent with the truth, at least in their estimation. >> but a lot of prosecutors would give a theory, making it clear to the jury, this is just one theory, you don't have to believe this to convict. but let me put it all together for you, this is closing argument. for example, if you're arguing that trayvon martin did not have blood on his hands as he does argue, okay, well, how did george zimmerman get those injuries? how does he appear to be punched in the face? how does he get the injuries in the back of the head and face. so far, they don't have that

yet. >> i would think, though, what's really happening here is he doesn't really know and he's trying to backdoor into various arguments. but at the end of the day, this case comes down to a situation of was the conduct reasonable or not? that's involuntary manslaughter analysis, which i think is ultimately the prosecutor's going to argue at the end. >> thank you, both, again, the court is in recess for about 15 minutes. that does it for this edition of "news nation." my friends over at the "cycle" will pick up our coverage right after a quick break. and didn't know where to start. a contractor before at angie's list, you'll find reviews on everything from home repair to healthcare written by people just like you. no company can pay to be on angie's list, so you can trust what you're reading. angie's list is like having thousands of close neighbors, where i can go ask for personal recommendations. that's the idea.

before you have any work done, check angie's list. find out why more than two million members count on angie's list. angie's list -- reviews you can trust. i love you, angie. sorry, honey. "stubborn love" by the lumineers did you i did. email? so what did you think of the house? did you see the school ratings? oh, you're right. hey babe, i got to go. bye daddy! have a good day at school, ok? ...but what about when my parents visit? ok. i just love this one... and it's next to a park. i love it.

i love it too. here's our new house... daddy! you're not just looking for a house. you're looking for a place for your life to happen. the day building a play set begins with a surprise twinge of back pain... and a choice. take up to 4 advil in a day or 2 aleve for all day relief. [ male announcer ] that's handy. ♪

right now, the 23rd day of the george zimmerman murder trial. 12 days of testimony, 56 witnesses, and one last chance for both sides to make their case. we're also in a storm watch, summer's ugly side is showing its face to millions of us this afternoon. the weather channel tracking it all. all the news as it happens this hour. it's the cycle.