and how convinced you might be. easy. just not guilty. proven. highly unlikely. less than likely. i think you get the point. ask you to read through it and nod your head in agreement with each one. the reality is, until you get to the idea of concept of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, you just don't get it. what stays in c cicics examine. that presumption of innocence never dissipates till the state proves their case beyond a reasonable doubt which really makes sense. it took us from the king's days where he decided if you're guilty or not to your days where you get to. so this is what happens in a criminal case. the state has to take you from somewhere down here before

there's any evidence and he sort of presumed to be not guilty all the way up the list in your mind so that you have no doubt or no reasonable doubt to the essential elements of the crime and that george zimmerman is guilty of second degree murder. now, i said to you that i was going to take off all of my brethren and sisthren, if we call it that. i was going to say to you, i was going to say this to you doing something else. i was going to show you or prove to you that i've got not just my little conversation with you, we'll talk about that in a minute, of this. i'm sorry. again, this is what really

matters for today. and that was this self-defense. and it's interesting because actually have another poster i'll show you in a little bit. trying to figure out how to make self-defense make sense to you. because it's sort of like disproving a negative. the state carries a burden, without question, of proving to you beyond a reasonable doubt that george zimmerman did not properly act in self-defense. and if i mystique, let mr. guy fix it. george zimmerman is not guilty if you have a -- just a reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense. this is where i'm going, just so you know. we're going to spend about ten minutes with me bringing you all the way up to here.

proving to you beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense. but i don't need to. the state needs to convince you all the way down here. self-defense likely. reasonable doubt. self-defense. is self-defense suspected? well, you have a reasonable doubt as to self-defense, not guilty. may not be self-defense. you're not quite sure. not guilty. unlikely self-defense. but it might be. you've got a doubt as to whether or not it's self-defense, not guilty. less than likely is it self-defense, this was a 50/50, i wouldn't vote self-defense, this was a civil trial. highly unlikely that it's

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

to the standards. but i want to show you what the evidence has shown concerning my client's absolute, beyond question, beyond a reasonable doubt, innocence. where shall we start? let's start -- let's start before the beginning. let's start with what the state wants you to focus on. that he was a cop wanna be. and he did wanna be a cop. also wanted to be a prosecutor and lawyer and he wanted to continue his education and he wanted to help out his community. and he wanted to help out people like miss brunawan by giving her a lock and he wanted to be involved. you even heard he mentored some kids through officer cerino. he wanted to be involved. yes, he wanted to be a cop. he even applied for it.

you heard from the other officers who also wanted to be cops and became cops that it's a fairly noble profession. it is a profession that's its moniker is protect and serve. it is apparent that george is going to serve. i think it is. awe the evidence that you do have supports that. actually, it doesn't support any contention that he wasn't. it also supports the contention that he's going to protect. i think that's readily apparent from all of the evidence. keep in mind the state had the opportunity -- i take that back, they had the obligation to show you any piece of evidence that they thought was appropriate that they could to show you that his actions were inappropriate. what did they decide to bring to you? two professors. couple more of them.

two professors. would said i taught him. i don't know if we read that in the book. i definitely -- it was in the class. it was an online class. we spoke about it. and he told me he wanted to be a prosecutor. and i think he said -- he may have said he was just -- seemed to be easy going or i like him or something like that, whatever that offbeat -- the guy who was first on skype and then on cell phone. then the other professor they brought in to say to you, oh, yeah, i taught him this. and we talked about self-defense. yeah, we talked about it. and he knew about it. so yeah, that's what they want you to focus on. because this cop wanna be knew what self-defense is. so they have that. what else did they decide to bring you about his background? that he didn't make it as a cop one time.

i think he workings as a fraud guy at a mortgage company. and what else did they show you to buttress their position that george zimmerman is before you acting with ill will, spite, hatred and just didn't -- just hated, hated trayvon martin that night. what other evidence? might -- i'm not being sarcastic, i might be forgetting something as far as his background. the five phone calls to nonemergency. you've heard them. you have them in. you also have the sixth one. because i put that in. because for whatever reason, the state didn't present to you call number six. doesn't support their case i guess because it's just calling, being concerned about the fact that a bunch of kids are playing outside. not really complaining, just want to make sure whether it's 4-year-olds out there, 6-year-olds out there.

listen to that because you haven't heard it, i didn't play it to you, but it's in evidence. i think it just sort of rounds out a little bit instead of having five of six, you have six of six. you sort of know what the state didn't show you. they don't have to show you good stuff about george zimmerman. but they did say they were going to seek justice. let's not forget that. they told you in the beginning of this case they were going to seek justice. so you have five phone calls and now a sixth one. i also brought into evidence, it's here, a whole pile of reports, police reports, of what other things happened in the past year at retreat view area. they're there. i could have brought in miss rumf like the state did or other people but we just agreed they would go into evidence. you have those. they will show you a lot of alarm calls, burglaries, the

home invasion that miss long suffered through. they will show you if you look at this in that community there was a rash of people burr glarizing homes. you know what else it's going to show you? it's going to show you a lot of the people who were arrested for it, the only people who were found and arrested were young black males. we're going to talk about race in a little bit too. but they're going to show you. the reason why i mention that now is we talk about assumption and what you sort of bring from your world when you come into our world. certainly you heard on the nonemergency call how george acted when he saw trayvon martin. we'll get to that in due time. what else did they have about george zimmerman and his past that they bring to you? i think that's about it. so i would suggest that's on the

way toward absolute innocence. why? listen to the calls. anger, frustration, hatred, i will, spite, get out here and get these guys. i hate these young black males. listen to the calls. do not allow them to give their words to your ears rather than george's. listen to what he said. listen to the cadence of his voice. listen to what he said. read those reports. look at those people who lived through -- not many of them were home like miss long but to what they came home to and wonder whether or not frustration in mr. zimmerman's voice is inappropriate or appropriate. so that's his past. so what have they shown you as to how they acted?

how have i convinced you of his absolute innocence? let's go to the 26th. undisputed. someone said he does it every sunday. just his regiment. makes his five sandwiches in their little plastic containers. that's what he does. by the way, as to absolute innocence, tell me the witnesses who said to you that george zimmerman patrolled that neighborhood. we're going to go over the witnesses. i have a whole power point presentation. i promise it will take you as long as it took me to make it to present it to you. but there is not a witness, not one, state's case, not one who will say to you i remember george zimmerman, yeah, the guy going around the neighborhood, looking around. talking about bring in your garbage cans or some absurdity

like that. not one witness to suggest that the guy who they want you to believe is the neighborhood watch cop wanna be crazy -- not one. they may want you to assume that. it would seem. and you would have to assume it because you certainly can't find it. so you'll have to assume that this neighborhood watch guy was just some -- crazy guy walking the neighborhood looking for people to harass. except that's an assumption without any basis in fact whatsoever. not one. another note from mr. guy. if i'm wrong about that, let him tell you. let's show the point where mrs. jones said, well, i was scared about him, didn't like the fact he kept circling my

house. he had miss birglong. he came over. heard what happened, really sorry, just starting this neighborhood watch. real problems with these sliding glass doors. here's a look. you know what, my wife's home, she works, she's a nursing student or something, she's around. she's home if you need to stop by. innocence. pure unadalt rated innocence. i would suggest that shows to you. certainly in regards to second degree murder or anything like it. so in my quest to prove that he's innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. he is on his way to target and he sees somebody. that was suspici space.

does he track him down? shoot him in cold blood? no. he does what he was told to do. he calls nonemergency. not a big deal. not an emergency. he did tell you in the states at least and you know because it'ses in those reports at that very same house, maybe coincidence, trayvon martin, was burr glarized the week before. is it inappropriate for that to become a concern to somebody who's concerned about his neighbors? i looked at it. left out of my driveway. i took a right just because i wanted to see who it was. there was a pool sign on the side of it and i kept going. okay. well, in this case, he does

what? he calls nonemergency and he says knowing full well, given the benefit of the history the state wants you to use to convict him. knows he was being recorded. he's done it before. so he says in the call -- i'm not going to play it for you again. you've heard it more times than most people. and he called him an asshole. he didn't call him an asshole. but he said these assholes. that group of people who in the past have gotten away. so he called. and he spoke ton t the dispatch. and he went through it. so looking at the question of whether or not my client is completely innocent, provably innocent, what did he do? stayed on the phone. cursed. well, yeah, he definitely cursed.

and he cursed towards those people -- maybe including trayvon martin by the way -- at lead to him maybe, because he did match the description unfortunately. and that's just maybe happenstance. we'll talk more about that too. so calls it in. and stays on the phone. like he's supposed to. does what he's supposed to. describe him. think he's black. have to be asked. black, white, hispanic. so where is the -- how do we move from i'm looking at a suspicious guy that i'm not sure, it's raining out, he's obviously not coming in the main entrances. maybe that's an issue. when you look at those reports, you'll see there are ingress or egress points. at least there used to be. where some people do come in to do bad things. and he talks to nonemergency. and he basically stays on the

phone all the way through. so where's the guilt? that's not my burden. where's the nonguilt? well, never screams. mr. guy screamed. mr. de la deon da screamed. never screamed on that call. mr. suggested to you that what he did under his breath. what he wants you to assume within that contempt. he wanted to say it. he didn't want nonenergy call to hear it. that what that means is guilty.

seriously, seriously. it's just the fact he was willing to say it on a recorded call. to law enforcement. is evidence of nonguilty. it is evidence that he wasn't saying it any way laced with ill will, spite, ohio tread or anything else like that. so call continues. and now we have the call. now we have our first very large graphic. this is what happens when they get carried away with graphicings. they get ten feet long.

what this is a graphic representation of the phone call that started at 70934 that night. you will have this back with you so you can sort of go through it. it doesn't include every word that was said back and forth because it would have been 20 feet long. but it does have i would argue to you or submit to you it has all of these significant words. so i'll sort of go through it. you have the tape. i could play it for you but you've heard it many, many times. it starts, dispatcher. sanford pd, may i help you. and george says some suspicious guy, whatever. then he says, note down here, that trayvon martin's on the phone with rachel jeantel.

we'll talk about it as we come down the line. now he's just staring at me. 71021. so we're looking at about less than a minute later. he's just doing it. yes, he's near the clubhouse right now. yeah, he's coming towards me. there was so many confusion i think. maybe it's been cleared up. that george zimmerman pulled into the clubhouse, back down it went down. the street. trees. and then parked. so this is when he was sitting at the clubhouse. would seem to be uncontroverted. this is on here because the suggestion is this cop wanna be was just so frustrated, just so angry, so full of ill will and hatred, that finally he cracked. finally he broke. and i want to -- i want to ask

when you go back to figure out where he broke. but maybe this is the spot. it was just after the dispatch said, okay, just let me know if he does anything else, okay. now, they want you to really focus -- in a moment we'll get there. they want you to really focus on the idea that shawn nofki said we don't need you to do that and that was a command of law enforcement and somehow he violated. we'll get to that. but we don't want you to focus on the fact that this same law enforcement officer says, let me know if he does anything else. so here's a thought. let me know if he does anything else. have i done anything else?

please get an officer over here, is his response. seen ill will and hatred necessary because you want to kill somebody because you hate them? please, please get an officer over here. twice. let me know if he does anything else. twice. okay. well, it makes sense. that's i think probably what they're supposed to ask. and then the person hearing that says, okay, or does something to let me know if he does anything else. these assholes, they always get away. his words. listen to the tape. i have a tape of mr. de la de la

rionda. what really counts is the way mr. zimmerman said it. so listen to the tape, you know, see if in that you walk away -- at this point right here. you walk away with ill will, spite, hatred, just this animus toward trayvon martin. [ muted ] and i walk out the door and came back, what information would you have? that i walked out the door. why? because you probably watched me do it. 'cause i just asked you which way am i walking. so ill will, spitehatr or

innocence? i would suggest at this point this is a conversation. when they're doing this conversation, they had no idea we were going to be here today. they had no idea we would have a ten foot graphic of every sentence that they talked about. they were just talking. what's he doing? let me know. where's he now? which way's erunning? and he gets out of his car. now, at this point, i think the state -- maybe this is another break point. maybe this is a break point where george said, it's the network movie -- i have it, i just can't take anymore, something like that. maybe that's when it happens. well, let's see. no, maybe not. gets out the car. says down towards the other end of the entrance towards the neighborhood. listen to that. see if there's this crescendo of

hatred in his voice. which entrance? the back entrance. and he says we just got so used to using this in front of regular people. you know what he said. i'm not going to use the words anymore. not as oversensitivity to you or pander to you but we used those words enough in this courthouse so far. then he says, are you following him? what does george say in his anger and hatred and plan to track down and kill this unknown person? unknown is important because ill will and hatred and spite it's difficult don't you think to really gain that for somebody you don't even know? how do you actually get to the level necessary for second degree murder when you don't know the person? but any rate, ill will, spite and hatred. has it shown right here? we don't need you to do that. is that when he says screw you, i'm sick and tired, human ni'm

going to take it any more? no, what does he say? okay. then we're going to talk about wind noise. matter of fact, i put into evidence for you to look at. one the state put in, one i put in, the weather reports for that day. because strange as it seems a year and a half later, we want to make sure you know it was raining out. even though a bunch of people talked about it. we also want you to know the wind was up that night. you'll see at the time of this event the wind was about 6.8 to 7.2 miles per hour. you also hear wind during the rekrcreation video it the questn was, was george zimmerman tracking? was he running after him? we know he was following him because he said it. the question is, was he tracking him? the wind noise, the running noise, make up -- i will ask you, as the state did. you guys get to decide that.

but what i really want you to focus on is where this ill will spite and hatred come in. so does it come in here? and then he says what's your name? george. and he says he ran. did he say he ran, that i'm running? is there any, any evidence to suggest -- let me ask you a second. is there any piece of evidence that you have in this case that supports the contention that george zimmerman ran anywhere or that he ran after trayvon martin after he said okay? i have another challenge for the state. i'm going to tell you about it. show you in the record of this case that they have evidence

that he ran after trayvon martin, walked after him, after he said okay. because if it's there, i missed it. presumption. assumption. connecting the dots. sure. but you agree not to do that. don't let them let you do that. and then tells him where the address is, apartment number. it's a home. now at this point i think right around here is when he says, still want to have an officer. oh, yeah. yes i think he says. okay. where do you want me to meet him? clubhouse, talked about, truck they talked about. and then i guess in the state's

presentation to you shgsz they have said and they will say again that at that point that's the ill will, spite and hatred i guess. because at that point, he says, no, no, no, no, no. no. i'm going to go track him down and shoot him. or something. so just have him call me. don't forget, 16 months ago, regular phone call. sounded like a regular phone call for george zimmerman. and i'll tell you where i am. big deal. made about the recreation video. and the numbers right behind him. and the numbers not in the back -- by the way, one other point on that, which witness, and this is going to sound as though i'm being a little bit sneaky so let me premise with that, which witness told you

that mrs. lauer's lights were on that night? so the numbers that they wanted you to believe, that mr. zimmerman walked by, that i just want to go after him. so we're clear, the witness that showed you that miss lawer was here and the state asked the question of her, just so we're clear, because we really want to prove he was doing this intentionally and trying to say something that we can catch later, please tell the jury that your lights were on that night. they never asked him that. he just didn't. because they want you to presume and assume and connect the dots. now, is that sort of sneaky? no, sorry, this is their burd be burden. they have to take away reasonable doubt. they have to look at this case

and say to you, ladies and gentlemen of this jury, hi, we're the state, we have proved this case beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. we connected every dot that force a line that leads to nothing but conviction and they just didn't. so now what happens? along my path towards beyond a reasonable doubt innocence? what evidence do we have? i would contend to you that though there was a minute after this tape, he hangs up, 7:13:44. we know miss lawer's call starts at 7:16:11. there's some time in there. we know that miss lawer heard about 15 to 20 seconds before she decides to make the call. she testified it took about 25 -- i think she said 25 seconds to get the phone, dial

it, try jeremy's phone first, that didn't work, try hers, connect, 30 seconds. back it up another 30 seconds. as to what george zimmerman was doing. now, we know that he said at a time when he didn't know that he had to protect his story that he said he'd still gone all the way to the circle, still makes sense, i would submit, and then is coming back with that little baby flashlight. because the other one, the impact weapon that was pointed out by the state, not used an impact weapon, this little flashlight on its key chain that he had. he had this. and it was on. you'll see the pictures of -- you know now i think the pictures of the darkness that night. one is stunning in that you sort

of see, here's the field of flash and beyond it is almost like this black wall, it was that dark. yeah, he had his flashlight with him and he had it on. if that's evidence of tracking mr. zimmerman, let the state prove that to you. so we know evidence seems to support that george is heading back towards his car and they don't have one shred of evidence to suggest otherwise. if they had it, i presume they would have presented it. where is it? what evidence do we have? well, we have the flashlight. probably not a bad idea to start there. because somehow that flashlight got dropped right there. not just george's, george zimmerman's story about that is there. we have jenna lawer who said, i

heard a noise and was out that way, sort of towards the t-intersection. did she look? no. did she hear? yes. did she close? probably. we have miss mano opposite side saying it was off to the right consistent with the t-intersection. we had mr. darker although we had questions about what she saw and how she saw it, nonetheless, she said it started sort of outside her window. so we know the altercation, certainly seems to have started exactly where george zimmerman said it started. that somehow it got dragged down to the area where trayvon martin was actually shot. i'm going to show you what mr. de la rionda mentioned. it doesn't go back there with you, it's just an overview of

some of the evidence and how it may look in the context of it. so if it works, we're going to spend a minute to just look at it. it runs about a minute, a minute and a half. it has a call on it because it's used to set the scene on it a little bit to set the timing. and we'll come back and sort of explain why what's in there is in there. only if it works though. what's the chance of that? if we disconnect one item and put on another? you don't know or it shouldn't? great.

>> we got a little bit of a break in the closing arguments. as they make a quick change here. want to go to lisa bloom. lisa bloom. assess what you've heard so far. >> so far, mark o'mara is hitting on reasonable doubt. he spent a good junk of the beginning just talking to this jury about how if they have a

doubt, if there's unsure, if it's a probably, a maybe, i could have, should have, would have, it's a defense case. >> all right. let's go back now that they've changed the equipment. we're going to see that animation. some art fishality i've had to include in the animation to show you is just things like that. what i want you to look at is the how the event may have happened at the t-intersection and how things progressed from there and how that comports with some of the evidence.

or not. t-intersection. the first -- there's the shot. it's in the nose we contend. number one right there is where the flashlight is found. george's small flashlight on his key. didn't have any movement except

to get them to the spot of the actual shooting. we don't really know what happened. george zimmerman did say he tried to push him off and tried to push him away it i think in the video they were moving like this that you saw. somehow they got those 25 or 30 feet to the area where we know things happened because this perspective right here, you see that column on the left-hand side, this is george good's patio where he was actually standing, when he came out. the items match, just so you know, the items match precisely the areas where all the end was found and the numbers match the graphs that are already in evidence before you. so you'll see 8, 1, 2, 3, all of those match up because they came from the same data. what i've done on this, i've now begun the 911 call because it's

pretty close time synced to john good's event because you remember he testified, he was looking at what he saw, 8 to 10 seconds, he went inside, decided to make the phone call to 911. used that about 20 seconds or so. an assumption, i agree. jenna lawer said it took about 25 seconds to make the decision to dial 911. we had to figure out the time line as best we can. >> maybe both, i'm not sure. there's just someone screaming outside. >> okay, what's the address -- >> address is taken out. now, this is when according to mr. good's testimony he came out and saw what he saw. what weem done is take away the a animation and just used three figures. he said when he cape ome out, hw them straddled one on top of the other, then he saw them move

sort of parallel. having confusion with horizontal, perpendicular at the trial, but i think the indication was they were parallel and maybe on the concrete. so that's going to come up next. >> -- okay and is it a male or female? >> the second position where he said this is the mounted position or the ground and pound was occurring. this is where he said it happened. closer up to the cement. again, consistent with what mrmr. mr. zimmerman was saying when he was talking to the officers. or you decide if it's consistent or not. >> sounds like a male. >> and you don't know why? >> i don't know why. i think they're yelling help but i don't know. just send someone quick please. >> does he look -- >> the third position is when john good as he was leaving said they sort of come down away a little bit. mr. zimmerman said he was trying

to sort of shimmy forward to get off specifically being on the concrete. this is also put in there -- fen, there are some assumptions in this animation. because the next position that you're going to see is the position just after the shot. this is the position where we contend the shot happened. >> i can't see him. i don't want to go out there. i don't know what's going on. >> the angle of those two people obviously one sort of over the other. you remember dr. di maio's testimony and other people's testimony, i think mr. root testified, that because of the way the clothing is, that if leaning over it was consistent with the gunshot, that being contact, not pressed to the chest, but contact with the clothing and then about 2 to 4 inches away from the chest.

>> they're coming. >> he keeps yelling help. >> yes. >> all right, what is -- >> now you see we have george zimmerman on top with the red. his testimony was shot him, that trayvon martin fell sort of off and to the left. you'll look at the scene photographs where you see trayvon martin's feet are in -- some call it a bicycling position. they just i would argue consistent with having been shot and fell off to the left, his side, and then fell on to his stomach. george zimmerman got on top as he testified to at lead to move out the hands. >> -- i just heard gunshots. >> you just heard gunshots? >> yes. >> how many? >> just one, two -- >> now, this right here, by the way, what you're seeing is

what -- it's called a 50 millimeter perspective. the human eye sees things at about 49.5. well, i can't tell you that because i don't know if that's in evidence. anyway, it's at a 50 millimeter perspective. similar to what people say when they look. which is what george good had and which is what this has right here, because this is selma moore's perspective. this is the column that she sort of said she looked out, around. and the timing is appropriate because we had it about six, seven, eight seconds from the time of the shot, which is when, you'll remember, miss moore did he sort of walkaround. in the courtroom, she said if you timed it it was about eight seconds, thereabouts, as she took, heard the shot, reacted, come around, through the door, look out, that's what she saw. so she would have seen at least

according to george zimmerman's story, she would have seen george on top, spreading out the hands. she said she saw the foot move. at that point, george got up, looked around. her testimony. we'll talk about that in a moment as well. so this is what she saw. or at least her perspective. and then -- this is now the rest of the 911 call. you've heard it. it's not particularly significant to the event. because nobody said they saw anything of relevance beyond that from this one. thank you, your honor. let's put this back in. that animation of course is just that, somewhat made up. it wasn't that night. it wasn't a video tape of --

george zeimmerman certainly hopd that there was. george zimmerman, sorry, hoped that there was. but it does give an idea, a perspective, that at least it's consistent with the end that was presented before the case. because it does show the probability, if not the exact certainty, that this event started at the t-intersection or thereabouts and it started with a shot to the face. trayvon martin against george zimmerman. it traveled down 30 feet or so. however they ended up there. we know that when they ended up there, the only one who was injured at all except for the gunshot was george zimmerman. and that the only other injury trayvon martin had on him was what seemed to be a fight injury, couple scrapes to the knuckle. again, my quest, my dangerous quest to prove my client's

innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, now we really get into what happened. you can argue, the state all it wants, that george really wanted to be a cop and george's calls to law enforcement in the past just had some seething anger build- build-up. but don't assume that. prove it, believe it. don't prove it, it just doesn't exist. don't connect those dots if they've not been connected to you beyond a reasonable doubt by the state. so now let's look at what really happened that night. and let's see the graph is done. so what were these people doing just before? spend a moment on that. to talk about my client's absolute innocence. it was about a minute and a half, something like that, after

george's call, that he was doing something. whether or not he was wondering to circle to get an address. whether or not he had that flashlight, looking around a little bit. whether as he said to the law enforcement officer, i do want to try to figure out where he is. i do want to at least keep him, a visual on him. whatever. that was about a minute and a half. it's really interesting as well. about the phone calls is what trayvon martin was doing. of course we haven't spent a lot of time on that. the evidence is compelling. we know he was on the phone with rachel jeantel. we know that ended -- we have the time, a precise time, and it kicked back in. and that she said he was running. which actually coincides pretty straight forward with when

george said he was running. some consistency there. so trayvon martin was running. and he was running at about somewhere 7-eleven, 47. keep that number in mind for a minute. 7:11:57. because the altercation, according to miss lauer's phone call if you sort of look at when her phone call started, back it up to when she heard what she heard, she called it 7:16:11. give her 30 seconds or so on-to-have started, right? somewhere around there. we are going take a break for a couple of minutes because i didn't realize i have been talking for an hour and 20 minutes so we are going to take a break. but before we take a break, here is what i'm going to do.

i'm going to sit tight. we are not going to talk. and i'll tell you when we will talk again, okay? so try not to do much starting now. >> we have a quick break in the closing arguments there by mr. o'mara. let's bring in lisa bloom. lisa, the animation, the animation that they tried so hard to get in during the trial itself. what did you make of it and how influential do you think it could be? >> before we get to that when you're seeing is a fairly courtroom passage to show the passage of time. sometimes if we hear about a 30 seconds or a minute or five

minutes we think it's a snap and when attorneys want to establish to the jury that is a pretty long time. they do what mark o'mara is doing now and have them sit quietly and let a passage of time happen so he can show them a short period of time can be quite long when you're sitting doing nothing and fighting, et cetera. with regard to the animation you're absolutely right. they wanted to get this in through an expert. the court said no. they also couldn't use it as a moving animation, a video. instead only the stills that marker mara used. i think it's a strength for the defense case throughout the trial, that they have had a theory of the case. they have told the jury, george zimmerman's version of what happened that night and exactly how the fight happened. notwithstanding all of the inconsistencies that the prosecution has pointed out the prosecution has failed to do that and they have never given the jury a clear theory of the case of exactly how it is that ultimately trayvon martin was shot, where the prosecution says with the two men standing was zimmerman on top, martin on top?

we really don't have that from the prosecution. >> you know, it strikes me when he was laying out the start of his argument and saying, you know, the burden of proof is on the state in this case. as you're watching this, as the jurors are watching this, as you've gone through this whole trial, who does have a bigger burden of proof here at the end of the day? is it actually the defense because there is somebody who did not have a weapon, who died and was killed, versus a guy who did have a weapon and did -- and we do know killed him. >> in this case and every criminal case, the prosecution has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and in this case, it's even a little bit harder because they have to prove that this was not self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. and mark o'mara did what a lot of attorneys do in closing talk about reasonable doubt. he had a dozen different alternatives and only one of

them is guilt. if 8:00 a maybe, a possibly, a could have, if it's just 51%, that is reasonable doubt. and what is unusual about this case is that the prosecution yesterday raised so many questions, dozens and dozens of questions in their closing argument instead of speaking in more declarative sentences steak with sernlt their view of the case. you know, mark o'mara said somehow these men moved 25 to 30 feet. even he can't really explain that. nobody has explained it where the at kais start altercation s where it ended. we would like to hear hear a that with you the bottom line if there is confusion and doubt and we just don't know, this is going to be a defense verdict. that is the law. >> how does he have to explain and try to convince the jury. by the way, when you're going in there about reasonable doubt, you should only be considering the one charge. you shouldn't even consider the

other two charges. >> that's right. by the way, they are still clicking off the clock in the courtroom. the judge and the jury are still sitting there and i think he is timing it from 7:11:47 -- let's listen. >> yes. >> about four minutes. he said it was running. that's how long. so let's talk about who was doing what and when. chad, the first witness who we talked to, said he could probably a football from the back of his baurckyard to the

t-flex. we don't have any evidence how far that was but i gave you the limited site. i don't know who plays football around here but, nonetheless this is where he was standing. this is where george's car was parked. this is the t-intersection. chad probably can't throw a football from there because it is farther than that but there are some good football players who probably could. he had four minutes. he told racial jeantel that he was running. we sort of know, for the most part, what george is doing there. but since this is the state's case and not mine, did they show

you, tell you, explain to you, do anything in sight whatsoever on what trayvon martin was doing four minutes before that fight started at the t-intersection? do you have a doubt as to what happened and what trayvon martin was doing and what he must have been thinking for four minutes? it may be time for a break. >> yes, you may. ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please put your notepads face down on the chair and follow the deputy into the jury room, we will take a 15-minute recess. >> that passage of time there,

the point he wanted to make about those four minutes, lisa, overall, let's assess this first half of his closing argument. has it been effective so far? has he stayed on point? has it had -- has it been organized? give me your assessment. >> please be seat. court will be in recess for 15 minutes. >> did we lose lisa? i think we lost lisa bloom here. my jeez for that. as you know, is thethere is a s ves there. you've heard this morning's roundup on that. in a few minutes, we will come back and see how long it is after this. we will end up -- we are going to take a quick -- a quick little break. chris jansing will take over and the trial will continue. ♪ [ male announcer ] some things are designed to draw crowds. ♪ ♪

others are designed to leave them behind. ♪ the all-new 2014 lexus is. it's your move.

that's a good thing, but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, they help save you up to thousands in out-of-pocket costs. call today to request a free decision guide. 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'll never need a referral to see a specialist. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it. with all the good years ahead, look for the experience and commitment to go the distance with you. call now to request your free decision guide.