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.

since aflac is helping with his expenses while he can't work, he can focus on his recovery. he doesn't have to worry so much about his mortgage, groceries, or even gas bills. kick! kick... feel it! feel it! feel it! nice work! ♪ you got it! you got it! yes! aflac's gonna help take care of his expenses. and us...we're gonna get him back in fighting shape. ♪ [ male announcer ] see what's happening behind the scenes at aflac.com. 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'. good morning. i'm chris jansing. we could be just hours away from jury deliberations at the george

zimmerman murder trial. right now, if you've been watching, you know the defense has taken a 15-minute break during its closing argument to the jury. attorney marker mayor-of-mo'maag aim the case is yard. >> what have i proven to you? what if i convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that you don't have any reasonable doubt? george zimmerman is not guilty if you have a -- just a reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense. >> yesterday, the prosecution made its closing argument with lead prosecutor making his case for a second-degree murder conviction. >> a teenager is dead. he is dead through no fault of his own.

this defendant made the wrong assumption. he profiled him as a criminal. he assumed certain things, that trayvon martin was up to no good and that is what led to his death. >> nbc craig melvin is live outside the courthouse in sanford, florida, as he has been about. 90 minutes that mark o'mara is allowed to have about three hours today. >> that was our count too as well. ten minutes from now, the jury is set to come back. they will hear from marker mar mar -- mark o'mar rah another hour and a half and then a lunch break and then state of florida will offer a rebuttal and of that, judge nelson will go through 27 pages of jury instructions that the lawyers

spent so much time haggling over yesterday and the day before as well. it looks like at this point, that jury of six women, a jury will be getting the case some time this afternoon. we have been keeping a close eye on how the jurors have been responding to mark o'mara this morning and responding to his presentation and we can tell you that just like yesterday, a lot of the jurors that seemed to spend a great deal of time taking notes, have not been taking as many notes. in fact, they have been sitting wrapped. they have been paying close attention. we also heard from mark o'mara the beginning of his sort of midway there through of his closing, he made a promise of sorts. he said at some point, there is going to be a conversation that he is going to have with the jurors and it's going to be a conversation that we have not heard a lot about so far in this case. he told the jurors he is going to be talking about race, so that is something we expect to get here in the next half of this presentation. there are, of course, two things that he eluded to that the

jurors will have that we have not been privy to. one of them, a minor thing. the weather report from that night showing it was raining. he also says it's going to show some wind as well which might explain some of the background noise on that nonemergency call that was made that night. he also indicated that the jurors will have at their disposal of series of crime reports as well that show a number of burglaries that happened in that gated condo complex. as you indicated once this jury comes back, we expect another 90 minutes, at least another 90 minutes from mark o'mara that he told judge nelson he expected it would take him about three hours. >> craig, thanks. let's bring in mans analyst lisa bloom and msnbc contributor jonathan capehart and managing editor of agree,.com.

>> lisa, give me your assessments. >> it's fascinating to see a defense attorney say i'm going to take on the burden of proving innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. i don't have to do it but i'm going to do that and we have seen that in another high profile case, the case of michael jackson in 2005 when he was accused of abusing a little boy. he he was acquitted this nthat case. his attorney did the same thing. a lot written in the legal journal about that risky thing that he. my view really not all that risky because no matter what the defense attorney says in court the prosecution has the burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt and the jury will be instructed on that. >> and you don't think they did that yesterday? >> i don't think they did what yesterday? >> that they proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt necessarily? >> i don't think the prosecution put it away. i think the strongest think that mark o'mara has said so this is this is a baro case how many

could have been's in this case. the prosecution is supposed to use certainty and no other explanation. those are the typical words of prosecutors. he said i used to be one, i know. when prosecutors using the word maybe, you figure it out. they have a problem. he's right about that. >> people who do a lot of courtroom work, as you have and i've covered a lot of cases, particularly when i was back in local news, jurors tend to take these things extremely seriously and they do look at the evidence. and they do tend to go over it point by point but there is also a stylistic element the other. there is also a presentation element to this. how do you think, joanne, that he is doing so far this morning? >> i thought it was an odd sort of way to start for mark o'mara, i have to say. i'm obviously not a lawyer but i've watched a number of trials and the o.j. trial from start to finish. marker mara started off in a sense conceding what the prosecution did succeed in doing

is mar george zimmerman's image in the minds of these jurors. . even if you think he maybe did it and even if you think it was not self-defense you still have to find my client not guilty and he went through this very laborious sort of description of reasonable doubt. and it was sort of almost the jury instruction as opposed to a closing argument so i thought it was sort of a strange almost concession that you may think that my client was a wannabe cop but it's not a way to convict him. >> he started out saying you don't know these things and you're not expected to knows these things. this is a very complex system. i wondered if it's possible that they could take that to be urm not the brightest bulb on the block? that was the impression of a few people in the newsroom today. >> that was my impression. >> was it? >> you say it was a concession. i viewed it as condescending. you were saying the way he was talking to the jury, it was as

if i'm the lawyer, you're not. this is how you should think about these things. this is how you should view these things. and, you know, you said the impression in the newsroom was that way. that's the way it was on my twitter feed from folks through the spectrum about what mark o'mara was doing. once he got beyond the lecturing and then got into presenting george zimmerman's real defense, i think, is when he went and got on stronger ground and, for me, probably the most brilliant thing he has done is the chart we are showing in the video right now saying if you have reasonable doubt for this not guilty, just showing the jury, as i think you were just saying, giving the jury his own jury instructions that if you don't meet -- if what you've heard, the evidence you've heard does not meet any of these criteria, then you have to find him not guilty. that was a pretty powerful thing to have the jury see. i think much more powerful than

that immature animation he showed before the break. >> there is 90 minutes to go. we have only seen 90 minutes so far, lisa. we just heard from craig some of the things we are still expecting, that he is going to be talking about race, that mark o'mara is going to be presenting maybe some of the history of the criminal activity, burglar records in that neighborhood. what are you looking for in the last 90 minutes for him to make his case for george zimmerman? >> first of all, he has already talked about race, unlike the prosecution who shied away from it and did not talk about race at all in their closing argument. i think that another misstep by the prosecution. i think they should call it racial profiling in closing. this is not opening statement any more. you can bring together the evidence. and why did he think that trayvon martin was a criminal? clearly race was a factor. i think the prosecution should have addressed that head on and they dent. what mark o'mara said they will show you the calls about young black males. listen to the calls.

he doesn't say i hate those black males. listen to the cadence of his voice. listen to what people live through. boy, i think that is such a great opening for the prosecution and rebuttal to come in and say, really? what does that mean? does that mean that one burglary from a black male means any time somebody is walking down the street while black you should call the police? that is what george zimmerman did every time he called about a that, it was a black male. >> you see what lisa just did? i think that frustrates people about this case. they are not buttoning it up succinctly. >> tell a story. >> it was done at the end the defense asked for a judgment of acquittal. in that argument that the only time i saw the prosecution lay that case out and but the it up and may a succinct compelling case at once. i don't know why they don't do that front of the jury. >> don't forget you still have a

one-hour rebuttal from john guy. his words will be the last words the jury hears before they go into deliberations. >> george zimmer marine is bama the courtroom and we expect them to resume soon. u to eat some peaches and tell us what you think. they're really juicy. it must have just come from the farm. this right here is ideal for me. walmart works directly with growers to get you the best quality produce they've ever had. what would you do if i told you all this produce is from walmart? wow! is it really? (laughter) find fresh peaches and all your quality produce. backed by our 100% money back guarantee. walmart. there's a new way to fight litter box odor. introducing tidy cats with glade tough odor solutions. two trusted names, one amazing product.

uh-oguess what day it is!is?? huh...anybody? julie! hey...guess what day it is?? ah come on, i know you can hear me. mike mike mike mike mike... what day is it mike? ha ha ha ha ha ha! leslie, guess what today is? it's hump day. whoot whoot! ronny, how happy are folks who save hundreds of dollars switching to geico? i'd say happier than a camel on wednesday. hump day!!! yay!! get happy. get geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. resoft 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.

they are returning to the courtroom. we are expecting after 90 minutes of the closing argument for it to resume shortly but we will continue with our panel. lisa bloom, we were just talking about the whole issue of race and him going to delve into this more in the second half hour, the second half of this, the last 90 minutes. how does he do that? how did he use that to his

advantage? >> i think we have already had a suggestion of that. he put out there the prior burglary, home invasion in the neighborhood that started the whole neighborhood watch and got george zimmerman concerned about crime was committed by a young african-american male who was, by the way, arrested and presumably the concern would have diminished at that point but we haven't heard that from the prosecution either. i think mark o'mara is carefully and subtly putting the idea out there that, look. trayvon martin matched that description. he too was a young african male. he is putting it out there saying this isn't a racial issue, he just happens to have looked like the other one and therefore was suspicious. he just put it out there a little bit. just to get that in the jurors' minds. as i said, i hope the prosecution will respond in rebuttal because there are so many good responses to that. >> there is also a question about the story that george zimmerman tells and the

inconsistencies and i thought one of the specialing things that was tracked yesterday was that lie, lie, lies, lied, or lying was used 28 times. have you heard anything or do you think the jury needs to hear anything in this closing argument that says he is credible? that says his story, which they showed in this animation, is not to be believed? >> by the prosecution? >> yes. >> i think they have been saying that from the very beginning and as we have been saying around this table, they need to button is all up in john guy's rebuttal, because there are lots of inconsistencies, if you want to call them, but i would just flat out say that some of them are lies from the lisa bloom question which is how is it possible for trayvon martin to see a gun holsters inside the waistband on george zimmerman's back, to george zimmerman's re-enact and written statements and jailhouse interview statements where he said that after he shot trayvon martin, he got on his back and spread his

arms apart. yet, a witness, plus a police officer on the scene said trayvon martin's body his arms were underneath his body and those are two inconsistencies that they have not able to disprove. >> they brought out a concrete slab and saying that george zimmerman said his head was bashed on the ground. the defense presented no witnesses who said she saw that. even john good. witnesses that were presented by the prosecution who turned into defense witnesses none of them saw it. people said they saw punches and a struggle and a lot of things but not one person got on the stand and say they saw george zimmerman's head bashed into the contreat. one aspect of his story that no one has testified to or corroborated. >> although they would say the injuries are consistent with that. >> or exaggerated if you're on the prosecution side. i think they say george zimmerman's exaggerated the extent that have. the perfection definitely need

to show that george zimmerman's narrative is not to be believed in -- >> her point about exaggeration is very important because self-defense is reasonable fear, reasonable fear of eminent great bodily injury or death. if the jury believes he was exaggerating that he panics that he unreasonableably was in fear it's a fight. if the fear was unreasonable at the time he took the gun out and fired that is manslaughter even if he did it without ill will or hatred, that is manslaughter. that is what i'd like to hear from the prosecution in their closing rebuttal argument. >> mark o'mara is back. let's listen. >> did that feel like a long time to you before we took the break and sat here and did nothing for four minutes? you get to think trayvon martin is doing.

you get to try to figure out when he said -- george said at 7:11:40, he's running. 7:15:43 when rachel jeantel phone call. four minutes to do what? to walk home? to run home? four-minute mile was broken when i was like 12 by somebody and i think he was in his teens. i don't know if he played football. i don't know if he was a defense guy on a football team, but i do know that you can run a mile in about four minutes if you're in decent shape. we know that with the opportunity to go home that he did not. we know that.

because in football, throw it away. so let's talk about factual innocence of my client. i want to talk about factual innocence. somebody decided that they were angry. somebody decided they were ticked off. maybe somebody decided that they just had ill will, spite, or hatred for whatever reason, somebody about decide that it wasn't over with the running because it wasn't after all. it had only just begun, right? isn't that really what happened here? it wasn't some cop wannabe. it wasn't some i've learned about how to talk about self-defense and, oh, my god, he forgot to say stand your ground. let's convict him. he didn't tell hannity i heard about stand your ground. the person who decided this was

going to become a violent event was the guy who didn't go home when he had a chance to. a guy who decided to lie and wait, i guess, plan his move, it see seems, sgied what he wdecide wh to do and when the state told you he had no decisions, they dared to tell you that trayvon martin had no decisions that my client planned this? really? four minutes! four minutes of planning and they want you to ignore it. i guess. because if you don't ignore that, factual and undeniable innocence because with those four minutes, now let's use your common sense. now let's decide what probably happened that night, because we know the result. now let's try and figure out the why. george zimmerman probably heading back to his car.

looking with his little baby flashlight for trayvon martin? maybe. maybe. not proven, but maybe. trayvon martin, four minutes doing something and we don't know. we really don't. we know he's on the phone. we know he is talking. we know what rachel jeantel said he was saying. i don't care that he called some stupid name. he is 17 years old. they get to talk stupidly, if they want. i'm okay with that and i'm okay with rachel jeantel being 16 or 18 or whatever. who cares. she didn't want to be involved in this case. but the reality of what happened is very straightforward. and it proves absolute innocence. for four minutes, trayvon martin would do something that let to his confronting george zimmerman. that, i would suggest, not

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

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

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

have their theory. i guess they are going tell it to you in their final closing. or it was george zimmerman. and if i could get this to whoever, fbi, let's say, do a little comparison, and we're done. you heard from a doctor and unfortunately, it couldn't be done, so now we don't know. now, as was suggested, now you do get to decide, i guess, or not, of course, or not. you simply get to decide that you can't decide and who gets the benefit of that? mr. zimmerman. so let's not forget about that standard as i'm wandering you down my make believe path of factual innocence. then what else do we have? we have his initial immediate statement to mr. manalo and the way he looked. he looked like he was beat up. no, he looked like he was bending over.

manalo thought he was beat up and he just looked strange. and then, of course, as mr. de as rionda said, just tell her i killed the guy. not what he said at all. i think what he said, and use your own memories, what when mr. manalo took the phone because had he to drop it because jim smith was doing as he does as a trained law enforcement officer, hands out, straight on top of your head. drop your phone and drops the phone and manalo gets it and says to the effect your husband has been involved in a shooting and what is the response from george zimmerman? tell us. i guess what he he should have said, what he was thinking through, what he wasn't thinking through, whatever he was going through, whatever the injuries were, whatever -- as manalo said, he just looked like he was out of breath, he should have said, well, that may sound

insensitive, a year and a half from now. i should have said that hi to shoot somebody -- i don't know. what he should have said? he told his wife, he wasn't the one shot. unusual, inappropriate. somebody calls up and says, honey, i was just involved in a car accident. what is your first response? are you okay? you don't each say is the other person okay. right? it's just not natural. are you okay? did you ever say, well, is the car okay? you know? you do what you know. you do what you deal with on a daily basis. you don't tell them you were involved in a shooting. you tell her, "i shot somebody." so we have that evidence. we have smith who says, right away, he told him he was screaming for help twice. then we go forward.

we have the medical personnel. going and screaming for help is fine because, here, now they want you to say this mastermind criminal, this guilty beyond a reasonable doubt second-degree mmurder knew at that precise moment he darn well better say that he was the one screaming, because, after all, he had killed the guy who was screaming and the state's theory, right? he knew he took care of that problem. the real problem with that theory, unless the mastermind knew when singleton mentioned in the interview that trayvon martin has passed, george was affected. i guess it could be part of the mastermind criminal behavior he learned in community college. i guess it could have been? but let me tell you, if you have a doubt as to whether or not that is true you need to tell the state, don't ever come back

before us again with a case like this. don't ever do this to us. because what we really have is what i said a while ago. we have factual innocence. you could go back there right now look at the facts of this case and say we are going to flip the standard upside down. we are not going to allow mr. o'mara get acquittal for his client simply because the case hasn't proven their case yard but only to allow mr. o'mara to get his acquittal if he proves to us beyond a reasonable doubt that his client is innocent. and you could. because he is. because he acted in

self-defense. it's not the standard. of course. so let's talk about the standard to see how far afield from the very standard the state is going to take on that what they have actually accomplished. i'm going to focus a moment on the witnesses. real quick. i'll get through it as quickly as i can, there's 50 of them. i could have it in a bit, your honor, and hopefully, this will work. i'll go through them. he didn't have much to say, he threw in the football field as you know him to be the sort of stepson of trayvon martin. andrew gaugh, 5'10". you saw him stand next to me and i did that on purpose so show you how tall he is. he was 5'10" in the shoes he had on that day. he said he didn't know much about that event.

what did shawn talk about? he was talking about this guy and what did he say? no anger. no animosity and no hatred in george's voice. a person who is trained to deal with stressful situations and to understand and do dynamically interact with people on the other line because sometimes these things turn serious quickly and what did he say? nope. he even xeped the reality that george may have misunderstood when he said which way is he running? that george zimmerman may have thought i should go find out. he acknowledged maybe it was imprecise. whatever. next witness. ramona brought in records from the five calls and you'll see the affidavit i think signed of her of the sixth call. listen to it if you want.

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

going to allow you or the state to ignore the realities of what actually happened that night. and describe mrs. zimmerman to her knowledge as meek. other interesting thing about this cop wannabe, they have this citizens on patrol program where you get a uniform. you get a car. a little yellow lights on it. they can't be blue lights like we have for true law enforcement. but you get little yellow lights and you get to drive around and act like a cop. and he said to that opportunity to be a cop wannabe and in a cop uniform and a cop car with cop lights and probably a little cop computer in his car, or at least

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

and go, john doe speculated and the judge allowed it. i guess we can speculate. absolutely not. absolutely not. donald o'brien, hoa guy, helped with parking. cop wannabe? i don't know. doesn't see him if he doesn't want the cop car. involved citizen? sure. any complaints, by the way, that the state brought to you about him just towing cars away and ticketing people? knocking on the door and saying get your car off that yellow! anything like that to foster their argument to you that he was doing something wrong. remember, we have agreed not to assume. so where is the evidence? and they talked about the 17-year-old burglar getting caught and thank god the stucco guy caught him. and now george -- mr. rionda

said to you george was frustrated. oh, i wanted that one! damn! darn! the stucco guy got him instead! not going to happen again. are you kidding me? are you actually kidding me that the state attorney's office representing the state is making that allegation to you? that that is ill will because somebody else caught a burglar? okay, great. just tie it together, please? you got two dots and they are this far away. just give me a line. give me something. stucco guy caught him. george is frustrated. anything in between beyond speculation and assumption or idiocy, anything? sergeant raimondo, i would i want coming to a car can't that i was involved in. what a guy. what a cop.

did everything he could and did it without even thinking about it. great cop. likes his job. diana smith. a little bit of problems with the evidence, the rain. we won't talk about that but weather conditions wouldn't allow to process the items and dna could have been wiped away and firearm given to her. i don't know that it turns out to be a big deal but is there a lack of evidence here and maybe talk about why that is there and who gets the benefit again of lack of evidence? george zimmerman. saline bahadoor. the instructions tell you you assign credibility to witnesses. you decide what to believe and who to believe. and whether or not they are credible. i would suggest that along the scheme as we're going, check out this woman's credibility before you accept what she said. you saw her. you heard her. you saw her review all of her

statements as i showed them to her. first time, talks to mr. rionda last court. what shows up? oh, yeah, left to right. well, here's a thought. trayvon martin was running from left-to-right when he came back towards the area where george zimmerman was walking. there is a possibility. could have been. so i don't know where she fits if. quite frankl quite honestly, i don't know what she saw or why she said it. no previous conversations with law enforcement or with me but, whatever. fit it in however you can. the next witness said she heard three pops. is she lying? no. let's get off this lying thing because you have slight

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

it really does. one event happens is the president getting shot by a marxman and then there's eight, search different people watching it and everyone has a completely different story. they all viewed the same event but they viewed with their history and life experiences and what they were going through that day and with what perspective they have. and it's just different. that's okay. it happens. miss manalo heard voices 20 to 30 feet from the right and seems to be consistent starting at the t-intersection. and, of course, what she did was what we all do and i'm not going to do -- her for that, but what she did was make some assumptions based upon some facts that she saw afterwards here in evidence. take me about five minutes to find them. she was looking at pictures of trayvon martin when he was 12, i think she said that. so i'll tell you right now, if

you looked at me when i was 12 and compared me to anybody, i'm the guy getting beat up. no questions asked. but the reality is 245 that she just had this vantage point of a child at 12 years old getting, i guess, the heck beat out of him by the other guy who was on tv, this big, heavy picture of george zimmerman and she acknowledged, you know, now that you showed me the other picture -- now here is the ones that i did look at and find out or think that it was trayvon martin being the small guy. now that you show meese these operating pictures, i could have been wrong. lying? perjury? no, no.

just vantage point. just perspective. and then that is why you're here because you get to figure it out. rachel jeantel. let me give you my perspective of rachel jeantel. she didn't want to be involved in the case. she didn't want to be involved in the deposition and she didn't want to be involved in trial. i think what happened -- and this is just conjecture -- and i'm not supposed to conjecture too much -- i think her mom got with police voltan and go said go that lady what happened to her son and she didn't really want to do that and why she wrote the letter. why she had or didn't have a conversation -- i don't -- don't forget. they only reunited, trayvon martin and rachel jeantel two weeks before. you know that. they knew each other from school but never really hung out. two or three weeks before was when they started talking again so it wasn't what it perceived

to be boyfriend and girlfriend, nothing to do with that and she didn't think it was much that night. interesting to me just the one thing about miss jeantel. if you ask me right now to explain to you the phone call that i had three weeks ago with my wife, four weeks ago with my sister, or last week with mr. west, i can give you the idea and then my wife would say, well, we talked about dinner. oh, you're right. no way do you have the recall. but if you're asked to have the recall, tell me what happened. this happened. did this happen? didn't you say this? didn't you say that? well, he didn't say what are you talking about. he said what are you doing here, right? oh, yeah. you want that too. yeah, miss jeantel didn't want to be here and i want to ask. i'm sorry she had to involve her

life in our lives in a way that she never wanted to be involved. unfortunately, she was a witness. and we had to give her that. and some of her frailties came out in the courtroom, on tv and i'm sure she never wanted that. and probably every other witness. you know witnesses to be anonymous. you know all that. they were concerned and she is one of them. some of the stuff she said was, you know, that close to the dad's fiancee place. i actually think probably she meant close as compared to the 7-eleven. makes more sense. it took him 45 minutes to go from the 7-eleven to home. probably was hanging out at some mailbox. i'll show you the map between the two. doesn't make any sense that he was hanging out at the mailbox but whatever. and her -- heard why you following me for? somebody said what are you

talking about? then it changed. i think that change occurred because of the way her initial interview was handled by one of the attorneys. horribly inappropriate to not get this person to law enforcement. almost as bad as to have the mom on the couch next to you crying when the state does their first interview of you. their call, but wow, to do it that way. of course, she even acknowledged she was concerned about miss martin's feelings which is why she sort of modified or smoothed over some of the more clorl language and the events that happened. that's okay. you're supposed to tell the absolutely truth here, but not going to ask someone like miss jeant lerks come in and not acknowledge the sensitivities why she made it sound better

when telling the story of her son's passing to miss volton. miss donald -- miss lauer. interesting about her. without knowing about it, she gave you some pretty good information when she talked about this three-part sxang. she didn't have any idea about it actually happening and what she said, something said something, blue car, red car, red car. blue car, red car? yeah, something like that. a little agitated and movement down and where got the movement down and the animation, by the way. she said t-intersection down past me and john good said it happened in front. and that there was only one person yelling for help. that is significant. because there is no evidence, none, to suggest there was more than one person yelling for help. and, if so, mr. guy will remind you if i've forgotten.

there is no evidence that more than one person was yelling for help. and she was talking about her knowledge or lack of knowledge about the street signs. miss moore, we talked about. she heard what she heard and she saw what she saw. by the time she saw it and ran around, that is what happened. greg mckinney, custodian. john good. we have talked about him a lot. i think he is a significant witness because he washed eight to ten seconds and he was the basis for the animation and the information that came to you through the animation. manalo, jonathan saying the same thing. looked like he got his butt beat and staggering to the ground. we caught up spd ayala the hands under the body. if that is a concern of yours that my client dared to testify

in a statement that tee his hands out out of fear for a weapon and that that is contraindicated because trayvon martin's hands, look at the picture, by the way. one hand is not under but the other hand seems to be that that is in inconsistency for which you should impute ill will or hatred or spite, that is absurd. and dr. di maio said it was. 10 to 15 seconds of talking of movement or whatever. not only is it possible, it's probable. stacy livingston, the emt who was there and you heard about the injuries and what she did. tij thi timothy smith is important. he was the one george zimmerman talked to twice before screaming for help before he knew there was any 911 call suggesting it. lindsey fulgate she was the

first one to mention mma style. you know about this witness. can't help you. don't do it. don't even try. fortunately even the fbi couldn't help us out with that voice so now it is sort of up to you on that. doris singleton. initial activity with him, with the interview. i think what was significant about that was george zimmerman's response to the christian issue and to the fact that she was the first person to tell him that trayvon martin had passed away and the statements are what the statements are. chris serino what he stated was in his opinion -- again, he is the law enforcement officer in charge of the investigation dr there are no consistent inconsistencies in what he heard from george zimmerman. there were some? yes. were they significant in his mind as to what -- that they

were lies? no. not even when he the challenge. let's talk about that challenge for a second. the state said to you george zimmerman knew those video cameras were not working so, ha, ha! it wasn't a bluff! it was, again, super cop knowing everything and just deciding i can get away with this. really? really. so when chris serino -- there seems to be a problem with this. let me look at it for a second. >> five seconds. >> chris serino said -- i lost my train. i'll catch up in a second here. what he has said was the

inconsistencies did not matter to him and did not change his opinion and when the confrontation interview occurred and when george zimmerman said, thank god there may be a videotape. the state wants you to believe the perfect super cop bluffed because let's know forget he took a couple of classes a couple of years ago at a community college. absurd. i would suggest to you to make a suggestion to you that in that moment when confronted with the potential of an actual video by mr. martin, that my client would do anything other than say, thank god, it may be there and it's not evidence of innocence. mark osterman, good buddy, don't think he would lie for his friend but the one who testified about the self-defense and i think you remember his testimony. a little bit animated but sort of told you all about everything

he could about both george zimmer zirmman thmmerman that n wrote a book about it and figure it out and figure out how significant it is and whether or not it suggests second-degree or anything. dr. bao, i don't know what to say. minimum of four hits. okay. you see pictures. if you think george zimmerman was only hit four times, fine. let's take a moment on those four hits. you're going to get the statute and the jury instructions and here is what they are going to tell you about the extent of the injuries that you have to find my client suffered at the time he decided to shoot. the significance of those injuries, how life-threatening those injuries were, how soon my client presumed he was going to die from the injuries that are

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

to do with the substance of self-defense. not a thing. you will not hear a word about inflicted injuries. you only hear that you must look at george zimmerman's state of mind when he did what he did. so even if i said to you i'll take dr. rao's testimony, though you can tell i wasn't taking dr. rao's testimony but let's just say i was. it doesn't matter. miss bensef miss benson, absence doesn't mean it's not there. environmental factors such as rain would remove fingerprints. l. scott kearns. saying mr. zimmerman didn't have good credit. captain carter, criminal litigation, course work. he actually turned out to be a good expert to tell you what

self-defense and how getting your butt beat is really probably a good indication that great bodily injury is coming because it's already started. and he says not a good idea to wait until it actually -- you get attacked. jim krzenski. amy siewert, fire rounds. i think we had good testimony about that. anthony gorgone. talking about dna. fdle. the part of part of that dna, they got some. i think they missed a bunch or at least some because of the way it's packaged. significant? i don't know. i don't think it was that significant. there may have been more blood. i don't think that george zimmerman was bleeding a lot that night. i don't think he was bleeding a lot out that night.

i think he was probably bleeding a fair amount in and then when he stood up after the attack was over, yes, started coming out of his nose. not a lot of blood on trayvon martin and probably not a lot to be expected. and there was no injuries on trayvon martin until the gunshot so you wouldn't imagine there would be any blow on george, i'm sorry, george zimmerman's hands or anyplace else on his body because when trayvon martin was finally shot, he went up and over. though, dna, we can go over some particulars about it and i have some -- some precise points about what was found on mr. trayvon martin's cuffs and what not, but generally speaking, not a lot of significant. hair dare youed you crushed into mom, passed away a 17-year-old.

doctors cut people sometimes when they do their work and that was somebody hi to present to you. something interest the way it happened and how it happened. you know, the impact and just how moms think about these things, both sides. because i know that both moms believe with their heart, with their soul, that that was their son screaming for help. you have to. and you want to and it's just the way you get through it. the brother, jahvaris fulton. he didn't really know. i think he told you in his testimony when he was talking to the nbc affiliate, it could have been him. not certain. might have been. i think it was. and now he is more certain. again, i'm okay with that. i'm okay with people wanting to hear what they want to hear.

dr. bao, that was the state's decision to bring him before you as a medical examiner. not really their decision. he was the one who did the autopsy. so although there was some interaction there that might have best been just redone, the reality is the only injuries were the injuries that we know about on trayvon martin and that the wet clothes should not have been -- should not have been bagged in paper and that the hands should have been bagged and we will talk about the hands in a little bit. this witness told you that it was her son as i'm sure you expected before she ever got on the stand. mrs. zimmerman. mesa, sitting at a computer and listening and hearing in the baou