>> i don't think they get to say to you what do you think? no, no, no. no, no, no. what have i proven to you? what have i convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt occurred in this case, so much so that you don't have any reasonable doubt? george zimmerman is not guilty. if you have just a reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense. >> the defense also played a controversial animated video based on zimmerman's deposition. one that the judge had prevented the defense from entering as evidence during the trial. yesterday prosecutor bernie de la rionda -- >> a teenager is dead. he is dead through no fault of his own. he is dead because another man-made assumptions,

unfortunately because his assumptions were wrong, trayvon benjamin martin no longer walks on this earth. >> joining me now is managing editor of the grio.com and an msnbc contributor, joyoid, and msnbc legal analyst lisa bloom. lisa, i want to go to you first. we know the prosecution is going toby g begin its rebuttal. a lot brought up in the defense closing arguments, the crux seeming to rest on the notion that there is too much of a reasonable doubt to convict george zimmerman. where does the prosecution begin as it must in the next few minutes? >> well, i would begin by starting out with what mark o'mara missed in his closing argument. he really didn't respond at all to the big lies that the prosecution has put out there about george zimmerman. yes, he said people have inconsistencies when they tell stories over and over again, and that's true. that would explain some of the minor inconsistencies. but what about the big ones?

george zimmerman saying he didn't know the name of the street sign. i wasn't following trayvon martin. okay, i was following him. no, i was just going to look at the street sign, no i was looking for a house number, even though the house numb sber right there. he lives in the community and he clearly knows the name of the streets. no response to that at all. no response to him saying on hannity that the killing was god's plan. no response to his inconsistencies about trayvon martin running or skipping or walking or jumping out of the bushes depending on which version of the story he's telling. and the biggest one to me is, no explanation from the defense about how trayvon martin in that most critical moment when supposedly he saw the gun, how on earth he could have seen a gun that was holstered behind george zimmerman in a black holster down his pants on his back side when zimmerman is supposedly laying on his back. we never heard a word about that in the defense closing argument. >> joy, that seems to be a major piece of the puzzle that has not been really -- that was not answered by the defense. >> absolutely.

i feel like the crux of what mark o'mara was trying to say is, he's conceding in a sense that you may think my client is dishonest, you may think my client is not a likable guy, you may think my client is a wannabe cop. he sort of gave that to the prosecution, said you can concede all of that, they just didn't prove enough for you to convict him. he had that big chart where he said if you think he might have shot him and it wasn't self-defense. if you think maybe, if you're not sure, you have to acquit him. it was almost if the glove don't fit, you must acquit. he really didn't go point by point and point out inconsistencies of george zimmerman. >> the picture of mark o'mara lugging in that piece of concrete and tell the jury that effectively was a weapon that trayvon martin had on his side. how do you think that plays with the jury? >> it's outstanding. visual aids are so good in the courtroom because the jury just can't hear people drone on, like any audience when you are speaking. you can't just talk and talk for hours. you need some visuals to break it up. his presentation was clearly so

much better. yesterday at one point the prosecutor said, rachel jeantel's testimony is corroborated by another witness. i don't really remember it but you remember it. no. you need to put it together. that's what mark o'mara did very effectively. i think there were also some surprises though in this closing argument. concession that george zimmerman probably exaggerated the attack, the concession that his injuries probably were not as severe as he made them out to be? i mean i would run with that in prosecution rebuttalal. because you know what that is? that's imperfect self-defense. that's not reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm or death. that's unreasonable fear. a man who exaggerates, a man who panics is not in reasonable fear. that is manslaughter. i would like to hear that from the prosecution in rebuttal. lastly, i have to say, on social media people are going crazy with the idea that mark o'mara is condescending and arrogant. personal dli not see that but a lot of people are expressing that today. >> the jury is filing in. we expect the prosecution to

begin its rebuttal any minute now. joy, that is a huge concession that george zimmerman may have been exaggerating the attack. >> yeah. because they are essentially conceding so much, the prosecution. he's basically saying don't go on your emotion and inferences but this case is all about the inferences george zimmerman made about trayvon martin and that mark o'mara wanted to hammer home, showing that picture of the grainy 7-eleven photo. he wants to draw the inference, hey, ladies, you'd be afraid of this guy, too, so it is reasonable. i think what the prosecution needs to do is re-establish the inconsistencies, the big holes in george zimmerman's story because i think that actually was the most effective part of their presentation. >> lisa, i was not particularly convinced by the animated video that was the subject of much debate and discussion that mark o'mara was finally able to show in closing arguments -- >> it was so broken up. it was supposed to be moving and it ended up being so heavily

edited that he just got a couple of pieces of it in. >> the prosecution is beginning its rebuttal. let's take a listen. >> good afternoon. the human heart, it has a great many functions. but is not the most important purpose what it causes us to do? it moves us, it motivates us, it inspires us, it leads us and it guides us. our hearts. in big things like what we choose to do for a living, and little things, like what we do every moment, at any moment in the day. so if we really want to know what happened out there behind those homes on that dark, rainy

night, should we not look into the heart of the grown man and the heart of that child? what will that tell us about what really happened out there? that's what was in george zimmerman's heart. and the defense attorney can make fun of the way i say it, but it's not my voice that matters. it's yours. and we're about to hear from you. what does that say to you? was he just casually referring to a perfect stranger by saying "f'ing punks"? that doesn't evidence to you anything? that's normal language.

>> chris: or is that not what was in the defendant's heart when he approached trayvon martin? what does that tell you? >> it's funny. he put on a timeline that was ten feet long and the only thing he skipped was those two words at the bottom of the screen. that was the only thing. think there is a reason for that? think the reason he didn't want you to think about that again, how powerful that is, what that defendant was really feeling just moments before he pulled the trigger? think that was a coincidence? what was in trayvon martin's

heart? was it not fear? that miss jeantel told you about, the witness who didn't want to be here, the witness who didn't want to be involved, but the witness -- the human being that was on the phone with the real victim in this case, testimony, rig trayvon martin, right up until the time of his death. was that child not in fear when he was running from that defendant? isn't that every child's worst nightmare to be followed on the way home in dark by a stranger?

isn't that every child's worst fear? that was trayvon martin's last emotion. there's an old saying -- great one though -- as a man speaks, so is he. the words on the screen were the last thing these people said before trayvon martin's murder, before this defendant had a motivation to lie, to justify his actions. what were his words? what was in his heart?

if ever, if ever there was a window into a man's soul, it was the words from that defendant's mouth on that phone call. and if ever there was a question about who initiated the contact between that grown man and that child, it was again those defendant's words when he told sean noffke, just have the officer call me on my cell phone. george zimmerman was not going back to the car or the clubhouse or the mailboxes. and if there was ever any doubt

about what happened, really happened, was it not completely removed by what the defendant said afterwards? all of the lies he told. all of them. what does that tell you? there's only two people on this earth who know what really happened and one of them can't testify and the other one lied, not about little things, like his age, or whether or not he went to the hospital, but about the things that really truly matter. and not one lie. over and over and over again. what does that tell you about what really happened out there?

why did he have to lie if he had done nothing wrong? the bottom line is -- the bottom line. think about this. if that defendant had done only what he was supposed to do, see and call, none of us would be here. none of us. but that's not who he was. that's not where he was that night, in his heart, after months of these people getting away. not tonight. not this one. not that guy. that's why he got out of the car. if he really wanted the police to get trayvon martin, what

would he have done? he would have stayed in his car and driven to the back gate where he had told them so many times, "they always go through the back gate," and he would have waited for the police. but that's not what he had in his heart. trayvon martin may not have the defendant's blood on his hands, but george zimmerman will forever have trayvon martin's blood on his. forever. let me give you one more old saying. may be the most important one you're going to hear. that is, to the living we owe respect. but to the dead, we owe the

truth. on behalf of the state of florida, i submit to you that trayvon benjamin martin is entitled to the truth and it didn't come from the defense mouth. it didn't. he told so many lies. that's why we're here. by the end of the night, that is what was in trayvon martin's heart the defense attorney said what evidence is there that the defendant followed trayvon martin after he said okay. he challenged the state. well, i've got an answer.

what happened after 19:13:43 when that defendant hung up with sean noffke, and 19:15:44 when rachl jon tell rachel jeantel heard the thump and the end of trayvon martin's life. the defense attorney gave us a nice demonstration of what happens in four minutes. well, what was that defendant doing for those two minutes? watch the walk-through again. watch it. when -- because he tells you exactly where he hung up. he's walking back in the direction of the "t" and he says, "i got off the phone and i continued to my car."

maybe -- maybe ten seconds before he got to the "t." it was two minutes. two minutes. he wasn't going back to his car. four minutes is not the amount of time that trayvon martin had to run home. four minutes is the amount of time that trayvon martin had left on this earth. i don't have any audio clips for you, or video clips or charts or big, long ten-foot-long timelin

timelines. i'm asking you to use your common sense. use your heart. use what you know is real. use what you know you've heard and the law in this case. you know, and for the defendant, it's kind of like their little animation, the cartoon that they put up? everything they want you to think in this case starts from the "t," just like their little animation starts from "the t." don't do that. that's not fair. that's not fair. it would be like reading the end of a book, the last chapter only, and you'd be asking yourself, why are we here? how did we get here? who are these people? you can't do that in real life and you shouldn't do it here. let me suggest to you you start at the beginning. let's start at the 7-eleven

where that child had every right to be where he was. that child had every right to do what he was doing, walking home that child had every right to be afraid of a strange man following him, first in his car, and then on foot. and did that child not have the right to defend himself from that strange man? did trayvon martin also not have that right? i don't have all the fireworks,

all the animation, but come back with me, come back with me to that scene where it happened that night. come back with me and bring with you your god-given common sense. the common sense that tells you it's the person talking like the defendant who had hate in his hea heart. not the boy walking home talking to the girl in miami. wow. the common sense that tells you if trayvon martin had been mounted on the defendant as the defendant claims when he went to get his gun, he never could have got it. i don't have to pull out that manikin again and sit on it. you remember.

if you have to, do it in the jury room. if he was up on his waist, his waist is covered by trayvon martin's legs. he couldn't have got the gun. he couldn't have. they wanted a reason? it's a physical impossibility. he couldn't have grabbed it. the only way that defendant gets to his gun, the only way, trayvon martin was getting off him, or he had backed up so far on his legs that he couldn't hit him. couldn't touch him. the defendant didn't shoot trayvon martin because he had to. he shot him because he wanted to. that's the bottom line.

the common sense that tells you if trayvon martin had already run off like he claimed in his interviews, why would he go through the end of the "t" to get an address? if he had already run off? does that make any sense? of course not. it's self-serving. it's justification. it's false. the yelling. listen, please. please, listen to that tape again. jenna lawyer's 911 call. listen to when the screaming stops. at the instant of the gunshot -- silence.

nothing. if that defendant thought he missed trayvon martin, thought trayvon martin was still alive, so much so that he had to get on his back, flip him over, spread his arms out. why would he stop yelling for help? why? if he was in fear? does that make any sense? of course not. if he was yelling that loud and that long, would he have sounded the way he sounded on the recordings that you have? he wouldn't have been horarse? he wouldn't have had a strained voice if that was him yelling? really? that's why common sense is so important. this isn't a complicated case. it's a common sense case. and it's not a case about

self-defense. it's a case about self-denial. george zimmerman's. the common sense that tells you, if he was the neighborhood watch coordinator -- not anyone, the coordinator -- who had lived there for four years, he would know the name of twin trees lane. the common sense that tells you, if he was so afraid of the real suspicious guy with with his hands in his waistband, he'd have never got out of the car. but that's not what happened. the common sense that tells you if he really was soft, didn't know how to fight, in his own

words, he wouldn't have been able to get wrist control of trayvon martin. those were his words. he wouldn't have been able to move his hand off his mouth or off his gun. if trayvon martin was putting on such a blow, that little plastic, flimsy kid's watch on his wrist, it wouldn't have come off? it didn't. the common sense that tells you, if trayvon martin was the one on the hunt, would he still have been on his cell phone? would the ear buds still have been in his ears if he was getting ready to attack somebody?

really? and the most important one of all, the common sense that tells you in your every day life, really, if he hadn't committed a crime, why did he lie? so many times. why did he lie? let me remind you. sean noffke told me to get an address. that didn't happen. listen to the tapes. listen to the walk-through and listen to the non-emergency call. sean noffke never said that. "i told the police i was going to meet him at my car." that's not what he told them. why? why lie about that? it's so important. that's why. because he wasn't going back to the car. he was going back to trayvon

martin, just like he said on that tape when he slipped up. just like he lied about when he was confronted. it wasn't ten seconds afterwards. it was two minutes. trayvon martin covered his mouth and nose. really? you think? they want you to believe the blood was washed off by incompetent medical examiners. but yet he told the police -- not just the police, his best friend. remember, his best friend in the world? that trayvon martin was squeezing his nose. do you really think if that were true there wouldn't be george zimmerman's blood on these

sticks that they pried under his had fingernails? do you really think that's true? that was a lie. concrete. you're kidding me. it's heavy. it's hard. if his head had been slammed into something like this, slammed, bashed, over and over? he wouldn't look like did he in those photographs. think about it. that would be it? dozens of times, he said, dozens of times punches in the face. that would be it? was he injured? yes. was he injured seriously? not close. not close. i mean they can call their

expert and show him all the pictures of the lumps on his head. were any of those serious? didn't trayvon martin have a right to defend himself, too? remember lindsay fogatlgate. he didn't come see me for nausea or treatment. he came for a note. would trayvon martin's hand look like that if he had had been pummelling him? he said trayvon martin saw his gun. first of all, twans siit was in

waistband. secondly, trayvon martin's legs were covering it. he couldn't have gotten to it. trayvon martin couldn't have seen him. do you think for a second, seriously, do you think for a second that if trayvon martin had seen that gun, ever, there would be a gunshot at 90 degrees in the center of his chest? do you think that? i mean mr. softy was going to be able to get a shot directly through the center of his chest with trayvon martin knowing that gun was there fighting for his life? do you think that? why was it so important to say he spread his arms out? because he had to make trayvon

martin menacing, violent, threatening. so i had to put his arms out. they weren't. they weren't. they were not. they were clutching the bullet wound on his chest. the car. he had to make him sound menacing to justify what he had done. listen to those tapes again. the only two you have to listen to -- the walk-through and the non-emergency. play them side by side right after each other. it's physically impossible the way he told the police. impossible that trayvon martin ran behind those homes, came back and circled his car. why is he lying?

he didn't want to know about stand your ground. didn't want the police to know he knew about it. stand your ground? what's that? and let me suggest to you, in the end with, this case is not about standing your ground. it's about staying in your car. like he was taught to do, like he was supposed to do. and he can't now cloak himself with the noble cause of a neighborhood watch coordinator, violate its cornerstone princip principle, and expect you to absolve him of his guilt. he changed his story.

this is where he told cedric singleton he first saw trayvon martin. this is where he showed him on the walk-through. watch the walk-through again. why did he lie about that? why was it important that he came in through that cut like everybody else he had told the police, he came through the cut, because he had to make trayvon martin worse, more menacing. that's why he lied. he told some people trayvon martin said one thing, and then it got worse. he told them he said something else. he reached for my gun. had to make it worse sew told mark osterman, his buddy, no, he grabbed my gun. he actually told him between the hammer and the back.

why? why is he doing this? told mark osterman he circled his car at the clubhouse. he told the police he circled it where he finally parked his car. he never circled his car. told somebody he got his cell phone out, told other people he was reaching for his cell phone. that's what he was taught. don't -- don't be a vigilante. don't. see and call. don't get out. don't follow. don't pursue. don't try to detain. just call. just call. and they gave him a little special book.

as the coordinator, what not to do. what did he do? and think about this. the defense referred to george zimmerman as a responsible gun owner in their opening remarks. a responsible gun owner. what did he do after the shot was fired? did he yell for an ambulance? "call 911!" "get an ambulance here! i had to shoot somebody!" did he roll trayvon martin on to his back so he could breathe? he just stood there and he watched and he waited while

trayvon martin was face-down. the bottom line is who is responsible for trayvon martin lying on that ground? trayvon martin didn't kill himself. and who's responsible for the state not being able to ask trayvon martin to step forward so i could put my hand on his shoulder? god, i'd love to do that! who's responsible for that? trayvon martin is not, was not, will never be a piece of cardboa cardboard. to the living we owe respect but

to the dead we owe the truth. it probably seems like a year ago that we were all in here, one by one, and then as a group, in jury selection. one question got a smile from everybody, but it's important. when the attorneys asked you, do you understand it's not like tv? it was an important question, because it's not. and now you know, it's not like tv. where all the witnesses are well dressed, well educated, actors and actresses. there are no rachel jeantels on "csi." and they don't call people like kristin betson who found nothing

but a fingerprint on "law and order." it is not like that in real life. in real life we give you everything -- the good, the bad, the indifferent. because when that defendant is entitled to a trial, he's entitled to a fair one. all of it. all of it. and now you have that. in hollywood they write it up the way it happens on sunset boulevard. but in real life, it happens just like it did on twin trees lanes in front of so many good, unsuspecting people. and remember, if you get back

there and you don't like some of the witnesses in the case, you don't like rachel jeantel or shiping bao, ask yourself who produced this trial? who made up the witness list? who created the evidence? who chose the circumstances? who chose the lighting? who chose the time? who chose the weather conditions? it wasn't me. it was the defendant. he chose everything and that's why we're here, and that's why the evidence is what it is. but it is enough with your common sense. it is enough. i'm not asking you to fill gaps. i'm asking you to do what you do every day. start from the beginning. get to the end and apply your

common sense. and don't misunderstand me. your verdict is not going to bring trayvon benjamin martin back to life. your verdict is not going to change the past, but it will forever define it. so what is that? what is that when a grown man, frustrated, angry, with hate in his heart, gets out of his car with a loaded gun and follows a child, a stranger, in the dark and shoots him through his

heart. what is that? is that nothing? that's not anything? is that where we are, that's nothing? well, that's not his call, and that's not my call. that's your call. and i submit to you the oath you took requires it trayvon martin is entitled to it and that defendant deserves it. defense counsel went through this with you. i just want to real quickly, because it is our burden. so indulge me, please. a person is justified in using deadly force serenebly believes such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great

bodily harm. i mean they can put this picture up. yeah? they blew it up for. you it is bigger than life size. it's color. that's a fact. that's reality. that's what he looked like that night. when you wipe the blood away with, that's what he looked like. did that man -- did that man need to kill somebody? need to kill a teenager? they put up pictures of all the witnesses. they forgot that one. defense attorney said in his -- well, ask yourself. if there is an issue, about who lost the fight, ask yourself, who lost the fight? who lost the fight? who lost the fight?

that's all evidence. those are all facts. in deciding whether george zimmerman was justified in using deadly force you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. he was, they estimated, 18 feet away from john good. he knew the police were on their way. he he knew that people were opening their windows and opening their doors. and when he shot him, he knew trayvon martin wasn't on top of him sew could get his gun. under those circumstances, under our circumstances, did he really need to shoot? did he have to shoot trayvon martin? no, he didn't. he did not.

before i get to reasonable doubt let me just go through a couple of things in the time i have remaining that the defense mentioned to you. i wrote down a quote. he said innocent itself is no protection. exactly. he said he could have gone home. the guy could have gone home in the same sense he says, i guess. it seems. why didn't he go home? use your common sense. did he really want to take this guy home with him to the residence where the only person there was 12-year-old chad joseph? did he really want to lead the defendant to that residence?

just like the defendant said. remember? on the phone call? the non-emergency call. "i don't want to give out my phone number." why? dennis rudd said for the defendant, there wasn't another option but consider this. this is so important when you consider his opinion. the only evidence he had -- the only evidence he had about what was happening at the time the shot was fired was from who? self-serving statements from the defendant. that was his opinion based on th that. and when i asked him, when i got

on the floor, how could he get the gun? with trayvon martin on top of him. the words were "somehow." "somehow." like i said, if you all have to do it, get on each other. you won't get the gun. you won't. until you get off. why give so many statements, the defense attorney asks? if he was guilty, why would he give any statements? why give so many? because he had to justify his actions and that's why it kept getting worse. that's why by the time it got to mark osterman it was completely different. that's why he kept increase iin. that's why when he got to sean

hannity, wow. it was god's plan by the time it got to sean hannity. "it was god's plan." the defense attorney mocked me. that's fine. because i said he pushed the gun into his chest. he didn't? he didn't? it was a contact wound with his shirt. he didn't push the gun into his chest? reasonable doubt is not a speculative or forced doubt. in the instructions they don't tell you what a reasonable doubt is, but what it is not. a reasonable doubt is something you can attach a reason to.

use this definition as guardrails for your deliberations. if you get back there and one of you says, well maybe this happened, or couldn't this have happened? or isn't it possible this? that's not a reasonable doubt. a reasonable doubt needs to be two things. it need to be reasonable. common sense. reasonable. and it needs to go to an element of the crime.if you have a quest something that doesn't go to an element of the crime -- and judge nelson is about to spell those out tore you. probably after the lunch break. if it doesn't go to one of those elements, it's not a reasonable doubt. >> i'm sorry. i apologize. i need to interrupt and approach the bench with, may we, for a moment? >> okay. >> or i can state it now. >> no, approach the bench.

>> that was state attorney john guy delivering the prosecution's rebuttal to the defense's closing arguments in the george zimmerman trial. guy asked the jury to use their hearts and what they heard in the case when they make their decision. he also described what he believes was in the defendant's heart the night of the killing. we actually don't have that sound and the prosecution and defense are approaching the bench. the prosecution's rebuttal is not yet complete. in this break we will hear from right here on set managing editor of the grio.com an msnbc contributor joy reid and of course msnbc legal analyst lisa bloom. almost towards the end of this. i wonder what you make of the prosecution's rebuttal which seems to hang largely on the idea of heart. >> right. heart and the lies. he's going back over the strength of the prosecution case. the many lies that george zimmerman has been caught in. i think that's good but i'd sure like to see it connected up with either manslaughter or murder. >> okay. we're going right back to john

guy making final remarks here. >> listen to the court when you get the law. this is what she will tell you you. a non-reasonable doubt, something that's not reasonable. possibility, imaginary doubt for forced doubt, must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty. let me just address one more thing with you before i close. and that was -- it was brought up actually by the defense. it was brought up by the defense in their summation this morning and it was brought up by the defense in the trial. not by the state. but by the defense. race. this case is not about race. it's about right and wrong. it's that simple. and let me suggest to you how you know that for sure.

ask yourselves, all things being equal, if the roles were reversed and it was 28-year-old george zimmerman walking home in the rain with a hoodie on to protect himself from the rain, walking through that neighborho neighborhood, and a 17-year-old driving around in a car who called the police who had had hate in their heart, hate in their mouth, hate in their actio actions, and if it was trayvon martin who had shot and killed george zimmerman, what would your verdict be? that's how you know it's not about race. to the living, we owe respect.

but to the dead we owe the tr h truth. what do we owe trayvon martin? 16 years and 21 days, forever. he was a son. he was a brother. he was a friend. and the last thing he did on this earth was try to get home. this is the dead. the self-serving statements, the lies, from his own mouth and the hate in his heart. words that he can't now take back.

physical evidence which refutes his lies and the law that her honor is about to read to you. the law that applies to all of us and the law that applies to each of us. this is the truth. thank you for your time. >> ladies and gentlemen, i'm going to read the jury instructions but i want to give you a choice. would you like to have these instructions read after lunch or would you like to have them read now and then go to lunch? after lunch? okay. i will respect that. please put your notepads down. before you go to lunch -- >> that was state attorney john guy wrapping up the prosecution's rebuttal to the defense's closing arguments in the george zimmerman trial. the case now goes to the jury for a final verdict. still here with me on set, managing editor of the grio.com and msnbc contributor joy reid and msnbc legal analyst lisa bloom. joy, to you first. we just started talking in that

brief moment about the prosecution sort of hanging their closing words on the notion of heart and at one point john guy said to the living we owe respect, to the dead we owe the truth. urging the women of the jury to look in their hearts and find the truth that apparently they know is in there. >> absolutely. it was a very emotional -- it was almost sermon-like. unlike mark o'mara, it was very methodical. he was almost giving a sermon. in the end he said trayvon martin is 16 years and 22 days forever and the last thing he tried to do on this earth was try to get home. when he asked the jurors not about race, reverse the situation? a 17-year-old trayvon martin follows george zimmerman in a car, shoots him, what would your verdict be? i thought a lot of it hinged on use your common sense. if george zimmerman was false and lied about his injuries, lied about the address, lied about his neighborhood watch duties where he was supposed to just watch and call but he pursued, then his whole story falls apart and you have to find him guilty. >> lisa, the other thing that john guy played up was the idea

that trayvon martin was under the age of 18 and that this was about the heart of a grown man versus the heart of a child. that is something that is sort of -- trayvon martin's age is something the prosecution has very much highlighted in these closing days. >> that's true. i think the point about the lies was an extremely important point for the prosecution. but let's keep in mind that george zimmerman is not on trial for lying. he's on trial for murder or manslaughter. i would have liked to have seen him connect the dots. the challenge for mark o'mara in the defense closing argument was a very powerful challenge. they had never connected the dots. here was john guy's opportunity to do that. he lied and therefore there is no reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm because everything he did was unreasonable. he exaggerated his injuries. because he was unreasonable in his reaction. he panicked. that is unreasonable. you know, i would have liked them to connect it ultimately to the charges in the case. this was powerful as sort of a speech in terms of persuasion,

eliciting sympathy for trayvon martin. no question about that. but in terms of a prosecutor establishing the elements of a crime, i'd have liked him to take it to the ultimate conclusion. >> what did you think of the back-and-forth over concrete. mark o'mara trotted out this huge piece of concrete in the defense's closing remarks. john guy at one point said concrete, you're kidding me, and sort of tried to undermine that argument that that was trayvon martin's weapon. >> and then he used mark o'mara's best visual aid, which was the injured face of george zimmerman against him. he showed him -- which by the way was a much more fit, slimmer, definitely more robust looking george zimmerman with the shaved head, the goatee. he actually used that visual aid to his advantage. does this guy really look like somebody that was in imminent fear of death? i've never understood why the prosecution never went after the whole head slamming because there are no witness whose back that up. no witnesses, even the ones for the defense to back that up. but i thought it was an interesting reversal of that visual aid. >> joy reid and lisa bloom, a

lot to analyze and unpack in this trial. catch lisa and craig melvin when they host special coverage of the george zimmerman trial tonight at 10:00 p.m. eastern right here on msnbc. that's all for now. i'll see you back here monday at noon eastern. "andrea mitchell reports" with peter alexander picks up our trial coverage now. we'll see you on monday. ♪ take me into your darkest hour ♪ ♪ and i'll never desert you ♪ ♪ i'll stand by you yeaaaah! yeah. so that's our loyalty program. you're automatically enrolled, and the longer you stay, the more rewards you get. great! oh! ♪ i'll stand by you ♪ won't let nobody hurt you ♪ isn't there a simpler way to explain the loyalty program? yes. standing by you from day one. now, that's progressive.

a regular guy with an irregular heartbeat. the usual, bob? not today. [ male announcer ] bob has afib: atrial fibrillation not caused by a heart valve problem, a condition that puts him at greater risk for a stroke. [ gps ] turn left. i don't think so. [ male announcer ] for years, bob took warfarin, and made a monthly trip to the clinic to get his blood tested. but not anymore. bob's doctor recommended a different option: once-a-day xarelto®. xarelto® is the first and only once-a-day prescription blood thinner for patients with afib not caused by a heart valve problem, that doesn't require routine blood monitoring. like warfarin, xarelto® is proven effective to reduce the risk of an afib-related stroke. there is limited data on how these drugs compare when warfarin is well managed. no routine blood monitoring means bob can spend his extra time however he likes. new zealand! xarelto® is just one pill a day, taken with the evening meal. and with no dietary restrictions, bob can eat the healthy foods he likes.

do not stop taking xarelto® rivaroxaban without talking to the doctor who prescribes it for you. stopping may increase your risk of having a stroke. get medical help right away if you develop any signs or symptoms of bleeding, like unusual bruising or tingling. you may have a higher risk of bleeding if you take xarelto® with aspirin products, nsaids or blood thinners. talk to your doctor before taking xarelto® if you currently have abnormal bleeding. xarelto® can cause bleeding, which can be serious, and rarely may lead to death. you are likely to bruise more easily on xarelto®, and it may take longer for bleeding to stop. tell your doctors you are taking xarelto® before any planned medical or dental procedures. before starting xarelto®, tell your doctor about any conditions, such as kidney, liver or bleeding problems. ready to change your routine? ask your doctor about once-a-day xarelto®. for more information including cost support options, call 1-888-xarelto or visit goxarelto.com.

dare to see the difference with pantene anti-breakage. reduces hair fall up to 97%. get less hair fall. ♪ i took the dare. will you? anti-breakage. pantene. right now on "andrea mitchell reports," a final plea to the jury. >> george zimmerman is not guilty. if you have just a reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense. >> the defense ends its closing argument in the george zimmerman trial and the state gives its final pitch. >> the defendant didn't shoot trayvon martin because he had to. he shot him because he wanted to. also today -- verdict watch. the six women jury will decide george zimmerman's legal fate.