heard a big bang and went to door and my uncle was there, and his name is pat cavanaugh. we both came out and looked up and saw the smoke behind the building. he cut back through the house and he was talking and my uncle was there with him. we saw the pilot and he was laying there. my uncle was right there with him. so i didn't really worry about him too much because my uncle is an emt. retired. i went throughout the building complex, yelling and telling everybody to get out. we've got to get away. thank god, not a lot of people were home. it was crazy. very crazy. >> and i had heard that the pilot may have said to some witnesses on the scene or at least residents on the scene he was sorry he crashed into their home. is that true, did you see anything like that? >> yes, ma'am, i did hear that. he said that to my uncle as i was walking away. but yes, i did hear that. >> i want you to stand by, mr. edwards, matthew edwards, joining us an eyewitness to the scene. barbara starr is standing by. what's the latest at the pentagon on what happened and how this happened? >> well, an incredible scene that we watched unfold during the day happened when the training flight took off from the oceana naval air station. by all accounts it ran into trouble very quickly because it crashed into the apartment building about two miles from the runway. so the working assumption is it did not achieve significant altitude before the pilots realized they were in trouble. leading them -- forces them into an ejection potentially at very low altitude. pilots as we have talked about, very well trained to try and steer their plane away from populated areas. but these two may not have had any choice. we have the witnesses reporting flames under the plane. we have reports that fuel was coming out of the plane and the initial indications from the navy are that was not fuel dumping, but rather part of what this catastrophic malfunction may have been in the plane that led -- that led to the fuel basically flowing out of the plane. so what the navy is saying is that this was a catastrophic mechanical malfunction of some sort. they're looking for the data recorder. they're looking to pick up all the debris from there so they can analyze what happened. >> i want to go back to what you said a moment ago, about the fuel being released from the plane before hand. this is something they're assessing that the fuel is being dumped so the impact wasn't as critical or this could have been the beginning of the breakup of a plane? >> yeah. you know, by all indications right now, they don't seem to think -- and these are very initial reports, they don't seem to think it was necessarily what you and i would call a pilot dumping fuel for safety reasons. but more or less part of the malfunction. i think it's very early on and they're going to be investigating all of this, trying to determine what happened. but, you know, the fact is -- the fact that it crashed less than two miles from the runway is the clearest indication that they ran into trouble very quickly and they were not able to achieve significant altitude. >> and then one of the accounts that the pilot was able to verbalize to one of the residents, i'm sorry i hit your house. you know how early reports come out, but if that's something that they're discussing that's something that indicates his or her condition is good tonight. >> yeah, there were several viewers that said the pilot apologized for hitting the apartment building. it may change through the night still, both of the pilots are okay. one already released. one still being treated. but still, let's be very clear here. emergency services are continuing to search through the wreckage, search through the buildings. there are mixed reports, mixed numbers about whether or not there may still be people on the ground missing. because there are residents of these apartment buildings that clearly may have been away from their homes. they're walking through it all. they're trying to track down apartment by apartment who lived there, how many people lived there. their identities. and try and make sure they know where they are and that they are safe. everyone is very hopeful, but i will tell you that until there's the final count, people are just holding their breath to see what the final situation is on the number of people on the ground, ashley. >> don't go anywhere. i have another question for you, but i want to jump in with someone who does live there, matthew edwards who's an eyewitness. can you still hear me? >> yes, ma'am, i can. >> i want to ask you about those who are unaccounted at this time. emergency services continue to comb through the area, going through the burning embers, going through every spot they can through the residences. do you know who's still left to be found? >> i actually -- i have sort of an idea. you were speaking with our general manager, earl and we were doing a count of all the neighbors. all of my neighbors and the neighbors closest to the crash are pretty much accounted for. there is one older lady that i didn't quite hear about. but i'm pretty sure she's okay, because she was not home at the time. but i believe everybody got out. i think the only people that are really -- the only things that are really hurt are animals and buildings. >> and mr. edwards, also we were looking at some pictures a moment ago of what seemed like civilians and residents running in to help, to pull, you know, water hoses for firefighters. can you tell me a little bit about the effort to join in and to sort of help in this crisis by bystanders? >> absolutely. i personally put my hand on a hose and a firefighter asked me to help out and i personally, you know, carried things over to the scene. i mean, it was amazing to see all the people standing -- and the fire department said one thing and 30 people must have stepped off to help. >> our thoughts are with you and your neighbors as you continue to try to find those i believe six now who may be unaccounted for. certainly better than the 30 who are unaccounted for before. but matthew edwards, thank you for your time tonight and for your perspective on this. >> thank you. and thank you to those pilots. they really did their job. >> sounds like it. certainly, as the investigation continues we'll find out more about how that happened. barbara starr, thank you as well. you'll continue to update us as you find new information as well i hope tonight, right? >> you bet. >> all right. barbara starr joining us live from the pentagon. thanks to both of you. up next james carville on today's tepid job numbers and the fallout that could cause for president obama as he heads into full campaign mode for the fall. raw politics tonight and raw politics tonight and jobs, hiring slowed dramatically in march with employers taking on just 120,000 workers. that's half the job gains compared to the month before. the unemployment rate fell slightly though, 8.2%. all year president obama has been pointing to the monthly figures, suggesting strong growth in the job growth. >> we just learned our economy added 220,000 private sector jobs. after losing more than 8 million jobs in the recession, we have added more than 3 million private sector jobs over the past 22 months. our businesses just added 223,000 jobs last month. for a total of nearly 4 million new jobs over the last two years. more companies are choosing to bring jobs back and invest in america. we have seen signs that our economy is growing stronger and creating jobs at a faster clip. the economy is getting stronger. the economy is growing stronger. we're heading in the right direction. and we're not going to let up. >> well, the republicans are pointing to the monthly jobs report and using today's numbers to slam the president. gop candidate mitt romney saying quote, it is increasingly clear the obama economy is not working and that after three years in the office the president's excuses have quote run out. let's bring in cnn political contributor james carville to answer some tough questions about this, why, mr. carville, is mitt romney wrong when he says that? >> well, look, first of all, to be fair to the president when he took office, they were losing three quarters of the million jobs a month. but, look, i'm not a big believer that this economy is very good. i think when the president goes out and says things it's getting better out there, i don't think people like to hear that. so i don't think these numbers are very good, i didn't think the numbers month were very good either. i think the president needs to talk more about the midled class, talk about how he's not satisfied with the pace and why he has a jobs bill that's sitting there and languishing in congress and things like that. i didn't think 120,000 was a good number or 220,000 was a good number. >> gee, you're the guy who calls himself on the airwaves as a professional democrat. if you can't butt a positive spin on it, how on earth can the campaign can put a positive spin on it? >> i don't know that the campaign can put a positive spin on it. >> really? >> no. when -- look, when the president on the campaign says things are getting better, you have a large number of people in the country that say, no, they're not. if he thinks they are, he doesn't get my life. and by the way, he can easily say, all romney wants to do is double down on the mess that got us here. his program is utterly absurd. i think he can come across that he's unsatisfied that he's proposing things and the republicans are blocking him. that's a much better message than things are getting better. that's not going to work out there. >> if he can harness that message, there was a strident op-ed in "the washington post" saying that the battle will be about the economy. that the republicans are going to say it has not been this bad of a recovery since the great depression. now are they wrong and how does president obama take that message and somehow make it better? it's good, but not good enough. >> it's simple. there's never been a worse recession since the great depression than the one that their policies caused. so why would we would go back to the very policies that caused us this? and the president would be well to argue that he's working day and no it to try to do this, but yes, he is unsatisfied with the pace of this recovery. and it's going to take a long time before people's incomes get back up. the middle class has been hit by a truck. and, you know, that needs to be acknowledged. >> hey, james, when you started this interview with me, i'm going to quote you. when he took office we were losing three quarters of a million jobs a month. >> a month. >> i hear you. gene sperling said this today. he said the economic hole the president inherited is very deep. we're making progress, but nowhere close to satisfied. at what point though do you say this is 2012 -- you get these questions all the time. when do you have to take account for it and say, all right, my job, i can't continue to blame the administration before me. >> well, i don't know -- i don't know that he's blaming the administration by pointing that out. >> i'm going to repeat it, james. he said the president inherited a very -- the hole that the president inherited very deep. that's the hole he's talking about from the bush administration. that's not from day one. >> well, what gino said is very accurate. the other thing that can be pointed out, however bad -- however difficult this economy is, this president created more jobs in three years than president bush in eight. one of things that caused the job numbers to be horrific is we lost 600,000 public sector jobs since this recovery started. my point is we should agree this number is not good enough. that it's a tepid number and it's going to be a while before the middle class can feel this recovery. i think that's what people want to hear. >> you think we'll dip below 8% in the jobless rate before the election? >> i don't know. you know, fewer people that look and people that do that. i have no idea. but, you know, hopefully. >> do you think we have to? if president obama wants to keep his job, do you think we have to dip below 8% unemployment before election day? >> i look in july to create the jobs and then president bush got elected. romney is the most popular -- most unpopular challenger in the history of modern polling. there's somebody to run against president obama. the number -- this recession has been very, very difficult on a lot of families, particularly middle class families this this country. i think that has to be acknowledged and not to acknowledge that tells people you're not in touch with what's going on out in the country. >> james carville, thanks very much. by the way, i'd love to be a fly on the wall to hear what your wife has to say about this. any night. >> take a fly swatter, take a swat at you. we have breaking news to bring you in the trayvon martin case. it's a 360 exclusive interview with an eyewitness to the tragedy. i want to let you know what she has to say about her encounter with the police that night. might surprise you. and also coming up next, george zimmerman's legal team and mark geragos and sunny hostin are going to weigh in. coming up. more breaking news tonight. only on 360. a key witness to the killing of trayvon martin who says police turned down what might have been important information about this case. she also talked about whose voice she heard that night crying for help, martin's or zimmerman's? and more new data in case that's already seemed packed with too much information and too few hard facts. nearly six weeks since george zimmerman and trayvon martin scuffled, we still really don't know what happened in the minute or so before it began. did marketen stalk and sucker punch zimmerman or did zimmerman confront martin? again, no hard facts. was zimmerman being beaten within an inch of permanent brain damage as his brother said, or was it light enough to walk around the police station unharmed? we have grayny medical tape. and no forensic proof yet, as to who was on top when the deadly shot was fired between those two who were scuffling. no clear answers which leaves the case open to interpretation, speculation, accusations. but again, no resolution, which is why 360 and anderson have been doing their level best trying to stick to the facts and trying to expand what we do know. we'll start off with one of the eyewitnesses, an actual eyewitness. we have confirmed through the reporters and producers on the ground that this witness does live in the complex and that she has spoken with police. she broke her silence on this program last week and she hasn't spoken with anyone else. so we're bringing her back because tonight, she's got a lot more to say. we spoke exclusively early this evening and we're showing her in shadow to conceal her identity. when you heard those voices that night, can you characterize what kind of scream you heard? >> well, there was two as i say yelled for help and the first up with was like a very clear, loud yell for help. it really is the second up with that really always will stay with me. it was kind of almost like a yelp. it was like a devastating, dispirit type of yell for help. even to a sense it could have been a cry. >> did it sound like you could determine it was someone who was in his late 20s or someone in his late teens? >> well, from the very beginning and i still do feel that it was the young boy. >> and when you say young boy, do you mean a 17-year-old? >> yes. kind of not knowing either person, i kind think there was the boy and this was the man. well, the person was 17. >> knowing now what you know, go back to that night. at the time you didn't know how would anybody was in that struggle. >> correct. >> when you heard the yell, did you make a determination? >> i definitely could tell that it was a younger, youthful voice than it was the deep voice that i heard when they were argue, and i heard them outside my window. >> tell me more about the argument. >> well, i didn't hear the words, but when i opened my window i could definitely hear someone arguing, someone yelling. it wasn't like someone was out there having a conversation. >> were they both yelling? >> i could still hear the younger -- again, the younger person's voice, but really the other voice was the one that was more dominant and loud. >> the deeper voice was louder? >> yes. >> what was the younger voice saying and what kind of a context can you give me with regard to that part of the argument? >> you could still hear the other person's voice, but just not as much as the person that was being the louder aggressor. >> could you make out anything that was being said between them? >> no, i could not. i knew it was somebody not having a conversation, it was something serious. >> it sounded like a confrontation? >> yes. >> did it sound like one was being confronted or both being confrontational? >> i would say both, but you hear that one louder, dominant voice more than the other one. >> the older person's voice or the deeper voice? >> yes. >> did you ever hear any racial slurs in the confrontation? >> no, because i did not hear any words. just arguing. >> did the argument sound serious enough that you thought someone is going to get hurt here? >> um, i knew there was something definitely wrong. of course, then, when i saw it next it was two men on the ground. so at that point i knew there was something wrong and i needed to call. >> when you called 911, what did you tell them? >> i told them that there was two men on the ground, something really horrible is happening. >> did you talk to the dispatcher at the time that the gunshot went off? >> yes, i did. >> and what did the dispatcher ask you and what did you tell the dispatcher? >> well, i kind of was watching and talking at the same time. and not really ever hearing what a gun sounds like in person, for me, it was more of a popping noise. so i think in my mind i'm thinking okay, that probably is a gunshot, but you're just in such disbelief that this is happening right outside your window. >> did you tell the dispatcher i think i heard a gun shot? >> yes. >> and what did the dispatcher ask? >> um, i think i just said to him, i hear popping noises and i think it's a gunshot. >> did the dispatcher ask for descriptions of what was going on as you were talking? >> i think it was more that i was describing because it was like i'm watching a movie and i'm telling you on the phone, you know, exactly what i'm hearing. in fact, i even thought to myself, why am i telling him on the phone what's going on? let me just take the phone and put it right up to the screen possibly he can even hear it. >> is that what you did? >> yes, i did. >> you held your phone to the screen so the dispatcher could hear everything? >> yes, i did. but i'm not sure at what point i put it up, but i did tell him, i'm putting it up to the screen, maybe you can hear it. >> where were you looking at the point the gun fired? >> i was looking at the two men on the ground. >> could you tell who was on the top, who was on the bottom? >> i know it was very dark, but i thought it was the larger person on top. >> when the gun fire went off, what happened to the larger man who you think might have been on the top? what happened at that moment? >> well, i will say a couple seconds later that larger man was walking closer to where i could see him. >> before those couple of seconds at the moment the gunshot went off, what happened with the larger man? >> well, obviously the other man -- the boy was dead and the other person got up and was walking away from the body. >> when you first saw him coming towards you, could you see any blood on his face? was it light enough for you to be able to see any blood on his face if there was any there? >> it was not light enough for me to see if there was any blood on the face. >> so there could have been but it's just not something you could testify to? >> no, i cannot testify, because i did not see. >> did he say anything? >> there was a man that came out with a flashlight who was a resident and they possibly were saying something to each other, but i could not hear what the words were. >> your experience with the police that night, did they ask you any questions? were they interested in hearing your account? >> yes. the lead investigator came into my house with another police officer and i taped what i witnessed. >> what kind of questions did they ask you? >> just what i saw, what i heard. >> did they seem -- did they seem interested? were they in depth in their questioning of you? >> i'm not sure if i was in depth. just that i kind of told what i saw and what i heard. i did offer to show them where i did see the incident, and they said no, we don't need to see it. >> they weren't interested you taking them to that location? >> no, they were not. >> why do you suppose they weren't interested? >> you'd have to ask them that. >> were you surprised? >> i don't know how investigators think. >> you offered to take them to the location where you saw them fighting? >> yes. >> and they declined? >> yes. >> in retrospect, are you surprised? >> i can't answer either way. >> did you get a feeling up with way or another from the investigators things they may have said to you while they were in your unit as to how this all unfolded? >> well, after i finished my taping and i still was feeling, you know, quite upset, i expressed that, you know, i would never really forget those yells for help and, you know, i wish i could have done something, you know, in retrospect. and the lead investigator said to me, kindly, he just said, um, well, if it makes you feel any better the person that was yelling for help is alive. >> since that time, the lead investigator has been reportedly -- an account of his has been to another resident to a 10-year-old boy who called 911 said he didn't necessarily believe mr. zimmerman's story. does that surprise you? >> well, it was -- well, they left it up to me at the time, wow, i thought it was the boy crying for help, but the lead investigator said no, it was mr. zimmerman who i know the name now. >> where you saw the fight taking place, was there a hard surface anywhere nearby? a sidewalk? >> it's the back of the complex where homes -- the back of the homes are facing where it happened. and there is a sidewalk, but when i watched it they were always on the grass. >> how far away was the sidewalk? >> i would say about four feet. >> so they were about four feet away from a hard surface? >> yes. >> if mr. zimmerman says that his head was being slammed against the sidewalk, and that he was trying to maneuver himself on to the grass, would that make sense according to what you saw? >> well, i can't speak for him. i know from the time that i watched, it was entirely on the grass. >> were the police receptive to your attempts to fill them in on further details after this incident? >> well, we had a community meeting with everyone in my development and the police officers came and said it was very critical if anybody has anything to say or something that they witnessed, and actually they left their business cards on our doors. and i just know for me, i called the lead detective twice and i still have not received a phone call back. >> are you surprised by that? >> um, i just thought that they would call me back. >> again, a witness in the case of the shooting of trayvon martin, afraid to show her identity but at least speaking with us in silhouette to tell her story. as to the allegation that the sanford police weren't terribly interested in the re-enactment or at least a tour of the crime scene that she witnessed, the scene she witnessed of the altercation i should say, we called the police for their response to this. but we didn't get a call back. it's late at night in florida as well. but on another note, in one of the questions i mentioned in this there was an eyewitness who i said was 10 years old, in fact, 13 years old. so misspeaking there. after that interview i spoke with an eyewitness' attorney, mr. derrick brett and he said something interesting about the state attorney who by the way who has finally just two days ago just interviewed this witness. the state attorney has decided this witness needed to be interviewed but derrick brett said what was unusual about the interview is the lack of thoroughness that he saw in the state's investigation. have a listen. did you feel confident that the state attorney was thorough in its questioning of your client? >> if this was -- if this was a first time questioning session, then i would be very concerned. these gentlemen had affidavits, an affidavit for my client from before. they -- he had at least whatever notes had been taken by the lead sanford investigator which i could be critical of that investigation and that questioning. i can state that. but it's difficult to surmise exactly what the state attorney's office and their two investigators that were called down from the jacksonville state attorney's office knew at that point. so do i think there could have been other questions asked? yes. do i -- was i in any position to help them fill in blanks or ask questions to my client? no, that's not my job. it's the job of the investigator. even if necessary to reiterate questions. >> what was lacking in their questioning? >> it was very general. it was really just trying to fill in from their perspective, i don't want to quote them, but awesome holes that they saw. i think that's what it was. 15 minutes that was filled also with, you know, general banter and some brief questions to my client which my client answered thoroughly. >> 15 minutes? >> it was about 15 minutes. >> that's all the time that the interview took? >> of all the question and answer time, that's correct. >> how long did you expect the interview to last? >> listen, when i -- as an attorney, i think i'm very much in the role of almost a police officer. police investigators -- good police investigators ask the same type of questions that a good attorney will ask in a deposition or in a cross-examination. >> in this case? >> i would have kept her around and i would have had her redo the entire story all over again. let me tell you something. i sat through my client's interview with you. you asked her questions, probably knowing less about this case than the state attorney's office did a couple of days ago. >> so we contacted the state attorney's office about mr. brett's account and they declined to comment because the investigation is on going which is fairly standard in a situation like this. george zimmerman's two lawyerser were listening to our interviews with the eyewitness and with her attorney. and so are mark geragos and sunny hostin and you're going to hear from all of them next. our breaking news tonight, an eyewitness to the trayvon martin killing who says police showed only limited interest in what she says she knew. she says they turned down her offer to show them potentially important information in the case. joining us now, george zimmerman's legal team. welcome to both of you. i think off the very start of this interview, we should ask you to react to the claim that this witness said that the sanford police weren't interested in having her take them to the spot where she witnessed the scuffle and she wanted to show them a re-enactment. does that trouble you? >> not particularly. it's a matter of how you try to evaluate what she perceive and what she did. i don't think there was much question about where the scuffle took place and shots rang out. it's not hard to find the spot to where that happened. that may have been their take on it. we appreciate your help and tell us what you saw and heard. you don't need to take us out there and show us where it happened. we know where it happened. >> she also said she was quite certain this time and she has been interviewed before and seemed to have fuller or more row best details of what she witnessed that night. she was certain that the larger hispanic-looking man was on top of the boy. that's her account. the boy. at the time the shots hang out. he got up and started walking towards her. >> i read through her testimony from the last time and this time. it doesn't appear that she was sure what she saw. it was dark and that is going back to her. >> i know we've thrown this at you, it's been happening as this program -- >> i don't think she is sure what she saw. >> she seemed confident that the person's voice was what she called immature and feels it was the boy. do you want to comment on that? >> i'm not sure when she came to that conclusion. remember, we're talking a boy that was originally put out to the public with a picture of a 12-year-old. and the image was the little boy went out to get the skittles. the pictures you put up tonight which are more recent show a 17-year-old boy that's 6'3" and i have heard voices like this and like this. what would cause her to think -- it's too dark to tell who's who. you recognize up with as a boy. >> the police said he's about 6 feet tall. he's going to be around 6'2" or 6'3". >> i think this is one of the things that the public has been so voracious for every detail on this case. in this particular case i have been in enough murder courtrooms, forensics are everything. what do we know about the forensics in this case? heretofore, we got nothing. >> we don't know yet, it hadn't been released. the state attorney is doing an investigation and right now they have opted not to share that information. >> have they shared it with you? >> i'm not going to disclose that. we have been in contact and it's an agreement that we're not going to -- anything that i do or might know, i'm not going to disclose yet. if there are charges filed, we'll enter a plea of not guilty, get a bond and bond him out and then we'll do a demand for discovery at which point the state will have 15 days for respond and give us discovery. then we'll go throughout whatever forensic evidence they have. everybody is jumping to conclusions. i understand, i'm not trying to put anyone down or being insulting to everyone. everyone wants to know what happened. but we have to let the evidence come out because those are all good questions and they're going to be good answers. >> to that point, i was listening, and listen, i have a legal mind. i worked for a long time on a network called court tv so we were cautious about details that people guess on and people witness. there was a congressman named fredricka wilson who on the hill on march 27th last week had this to say about this case. have a listen. >> this investigation is laced with racial profiling, lies and murder. trayvon was hunted, chased, tackled and shot. ill conceived laws and lax gun laws all contribute to this tragedy. in closing, mr. zimmerman should be arrested immediately for his own safety. >> you heard those words, trayvon martin was hunted, chased, tackled and shot and this is from a congresswoman on the record from prepared statements. >> one of the most uninformed statements from the floor of congress, where we have heard a lot of uninformed statements made in the past. she wasn't there. she is reacting to conclusions from those with agendas. to make a suggestion that she knows that it was racial profiling when she doesn't know zimmerman, doesn't know a thing about him. >> do you think george zimmerman should be put out and should be telling his story? >> we would love to do that. >> why not? >> number one, his safety is in question because of the rallies that's going on. i wouldn't have my client go out and make those statements. there's a time where he'll have an opportunity to tell the public exactly what happened. >> so question for you on cbs this morning you made a comment about shaken baby syndrome. i'm confused about what this means. we're familiar with the shaken baby syndrome and the brain shakes around inside the skull and you can die when somebody is pounding your ahead on the ground. >> let me put it in context. the better comparison is liam neeson's wife hit her head once and she died. and in shaken baby syndrome, for an adult the way that kind of injury would happen is you smacked your head on the ground, your brain smacks around inside of your skull -- >> but are you talking about -- >> it's a way to injure someone, you can disorient someone, give a concussion or kill them. >> are you talking about a potential legal defense of a state of mind or a potential legal defense in terms of did -- diminished capacity? >> neither one. in the stand your ground law, you can use whatever force necessary to stop yourself from getting that injury. if you had your nose broken and they're smacking your head into the ground and whatever disorientation that causes, the question is are you in reasonable fear of greatly bodily injury. that's what it means. doesn't mean anything more than that. >> mr. sonner, do you think your case is going to get indicted? >> at this point we don't know. there's not really -- no, i can tell you the possibilities of things. i mean, it could go to the grand jury and they could indict and the state attorney can file charges or they can no bill it. those are the possibilities that can happen. without having all the details it's hard to say what's going to happen. >> that's where the story end, we don't have the details yet. i look forward to another opportunity to speak with you. thank you for coming in. >> thank you. in the meantime, let's bring in mark geragos and former federal prosecutor sunny hostin. sunny, some of the new developments that you have been age to listen in on the witness, as she says what she thinks she saw. she feels she saw the larger man of hispanic description on top of the boy and after the shot, he walks toward her. yet, it's too dark to determine if that's any blood or injury on the injury. >> well, you spoke to her, i spoke to two other witnesses and they both described the same thing, ashleigh. they both described seeing george zimmerman straddling trayvon martin and then walking away. and so, you know, i think what we can learn not only from what all these witnesses are saying is that -- and all the facts that we are learning is that there is a lot of conflicting evidence here. and when you have conflicting evidence and you know this, ashleigh, that's something that is typically tried. this is a case that typically goes to trial. it's surprising we haven't seen an arrest or any charges. this incident happened february 26th. >> i think that when you say conflicting information, there is no shortage of information, but facts seem to be at a premium these days and a lot gets bandied around. you heard the congresswoman stating the fact as though she witnessed the case and people begin to argue based on what they heard in the press. >> there's evidence to support what the congresswoman said. she said that trayvon was -- tackled and shot. >> wait a minute. those are the words i questioned. >> trayvon's girlfriend thought he was tackled. he said that he followed trayvon martin and the dispatchered which say we don't need you do that. dee dee said she heard the confrontation. so there is evidence to support what that congresswoman said. >> i think hunted an chased is a strident case, she called him a little boy as well. i think she seemed ill skilled on the facts in the case. let me jump to mark geragos and every time i play the devil's advocate, and my twitter fires up like crazy. i'm glad i'm not a defense attorney, i don't know how you do your job. i feel as if it ends up this a courtroom which is a possibility, forensics are going to be critical. if the witness i spoke with tonight is accurate and she says that mr. zimmerman or someone matching mr. zimmerman was on top of trayvon martin, and got up and got off and then how do we get a gunshot wound to the chest and a victim face down in the grass who's about 160 pounds? >> well, that's precisely what one of the problems are here. and ashleigh, i have to tell you, your intro to this piece was a closing argument for the defense frankly in terms of all the conflicting evidence and your direct examination of this witness i think actually this witness helps the defense in some ways. if you take a look at that law down here and i finally kind of studied it a little bit and have determined that one of the reasons i think that there was not a filing and they basically arrested and then let go, this law reads basically if you're in reasonable fear that then there is immunity, actual immunity from being arrested. >> but mark -- >> hold on. >> but the law also says, mark, if you're the first aggressor, you cannot avail yourself -- >> oh, my goodness. we just opened up another can of worms on first aggressor. >> that's the problem, they can't determine that yet. they really can't. >> i have seven minutes until the end of the program but i could go another hour and 20 with both of you. i look forward to the further discussions on this and more. we'll be right back after this. [ male announcer ] break the grip of back or arthritis pain with odor free aspercreme. powerful medicine relieves pain fast, with no odor. so all you notice is relief. aspercreme. i'm susan hendricks with a 360 bulletin. first, syria, no sign yet that the assad regime will live up to the promised tuesday deadline for pulling troops out of towns and cities. instead, government forces have killed at least 52 people across syria today alone with shelling reported outside of damascus. a 360 follow now, police in california believe they have found the gun used in the campus massacre in oakland. it does match the serial number of a weapon purchased by the suspect here, one goh. and remember the japanese fishing troller that drifted all the way across the pacific after last year's tsunami? today off alaska, the coast guard sank it to keep other ships safe. more 360 after this.