Physicians assistant would know whats existing there before that day and not in terms it of what the shape of the body or the head is. May or may not. Okay. I mean, you know, you dont generally remember the shape of one of your patients heads, especially if youre seeing 20 or 30 patients a day. Well, my next question regarding that, wouldnt you agree that would be the best person that would see George Zimmerman alive right then and there when its happening, the next day, would be able to describe what injuries he had or did not have. In theory, if they do it correctly, yes. The problem is its not emergency room records and doctors records. Theyre generally lousy in regards to describing injuries. Very, very lousy. Well, you agree that the fire rescue people do an honorable job in the sense they know what theyre doing. Yeah, im not saying these people are incompetent. Their job is to treat patients. They have a tendency not to document what they see. Thats why they want to put forensic nurses in Emergency Rooms, to document these injuries. Doctors arent interested in the injuries. Theyre interested in treating the patient. Sure. But the fire rescue people are interested in injuries, arent they . Theyre interested just like doctors in treating a person. If you read the records, they mention two lacerations. They dont even say where they are except on the back of the head. Well, ms. Fulgate actually measured it for you. Thats why you were able to detail exactly how little they were. Right. 20 millimeters and 5 millimeters. They didnt say which one was on the right side, which one was on the left side, or located exactly. So, you know now, you could tell, couldnt you, when you looked at the photograph . Yes, but they didnt do it. Okay. And i couldnt tell which one was the 20 and which one was the 5 because the wound hadnt cleaned up when they took the photograph. Well, are we talking about the same photograph . There were two photographs. The better one on the back of the head, there was still blood there. You couldnt really tell which one was the 20 millimeter, which one was the 5. One of them had clotted blood on top of it. Now, you do agree with the treatment in the sense of didnt need any stitches, right . I agree, but actually, my answer should be its outside my area of expertise. Okay. But i will agree that they didnt need treatment. Youre sticking to your main thing, gunshot wounds, correct . Well, im describing blunt force injuries. Youre asking me about treatment, which is different. Im sorry. You asked me about treatment. I dont treat people. Okay. You deal with them after theyre dead. Yes, sir. Right . Yes, sir. Okay. But you did review the fire rescue report regarding the treatment of George Zimmerman, correct . Yes, sir. And when it says patient has a gcs of 15, what does that mean . Oh, thats the index thing. What does that indicate to you, sir . Oh, it means hes perfectly fine. Everybody here has a 15, in this room would be a 15. And those are the fire rescue people that dealt with him right after this interaction between the defendant and Trayvon Martin. Thats correct. Correct . Yes. Now, did i understand you correctly that youre saying that the difference between the photograph at the scene, that bloody photograph hes got do you have that big one by any chance . I know weve got it in evidence. I believe defense has a big one. The front. Thank you, mr. Omara. Youre saying this one right here, that theres a difference between i apologize, your honor. May i approach the witness . Yes, you may. This big photograph that shows the front of the defendants face has some blood on it that was taken by the police out there, right . You remember seeing that. Yes, sir. Okay. Youre saying that you believe there was something wrong with his nose, the right part of his nose, correct . Yes, sir. If you look at the photograph taken about four hours later, that marked deviation of the side of the nose is not there. Its disappeared. Do you need something to drink . No, no. Your opinion is that you believe the fire rescue people just did it without them noticing that they did it or the defendant, George Zimmerman, realizing they had put his nose back in place, correct . If its a simple i said its consistent with a fracture. Since no one the ems thought there was a fracture. They said that. And if its a fracture and its now replaced, that would account for the differences in the photographs. Because you agree that four hours later, his nose is perfect. Its not swollen to the right side. Well, its still swollen a little on the right side. Its not as deviated as shown in the first photograph. And its possible it wasnt fractured at all. But then the swelling should still be there, which it wasnt four hours later. Well, did you know whether they gave him something to put on there to control the swelling . Its not going to change. Okay. Its not going to change. Now, you also talked about the injury to the back of his head, right . The two im going to call them scratches. Thats not correct. Lacerations. Okay. Those are what . They were two inches and four inches . Oh, no, no. If its 20 millimeters, which is a shade less than an inch, and the other one is 5 millimeters, which is about a fifth of an inch. So one is about smaller than this . Right. And one is about that . Correct. Youre not saying that those are that he would die from those . No, i never said that. I said its indicative of a hard impact. Thats all. Or maybe hitting a tree limb or rolling around in the dirt . Out on the concrete. Its indicative of a hard impact. Thats all i said. But you dont know whether it was a hard impact somebody hitting him or him rolling around in it. Its a hard impact. Thats all i can say. Thats all i have said. Yes, sir. Now and you were aware that he was offered medical care in terms of going to see a doctor at some point, and he declined to do that. Yes. Correct . Yes. Now, also, i believe ms. Fulgate and the fire rescue did not notice any other injuries to top of his head. Do you think they dismissed it . No. Theres two possible explanations. One, that the bleeding continued after he was seen by ems. So youre looking at something where its been bleeding for four or five hours. Or they just didnt notice it because they didnt they knew there was an impact and they didnt consider it significant. But he went to the thats ems. He went the next day to the facility where he ran where a physicians assistant treated him. She didnt notate all the injuries youre describing. Well, thats the problem that Forensic Pathologists pull their hair out from. Medical personnel just dont describe injuries properly. Okay. Which is nothing bad against them because their job is to treat people. My job is to look at injuries, you know, not treat. The other thing wanted to ask you about is may i approach the witness, your honor . Yes, you may. The photograph that was taken at the scene. Yes. Im sorry, of the defendant. I apologize. Hes got blood there, right . Right. I put the hand over that, right. Okay. What do you expect my hand to have on it . Blood. Sir, wouldnt you agree that photograph i just showed you that i put my hand over, you said you would expect blood on my hand, wouldnt you agree that if he was bleeding like that, if hes standing the blood will go down, right . Im assuming. If hes bleeding from the nose. It depends how profusely. Eventually it will go down, right. Now, if im laying flat on my back and bleeding from my nose, want blood will go inward, correct . Partially. Some will go out, some will go in. So it will be more difficult for me to swallow or to speak, im assuming, if blood is coming down, correct . Depends how profusely youre bleeding. Sure. Assuming i was bleeding profusely, assuming i had a bloody nose or a fractured nose and it was bloody and im laying down, the blood would go into my mouth, correct . Yes, sir. So it would be harder for me to swallow, talk, et cetera, im assuming, right . Yeah, unless youre swallowing it. Now, did i understand you correctly that you did not view the video that was taken of George Zimmerman, the defendant, when he was brought to the Police Station when he was being walked and he walked fine, had no problems walking or talking. Actually, ive seen it, but they kept playing it on tv all the time. Okay. I mean, he seemed to be walking fine, had no problems, correct . And being able to dmcommunicate. Thats right. And i know the recording you saw of the defendants interview was subsequent to that. I believe it was two days later. Yes, sir. But on that evening right after he was in this struggle with Trayvon Martin, he was walking and talking fine. Yes, sir. Okay. Youre not quibbling with that, right . No, sir. And you agree theres actually no witnesses to the actual shooting other than the person charged with the crime, George Zimmerman, and the person thats dead. Thats correct. Regarding the gunshot wound that i know is your focus, i think you stated it was up to four inches would be max and then two inches, correct . Somewhere between two and four. When you say two inches, youre accounting for the sweatshirt underneath and then the hoodie or sweatshirt with the hood over it, correct . No. Youre not because youre saying the hole kind of creates a barrier. Right. Im talking between the skin and the muzzle. Okay. Now, have you ever worn one of those hoodies, those jacket sweatshirts . Not that type, no. Okay. Have you seen people wearing them . Yes, sir. Dont they normally wear them a little big . Yes, sir. Okay. Dont they kind of hang down . Yes, sir. And if i had if the person wearing it has it hanging down and has something in it, wouldnt it hang down . Objection, speculation. Outside the scope of this particular case. Your honor, i believe im allowed to ask. He asked in terms of possibilities. Yes, sir. Wouldnt you agree if i have something here heavy, its hanging down, right . Right. And that would make it a little tighter, right . Yes, sir. You were asked about the dna. I know at some point you were head of the lab. I think it was in texas, wasnt it . Yes, sir. We continue to watch the prosecution get questions and answers from dr. Demaio. Were back after a quick break. Stay tuned. How much protein does your dog food have . 18 percent . 20 . New purina one true instinct has 30. Active dogs crave nutrientdense food. So we made purina one true instinct. Learn more at purinaone. Com since aflac is helping with his expenses while he cant work, he can focus on his recovery. He doesnt 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 aflacs gonna help take care of his expenses. And us. Were gonna get him back in fighting shape. [ male announcer ] see whats happening behind the scenes at aflac. Com. I want to get you back inside the testimony of dr. Vincent demaio, being questioned about the break or fracture potentially of George Zimmermans nose, at least the injury of it in his estimation. Take a look. Talk about another subject thats close to our hearts in the sense were both baldheaded. In fact, ive been referred to as that baldheaded dude. I dont know if youve ever been called that before. My question is, when we bleed there, tell us about the bleeding. Its very profuse, isnt it . Scalp bleeding is always profuse because the scalp has a lot of blood vessels in it. More than other areas of the body potentially . Yes, sir. Why is that . I have absolutely no idea. Thats how the design is. You know. So the bottom line, there are possibilities. One of the possibilities is what you said. Then theres other possibilities of how that gunshot wound occurred. Is that correct . To a degree. I said its consistent with his account. Right. And youre not saying the account where he says he grabbed the gun and how he took it out. Youre saying when the gun is out already, is that correct . Thats correct, sir. I want to make sure the jury understands that. Youre saying by the time he had the gun out already and was pointing it at the person he ended up shooting, correct . Yes, sir. And at that point, you dont know if Trayvon Martin was backing up, backing away in terms of providing an angle or whether he was going forward. You cant say. All that i said was its consistent with his account, mr. Zimmermans account. Thats all. But its also consistent with Trayvon Martin pulling back in terms of providing the same angle. I told you that too, yes, sir. And i think i already asked you this. Youre not here testifying about the holster, how that works. The reason i ask is because you are i dont want to psi a fi say a firearms expert. No, sir. Now, if the hoodie or the sweatshirt with the hood on it do you need some water . No, sir. Okay. The shirt is baggy, people are still able to grab it. Yes, sir. Okay. And i think you testified about the fact your expertise is once the body is dead, not while alive, in terms of trauma. Youre not an expert on that. On trauma to the head. No, trauma is pathology. I will testify on that. I dont testify to treatment. Treatment on injuries to the head. Right. I dont testify to treatment at all. Because i dont treat people. Now, were you aware that out there at retreat at twin lakes in the area where this happened that theres also an addition to the concrete, you know, walkway, theres also sprinkler boxes. Did you see any of those in the photographs you were provided . I didnt see any of those, no, sir. Okay. You mentioned knuckles or fists, correct . As a possibility, correct . Yes, sir. If i may have a moment, your honor. Do you know whether George Zimmerman is right or lefthanded . Righthanded. Okay. Thank you very much, sir. Okay. Redirect . Thank you. Lets go ahead and bring in msnbc legal analyst lisa bloom. Lisa, so far we have watched this defense witness provide a lot of holes in the prosecutions story. How do you think that the prosecution did in getting their opportunity to cross . First of all, you can see in shots of the courtroom we just saw it a second ago. George zimmerman sits at counsel table and takes notes lefthanded. When hes asked right or lefthanded, he can look over and see he writes lefthanded. Theres been conflicting testimony about that. I think overall the prosecution has made a couple strong points on crossexamination. I see hes on redirect, though. Do you want to go back in . Yeah, lets dive back in. Which would be right in the middle of the normal range for a person his size. Thats correct, sir. For example, you would have indicated that the location of the gunshot objection to the leading nature of the questions. Sustained. Would you have indicated for quick reference where precisely the gunshot wound was on mr. Martins body, for example . Yes, sir, id put that down. Do you need your notes to form your opinions once you have the facts before you . Oh, no, no. Do your notes include several pages of the photos that you think were the most pertinent in assessing the trauma to mr. Zimmerman . Yes, sir. Four of the pages are just photographs. Have we shown those photographs it he here . Yes, sir. The scope of your work, if you will, was to consider the statement that mr. Zimmerman made to the police about how the shooting took place at the moment the shot was fired, and for you to consider the forensic evidence of that gunshot to determine whether or not mr. Zimmermans statement about what happened is consistent with the physical forensic evidence. Leading and compound question. Do you understand the question . Yes. Okay. You may answer. Yes, sir. To do that, is it necessary in your mind to review every witness statement regardless of whether they saw the actual moment when the shot was fired . Thats correct, sir. I have to interpret the objective evidence. Im not going to base my opinion on the witnesses because witnesses are wrong all the time. Have you had occasion where you reviewed witness statements, people who claim to have seen something with their own eyes that was absolutely contradicted by the physical evidence that you knew to exist . All the time. You know, theyll say someone stood over a man and shot him, and two architects and a secretary said that. They saw it. The only problem was is that the bullet taken from the body did not match the gun of the person who supposedly stood over him and shot him. The bullet that hit him was a ricochet that had to have been fired from 20, 30 feet away. So thats one case. I have a half a dozen of those cases. Lets talk for a moment more specifically, since mr. De la rionda mentioned them by name. A woman testified in the trial and didnt claim to have seen the individuals at the time the shot was fired. Would that matter to you at all . No. Lets talk about jayne, for example. She testified in the trial and said she was looking at the individuals outside her window some distance away and believes that she was looking at them when the shot was fired. What she described was that at the time the shot was fired, mr. Zimmerman was on top of mr. Martin objection, leading and mischaracterization of the facts. Can i finish my question, please . Well, if its a mischaracterization of the facts, i need you to rephrase your question. Its not, your honor. Thats for the jury to determine. So please rephrase your question. Okay. Sure. She said she was looking out the window and she believes she was looking at the individuals when the shot was fired. She said that at the time the shot was fired, that mr. Zimmerman was on top and that mr. Martin was face down. Is that possible, given the forensic evidence you know in this case . No, sir, its not possible. Mr. Martin he was shot in the front. So would her statement have done you any good in this case . No, sir. In fact, that would be an example of how an eyewitness, no matter how well intended, just gets it wrong. Yes, sir. You did consider john goodes statement to the extent that he was the person objection, leading question. Sustained. John good testified at the trial that when he looked out his back door, he saw the person later identified as George Zimmerman on his back on the ground and that he saw Trayvon Martin straddling him on his knees, striking mr. Zimmerman in some sort of mma style. And then he went back inside and some seconds later the shot was fired. Is the position that mr. Goode saw, Trayvon Martin straddling and striking mr. Zimmerman with mr. Zimmerman on his back, consistent with the forensic evidence that you found at the time of the shot . Yes, sir. That statement, i take it, is separate and apart from mr. Zimmermans statement describing essentially the same thing. Right. But again, i would not have used that to give my opinion. I have to use the physical evidence in conjunction with the statement of mr. Zimmerman. The you pointed out in your direct evidence that there were two lacerations on the back of mr. Zimmermans head and that you testified that you believed those two have been from separate impacts. Yes, sir. Because you could see the sort of valley in between. Yes, sir. Those were the two blows that created the lacerations. Right, in addition they were so separate that if you impacted one, you couldnt get the other one. So there were two reasons. Your testimony was that was consistent with having mr. Zimmermans head struck at least twice on a surface like concrete. Objection as to the leading nature of his questions. Setting the stage for the questions. But theyre all still leading. You need to rephrase your questions. Is the are the two lacerations with the valley in between on the back of mr. Zimmermans head consistent with at least two separate impacts on a surface like concrete . Yes, sir. And is it im trying to figure out a way to ask you about tree branches. Were there any big tree branches that you knew in the vicinity of where this happened that were on the ground that could have been used as a club . No. What you have is tree trunks, to be quite strictly speaking. But theres no tree branches that i could see. Thats why when i first answered the question i said there were no tree branches. Because there arent. So for mr. Zimmerman to have received those lacerations on the back of his head because of impact with a tree trunk, what would have had to have happened if, in fact, that were possible . It would practically have to be upright sitting, maybe, because youd have to hit the trunk. Youd have to go back violently against the trunk on two occasions. So it would still be blunt trauma to the back of the head twice. Or it could have been from hitting his head on the sidewalk. Objection, leading and argumentative. Overruled as to argumentative. Ill overrule as to leading. Please make sure you phrase your questions correctly. Sure. Is that scenario much more plausible and consistent with the physical evidence . The cement is more plausible, especially when you look at the injuries on the side of the head, which wouldnt be tree trunk because you have a pattern of abrasions. You commented, of course, that theres a different role that some professionals play in dealing with someone thats been injured. Yes, sir. Whereas, you may have a forensic approach, a treating doctor or pa may have a different objective. Their objective is to treat somebody. My objective is to document the injuries and interpret the injuries. You know, they dont care, really, which is fine. Their job is different than my job. Thats why theyre pushing forensic nursing to put forensic nurses in Emergency Rooms to document the injuries correctly. Were going to jump in, take a quick break. Were back after this. You will never survive the running of the bulls. bull roar . If you dont attend the running of the bulls. Ole what are you guys doing . Having some fiber with new phillips fiber good gummies. Theyre 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. Rest get you back inside the George Zimmerman trial again. Its dr. Vincent demaio on the stand. What im saying is the type of injury he would get would be more of a stunning, not a what people would think of as a significant concussion. Thats why i tend to get away from the word concussion. I went to to the nonmedical word of stunning. The idea of a concussion that may lead to hematomas or death is something that happens after the actual impact. Your honor, objection. Again, leading. Peas rephralease rephrase yo question. Are the consequences of the blow, those that develop over some period of time after the impact . Usually concussions show up immediately. But the problem is that they can be extremely subtle. Thats why sporting events like to have doctors there because lay people look at someone whos got a concussion and will not pick up anything unusual, if its a mild concussion. As it gets more severe, it becomes quite obvious. When youre getting hit like that, are you feeling it . Oh, yes. Are you in some appreciation that youre being injured . Yes. I mean, if you get punched in the nose, believe me, you know it. Does that continue to hurt for a while . Yes, sir. How about when you get your head banged on concrete . Does that hurt then and continue to hurt . It can very well, yes. Especially if you have lacerations. It will hurt for a while, yes, sir. Would someone at that moment when this is actually happening to them be able to know whether or not what was happening to them was life threatening . No, because theyre stunned. You know, youre in pain. Youre in fear. You cant interpret. Even looking at them outside, someone looking at them can say, oh, theyre all right, but it happens all the time. You know, people think theyre all right and then they die a few hours later. Thats why the police in this case should have taken mr. Zimmerman to a hospital, not to the Police Station. If he had died in the Police Station, they would have sued, and the family would have won the lawsuit because he had head injuries. That means you take them to the hospital. Even if theres not evidence of a concussion that hes stumbling or falling down or not able to talk . If you have head injuries like that, you go to an emergency room. You dont play around. If some i mean, people die in jail like that a lot of times. And jails always lose the lawsuits. Ill tell you that. So if someone is in the process of being hit and having their head struck on a surface like cement, theyre having this stunning effect, and the pain associated with it. In the moment of that, not knowing when its going to stop, are they able to say, i can take three more of these before i need to do something about it . Objection, leading and argumentative. Sustained. Speculation. Under these circumstances with the trauma youve seen in this case, would it be somewhat overwhelming to the person thats on the receiving end . Same objection. You gave three objections last time. Which one of them is it . Leading and argumentative. Overruled as to both. Yes. There was there were some questions about the packaging of the evidence, especially if its wet and has biological material on it. In this case, theres been testimony that the wet outer shirt in particular was sealed in a plastic bag while wet and then placed in paper bag on the outside of that. Is that consistent with good evidence handling . No, sir. There was also system that when the bag was opened, it smelled very strongly of mold and ammoniatiype odor. Its the composing. You air dry and put it in plastic in paper bags, not plastic. You dont want the decomposition. Is the accepted forensic practice that subjecting evidence to that type of packaging now, you can also assume that it was in that condition for roughly a month that that would promote degradation or contribute to the likely degradation of the integrity of any dna evidence on that clothing . Oh, yes. Yes. Mr. De la rionda mentioned that if Trayvon Martin had put his hand over George Zimmermans nose at this point in time when there was blood that there may have been some transfer of blood to mr. Martins hands. Thats what that question was getting at. Objection as to what i was getting at. Speculation. Sustained as to that part. If Trayvon Martin had put his hand over George Zimmermans nose and mouth when it was in this condition, is it your testimony that there may have been some transfer of blood to his hand . Yes, sir. I take it you would have no Additional Information as to whether or not mr. Zimmermans nose was actually bleeding at some point in time during the incident. Thats correct. I mean, you get an impact to the nose. You eventually bleed, but i cant tell you if youre going to bleed immediately or not. It just depends on whats injured. And where that blood goes may depend on the position that your head is in. Yes, it does. Now, youve also talked quite a bit in direct about im sorry, in cross, i guess. And direct. About if you find something thats important but if you dont, the absence of finding it doesnt necessarily make the absence of evidence important. Right. Thats a general fact thats understood. Absence doesnt mean anything. Presence does. Because especially if you dont know what the statistical probability that a thing is present is. How often do you actually find Something Like a transfer of dna . How often does it occur . You have to know that before you can give a probability. If you havent done that, you cant even give an opinion. Do you agree that environmental conditions can affect whether or not dna is present on physical evidence. Oh, yeah. For example, in this case you can assume that it was about three hours from the event until mr. Martins body was transported. During that time, while it may have been the body may have been covered with a blanket or covering on the outside, there was a period of time when the body and his hands were exposed to the elements. Right. And then its also how you enclose the body. Do you wrap it tightly or put it loosely . You know, again, putting it in plastic containers, plastic tends to rub and be stiff. You know, if its there, its significant for most things. If its not there, its usually not significant. You may also consider on that issue that theres been testimony that the weather conditions varied from a light drizzle to a heavy rain during these events. Would the fact that it was raining to some degree, could that also affect whether or not there is biological or dna evidence collected from mr. Martins hands . Thats true. And, you know or how the hands were handled and things like that. Or perhaps even if they may have been washed prior to being photographed. Thats why the forensic pathologist is supposed to be with the body from the time it comes in. You should always be there. You should never leave the body, even if you have assistants helping you. You dont leave the body. You wouldnt trust your assistants to do well, i guess what youre saying is, while you may trust your assistants to follow the protocol, you would confirm and verify. Right. Like, if you want the clothing removed, you examine the clothing on the body before you say, okay, take it off. Then you stand there as they take it off to see if theyre doing things appropriately and not maybe throwing it on the floor. You throw it on the floor, anything on the floor is now on the clothing. Then you have the clothing on a tray, but you dont have the clothing piled on top of each other. If theres material on one piece of clothing and you put the other piece of clothing on top of it, you can get transfer. So youre suppose to be monitoring this the whole time. Let me show you, doctor, whats marked as states exhibit 28, which has been offered into evidence as objection, beyond the scope of crossexamination. I dont know what it is. Ill ask the question. States exhibit 28 has been offered into evidence, and it represents a picture of mr. Martins chest taken at the scene by the crime scene technician. Then id like to show you states exhibit 95, which is in evidence and has been represented as a photograph taken at the time of the autopsy but before any cleaning or washing was done to the body. Same objection, your honor. If youll please approach and show the pictures to the court. While they approach the bench right now to show those pictures to judge nelson, i want to bring in msnbc legal analyst lisa bloom. Also, criminal defense attorney john burress with me as well. Lisa, let me start with you. So far dr. Di maio has provided good testimony for the defense, putting a lot of holes in what the prosecution presented with the medical examiner shiping bao. What would your estimation be of what hes done for the defense. I think this would be the best day the defense has had so far. This is the kind of hard, Scientific Evidence jurors tend to like. What hes testified to is that George Zimmermans story is consistent with the physical and the medical evidence that hes reviewed. He said that Trayvon Martin was likely over George Zimmerman in the position when zimmerman shot him. Thats because the shirt was two to four inches away from the body based on the tattoo, the powder tattooing, as he calls it, stippling is another term. He said Trayvon Martin was likely conscious, capable of speech and motion 10 to 15 seconds after the shooting. Thats consistent with George Zimmermans story that Trayvon Martin spoke and possibly moved his hands. And that George Zimmermans injuries are consistent with major trauma. He took those small lacerations that others have said are relatively insignificant injuries and said, no, it could be more significant than that. Unfortunately, we dont have c. A. T. Scans, xrays, anything like that. All of that, at least on direct and redirect, very helpful to the defense. John, the difference here with what di maio has been able to say and what bao said was in reference to the entry of the bullet wound, this fatal one shot that injured Trayvon Martins heart. Because bao testified it could be four inches or up to four feet. That is a big difference in space. Absolutely. You know, he really undermined that testimony from the medical examiner in a lot of different ways. That certainly was significant. For me, though, i think that the issue of reasonableness of zimmermans conduct, i think that the this particular witness has helped a great deal by suggesting that you dont know how long the person whos being injured, like George Zimmerman, doesnt know how long its going to take and when its going to end. He could certainly feel that even though these are not significant injuries, theyre stunning enough it could cause him to believe hes going to receive great bodily injury. This particular witness has helped the defense a great deal around the most important issue in this case. That is whether the conduct, the shooting was reasonable at the time or had a reasonable belief that his life was in danger. Lets dive back in because theyre looking at the fatal injury, the gunshot wound in the autopsy photos of Trayvon Martin. Dr. Di maio, the last two photographs that were shown yes. Do you remember the ones that were shown . Yeah im sorry, what . May i approach the witness . Doesnt that show that the sweatshirt is up . Yeah, but its been pulled up. Right. And if its at the scene while theyre transporting the body and the body comes to it the medical Examiners Office with their sweatshirt down, wouldnt that absorb the blood there . May i see the other photograph . Sure. Since its not here, its been removed, so its been pulled off. If youre asking me could it have wiped the blood off as it was being pulled off, sure. In other words, you would expect the blood in the sweatshirt, correct . Right. Now, you were asked a bunch of questions by mr. West. Do you agree mr. West testifying is not evidence, correct . Yes, sir. Okay. And would you use mr. Wests statements to form your opinion . No, sir. I use the autopsy report and the laboratory reports. And the autopsy report, that was the one you mentioned prepared by dr. Bao. And the photographs plus the firearms report. To form my opinion, yes, sir. And you agree there was an absence of any xrays or other actual proof of a broken nose, correct . Thats correct, sir. And you agree there was absence of documentation of any kind of concussion or brain injury or brain bleeding, correct . Oh, yes, sir. And you agree that there was absence of any proof of anything being washed off the victims body. I cant say whether it was washed or not. What i said was is that if they if that shirt was lying on there and they pulled it off, it could have wiped off some of the blood. Thats why youre not supposed to do that. Youre supposed to take the photograph of the wound intact, before you clean it. So that was a big nono there, either way. Are you saying is at the scene the medical examiner personnel should remove the clothing of the victim or should the clothing remain on the victim until hes transported to the mes office . No, what im saying is that the clothing should remain on the body so the photograph taken at the scene, thats proper. But when they got to the medical Examiners Office, they shouldnt have pulled if they wanted photographs of the scene as received, they shouldnt have undressed the body or pulled anything off because theyd be wiping it. The whole chest is clean and such, so, you know, the techniques werent exactly correct. Lets put it that way. But you did rely on dr. Baos report in terms of his findings, correct . Thats i had no other choice, sir. Okay. And based on your observations of the photographs, they document what occurred in terms of right. Youre not disputing that . Right, that the photographs of the wound were the best. Okay. Is there any absence of evidence that anything was washed by the rain . It would have to be youd have to know how much its raining there. Youd have to have an observation. Pure speculation, correct . Yeah, unless you were there and saw how much was washed away. Okay. And there was an absence of vomiting, right . You didnt see any vomiting out there, correct . No. And finally, you were asked about john goode, what he testified. You agree that a jury that heard john goodes testimony should rely on what he said on the witness stand . Correct . Heres what im getting at its kind of interesting. If hes got a good statement at the time then he testifies Something Else on the witness stand, you begin to wonder. Okay. I mean, i think thats up for the jury to consider. Right. My question is, if john goode testified he neither saw nor heard any blows landing and neither heard nor saw anything being slammed on the sidewalk, is the physical evidence what you rely on . No, i told you i didnt rely anything on his statement. Oh, you completely disregarded john goode . Thats going to do it for this edition of news nation. Our live coverage of the George Zimmerman trial will continue next on the cycle. N. Staying active can actually ease arthritis symptoms. But if you have arthritis, staying active can be difficult. Prescription celebrex can help relieve arthritis pain so your body can stay in motion. Because just one 200mg celebrex a day can provide 24 hour relief for many with arthritis pain and inflammation. Plus, in clinical studies, celebrex is proven to improve daily physical function so moving is easier. Celebrex can be taken with or without food. And its not a narcotic. You and your doctor should balance the benefits with the risks. All prescription nsaids, like celebrex, ibuprofen, naproxen and meloxicam have the same cardiovascular warning. They all may increase the chance of heart attack or stroke, which can lead to death. This chance increases if you have Heart Disease or risk factors such as high Blood Pressure or when nsaids are taken for long periods. Nsaids, like celebrex, increase the chance of serious skin or allergic reactions, or stomach and intestine problems, such as bleeding and ulcers, which can occur without warning and may cause death. Patients also taking aspirin and the elderly are at increased risk for stomach bleeding and ulcers. Dont take celebrex if you have bleeding in the stomach or intestine, or had an asthma attack, hives, other allergies to aspirin, nsaids or sulfonamides. Get help right away if you have swelling of the face or throat, or trouble breathing. Tell your doctor your medical history. And find an Arthritis Treatment for you. Visit celebrex. Com and ask your doctor about celebrex. For a body in motion. Visit celebrex. Com and ask your doctor about celebrex. announcer at scottrade, our cexactly how they want. T with scottrades online banking, i get one view of my bank and brokerage accounts with one login. To easily move my money when i need to. Plus, when i call my local scottrade office, i can talk to someone who knows how i trade. Because i dont trade like everybody. I trade like me. Im with scottrade. announcer scottrade. Awarded fivestars from smartmoney magazine. Straight ahead in the cycle, the defenses forensic expert is backing up George Zimmermans account of the night he killed Trayvon Martin. How is the prosecution countering his claim . Were going to break that down with our legal team. Theyre at the ready for the latest twists and turns this hour. Meanwhile, congress