Return to Transcripts main page


Awaiting Key Ruling In Zimmerman Trial; Expert Testimony on Zimmerman Trial; Dominique Strauss-Kahn Speaks About U.S. Arrest

Aired July 9, 2013 - 17:00   ET


WOLF BLITZER, HOST: Happening now, a big day for George Zimmerman's defense. A famed expert on gunshot wounds backs up his story. And soon, we could get a ruling on whether jurors will see a dramatic piece of evidence, a computer animation of Trayvon Martin's fatal shooting. Stand by.

Plus, we're also standing by for new information from federal investigators about the Asiana Airline crash and the interview with the pilot behind the controls during the disastrous landing. They've just completed that interview.

And he might have been president of France, until he was accused of sexual assault two years ago in a New York City hotel. Now, Dominique Strauss Kahn is talking exclusively to CNN about the allegations and his deep, deep anger at the way he was treated by the New York City police.

I'm Wolf Blitzer.


We're standing by for what could be a major bombshell ruling from the judge in the George Zimmerman trial. She's deciding whether to allow jurors to see a computer animation of Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin, the way Zimmerman says it happened. It could be a very powerful piece of evidence for the defense if it is allowed to be played in court before those six jurors.

That's why the prosecution is objecting.

A hearing on this issue is now underway without -- without the jury in the courtroom.

You know what, let's listen in.


RICHARD MANTEI, PROSECUTOR: You show, in this animation, an initial contact between two figures, represented, I assume, to be Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, right?


MANTEI: And whose testimony did you use to describe that initial -- to show, to depict that initial encounter?

SCHUMACHER: Part of it is off of the -- from discovery on your -- that you gave us was...

MANTEI: I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear.

SCHUMACHER: All right.

MANTEI: Whose testimony did you use?

SCHUMACHER: Oh, the testimony?

MANTEI: Yes, sir.

MARK O'MEARA, ATTORNEY FOR GEORGE ZIMMERMAN: Your honor, maybe he can clarify, is he talking about trial testimony or just pretrial testimony?

JUDGE DEBRA NELSON: Well, I think that it has to be consistent with testimony or evidence presented at trial.

O'MEARA: Certainly. And, of course all of...



O'MEARA: And all Mr. Zimmermann stated in trial, so it (INAUDIBLE)...

NELSON: Well...

O'MEARA: -- if the witness is aware of that (INAUDIBLE)...

NELSON: Well, the witness can testify what he used. And that's what the question is.

O'MEARA: I think he was confused by trial testimony.

NELSON: OK. Well, I'll go ahead...


NELSON: -- please let me finish.

It has to be trial testimony or evidence. So the question to you is, what trial testimony and/or evidence did you use to incorporate into your animation?

SCHUMACHER: For the initial contact, it was Jennifer Lauer's statement.

MANTEI: According to what you understand her statement to be, you believe that she saw that occur?

SCHUMACHER: She didn't see it occur, she heard it occur. That was the point.

MANTEI: You are, however, depicting it visually, right?


MANTEI: OK. She certainly didn't testify that she could depict it visually, right?

SCHUMACHER: She just pinpointed the initial contact point, where it started.

MANTEI: She pinpointed it?

SCHUMACHER: At the key intersection to the left of where she was in the condo.

MANTEI: Somewhere to the left of her condo is where she first heard things, correct?


MANTEI: Did she ever say that it must have started there?

NELSON: -- (INAUDIBLE) shut off your phone.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's not mine. Mine is here.

NELSON: Is it in your pocket?

No, it's on vibrate and it's not vibrating anymore. But it's not yours.

OK. Go ahead.


MANTEI: Oh, I'm sorry. Your indication is that she, according to you, somehow testified that she knows that it must have started there?

SCHUMACHER: I have a question.

NELSON: If you want a clarification, you can ask Mr. Mantei what you want clarified.

SCHUMACHER: OK. So for evidence which the judge was asking, does that include police reports?

MANTEI: No, sir. I want you to assume that any time I'm asking you about actual evidence or testimony, I mean something that has gone on in this courtroom during trial, OK?


MANTEI: What someone said outside of court, for right now, I want you to assume that that is not evidence, OK? O'MEARA: Your honor, that's what I was trying to clear up earlier. It may not be as to Ms. Lauer, but the witnesses have got to identi -- you've got to understand what's in trial. And if (INAUDIBLE)...

NELSON: OK, I will explain that to him. But I don't want you...


NELSON: -- by your objection...


NELSON: -- by your objection, trying to infer to this witness how he should answer.

O'MEARA: Exactly.

NELSON: So it would be anything heard by the jury in this courtroom, either heard or seen, by way of testimony or evidence introduced. That's what he means.

SCHUMACHER: Well, I'm not sure what that is, because I was not allowed to watch the trial so...

NELSON: Well, then that's your answer.


MANTEI: So then if I were to ask you, does this animation accurately show what has been testified to in this trial, is your answer you don't know?

SCHUMACHER: I'm not sure what the proceedings, what went on in court.


SCHUMACHER: So according to the evidence that I have received and from your office...

MANTEI: Well, I'm not talking about the discovery matters and all the stuff that you used initially for the first set of animations or the underlying stuff and I'm not talking about what a lawyer may have told you. If I were to ask you, does this animation accurately show what has been testified to in evidence in this courtroom, is your answer you don't know?

And again, I'm not...

SCHUMACHER: My answer to that would be, yes.

MANTEI: Your answer is...

(CROSSTALK) SCHUMACHER: If it's not in my consultations with the attorneys, it would have -- it would have changed. So it's been adjusted to testimony in court.

MANTEI: None of which you have heard or observed yourself?


MANTEI: And none of which evidence you have actually seen yourself?

SCHUMACHER: None of the evidence which has been in court, yes.

MANTEI: OK. So part of this animation shows this initial encounter where these two figures kind of walk up to each other. And I understand you believe that the victim in this case, Trayvon Martin, was left-handed, am I right?

You've said that.

SCHUMACHER: I believe so, yes.


And you don't show anybody jumping out of a bush, for example?

SCHUMACHER: No, there was no evidence for that.

MANTEI: Nothing?

OK. And you don't show anybody just sort of emerging out of the darkness or running out of the darkness. It's just these two people kind of walk up to each other and stand face-to-face for a while, right?

SCHUMACHER: For seconds, yes.

MANTEI: OK. The animation -- also, you do show and plot the location of various items, cell phones, flashlights, sprinkler boxes, right?


MANTEI: And sprinkler heads, right?


MANTEI: A couple trees?


MANTEI: All right. And that's sort of in almost a 40 foot swath along that sloped ground that you've described, right?

SCHUMACHER: Correct. MANTEI: OK. However, the animation I saw kind of just takes a big white arrow from the point of that initial walk up encounter and zooms to a place 40 feet away, where, essentially, we then start to show the two figures bound up together, right?


MANTEI: And the reason for that is...

SCHUMACHER: Is because...

MANTEI: -- what, did they get teleported or what?

SCHUMACHER: That just shows the direction of Mr. Martin and Mr. Zimmerman consistent with witness testimony or witness reports, police reports, and with the trail of evidence going down that direction.

MANTEI: OK. The trail of evidence, you would agree with me, is just a trail.

It, by itself, doesn't have a direction, right?

In other words, whether it's going left to right or right to left, as you're looking at it. The places where things are found doesn't independently have a direction until you start working in what other people have said about how it happened, right?



SCHUMACHER: The reason for the arrow is moving from the one witnessed event down to the next witnessed event.


SCHUMACHER: I didn't add anything in between there in terms of the movements of the figures.

MANTEI: Because the animation cannot show it, because you have no idea how it actually happened, right?


MANTEI: OK. Now, when we get to where the figures again reemerge, you have a figure that you show to be, I guess, representative of the witness John Good, right?


MANTEI: How tall is John Good?


MANTEI: And you know this how?

SCHUMACHER: I was given that information from the attorneys.

MANTEI: OK. So, again, not from anything that came out in court but from the attorneys?

SCHUMACHER: Yes, who got it from Mr. Good.


And where was he standing?

SCHUMACHER: There's a sliding glass door and the right side slides over. And he was on the right side of the sliding glass door the right door, about a foot out from the door.

MANTEI: About a foot.

And where did you get that from?


MANTEI: From Mr. Good's in-court testimony?

SCHUMACHER: From consultation with the attorneys.


And as far as where on the patio he's standing, did you just pick a spot where you put the figure?

SCHUMACHER: It's just straight up from the door one foot.

MANTEI: So you don't know whether he stood to the left of the door, to the right of the door, straight out from the door or wherever, you just picked a spot?

SCHUMACHER: I didn't pick it. That's where -- where he said he was standing.

MANTEI: Where he said he was standing when he was here in court?

SCHUMACHER: Through consultation with the attorney.


Was that before court?

SCHUMACHER: I'm not sure when it was.

MANTEI: You have no idea?

SCHUMACHER: It was during the trial, but I'm not sure when.


And he told you exactly where on the patio Mr. Good was standing?



That patio is how big by how big?

SCHUMACHER: I don't have the exact measurements. I believe it's about -- there's two pillars on the corner. And I believe it's about seven-and-a-half feet from one pillar to the other.

MANTEI: Did he tell you he was standing within one foot of this pillar or one foot of this pillar (INAUDIBLE) like that?

SCHUMACHER: He told me he was standing one foot straight out from the one door, which is where I placed him.

BLITZER: All right. This is Daniel Schumacher who's testifying. He created, at the request of the defense, this computerized animation of what the defense believes happened in the encounter between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, when George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin.

Rich Mantei, the prosecutor, is questioning him. This is very, very important. The judge has to decide whether or not this animation, which is a lot of still photos, basically, will be allowed to be shown to the jurors.

The jurors are not in the courtroom right now, but this could potentially swing those jurors if, in fact, they're allowed to see the video, the still photos, of what was created by Daniel Schumacher. So this is a very, very critical moment in this trial right now.

The judge, Debra Nelson, has allowed the jurors to leave for the day, but she's continuing this hearing. At stake is, potentially, what a lot of legal experts say is a game-changer if, in fact, this animation is allowed to be used and shown to the jury.

Six women in that jury, five of them mothers.

All right, we're going to continue to watch what's going on.

Also coming up, a famed expert on gunshot wounds backs up key parts of George Zimmerman's story.

But does he also undermine the defendant in the process?

And we're standing by for new information from federal investigators about the Asiana Airline crash and their interview that they conducted today with the pilot who was behind the controls during that disastrous landing.


BLITZER: We're standing by for a statement, and hopefully, questions and answers. Deborah Hersman from the National Transportation Safety Board. She's in San Francisco, investigating the Asiana plane crash on Saturday. Today, they had a chance to interview the actual Korean pilot who landed that plane. He had very scant information. You see the wreckage there.

Very scant experience with the 777 and no experience landing one of those 777s at the San Francisco airport, which can be tricky. Today, federal investigators, they questioned him, they interviewed him. We're going to get information from Deborah Hersman on what he had to say. We'll have coverage of that news conference coming up. Stand by for that.

In the meantime, I want to go back to the George Zimmerman trial. The jurors are not in the courtroom right now, but they're continuing this hearing on whether or not a computerized animation of what happened in the exchange between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman should be allowed to be shown as evidence to the jury.

You see there Rich Mantei. He's one of the prosecutors. He doesn't want that animation to be shown. The defense does. On the stand right now, Daniel Schumacher. He's a computer specialist -- excuse me -- in these kinds of animations and he's testifying.


RICHARD MANTEI, PROSECUTOR: -- saw two figures doing X at the time Jenna Lauer was saying Y.

DANIEL SCHUMACHER, 3-D CRIME RECONSTRUCTION ANIMATOR: There's not any in-court testimony on it.

MANTEI: There's not any out of court testimony about it either, is there?

SCHUMACHER: There's consultation with the attorneys on how long he was out there when he went back in and when he came out.

MANTEI: OK. And this is -- so again, you're integrating the visual perspective of one witness who's not -- has no idea what Jenna Lauer -- John Good has no idea what Jenna Lauer might be doing because they're not even in the same house, right?

SCHUMACHER: It's not just based on Jenna Lauer's call, which he couldn't hear at the time, but he can base it on when the gunshot went off.

MANTEI: Well, I understand when the gunshot went off, but what you're telling this court is prior to the gunshot going off, or even afterwards, but certainly, prior to the gunshot going off, that John Good, visual witness, and Jenna Lauer, audio witness, neither of whom know anything about what the other is doing at the time, that you can somehow match up exactly what John Good is seeing at the exact home with Jenna Lauer is saying something?

SCHUMACHER: If you take the 911 call where the gunshot went off and if Mr. Good said that he was in the condo at a particular time before the gunshot, you have a point when he went in to the condo. He has a particular time of how long he was out there. So, if you backtrack from the gunshot, you can determine from those when he came out and when he went back in. MANTEI: Those times, of course, are absolutely not exact. Those were all complete estimations, correct? Right? I mean, John Good never said I got a stop watch and I can tell you 30 seconds before the gunshot I went inside. Nothing like that, right?

SCHUMACHER: It's an estimation on his part, correct.

MANTEI: OK. And therefore, it is also just nothing more than an estimation on your part. I mean, you can only put in --

SCHUMACHER: It's based on witness that was there that said how long he was out there.


SCHUMACHER: And how long it was -- before the gunshot went off.

MANTEI: Here's what I want to focus on, sir, is that animation is very specific. You play a portion of that audio recording in conjunction with supposed actual video or simulated video from John Good's perspective. All based on nothing more than estimations.

SCHUMACHER: By the person that was witnessing it.

MANTEI: OK. And, therefore, by you as well, because you can only put in what you got to work with, right?


MANTEI: OK. So, none of that could be said to be exact or accurate to the point that you can say for certain that that's what he was seeing at the time Jenna Lauer was saying a certain word. Right?

SCHUMACHER: I don't think it has to be specific to the exact word that she was saying.

MANTEI: Well, your animation, though, makes it very specific, doesn't it?


MANTEI: There's nothing in that animation that tells me the call is generally going on now and I'm not sure exactly what part this is. That animation shows exactly and sounds exactly that these things are going on at the same time, right?

SCHUMACHER: Correct. This is a scenario according to witness and evidence.

MANTEI: I'm sorry, which witness and which evidence that came out in court or are we back to estimations based on what attorneys told you?

SCHUMACHER: Consultation with attorneys.


BLITZER: All right. Let's get some analysis of what's going on right now, because this is extremely important, whether or not this animation, this video, the still photographs created by this Daniel Schumacher will, in fact, be allowed to be used and shown before the jurors. They are not in the courtroom right now.

Let get some analysis. Jose Baez is joining us right now. He's a well-known criminal defense attorney, represented Casey Anthony, also represented Chris Serino, one of the lead investigators in this trial right -- in this case right now. Also joining us, Sunny Hostin, our CNN legal analyst, a former federal prosecutor, and CNN's Martin Savidge.

Jose, first to you, this is obviously very important what the judge, Debra Nelson, is going to decide. What does it look like to you as a criminal defense attorney? Do you think she's going to allow this animation to be shown to the jurors? Because if it is, it could be, in the words of some analysts out there, potentially a bonanza for the defense.

JOSE BAEZ, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, what we're looking at right now, it doesn't look very good for the defense at this point. This witness -- now, when it comes to demonstrative evidence, Florida law is very liberal when you're looking at opening statements and closing arguments because that's not evidence.

But when you're actually trying to introduce something as evidence, evidence is very specific and must be very detailed, especially when you consider the appellate record that must be preserved. So, in looking at this, this gentleman is testifying that he's basing a majority of this animation on consultation with the attorneys and not necessarily evidence that's actually been presented.

I don't see how this works and I don't see how you can get around the argument that this is improper bolstering of a witness.

BLITZER: And Sunny, I want you to weigh in because you told me earlier that if, in fact, the judge allows this animation to be shown, potentially, it could be a game changer, it could really help the defense.

SUNNY HOSTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Absolutely. I mean, juries love demonstrations. They love visuals and what better than a computer animation of what happened that night. But I've got to tell you, Wolf, I just -- i haven't seen this type of thing come in to a criminal case in quite some time. I mean, certainly, in civil cases you see -- in DUI cases, you see a lot of this kind of animation.

You see this -- the accident reconstruction, and I guess, car accident-type cases, but the standard of proof is really different, right? We're talking about just a mere tipping of the scales, a preponderance of the evidence as opposed to reasonable doubt. Criminal judges are really loathed to let this kind of evidence in because it starts encroaching on the jury's job. The jury is supposed to listen to all the evidence, listen to all the witnesses and going to the jury room and decide what facts they believe and then apply those facts to the law. If you have a witness basically doing that job in consultation with attorneys and putting together a little movie about it, that is -- that's a very different exercise.

And so, I can't imagine that this would come in, but this judge at least has had a really long hearing. I mean, we're talking about, I think, a couple of days already on this -- a couple of hours. It's unusual,

BLITZER: They started late yesterday, Martin, and they had, what, about 90 minutes before the jurors came into the courtroom earlier this morning from around 8:30 a.m. local time until 10:00 a.m., and now, they're continuing this hearing. So, the judge is giving both sides a lot of opportunity to make their respective cases.

Yesterday, Martin, she sided with the defense in saying that marijuana use in the toxicology report on Trayvon Martin could be admitted as evidence, but this is a little bit more dicey right now, potentially, a whole lot more significant.

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Well, it's significant for a couple reasons. Number one, you know that the defense is getting ready to wrap up. They've already announced that today. They said tomorrow is going to be their last day of testimony here. So, they are at the ending point.

And the problem is they know that there is about a two-minute gap, really, from when George Zimmerman hung up the phone with authorities and when the first witnesses really begin to say they know or could see clearly what happened, because the real focus has been on something that happened totally in the dark, in which no one really saw clearly other than the two participants that were taking part.

So, that's why this animation the defense hopes fills that gap in the minds of jurors, and of course, it will fill it in a way that the defense says favors them. So, that's what they're worried about, that this jury could be sent off with still questioning, doubting that two- minute gap and that means it could go either way and the defense doesn't want that kind of gamble. They want it to go their way.

BLITZER: Yes. And Rich Mantei, the federal prosecutor, seems to be scoring some points right now in undermining this animation as really being an authoritative reliable recreation of what happened.

All right. Everyone standby. We'll continue to monitor what's happening here.

Also, we're watching other aspects of what happened today, including a fame expert on gunshot wounds who seem to back up key parts of George Zimmerman story. We'll have more on that one.

Also standing by once again for new information from federal investigators about the Asiana Airline crash. They have those federal investigators an interview with the actual Korean pilot who was behind the controls during the disastrous landing. That interview wrapped up today. We'll get the first word from Deborah Hersman, the chair of the NTSB. That's coming up as well.


BLITZER: Looking at live pictures from inside the courtroom right now in the George Zimmerman murder trial. That's Rich Mantei, one of the federal -- one of the state prosecutors who is questioning Daniel Schumacher on this animation that he created. The defense really wants this animation to be shown to the jurors. The jurors are not in the courtroom right now.

It shows a recreation of what happened between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. The prosecution doesn't want this to be shown. They're arguing it strictly speculative, if you will. The judge is going to make a major decision on this momentarily. So, we'll stand by for that. We'll continue our monitoring of what's happening in this discussion.

Meanwhile, one of the nation's most respected experts on gunshot wounds appeared to do some considerable damage to the prosecution's second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman.

Dr. Vincent Di Maio literally wrote the book on forensic pathology. We're told jurors seemed riveted by this crucial defense witness and grandfatherly figure who explained the scientific evidence in layman's terms. He testified in great detail about Trayvon Martin's bullet wound and his now famous hoodie, that sweatshirt that he was wearing.

He says the evidence is consistent with Zimmerman's account that Martin was leaning over him when he shot him. Listen to this.


DR. VINCENT DI MAIO, FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST: If you lean over somebody, you would notice that the clothing tends to fall away from the chest. If instead you're lying on your back and somebody shoots you, the clothing is going to be against your chest. So that the fact that we know the clothing was two to four inches away is consistent with somebody leaning over the person doing the shooting and that the clothing is two to four inches away from the person firing.

DON WEST, ZIMMERMAN DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You may consider in your opinion as well that the clothing was wet. Mr. Martin's shirt was described as being damp, that it had been raining that night and that when it was photographed at the medical examiner's office the next day, it was obviously wet in places.

You may also consider that the responding officers found an unopened can of a beverage in the front pouch of Mr. Martin's hooded sweatshirt. This is in evidence as Exhibit 148, an unopened 23 ounce can of a -- a fruit beverage.

DI MAIO: Yes. WEST: Do you find those facts consistent with what you saw as well as consistent with what Mr. Zimmerman said happened?

DI MAIO: This would tend to reinforce because the reason that the -- as you bend forward, the clothing falls away from the body is gravity. Now, if you have wet clothing, the clothing is heavier and there's going to be a greater tendency to fall. And if you have something in the front pulling the shirt down as you lean over, again, it tends to pull away from the body.

So the wound itself by the gap, by the powder tattooing in the face of a contact of the clothing -- indicates that this is consistent with Mr. Zimmerman's account that he -- that Mr. Martin was over him, leaning forward at the time he was shot.


BLITZER: That was just one of several key moments in Dr. Di Maio's testimony that supported Zimmerman's claim that he shot Martin in self-defense.

Let's bring in our panel, the defense attorney, Jose Baez, is joining us. Also joining us in Sanford, Florida, our legal analyst, the former federal prosecutor, Sunny Hostin, also our CNN legal correspondent Jean Casarez.

It looks like that testimony was pretty strongly in favor of the defense, Jose. How important was it?

JOSE BAEZ, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It's extremely important. For one thing, and that is that this trial has moved into a direction of who was on top, whose voice is that.

Wolf, I know Vince Di Maio, I've worked with him. His book on gunshot wounds is the bible when it comes to gunshot wounds and it's used by every forensic pathologist across the country. So what this man says is extremely important. But the fact that he said it's consistent with isn't necessarily definitive but the way -- the lack of cross-examination from the prosecution on this issue really gave it a lot more weight than it could have been.

Again, it still doesn't answer the initial question which was who was the initial aggressor, who started this fight. The fact that at a certain point Mr. Zimmerman was on the bottom. I don't necessarily -- I wouldn't say it was a homerun but it certainly is powerful testimony.

BLITZER: Did the prosecutors do a good job, Sunny, in cross- examining this witness, Dr. Di Maio?

SUNNY HOSTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think so. I mean, certainly a witness like this, a world renowned expert who wrote the book on forensic pathology or rather on gunshot wounds, you don't cross- examine that type of witness on his credentials because you can't. What you do is you change the narrative. And that's what this prosecution did. The defense wants this case to be about who's yelling and who's on top because their case is about self-defense, about justifiable force. Now of course the prosecution's case is about second-degree murder. Their case is about who started this fight because if George Zimmerman started the fight, then bottom line is, you know, self- defense becomes a bit trickier for him because he's got to meet other prongs.

He can't just say, oh, I shot in self-defense. And that's what the prosecution did coming right out of the game. He said you're not testifying about who threw this first punch, are you? And Dr. Di Maio said no. And you're no testifying about who -- you know, who started this fight? No. And that's what the prosecution needed to do and so they got that. They also got him to concede a couple of points that I think are going to be very be helpful.

In fact he said that he doesn't trust eyewitness testimony because they're always wrong. I think that really hurt the defense's case and I also think it was very helpful for the prosecution that he did concede that Trayvon Martin could have been backing away. That shows that perhaps George Zimmerman wasn't in reasonable fear of dying and didn't exhaust all means to get away, which you would have to do to prove self-defense if he started the fight.

BLITZER: What was it like, Jean, inside the courtroom during Dr. Di Maio's testimony? You were inside there and I know you were looking, you kept a close eye on those six women who were in the jury.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN LEGAL CORRESPONDENT: I did. You know, any time you're in a courtroom and one of the renowned experts of this country takes the stand, I mean, it's nothing but riveting because you listened to what they're saying. You listen to their credentials. And the jury I believe was very, very fascinated, just watching, listening, taking notes up and down, with our heads, looking at demeanor, taking the notes.

I think very important one thing he testified to was that he believes there are six separate impacts to George Zimmerman's head. And that's important if one is reasonably in fear of imminent death. He said there were two lacerations as we've seen on the back of his head. What he said, though, as contrary to other medical examiner's was that it was from two different impacts to the head because there was a deep valley between the two.

And then there were two abrasions, one on either side of the head, two more impacts. His nose, he said, was displaced to the side because there was so much swelling. It was so huge in that initial photo and then a few hours later the swelling was down. He believed that somebody placed that nose back in the position it should have been, and then the last injury he said was to the forehead, a punch to the forehead of George Zimmerman.

BLITZER: All right, everyone, stand by. We're going to continue to monitor what's happening in the courtroom right now. The judge has to make a very important decision on an animation that may or may not be allowed to be shown to the jurors. We're also looking closely at how the prosecution tried to use the defense's forensic expert against them. We're standing by for new information from federal investigators.

Also, by the way, on the Asiana Airline crash, you're looking at live pictures coming in from San Francisco, the NTSB getting ready to brief us on the first interview with the pilot who was in control when that plane crash landed.


BLITZER: We've been telling you about a powerful witness today for George Zimmerman's defense, a nationally renowned forensic pathologist, an expert on gunshot wounds. In cross-examination the prosecutor was respectful of Dr. Vincent Di Maio while zeroing in on all the things he couldn't know, for sure, about the shooting. He also asked Dr. Di Maio about Zimmerman's claim that Martin, Trayvon Martin put his hand over his mouth and nose during their scuffle.


BERNIE DE LA RIONDA, ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY: And so he's got blood there, right?

DI MAIO: Right.

DE LA RIONDA: OK. I put my hand over that, right?


DE LA RIONDA: What do you expect my hand to have on it?

DI MAIO: Blood.

DE LA RIONDA: Sir, wouldn't you agree that that photograph I just showed you that I put my hand over, and you said you would expect blood on my hand. Wouldn't you agree if he was bleeding like that that the blood -- if he's standing the blood would go down, right? I'm assuming. If he's bleeding from the nose?

DI MAIO: It depends how profusely but eventually it will go down. Right.

DE LA RIONDA: OK. Now, if I'm laying flat on my back and I'm bleeding from my nose, the blood will go inward, correct?

DI MAIO: Partially. Partially.


DI MAIO: Some will go out and some will go in.

DE LA RIONDA: And so it will be more difficult for me to swallow or to speak, I'm assuming, if bloods coming down, correct?

DI MAIO: Depends how profusely you're bleeding. DE LA RIONDA: Sure.

DI MAIO: Right.

DE LA RIONDA: OK. While assuming I was bleeding profusely and assuming I had a bloody nose or maybe even a fractured nose and it was bloody, and I'm laying down, the blood would go into my mouth, correct? Eventually?

DI MAIO: Yes, sir.


BLITZER: Let's bring back our panel. Jose Baez, Sunny Hostin, Jean Casarez.

Jean, give us your analysis of what we just heard because this was part of the cross-examination, the effort to undermine a little bit what Dr. Di Maio was saying on behalf of the defense.

CASAREZ: And undermine the credibility of George Zimmerman, that George Zimmerman was lying when he said that Trayvon was putting his hands on his mouth as he was trying to scream for help and no blood was found on Trayvon's hand. And another expert has testified that possibly when he was laying down, George Zimmerman, that the blood would be going down his throat. It wouldn't be coming out of his mouth because of the force of gravity at that point. So the prosecution trying to show with the witness that in fact the blood come could out of his nose.

BLITZER: Sunny, what's your analysis?

HOSTIN: Yes, I thought that that was OK cross-examination. I don't know that the prosecution got that much out of it. Like Jean, I think they got out of it that perhaps George Zimmerman was lying when he said he was the one screaming for help because you can't really scream for help if you've got blood in your throat. But I think what was good for the prosecution is that the defense is trying to have it both ways, Wolf.

They're trying to say, one, well, you know, his nose was so bloody because Trayvon Martin punched him in the nose and they're also saying that Trayvon Martin covered his face with his hands, his nose and mouth with his hands causing him not to be able to breathe. Well, if that's true, they're not -- they're sort of mutually exclusively, right? You can't really yell for help and also, you know, say that somebody covered your mouth and there's no blood evidence on that person's hands.

So I think it was helpful to show the inconsistencies in George Zimmerman's voice but -- I don't know, testimony rather, but I don't know if it was that helpful.

BLITZER: Let me get to Jose to weigh in. Go ahead, Jose.

BAEZ: Well, I think to piggy-back off on what Sunny is saying, if you add on the fact that was he also screaming for help if he had -- if he had his hands covered, but also how could you be banging his head and still covering his mouth? So if he's banging his head and covering his mouth, it's kind of difficult to do something like that while you're trying to cover someone's mouth up.

But if later on, if the state wants to, they could show DNA swabs from Trayvon Martin's hands to show whether there was actual DNA from George Zimmerman on his hands. I don't know if that's coming but certainly if they have it, that's the time to use it.

HOSTIN: It came already. And that has come in already, Jose. That has come in already that there was none of George Zimmerman's DNA under Trayvon Martin's finger nails, on either hand, there was no blood found on Trayvon Martin's hand.

BAEZ: But that's not what I'm talking about. That's not what --


HOSTIN: The prosecution did that and the state --

BAEZ: That's not I'm talking about. I'm talking about the swabs of his hands, not the fingernails or the search for blood. That's completely different. If his hands were actually swabbed for DNA -- and they are not George Zimmerman's DNA, that's the time the state should use it. So that may come. We don't know yet.

CASAREZ: But here's the challenge. Here's the challenge according to the evidence with all that. His body lay out on that grass for three hours that night as it was raining before it was taken to the medical examiner's office.

BAEZ: But it doesn't matter. It would just degrade the DNA. It wouldn't get rid of it all together.


BAEZ: You could have bodies submerged in water and still -- and still obtain DNA from it. It would degrade it --

BLITZER: Yes, but I think --

BAEZ: -- but it wouldn't get rid of it all together.

BLITZER: I think the medical examiner who testified -- who did the autopsy that he didn't see anything on the hands or -- any blood or anything, as a result he didn't do any DNA there and that was seen at least by some as negligence on the part of the -- of the medical examiner. But we'll talk about this. Hold on for a moment, guys.

I also want to alert our viewers we're standing by for a news conference from the NTSB, the National Transportation Safety Board, on the Asiana Airline crash and investigators' first interview today with the pilots who's at the control. What did we learn about that interview? Stand by. We'll hear from the NTSB.


BLITZER: We get back to the evidence hearing in the George Zimmerman trial momentarily. Also we're standing by for that news conference from the NTSB on the interview with the pilot who is under -- there is a live picture coming in from San Francisco. Expect that to be starting soon.

In the meantime, there's an intriguing story coming into CNN. The former head of the International Monetary Fund is blasting New York City Police for making him walk in front of cameras after his arrest back in 2011.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn was accused of raping a hotel maid pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors eventually, though, dropped all charges against him. Now he's speaking out exclusively to CNN.

And joining us now from Paris, our own Richard Quest who had an exclusive interview with Dominique Strauss-Kahn, a man who potentially one day might have been the president of France. He was the managing director of the International Monetary Fund. But he got himself into deep trouble.

Give us the up-shot. What did he have to say to you, Richard?

RICHARD QUEST, HOST, CNN'S QUEST MEANS BUSINESS: It was one of the most startling images of the whole incident back in 2011. The sight of the managing director of the IMF having been accused of rape in handcuffs. The so-called perpetrator walk. Much loved and used in New York as he's paraded in front of the press being taken from police station to prison or to the courts.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn has never really spoken about how he felt being made to do the perp walk until now when he described the walk as terrible.


DOMINIQUE STRAUSS-KAHN, FORMER MANAGING DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND: I think it was a terrible thing, frankly. But only because it's difficult to live with. There are many things you're difficult to live with, you have to do. The problem is that it's a moment where in all your appeal American society, you're supposed to be innocent. You're supposed to be innocent until you're convicted. And the perp walk takes place at the moment where you're supposed to be innocent. And so what happens, you're just shown to everybody as if you're a criminal. At a moment nobody knows whether it's true or not. Maybe you're a criminal, maybe you're not. And it will be proved later on.

And so it's just unfair to put people in that way in front of the rest of the world when you just don't know what they have done.

QUEST: Did you feel that at the time?

STRAUSS-KAHN: Well, I was -- I was angry. Because at this moment I didn't understand what was going on. I didn't understand why I was there. I was just understanding that something was going on that I didn't control.


QUEST: Now Dominique Strauss-Kahn wasn't the only person who was angry. Here in France the public were angry. Because in this country you can't show people in handcuffs publicly until they have been convicted. So the perp walk, Wolf, that moment that has become so identified with the whole New York Sofitel incident, now we know how the man involved felt about it.

BLITZER: And what is he saying now, Richard, about that allegation that he raped that woman? That housekeeper in that hotel?

QUEST: Remember the charges were dismissed on the motion of the prosecution and because nothing illegal took place and because he's not been convicted, his simple comment is, what took place in that room, he admits to having sex. He admits to that. He says it's a private matter. And when I asked him, well, why did you pay off the maid? He said, simple. Under U.S. law it would have taken longer and could have cost me more. It was quicker to settle, pay the money, and get on with my life.

BLITZER: Richard Quest in Paris with us. All right. Richard, thanks very much for that report.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

BLITZER: Deborah Hersman, the chair of the NTSB, briefing reporters on the crash in San Francisco.

DEBORAH HERSMAN, NTSB CHAIR: Our structures and our systems group worked on some documentation of the cockpit. They made the following direct observations with respect to switch positions and information that specific evidence in the cockpit. They found that the flight is director was on for the righting seat. It was off for the left seat.

The auto-throttles were armed. All three fire handles were extended and these -- these would activate bottles to put out fliers because the crew is concerned there could be a fire if they have this crash in both engines and the APU. And so they saw that this was extended for all three locations. Flaps were set to 30. The speed brake lever was down, which indicates that it was not being used.

Our survival factors team yesterday was their first day to go inside the aircraft. They are removing overhead bags and personal effects in the aircraft and working to document things inside the cabin. There are efforts to sift through the burned wreckage in the section of the aircraft that has extensive fire damage. And they're documenting the seating compartment.

There are over 300 seats on the aircraft and our team is working to document them for survivability analysis purposes. We're working to obtain a passenger manifest to understand seating locations for the passengers. And we also want to use this to help identify fatalities and injuries and seating positions, specific seating positions, and injuries or the lack thereof.

They've removed all of the slides from the aircraft. There were eight doors and eight slides that were removed. One of the doors, door 4 left, was outside of the aircraft on the ground at the crash site. The other seven doors are attached to the airframe.

While out at the accident site, I had an opportunity to walk the entire debris field from the aircraft to the seawall and back. When you get down to the seawall, you can identify where the first strikes took place. First the main landing gear impacted the seawall. And then the tail.

You can see pieces of the cabin, sections of the cabin, that are found very early on in the debris field. You can see aircraft parts, galley materials, newspapers, magazines, and flooring. We began interviewing the cabin crew today as well as airport operations, airport rescue and firefighting personnel, and other emergency response personnel.

We're looking very closely at the evacuation. We're looking at videos. We're interested, of course, talking to cabin crew and the flight crew as well as the surviving passengers to understand what was going on.

Many of you had questions about the evacuation, and so I'm going to give you some basic background on full scale evacuation requirements. The FAA requires full scale evacuation of the maximum seating capacity requested for certification of an aircraft. The test has to be conducted using test passengers who are unfamiliar with the aircraft's cabin's arrangement and represent a diverse range of ages and genders.

Half of the exits are to be blocked. Only emergency lighting is permitted to simulate darkness. And the aisles and passageways are littered with pillows, blankets, and luggage. The test is considered successful if all of the aircraft's occupants exit within 90 seconds. The manufacturer typically uses a line crew to serve as the flight crew and the cabin crew during this evacuation exercise.

Our ops or our operations in human performance team has spent the last day and a half interviewing the crew members. When I briefed you yesterday, I had indicated that they were conducting interviews yesterday. The interviews took longer than our team expected. They interviewed two of the flight crew members yesterday. And they are interviewing two of the flight crew members today. They've completed three of the four interviews and the fourth interview is being conducted now.

I'm going to talk to you about the four flight crew members. And I'm going to share with you some information about their experience as relayed to our investigators during the interviews and some of their observations that they reported to our team.