her 200 to 300 times a day if he wasn't around her, able to get a hold of her. his silence especially at the crime scene was deafening. because there was no text message, and i did to the jury, he stood at that location because he wanted people to see him there. >> how could the jury be sure that paul was guilty? the prosecutor offered her. remember rosie, the skillful police dog trained to alert to the faintest whiff of accelerant of the sort used in arson fire? she alerted when she smelled some of paul zumot's clothes. suspicious? yes. though, not exactly ironclad evidence. as you'll see, courtesy of paul's high-profile defense attorney, the man famous for defending scott peterson. his name, mark geragos. >> i've had many a client who i have no doubt was capable of the acts that he was accused of. this is just not one of them. coming up -- in the last hours of jennifer's life, something was caught on camera. does it prove paul is not guilty? >> so you had sex last night with her and videoed it? >> yeah. >> anybody who watches this is never going to have the impression that this was somebody who was ready to kill her. >> when "burning suspicion" continues.