>> i think the police are just wrong. >> no forensics, no witnesses, not even a body. the defense might have stopped right there. instead, they decided to gamble. mike was a nice guy. the jury should see that. >> do you solemnly swear -- >> if the details had been a little different each time he was asked to tell the story, here was his chance to straighten it out for the jury. how odd then that mike, under oath now, amended his story just a little again. like when he added the detail that carol was in the bathtub when she said something mean to him. >> she said, "you make my skin crawl." >> also slightly different, the way he discovered she was gone. >> i opened the front door and went out, and the garage door was open, and the car was gone. >> in earlier versions, didn't mike say he heard the garage door go up and saw taillights as carol drove away? why had his story changed again?