the solution? paul zumot himself appears to have demanded it. the chance to defend himself to the jury by testifying. some courtroom observers believe the defense had already created a reasonable doubt that testifying was in fact, risky. especially forpaul, said his friend. knowing paul the way i know paul and the way that he could be interpreted incorrectly, i was very nervous about paul taking the stand. risky or not, paul was determined to tell the jury his side of the story. coming up i thought, you know, if there was any way this jury thought this man was responsible for this, now they know for sure that he s not. but what did the jury think when burning suspicion continues. david. what s going on? oh hey! that s it? yeah. everybody two seconds!
to our story, burning suspicion. once again, keith morris. defense attorney mark geragos had done what he could to poke holes in the prosecution s murder case against paul zumot, arguing that the prosecution had no solid scientific proof or clear evidence zumot was anywhere near jennifer when she was strangled and the house was set on fire. anyway, he asked, if paul attacked jennifer, wouldn t she have put up some kind of fight? why were there no defensive marks or scratches on paul zumot s body? did the prosecution even have a case? paul zumot wasn t going to take any chances. in fact, he was determined to tell the jury his side of the story. so geragos assigned a female colleague to question paul. it must have been a strategy, whispered courtroom observers. a way to show the jury that paul could in fact interact well with a woman.
our story, burning suspicion. once again, keith morris. defense attorney mark geragos had done what he could to poke holes in the prosecution s murder case against paul dume not, arguing that the prosecution had no solid scientific proof or clear evidence zumot was anywhere near jennifer when she was strangled and the house was set on fire. and anyway, he asked, if paul attacked jennifer, wouldn t she have put up some kind of a fight? why were there no defensive marks or scratches on paul zumot s body? did the prosecution even have a case? paul zumot wasn t going to take any chances. in fact, he was determined to tell the jury his side of the story. so geragos assigned a female colleague to question paul. it must have been a strategy, whispered courtroom observers. a way to show the jury that paul could in fact interact well with a woman.
coffee cup incident and the colonel klink reference in one of the threatening letters. for the defense, teachers from joanne chambers former school district testified that she made similar claims of harassment years earlier. but it was the dna evidence that stunned most courtroom observers. the dna was definitely the bombshell. to hear that joanne chambers saliva was found on the stamps of one of the threatening letters and the flap of another envelope, it was just unbelievable. but on the witness stand under oath, joanne chambers had an explanation. she said the prosecutor left her alone with the evidence and the stamps fell off one of the envelopes. she said she licked the stamps to reattach them and when they didn t work used a glue stick. dr. lichtenwalner testified that
of the threatening letters. for the defense, teachers from joanne chambers former school district testified that she made similar claims of harassment years earlier. but it was the dna evidence that stunned most courtroom observers. the dna was definitely the bombshell. to hear that joanne chambers saliva was found on the stamps of one of the threatening letters and the flap of another envelope, it was just unbelievable. but on the witness stand under oath, joanne chambers had an explanation. she said the prosecutor left her alone with the evidence and the stamps fell off one of the envelopes. she said she licked the stamps to reattach them and when they didn t work used a glue stick. dr. lichtenwalner testified that she saw no glue stick residue on