again turned red hot angry. the subject seemed to be a debt she claimed he owed her. right around 10:30, 10:45 into 11:16 in the morning she s now referring back to those text messages and telling him, he better bring a check and don t come back or she s going to the san jose police department to file a charge by 3:00 that day. and that s the last text message anyone has with her, the last contact she has ever with anyone. and just before noon is when paul lost his temper and choked her to death, drove to a gas station, bought a can of gasoline. later, returned home and torched the house. and somewhere along the way, said the prosecutor, he erased all of those angry text messages she sent him. every single one between the defendant and her, every single one is gone. months worth. and then paul used jennifer s cell phone to send fake texts to her friends so they believed she was still alive.
and now with the conclusion to our story burning suspicion once again keith morris. defense attorney mark geregos had done what he could to poke holes, arguing the prosecution had no scientific proof or clear evidence zumont was anywhere near jennifer. and he asked if he attacked her, wouldn t she put up a fight? did the prosecution even have a case? paul zumont wasn t going to take any chances. in fact, he wanted to tell his side of the story. a way to show the jury that paul
that didn t read like any old quarrel. and the timing? jennifer sent that text to paul right at the end of the elaborate birthday party she threw for him when she had perhaps 12 hours to live. she was so upset about something that she refused to go to the hookah lounge after the party. walked all the way home on a broken heel texting all the way. jennifer good, stay away from me. i just got home. paul, i m staying away this time for good. what a way to end my birthday. for jennifer to walk home alone at night with a broken heel and upset, she had to have been i don t even know if i ve ever seen her that mad. but that was the night before. angry messages buzzing back and forth. then, as the cell phone revealed, the pair made love during the night before jennifer s morning text messages
message, and i did say 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
release of tension. i was very shocked by the verdict. i think a lot of people were shocked by the verdict. because if you saw through the weeks and weeks of trial it s just inconceivable how they could get to the result they got to. but to the jurors the issues about text messages and whether paul had jennifer s phone all afternoon wasn t as important as zumont on the stand. that s what made the difference. his tears, for example sometimes i feel like i m too cynical, but it was a universityally held opinion i think that the entire jury believed it was a manufactured mome. what was the problem with his testimony? there were two things that struck me. one was when he broke down on the stand. and to me it didn t seem genuine. and the other portion of his testimony was when he had the opportunity to tell us where he