messages, two of which went to jennifer, and neither occasion did he leave jennifer a message. he left messages for others and spoke with others, text messages, for instance, the same friend multiple times. but in that two-hour period, at no time does he leave that location to look for jennifer perhaps, to go to the other side of the blocked-off street. you know, if he called her and texted her once, surely that s enough. i mean, she ll call him back. the cell phone records actually bear out that he s a person that would call or text her 200 to 300 times a day if he wasn t around her, unable 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
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
was alive or dead. but in the time that he was there, he made 38 calls and text messages, two of which went to jennifer and neither occasion did he leave jennifer a message. he left messages for others and spoke with others, text messages, for instance, the same friend multiple times. but in that two-hour period, at no time does he leave that location to look for jennifer perhaps, to go to the other side of the blocked off street. reporter: you know, if he called her and texted her once, surely that s enough. i mean, she ll call him back. the cell phone records actually bear out that he s a person that would call or text her 2 to 300 times a day if he wasn t able to get ahold 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. reporter: how could the jury be sure that paul was guilty? 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 who 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? 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.