entrepreneur. case said they were determined to look at the evidence, not just courtroom theatre. everyone was very committed to going over the evidence and discussing each of the witnesses and he seemed like he was a very and each of the crucial pieces driven person. of evidence.in and that s definitely a quality that jennifer was looking for. jordanian-american paul zumot, sleek, attractive, educated, engaging. and it was crucial, they paul owned a local hangout, a decided, to compare very cafe. carefully the different time unusual place by north american lines claimed by the prosecution standards where customers could smoke flavored tobacco pipes called hookahs. and the defense. this man was a fan. so we analyzed the timeline he s a good-looking man. he looks good, smells good, he s for the entire day, from his witty, he s smart and he s just affectionate. so love at first sight? testimony where he said he was and then other pieces of well, maybe. said their friends. tes
just courtroom theatre. everyone was very committed to going over the evidence and discussing each of the witnesses and each of the crucial pieces of evidence. it was really encouraging. and it was crucial, they decided, to compare very carefully the different time lines claimed by the prosecution and the defense. so we analyzed the timeline for the entire day, from his testimony where he said he was and then other pieces of testimony and evidence to either validate or contradict. the jury took less than 14 hours and came back with a verdict. guilty. all i remember was i heard that word guilty, man. and it was just like, this . i m craig melvin. i m natalie morales. and this is dateline. this is something that you watch dateline for about somebody else. not about your friend, not about someone you love. she was completely defenseless. she reached out her arms and simply said, help me. my heart drochltd i want to know why. why? it s a baffling case of murde
had he persuaded the jurors that he was innocent? do you feel he got a little chippy or arrogant on the stand? i don t think he got arrogant, but i think clearly he was tired and exasperated. he wanted to tell his story. he was being cut off. but the jurors once they got the case said they were determined to look at the evidence, not just courtroom theatre. everyone was very committed to going over the evidence and discussing each of the witnesses and each of the crucial pieces of evidence. it was really encouraging. and it was crucial, they decided, to compare very carefully the different time lines claimed by the prosecution and the defense. so we analyzed the timeline for the entire day, from his testimony where he said he was and then other pieces of testimony and evidence to either validate or contradict. the jury took less than 14 hours and came back with a verdict. guilty. all i remember was i heard
that word guilty, man. and it was just like, this relief, this release of tension. i was very shocked by the verdict. i think a lot of people were shocked by the verdict. because i mean, if you sat through the weeks and weeks of trial. it just it s inconceivable how they could get to the result that 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 zumot on the stand. that s what made the difference. his tears, for example. sometimes i feel like i m too cynical, but it was universally held opinion, i think. the entire jury believed that it was a manufactured moment. 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.
i don t think he got arrogant, but i think clearly he was tired and exasperated. he wanted to tell his story. he was being cut off. but the jurors once they got the case said they were determined to look at the evidence, not just courtroom theatre. everyone was very committed to going over the evidence and discussing each of the witnesses and each of the crucial pieces of evidence. it was really encouraging. and it was crucial, they decided, to compare very carefully the different time lines claimed by the prosecution and the defense. so we analyzed the timeline for the entire day, from his testimony where he said he was and then other pieces of testimony and evidence to either validate or contradict. the jury took less than 14 hours and came back with a verdict. guilty. all i remember was i heard that word guilty, man. and it was just like, this