this really becomes a case about science, doesn t it? if the science didn t work, if the jury didn t understand it or didn t buy into it, it was gonna be a not guilty. reporter: dr. diane scala barnett, the coroner who had performed the autopsy on dana s exhumed body told the jury she d been able to get a better look at dana s skull than the first coroner. i saw separate fractures and the pattern of fractures only after the bone was cleaned. there were three impact patterns, three distinct patterns. and what would have caused those? a beating. a beating? some sort of bludgeoning instrument absolutely. unknown, was used? absolutely. but there s no question there were three impact sites on the skull? no question. and this was not at all consistent with falling out of a car. not at all. not in my experience. y shaped incision reporter: it was gruesome testimony for brittany to sit through. the one thing i wasn t
and i just said, they got him. and he said, what do you mean, they got him? and i said, he s been indicted and they ve he s in custody. and my dad just crumbled. he just kept saying, thank you, god, thank you. like this is what i ve wanted my entire life. reporter: but brittany knew her fight for justice was far from over. you have to steel yourself for this trial? uh-huh. and i will be there every second of it, because, you know, nobody s else has ever been there for her. and you know it is a cold case file, it s still mostly circumstantial. it s a tough case to make. right. but i feel in my heart if people listen to the facts, i mean, there s facts, you know. but if the jury doesn t see it that way and he walks, are you okay with that? i m not. but i m not going to stop my opinion, my heart, everything, he killed my mom. and he needs to pay for what he did.
the defense pointed out the only forensic evidence investigators uncovered excluded him after the second autopsy, investigators had sent dana s fingernail clippings to the state crime lab. the male dna found under her fingernails was not mr. adkins ? that s correct. reporter: far more believable the defense said was adkins story of an accident. he has insisted since september of 1982 he didn t do anything, she fell from his car. that has that has not changed at all. lots of other evidence has vanished, witnesses have disappeared or died that s the one thing that has not changed. reporter: and even if you didn t believe russell adkins words, the defense said, his actions that night seemed to speak for themselves. frankly, it doesn t make sense that someone who has just murdered someone is then going to go door to door at 3:00 in the morning, pounding on doors, trying to get them to call someone to come help her. putting yourself at the scene? correct.
that. you know, that s kind of about consent or lying. it doesn t matter. if they had penetrating sexual activity, that s it. he s guilty. and we know he admitted it, we know the plan in terms of the senior salute was to be sexual in terms of sex act, actually penetrating sexually with her. we know that there was a condom involved that he was worried about whether she might become pregnant. friends were sexual, he penetrated her. we know she had vaginal tears. what more do you need? this to me is red herring defense strategy where you just say silly things and hope the jury doesn t see how strong the evidence is. jay is a great lawyer, but he s not a magician. so you re alluding here to the medical condition of the alleged victim. now, as you know, she sought out the school, the school nurse here, two days after the alleged rape. and here s what she said, the school nurse. did you talk about whether
continuing on the vein of charges, where do you stand on the idea of overt charge? the prosecution has taken quite a bit of heat for not being able to meet the threshold of george zimmerman being able to be convicted on the second degree murder charge. they have manslaughter ha is also an option for the jury. do you think they over charged here, they overstepped and couldn t meet the threshold? i m certain they over charged. it happens all the time. prosecutors will go into a courtroom and say, look, we re going to put on our best case, we ll charge him with the highest, most serious crime we can and hopefully p the jury doesn t see the evidence to support that, they ll say the guy shouldn t walk away. we ve got the other charge available to us. the law supports it. the evidence supports it. i may not seem fair but it happens in trials. what do you think, tanya, do you think it was strategy? do you think it was a miss accide misstep? when you re elected to be the prosecutor and m