. >>> defense attorney mark geragos had done what he could to poke holes in the prosecution's murder case against paul zumot, arguing the prosecution had no scientific proof or clear evidence zumot was anywhere near jennifer when she was strangled and when the house was set on fire. 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 gerados assigned a female colleague to question paul. it must have been a strategy, whispered courtroom observers. the way to show the jury that paul could, in fact, interact well with a woman. but those observers were mistaken, said geragos. >> well, i generally -- i don't think direct examination is my strong suit and i was concentrating on cross-examination of the witness. so paul zumot looked the jurors in the eyes and told them, i did not kill jennifer schipsi, did not burn the house. then he