Investigator

The son, Nathan, testifies. And I'm told that it was a very stirring, powerful testimony. What do you remember of it?

Nathan's testimony doesn't really make sense. Nathan keeps saying he's reluctant, he did it anyway. Why would Nathan help his father do it? What's in it for him? It's a big mystery.

Nathan's testimony doesn't really make sense. Nathan keeps saying he's reluctant, he did it anyway. Why would Nathan help his father do it? What's in it for him? It's a big mystery.

Nathan's testimony doesn't really make sense. Nathan keeps saying he's reluctant, he did it anyway. Why would Nathan help his father do it? What's in it for him? It's a big mystery.

But the defense just keeps chipping away at that evidence, including those 27 bone fragments that were found on the property. In fact, there's a rather big bombshell in store for the jury.

But the defense just keeps chipping away at that evidence, including those 27 bone fragments that were found on the property. In fact, there's a rather big bombshell in store for the jury.

But the defense just keeps chipping away at that evidence, including those 27 bone fragments that were found on the property. In fact, there's a rather big bombshell in store for the jury.

Bones were found, but they're not the bones of the deceased.

Bones were found, but they're not the bones of the deceased.

Bones were found, but they're not the bones of the deceased.

In fact, it's not clear if they're human bones or animal bones or whether they're bones that were from an Indian burial many years ago.

In fact, it's not clear if they're human bones or animal bones or whether they're bones that were from an Indian burial many years ago.

In fact, it's not clear if they're human bones or animal bones or whether they're bones that were from an Indian burial many years ago.

Prosecutors argued that the bones were degraded by the fire, which Nathan described that burned Bonnie's body. And to prove that there actually was a fire on the property, the prosecution used an unexpected method and witness.

Prosecutors argued that the bones were degraded by the fire, which Nathan described that burned Bonnie's body. And to prove that there actually was a fire on the property, the prosecution used an unexpected method and witness.

Prosecutors argued that the bones were degraded by the fire, which Nathan described that burned Bonnie's body. And to prove that there actually was a fire on the property, the prosecution used an unexpected method and witness.

So we go over there and cut down the tree.

So we go over there and cut down the tree.

So we go over there and cut down the tree.

That tree damage, according to the testimony of a botanist from the University of Wisconsin, was reminiscent of a fire and appears to have happened at the same time Nathan claimed Bonnie's body had been burned. As a prosecutor, why is that critical?