Juju Chang

At the heart of this case is, was there an intruder or not?

It wasn't a fictitious stranger who was breaking into her home, who she needed to be afraid of.

It was the stranger she married.

To prove their argument, prosecutors put Nick's intruder story to the test.

They showed the jury video of police trying to reenact the break-in and the jiggling of the door Nick says he heard from the upstairs bedroom.

Nick's attorneys introduced evidence to contradict that by showing the tool marks on the doorframe that suggests someone was trying to break in.

There were marks on the door that were consistent with someone using a screwdriver to pry open the door.

Maybe it happened as he said.

And the police recognized that, which is why they seized three screwdrivers from the house and from Heidi and Nick's cars and compared them to the tool marks.

And none of the three screwdrivers could be matched to those tool marks.

You brought in a locksmith.

We did.

What did you discover?

He's been to thousands of burglary scenes.

The locksmith had never seen a burglary with so little damage to a door.

At 6.30 in the morning on a Sunday, when you expect people to be sleeping in the house, you do not break in by kicking in the door.

You break in covertly.

Another inconsistency in Nick's story?

Prosecutors say that undisturbed table in the foyer.

It's just inches from the door.