Lester Holt

What did the defense say about it?

The defense really attacked the credibility of the hairbrush evidence.

They zeroed in on concerns over chain of custody because it was found by Jake's daughter, Rachel.

And they also argued that Jake could have been exposed to those chemicals in a number of ways, such as being a heavy smoker or working on cars, things like that.

Lots of things to consider.

But obviously, the jury at Susan's first trial bought the poison theory and convicted her.

But since her conviction was overturned, things have become a little more complicated, right?

Yes.

So that has been a huge twist in this case.

The lab that came back with these results has been barred from doing forensic testing in criminal cases because of inaccurate results they provided in a different case in 2022.

Right.

So when it came time for Susan's retrial, the judge ruled that prosecutors couldn't present the lab's tox report or any of its findings to the jury.

Yeah, we should point out the lab issue is part of the reason that Susan's second trial was stopped in its tracks in December.

Can you explain what happened there?

Given the judge's ruling, anything that had to do with the tox report, any mention of the word antifreeze or other poisons allegedly found in Jake's hair sample was not supposed to be mentioned at all.

But about an hour into his testimony, the coroner said the word antifreeze.

Our team said you could hear people gasp in the courtroom, and Susan's defense team immediately jumped on the coroner's slip-up, and they asked for a mistrial, and the judge agreed, and that brings us to where we are now.

So, a lot to catch up on here.

Trial three is now underway.

There is a new prosecutor in the case, and poison wasn't even mentioned in opening statements.