Transcript for Defense argues no forensic evidence ties woman to mom's murder: Part 4
An emotional start to day six of the Jackson murder trial. Reporter: The news is bad for noura Jackson. With this much circumstantial evidence, it seems unlikely she'll be "Walking in Memphis." The defendant killed her mother. Reporter: But noura does not despair, because there's a gap in the state's case as wide as the Mississippi. There's no forensic evidence connecting her to the crime. You would think if you have a bloody fight with a knife that her DNA will be somewhere. There was no bloody clothes found, and there was no bloody knife found. Reporter: These knives are at the scene but cops can't identify the murder weapon. And they tested a lot of evidence. And it's quite significant that most of that evidence had absolutely nothing to do with noura Jackson. Noura's blood was not at the crime scene. And Jennifer's blood was not on noura. It does seem a little bit strange that there would not be any of hers there, giving the violence of this whole episode. Reporter: But now it gets more complicated, because investigators did find the DNA of two other females, still unidentified. Were they the real killers? Not only was noura's DNA not found in the room, but someone else's was. The defense's position is, well, find those people. Reporter: Investigators couldn't find a match, but they also had no way of knowing if that DNA pre-dated the night of the murder. And there is more evidence that could point to another unknown suspect, and away from noura. This envelope contains small clumps of hair gripped in Jennifer's dead hand. They're blonde. Noura's hair is brown. So whose were they? We don't know, because forensic experts never tested them. The clump of hair. I find that really hard to believe. That, you know, you will parade 40 witnesses to say that I did this, partook in drugs, that I drank, that I did all that. But you didn't test a clump of hair found in a murdered woman's hands? News flash. Check your law books. The defense can test evidence too. Noura Jackson's team wouldn't touch that hair with a ten-foot pole. Why? Because that way they could complain about it throughout the entire trial suggesting that the state had failed. Reporter: But noura's lawyer says a test would have been worthless. The hair that was later found had not been maintained in a chain of custody that would have made it worthwhile to test it because we would not have been able to prove it hadn't been tampered with. The prosecution has now rested its case. Reporter: The prosecution rests, and there's a big surprise. You don't call a single witness. Was that a reckless decision? No, it wasn't a reckless decision. It was -- it's very unusual for a defendant to testify unless it's a self-defense case. She wasn't going to testify, but other people could've testified in her defense. Reporter: So why not put some witnesses on the stand who were friends of her, who would have spoken positively of noura? Well, in retrospect that does seem to be an issue. She needed to have a defense. I don't know what they could've done, but they could've done something. Reporter: If noura had testified, she might have sounded something like this. You wouldn't kill your mother because you were in a rage? No. Reporter: You wouldn't kill her for the money. No. There was no rage. There was no money. There was no motive. So one was created. Ladies and gentlemen, this case is about Jennifer Jackson. Reporter: In closing, prosecutor Steven Jones returns to noura's motivation for matricide. Her mother was the only thing between the defendant's lifestyle of freedom, she was the only thing between the defendant's father's money and the defendant. She wasn't going to cut bologna with those knives, she was going to cut the thing that was standing in the way of her lifestyle of freedom. Reporter: Then prosecutor Amy Weirich turns to noura and adds a dramatic flourish that will later have a far-reaching impact. Just tell us where you were. That's all we're asking, noura. Objection, your honor. Reporter: And then there was that manicure. In the defense closing, Valerie corder argues the condition of noura's hands is actually proof of her innocence, despite that cut. Her nails that had been manicured the day before were pristine. There was not a chip. A flake. A crack. No blood. No hair. No nothing. Those were not the hands of a child who had killed her mother. It just seems logical that you've got all this motion, you've got all this force, you've got blood going wherever, it seems like there would be more of that type of injury than just one cut. Reporter: Then corder plays her strongest card. The lack of other physical evidence. But is it an ace? None of noura Jackson's blood. Pillow, none of noura Jackson's blood. This doesn't prove it. This doesn't prove it. This doesn't prove it. Comforters, dust ruffles, other items from the bedroom, none of noura Jackson's blood. The only place where they found noura's DNA was in the sample she had volunteered to them. It wasn't on any of the evidence. Is she a diabolical, premeditated killer who's brilliant and leaves absolutely no blood on the scene? Or is she some drug addled foolish teenager? It can't possibly be both. Your best hope if you're the defense isn't that the jurors say, "There's no way she did it." Instead you're hoping they say, "Yeah, I think she might have done it, but that's not proof
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.