In 1970, dur­ing a court­room scene, Pros­e­cu­tor Eric Chas­tain ques­tions Sher­iff Jack­son about the dis­cov­ery of Chase Andrews’ body at the base of a fire tow­er, sug­gest­ing foul play due to lack of foot­prints or oth­er evi­dence near the scene. Despite the absence of fin­ger­prints and the con­nec­tion of red wool fibers from Miss Clark’s hat to Chase’s cloth­ing, the sher­if­f’s tes­ti­mo­ny appears weak with­out direct evi­dence of mur­der. Defense attor­ney Tom Mil­ton chal­lenges the assump­tion of erased foot­prints, propos­ing nat­ur­al tidal move­ments could have elim­i­nat­ed any tracks, includ­ing Chase’s, with­out human inter­ven­tion. This the­o­ry sug­gests the pos­si­bil­i­ty of an acci­dent rather than a crime, espe­cial­ly since oth­er evi­dence like Miss Clark’s fin­ger­prints or hair were not found at the scene, nor was there any sub­stan­tial proof of her pres­ence at the tow­er on the fate­ful night. Mil­ton fur­ther dis­cred­its the sher­if­f’s exper­tise and inves­tiga­tive efforts, high­light­ing the reg­u­lar­i­ty with which the tow­er grates were left open, pos­si­bly by local kids, thus ques­tion­ing the pre­sump­tion of Miss Clark’s involve­ment in Chase’s death. The exchange casts doubt on the pros­e­cu­tion’s nar­ra­tive, empha­siz­ing the lack of con­crete evi­dence to tie Miss Clark to the alleged crime.