For a week, Virginia Tech was hammered in court for its actions on the day of the worst school shooting in American history.
Now the school is telling its side of the story.
Families suing Virginia Tech claim that the university failed to notify their daughters -- Erin Peterson and Julia Pryde -- that a gunman had shot and killed two people in a dorm room on April 16, 2007, and then fled.
Pryde and Peterson were later murdered in Norris Hall
The families believe the university should have alerted campus to the possible danger.
But Virginia Tech contends that officers investigating that crime did not believe there was a need to urgently notify students that morning.
And the defense put police officers and security experts on the stand Monday, saying that no evidence from the dorm room killing gave them any indication of the massacre that was to come later.
"It appeared to me at the time, that it was plainly targeted towards a couple of different people and probably domestic," said Bruce Bradbery of the Blacksburg Police Department.
Scott Craig of the Blacksburg Police Department said: "It didn't appear to be happenstance. It looked like whoever went to that room went to that room with a purpose."
Chief Kim Crannis of the Blacksburg Police Department said: "It appeared to be a targeted, singular crime and we did not feel, I did not feel, there was any further danger to the Blacksburg community."
The lawyers suing Virginia Tech claim that just because the first murders looked like a domestic situation, that does not mean that the university should have ignored other possible theories.
They maintain that a warning should have been sent out.
The university's lawyers called several expert witnesses to defend the police officers decisions that morning.
And while Virginia Tech's lawyers don't dispute it took nearly two hours to alert campus about a "shooting incident" in a dorm room, they say that was the appropriate action, given what they knew at the time.
Lawyers defending Virginia Tech and the state called several experts to look at the set of facts police were given that morning.
Mainly that two people, in an out-of-the-way dorm room, both in their pajamas, had been shot and killed.
There was no sign of forced entry, and no evidence of a robbery.
These experts say it was reasonable that Virginia Tech police officers didn't believe there was an ongoing threat.
"I would say it's more of an art than a science," said Steven J. Healy, a campus safety and security expert. "You have to reach some assumptions."
"Once you have a solid lead for motive, it can lead right to a killer," said James Wright, a retired FBI employee.
Attorneys for the families suing Virginia Tech say that is one reasonable assumption. But since it wasn't proven, police should have considered all possibilities. Another being that the gunman could be a threat to more people.
Defense attorneys have a long list of witnesses to call.
The case will run into Tuesday at least.
Expert witnesses called by lawyers defending the state agree that there was "no imminent threat" to campus after dorm-room theater.
According to a campus security expert, determining if there is an "ongoing threat" is more of an art than a science."
The lawsuit against Virginia Tech over it' actions on April 16, 2007 is now in its second week, despite protests from defense lawyers.
We heard a week full of testimony from the lawyers suing Virginia Tech. They argued that the University failed to warn students that a gunman was lose, after two students were shot and killed in a dorm room on the morning of April 16.
They say that failure, directly led to the deaths of students in Norris Hall later that day.
But the defense lawyers asked this morning for the entire case to be thrown out.
Attorneys argued that those bringing this lawsuit did not prove their case and did not present enough evidence to show that the state is liable for the deaths.
They pointed to the fact that everyone, from police, to university officials, came to the same conclusion that morning: that there was no broad danger to students.
"In order to let this case proceed to jury, we'd have to think all police officers got it wrong," Mike Melis, the assistant Attorney General said. "They weren't thinking in a reasonable way. We'd have to sub someone else's opinion. "
Judge Alexander listened to the motion to dismiss, but eventually denied it.
He said this case should and will go to the jury.
After losing that motion, the defense started calling its witnesses to defend the university's actions.
We're told the defense has a long list of witnesses -- whether or not they'll call them all is still undecided.
The state asked the judge to dismiss the lawsuit. However, the judge denied that request.
The state is beginning its defense.
The state will start defending itself in court Monday morning over its response to the 2007 shootings on Virginia Tech's campus.
The state is expected to call up to 50 people to the witness stand to talk about that day.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs rested its case Friday.
Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 students before he was shot dead.
The parents of two victims, Erin Peterson and Julia Pryde, are suing the state. The families are seeking $100,000 each, but they say they are primarily interested in holding Virginia Tech officials accountable for their actions.
They say their daughters wouldn't have gone to class that day if they'd known a shooter was on campus.
The trial is being held in Montgomery County Circuit Court in Christiansburg.
WDBJ7's Karen Kiley is in court and will provide updates throughout the day.