..my question may have already been answered ( and i'm too dense to get it ) -----if so, please disregard...
..judgeP's order (denying the stain..) read:
"Defendant however, did not present any factual evidence at the hearing in support of the grounds alleged in the Motion and therefore failed to meet her burden of proof.
Consequently any evidence relating to the stain in the trunk of the automobile may be admissible upon proper presentation and foundation of the evidence".
..in the state's response to the 'stain motion' they said-----
"(No blood, no DNA), but-----the stain was examined instrumentally by the Oakridge Lab which detected the presense of volatile fatty acids, consistant with the byproducts of decomposition. Witnesses will be able to testify as to the size and shape of the stain, and the jury will be able to view photographs of the stain taken with alternative light sources."
my Question--------
does this mean that the Oakridge Lab detection of fatty acids, the FBI witness testimony as to size/shape, and pics ARE IN as well ?
( the original defense motion to exclude stain, doesn't mention the 'fatty acids, etc..)
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331535/detail.html
..they refer to the stain as imaginary, ramble about the image of the Virgin Mary on a piece of toast, wonder ( on 12-30-2010 ) why judge S ever let it in, in the 1st place--and then go on to complain about the amount of bond that judge S set (from july 2008.)
..and cite 90.401, 402, and 403....signed, j.baez.