JB: No biological nature - therefore it is a stain. There was a moist bag of garbage in the car. It is our basis there should be no attempt to assume there is no reason for this court to assume otherwise.
JA: Very clearly pointed out, the state does not concede to the statement of facts, or the facts are true. In this case, they have not provided any of the statements are true. There is a reference of something, but nothing attached is true/proof. The only evidence you've heard thus far, he said there is evidence of fatty acids/tissue, and the motion should be denied.
JB: I would disagree with council. The clerk said "with attachement" and have given attacements. The response by council clearly lays out the tests that were done. If we need to stop the treial and have a preliminary evidentairy hearing we can certainly do that. As your Hounour has said many times, there is photo evidence to the garbage, the tests have been done, what more do you need. However, I think it behooves all parties tomove aside and get through the obcious things that should not be referenced in any opening statements into and before the jury. We would rest on those.
YH: Is there testimony as to any chemical composition of the stain? What I'm simply asking you - in depos or report, is there testimony in composition to the stain?
JB: There is testimony of 4 chemicals done on the stain. Those chemicals are a plethora of chemicals that do not include biological or human nature. I can assure you in testimony that there is this stain that there is biological in nature.
YH: Who is this?
JB: (Mel) sorry didn't catch names
YH: I take it from your answer, that while there are poissible causes of this stain Dr. Vass has said it was consistent with a decomposition.
JB: IT COULD HAVE BEEN A BANANA
