Well, it seems to be that while this particular cross by JB may be seen as effective for the defense, it could also shoot another whole in inferences made by JB during his OS, and during his cross of GA. JB is trying to keep the jury from connecting hair from a decomposing body to the car. Then, the argument from the SA that a decomposing body was in ICA's car would not be so strong. OK, I get that. But, then I think back to JB 's OS where he connects GA to the disposal of the body, and then to JB's cross of GA when he clearly wanted the jury to think that GA knew the smell in the car was that of human decomposition. And it seems to me that he cannot expect the jury to conclude both that human decomposition smell was in the car per GA's testimony, but then to also conclude that no hairs consistent with human decomposition were possibly found I. The trunk. If he is laying the premise that GA knew there was the smell of decomposition in the trunk and inferring that GA used the trunk of the car in the disposal of the body, then he is contradicting the argument he is making with this FBI witness that the hair found and examined was not from a decomposing body, JMO
