JB example - 9/29/08 - 2:50 pm. HHJP doesn't have that date. Asked JB to highlight the portion, read it in or put on overhead. JA doesn't have the copy either.
JB reads "a true missing persons investigation is akin to a murder investigation without a body." JB feels this specifically goes to the bias - that when faced with the info that this was a possible accident, YM instead took it in the direction of a murder investigation.
HHJP wants to know what info JB had that this was an accident - JB sites CA's statement about ladder made within 48 hours and other statements that referrenced that this could be an accident that was covered up.
JB said YM did nothing to pursue accident theory.
HHJP wants to know what evidence would be gained by looking at the pool. JB said there could be spatters of blood around the pool, hairs, other trace evidence.
JB - if you don't look, you'll never know. They looked at the car - why couldn't they look at the pool?
JA responds - there is no evidence that the victim drowned at this point in the trial. What JB says isn't evidence of anything. The question is whether YM's comment shows bias. JA says this comment has nothing to do with showing a bias toward a witness or party in this case. It shows nothing and is inadmissible.
JA believes the evidence doesn't demonstrate that YM was informed of the ladder within 24 hours. Feels JB should have to prove that first.
JA feels that YM's participation while he was recooperating from broken leg doesn't show any bias.
HHJP sustains objection. JB looking over at CM. CM wants something marked and sealed. HHJP mentions Minton v State that talks about threshold.
JB won't inquire further about the blog.
HHJP asks if any of the other blog materials would be attempted to be used. JB says no.
HHJP mentions something about JB's mention of reprimand. HHJP doesn't want the jury poptarting. Wants to take care of the matter now.