Here are my "mock juror" comments on the afternoon session:
1). I do believe that Bloise knows what human decompostion smells like, and I do believe him when he states that he smelled human decompostion in ICA's car.
2). I didn't really understand the explanation of the difference between bluestar and luminol, but I'm also not sure it is neccesary for me to understand the difference. The point, as I understood it, was that there was no blood evidence retrieved from ICA's car. I never expected that there would be.
3). I am convinced that Bloise very thoroughly went over ICA's car for evidence. My impression of him is that he is very competent.
4). I am bothered by Bloise's statement that he didn't wear a hair net. I wish that were a requirement, but if the state can show me, through DNA, that the hairs in evidence are connected to this case, my concerns about the hairnet thing are a moot point.
5). I initially thought JB scored a point when talking about Bloise's notes about finding animal hairs in the car. I was especially bothered by the fact that Bloise went on to say he destroyed those notes. VERY bothered by that. I was also bothered by the fact that I couldn't understand Bloise's explanation of WHY he destroyed those notes. On redirect, LDB got a clear explanation of the note destruction out of Bloise, and I was satisfied with that. On re redirect, JB was not able to convince me that there had ever been animal hairs retrieved from the trunk of the car, nor was he able to convince me that Bloise had ever taken notes about animal hair. So...I'm disregarding the animal hair issue altogether.
6).The stain on the trunk liner was barely touched upon, so I'm setting that on the backburner until it is covered more thoroughly.
7). I found the evidence from inside the trunk to be very compelling, but am hoping for more information. I'm sure that's coming.
This concludes your "mock juror" report for today.
