The decision not to call his own experts was a tactical decision made by the Prosecutor.

I respect you opinion yet again John, but didnt the Judge rule in the prior quashing of the indictments that the prosecution could not use it's own experts because of the "tainting" as he called it of the grand jury testimony. The only thing this case rides on, and the ultimate truth to be found in a court of law, is if the appeals court finds that the information provided to the states expert was either not damaging , or it was not a violation to begin with. I mean they were sworn in during the same grand jury proceeding. It will definately be a shame to see this case end like this, with no real evidence being aloud to be presented because of something like that.

For the record: I'm sure your right, a reporter most likely did hear you say that, as Im sure was planned when the defense asked you the question to provoke that response. I mean he knew the prosecution couldnt call in their expert, so that basically just leaves your statement. It sounded like a very conclusive statement too, covering all the facts as you see them.

For the record: The Judge never informed the prosecution of his decision to allow for bail, until the morning she was to be released. He said he inadvertantly forgot.