Court has adjourned for the day.
Mr Yovich will commence his cross-examination of Mr Mott tomorrow at 10am.
Justice Stephen Hall has agreed to release a photograph taken by Mr Mott at Jane’s crime scene, showing the dense bushland she was found in from the road.
He has said during his evidence the body was not visible from the road while others have previously given evidence it was partly visible.
The discrepancy has led to the defence questioning each police officer on how close they got to the body.
The photograph will be posted to this blog once it has been made available.
Mr Mott is now referring to his attendance at the Pathwest Centre on April 9, 1997 to deliver four exhibits for analysis.
These exhibits are listed on a ChemCentre document as “control samples for analysis”:
AJM240 – skirt
AJM290 – underpants
AJM330 – t-shirt
AJM340 – bra
Mr Mott has asked to refer to his journal to recall his movements on that day. It appears neither the prosecution or defence were aware of the journal.
Ms Barbagallo has decided to proceed as far as she can with questioning Mr Mott, while defence lawyer Paul Yovich has indicated he may need time to review the journal before cross-examining the witness.
Another document shows on that same day Mr Mott collected the following exhibits from Pathwest and delivered them to the forensic exhibit office to be stored:
AJM15 – ground sheet
AJM17 – body bag
AJM24 – skirt
AJM29 – underpants
AJM33 – t-shirt
AJM34 – bra
AJM37 – ground sheet
AJM65 – paper drop sheet
He said he did not open the bags the exhibits were stored in.
Mr Mott is now being shown the crime scene video of Ciara’s body examination.
The video is sensitive and cannot be seen by the media or public. Mr Edwards is at times watching the footage on a screen in front of him in the dock.
It is showing Mr Mott taking insect exhibits from Ciara’s body, including some from intimate areas of her body.
Ms Barbagallo has pointed out the video stops recording for three minutes from 3.05pm to 3.08pm – this is the timeframe in which one of the state’s critical hair exhibits – RH17 – is collected.
Mr Mott said he would have collected the sample, placed it in a yellow top and handed it to Mr Hemelaar to record and label.
He said from there, exhibits were taken to the trailer’s refrigerator to be stored before being taken back to police headquarters.
“[RH17] that probably would have been stored in the exhibit dry room,” he said.
“Sergeant Hemelaar and I, we then extracted the body from the bush,” he said.
Ms Barbagallo has now moved on to the day Ciara’s body was found on April 3, 1997.
Mr Mott recalled arriving at the scene in a Toyota 4WD with a trailer which housed forensic equipment, including a fridge to store exhibits if needed.
He said on that day he was assigned to collecting entomology samples from the deceased and the surrounding area.
He was wearing police-issued blue overalls, gloves and over-shoe covers.
He said he would put the item into a specimen jar and seal it before passing it to Robert Hemelaar, who gave evidence last week, to label the jar.
Of exhibit RH17 – one of the state’s critical hair exhibits it alleges recovered fibres from Mr Edwards’ Telstra trousers – he said: “I just recall Dr Margolius finding it and we scooped on it very quickly so we didn’t lose that sample”.
Mr Mott is now being shown an exhibit list of the items he handed to a forensic scientist at the Path Centre on August 5, 1996 – two days after Jane’s body was found.
The list includes a wooden pocket knife which the state alleges is a Telecom knife that Mr Edwards’ owned and dropped while at the scene.
Mr Mott is now being shown a Coroner’s form which shows three specimens taken from Jane’s body on August 7, 1996 and collected by him and taken to the ChemCentre – they are listed as bowel, maggots and liver.
The form shows the word ‘hair’ was written but then crossed out.
Another form from the following day shows Mr Mott collected the hair sample on August 8, 1996.
“From memory it was in a plastic container,” he said.
When asked if he opened the container he replied, “No I didn’t, it wasn’t for me to open it, I was a courier for the purpose of the Coroner”.
The next witness is former Sergeant Barry Mott, who was one of the forensic supervisors who attended the crime scenes where Jane and Ciara’s bodies were found.
Prosecutor Carmel Barbagallo is asking Mr Mott about his involvement in Jane’s crime scene.
He has said he arrived around 4.20pm and was the first forensic officer on site.
He said his role that day after assessing the site with two local detectives was to take photographs.
The court is now being shown Mr Mott’s photographs of the dense bush where Jane’s body was found from the road.
“It was very hard, I couldn’t make out a body from that roadway there,” he said.
Ms Barbagallo has asked if he ever touched the body.
“Not as a photographer, I mean you may [touch the body] in assisting later, but as a photographer taking the photos, no, because generally you’re concentrating on the photos,” he said.
“I’m pretty sure I assisted with the removal of Jane from the alcove area.
“I’d actually put on a pair of disposal overalls … by that time I’d put my camera away and I’d got my gloves on and we carefully removed Jane from that scene.
“I’m not sure if we used a sheet or a body bag [to move here].”
Mr Mott said he may have brushed against Jane’s body while trying to take photos of her body in situ as it was “a very tight area”.
Court is breaking for lunch. When it returns at 2.15pm, former forensic officer, Barry Mott will give his evidence.
Ms Cleary is now asking about the eight-month gap in the Property Tracing System where the clothing items location is not known.
Ms Kurtis has conceded based on the PTS entries, the clothing could have been in another location during that eight months, although earlier she indicated she believed it was likely an administrative error.
Ms Cleary is now cross-examining Ms Kurtis and asking about a handwritten sample list she wrote and handed to Mr Bloom at the ChemCentre, along with the samples.
Ms Cleary has pointed out that while Ms Kurtis wrote there was an item relating to ‘gauze swab knee’, Mr Bloom wrote beside it, “not received”.
Ms Cleary has also pointed out Ms Kurtis wrote there was a urine sample, despite Dr Barnard saying she never took one. Mr Bloom, however, commented alongside the item, “No label”.
Ms Cleary: Is it possible you took a jar from the fridge that didn’t belong to [victim]?
Ms Kurtis did not answer that question as Justice Stephen Hall asked a question that led Ms Cleary to discuss another document.
These items have not been identified by the prosecution as critical exhibits. It is more likely the defence is seeking to demonstrate errors in the collection and transfer of exhibits to cast doubt on the process as a whole.