Schoharie, NY (WBNG Binghamton) The defense takes aim at the Harris’ former nanny’s testimony Wednesday in Schoharie County Court.
Former nanny Barbara Thayer returned to the stand Wednesday after more than four hours of testimony Tuesday.
Defense attorney Bruce Barket spent most of the day comparing her prior testimony from the last two trials and her sworn written statement to police from Sept. 16, 2001 to what she said in court this week.
He pointed out to the jury there were major differences.
On Tuesday, Thayer said she called Michele’s cell phone from the Harris house on the morning of Sept. kamagra Ireland 12 looking for her. from the Harris home to Michele’s cell phone. The defense is trying to prove Thayer didn’t call Michele, but in fact Cal did.
And Thayer’s previous statements correlate with the defenses theory, in her statement to police in 2001, kamagraireland she told police she did not call her that morning. Barket questioned if she was even at the Harris house yet at that time.
She was also asked about finding Michele’s car at the bottom of the driveway and if she could recall what items were in the car. Thayer said besides the keys in the ignition and the fact the van was always messy, she couldn’t remember where certain items were.
The defense also argued that Michele liked to go out drinking after work, and on the morning of Sept. 12, 2001, Thayer believed Michele could have left her van in the driveway and wandered off into the woods.
“We’re trying to get at the truth,” Barket said during cross examination. Tioga County District Attorney Kirk Martin immediately objected to that statement.
Barket also said Thayer took things out of the Harris home without telling Cal and gave it to police like a tape recording. He accused Thayer of not caring about Cal and the four children, and just caring about helping the police.
“Cal thought you were there babysitting,” Barket said to Thayer.
Upon questioning, Thayer said she had regular contact with police while babysitting the children for the year after Michele allegedly went missing.
“I was trying to help give information to the people that were trying to look for Michele,” Thayer told the court.
On Tuesday, Thayer testified Cal asked her to take all of Michele’s things out of the house just days after her disappearance and to sell them in a yard sale. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sildenafil She told the court she did what she was told but she didn’t take everything because she wanted to leave stuff for the children.
She testified Cal told her not to take Michele’s blazers because he paid for them and knew how much they cost.
On Wednesday, the defense entered six of Michele’s blazers into evidence. They brought in 16 different jackets, but Thayer only recognized six of them.
When arguing about the relevance of the jackets, Barket said the prosecution opened the door for this evidence because the prosecution has “no case.”
“They can fight it all the way, in the end the truth will come out,” Barket said during an objection argument.
The prosecution objected multiple times throughout the day and accused the defense of badgering the witness.
“We’re arguing about fluff because fluff is all there is in the case,” Barket said.
Earlier Wednesday morning, Barket argued to strike part of Barbara Thayer’s testimony from Monday afternoon regarding a wound on Michele’s leg.
On Monday, Thayer testified Michele had a rug burn wound on the inside of her knee from horseback riding. kamagraireland Thayer said Michele told her, “it’s amazing, I can’t believe anything so small could hurt so much.”
Thayer also testified that she did not actually see the wound, but saw the band aid over the wound.
On Tuesday, Barket argued this testimony is presumably hearsay because she never actually saw the wound. kamagra Ireland He said this particular part of the testimony is inadmissible and incompetent evidence and asked Hon. George Bartlett to strike it from the record.
Initially, Bartlett denied the defense’s request and said it could be used during cross examination because the defense didn’t object during the initial testimony on Tuesday.
Barket continued to argue and said this testimony is critical because it’s a wound on Michele and a few specks of blood were found “knee high in an area where Michele gets dressed.”
He added he believes Thayer isn’t competent to say if it bled or not because she did see the wound itself but just saw the band aid.
Thayer briefly took the stand Wednesday morning just in front of the attorneys to clarify her previous testimony.