Bathroom for seniors. Witness says there were handicap bathrooms.

Chutkow hands witness another set of documents.

Chutkow asks if witness ever did work in residential house? No sir. On Meier st. No sir.

Looks at SG 25 B2: it's a check. From Detroit 3D. witness not familiar with company. Doesn't remember working for them. Doesn't recognize the name Marilyn Johnson. Witness met Bobby Ferguson's wife but never got her name. Witness went by his home for some upgrade ideas. Wife in the backyard with kids and Ferguson introduced them. Only met her the one time.

Chutkow asks if he saw campaign signs at home. Witness says not at house but had seen them on work vehicles. They said "Kwame for Mayor." At the time, witness didn't know what Kwame was.

"I said what's a Kwame?" says Murray. Ferguson explained it was his friend who was running for mayor.

What did Ferguson tell witness about intentions on city business. Witness says that it's his life-long friend would be mayor, so that he could get rid of blighted homes and given that Bobby was in the excavation business, he was looking to get some of that work,. Wanted to get some of those homes for the sake of neighborhood and get someone in there that could help get him business from that.

10:26AM Van Dusen cross examines.

SG 25 B on the overhead. Invoice numbers and checks. Shows one check for $37,000 that is also attached dated June 1st 2001. That was first payment on the project. then another check for $24,000 in September. Payable to Contract Design Group from Ferguson Enterprises. Next check also from Ferguson Enterprises in the amount of $10,000. And lastly, a check for $7,898.48. So total job amount received was $78,898.48. Of that amount, $41,898.48 was paid by Ferguson Enterprises.

Van Dusen says when doing work in a building and there are 2 companies that occupy building, in your experience have you received from payment for each othe companies under same contract? Witness doesn't recall that.

Van Dusen says you would have no way of knowing that services provided were benefiting 3D? Witness says I would have no way of doing what goes on internally.

Looking at June 13th, 2001 estimate and proposal. Van Dusen asks if this is done before work starts. witness says this looks like it was done before.

Van Dusen points out floor covering, says that it encompasses many different areas, do you agree? Witness says yes.

Looking at Lobby and Reception areas. Van Dusen says that would service entire building? Correct says witness.

Looking at estimating department: 5 work stations to be installed there. Van Dusen says nothing different between work station and traning area?

Not unusual to install work stations. Yes says witness work stations tend to be different sizing- training rooms and presentation rooms are a different design.

Van Dusen says would this building be a perfect place to train. No idea says witness, the intent of our design was very specific for estimation.

Van Dusen says remember you said that things can change as they go along. Yes certainly they could change.

SG 24 B on the overhead: the open office plan. Date of preparation May 2nd, 2001. Prepared by a company called Space Care Inc., in Berkley. Not generated by Contract Design Group.

Van Dusen says are you aware that this plan as drawn out prior to job starting changed? Witness says no I wouldn't be aware there was a change.

A plan in 2001 doesn't have to be a representation of how the job ended up asks Van Dusen? Correct says witness.

Van Dusen says these plans are just for the estimates. Witness doesn't know if they carried through to completion.

Murray interviewed in 2010 with head of Detroit Interiors Leethel Neal by the feds.

Witness says he always found Bobby Ferguson professional but drove a hard bargain on prices. "Quote the same thing but just lower the price". Witness not left with impression that he liked to waste money. 

Looks at exhibit SG 24 C on the screen. Subcontract agreement on October 17 2000. At the bottom of the document, the second line says furnish and install furniture as outlined in letter of June 13th 2001. Van Dusen asks how this government exhibit can reference a 2001 document in a subcontract dated 2000.