Highlights the raw construction area.

Chutkow says you never did work there? No says Murray.

So bills submitted to the state wouldn't relate to work there? No says witness.

Document on overhead. Date of document July 12 2001 on fax stamp. These are the documents that Van Dusen said had date inconsistencies. Chutkow asks if witness sees any inconsistencies on the document. Witness says there is an inconsistency with dating. But Chutkow says if you look at the fax dater does it look inconsistent. Witness says that the fax date is consistent with proposals made in July. Can't speak to why preamble doesn't mesh with the timeline.

Chutkow puts 2 documents up together on overhead. State's exhibit is the lower document. The upper document was in the witness's files. The top document's scope of work more accurately reflects work actually done.

What leads you to conclude that says Chutkow?

Murray says it defines many of the items that we performed in the suite. It reflects work specific to our proposal and that we performed.

So work in Presidential office, marble and staircase? Yes says Murray.

Murray says he thinks Ferguson prepared the other subcontract. Wording is different, has a totally different scope, has a letter signed by Marilyn Johnson, lists people we don't know and have never done business with, other vendors are attached to it.

11:44AM Van Dusen redirects.

Looking at SG 24C- subcontract dated October 17th 2000. And then the subcontract dated May 1st 2001.

Isn't it true that you have no idea why there are 2 subcontracts?

Judge congratulates Van Dusen for really only asking one question.

11:46AM. Chutkow calls Martin Jolly to the stand. Witness is sworn in.

Currently lives in Detroit. At one point lived at 2 addresses on Meyers St.

Exhibit SG 29 on the screen: a picture of property on Meyers. A duplex. Witness's mother lived there for 30 years. Lived in duplex on the left. Witness visited her every day.

Property on the right was sold. Eventually found out that Mr. Ferguson owned it.

For a while a woman and child lived in the property. Roof was leaking, ceiling was falling through. Jolly wanted to buy the property. There was overgrowth everywhere with weeds. Witness cut the grass for both sides. At one point, a brown skinned person driving a Cadillac came by. Told him the property wasn't being maintained.

Didn't see work men coming in and out? No says witness.

Senior Citizens? No says witness.

Young people? No says witness.

Witness purchased property for $50,000. Chutkow asks if he knows where proceeds went? No says witness.

After he purchased the home, he put new roof. Got special plumbing, new line for sewer, electrical work, siding and gutter.

That's a lot of work, in your estimation was it habitable before? No says witness.

Witness says main water would back up into the house. There had been some work in bedrooms. New ceilings there.