Mr. Fraser was going to do this round, but he's not here, so he asked me to do it for him.
Folks, I am going to ask you questions. I'm going to try to get in a lot of questions, and if you could just give me succinct answers, I'd really appreciate it.
Mr. Sewell, with respect to routine police evidence, I have already been convinced that there's an inherent problem with routine police evidence. I'm probably not going to be asking you questions because I'm already satisfied on that issue.
With respect to your testimony, Mr. Hechter, I was very struck by the comment you made with respect to the example in the superior court where you'd be seeking third party evidence and you would need to question the alleged victim in that situation and perhaps delay the trial, and that person would then have to come back, potentially multiple times, as you continued to investigate.
You mentioned in your testimony, Mr. Woodburn, that one of the potential advantages was to prevent the victim from having to testify both at the preliminary inquiry and at the actual trial. Can you see the concern that was raised by Mr. Hechter and by other witnesses that this could actually compound the problem by causing excessive delays at trial and also requiring the victim to come back multiple times as you were essentially conducting discovery through your cross-examination of the complainant?