Janet Vale stood when her turn came and placed the original disposal documents on the display screen. She did not ask the panel to feel sorry for a widow. She asked it to follow the dates. Harrington delivered the batch as discarded material; the transfer facility received it as waste; Curtis signed the release under a written policy; Kora transported it openly, documented its condition, and spent her own resources incubating it under veterinary supervision.
"If the company believed these eggs retained special value," Janet said, "it had opportunities to prevent their disposal, preserve them, and notify the facility of any restrictions. The record shows it did the opposite. Our client did not enter a hatchery, access private research files, or remove birds from anyone's possession. She accepted material that the company itself instructed a public transfer station to discard."
Curtis was the first witness. He had dressed in the same dark shirt he wore to work, but he had shaved carefully and kept his hands folded until the officer asked him questions. He confirmed the vehicle number, the time the load arrived, the words of the disposal instruction, and the transfer he authorized. Harrington's attorney questioned whether Curtis had legal authority to release the eggs and whether any company representative had specifically waived genetic rights.
"I didn't claim to transfer a patent," Curtis said. "I released discarded eggs under the station's rule. That's the paper I signed. The driver told us to dispose of them. Nobody asked us to hold them for pickup."
The attorney asked about the vanished electronic record. Curtis explained the missing entry without suggesting he knew who caused it, then produced his handwritten intake log and the original station policy. The paper records matched Kora's carbon copy and the truck manifest. Under questioning, he acknowledged that he had initially thought the eggs were worthless. Then he added, unprompted, "If I'd known there were living birds inside, I would have asked why we were being told to destroy them."
Leah testified next. She described the initial isolation procedures, the sixty-seven discarded eggs, the six hundred forty-two strongest candidates, the ninety-one uncertain ones, and the fifty-eight losses after the power outage. Then she explained the actual hatch of six hundred thirteen poults and the later animal-health testing. She did not hide the routine losses after hatching or the temporary ventilation issue. She produced the records of both, along with the corrective steps and the independent laboratory results that supported lifting the health hold.
Harrington's attorney asked whether she could guarantee that no bird would ever carry a disease. Leah looked at him with disbelief that remained professional. "No veterinarian can guarantee that about any flock," she answered. "We can identify risks, use appropriate tests, maintain biosecurity, and respond responsibly. That is what this farm has done. The allegation supporting the emergency hold was not confirmed by the testing."