It was a case of “He said she said.”That’s how the attorney for John Auclair desribed the sexual assault case that put him behind bars.She argued to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court in Bangor today that the lower courts made a mistake by not allowing the jury to hear certain statements.John Auclair of Bangor was convicted last fall of sexually assaulting a woman. Now his attorney is appealing that conviction to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.”Exactly what he said and exactly what she said is of criminal importance.” Mandi Odier-Fink argues that the jury didn’t hear all the evidence it should have, specifically from Auclair’s girlfriend who died before the trial.She made statements to a private investigator about the victim, who happened to be her best friend. The justices questioned how much of what was said was relevant and admissable?”What would be an example does it impeach her credibility or does it go to the motive? Just give me an example of what inference they could draw that would be appropriate on the case. I think it would go to motive.”The defense argues that the victim made up the story about being raped.Then the prosecution presented the state’s argument.”It involved taking hair samples and pulling them.”Susan Pope read testimony from the trial describing the invasive examination undergone by the victim at the hospital after the assault.She argued that even if the witness in question would be alive, none of the statements made would have been admissable in the trial.Auclair is expected to spend four years behind bars.The justices heard three other cases in Bangor today. Their decisions are expected to take several weeks.