'Da Vinci Code' case nears final chapter

The lawsuit accusing author Dan Brown of stealing ideas for The Da Vinci Code is entering its final chapter, and there are questions about why one of the main characters has not appeared.

The lawyer for Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, two historians who launched the lawsuit, says Brown's wife, Blythe, should have answered questions during the three-week trial.

In his closing submission, lawyer Jonathan Rayner James questioned why Blythe wasn't called as a witness when she did most of the research for the novel.

Baigent and Leigh have accused Brown of "appropriating the architecture" for his best-selling novelfrom their 1982 non-fiction book Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

Both books explore theories dismissed by theologians that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, the couple had a child and the bloodline survives.

In his arguments, Rayner James said Brown admitted he may have copied from the work "unwittingly because of the research materials supplied by Blythe Brown."

"His evidence should be approached with deep suspicion," the lawyer said, according to Reuters.

The lawyer argued evidence from Blythe Brown would have been of "fundamental importance to this case." He claimed she would have been able to confirm the extent to which The Da Vinci Code relied on the work by Baigent and Leigh.

Brown, who was not in court on Monday, said earlier in the proceedings he did not ask his wife to testify because she is publicity shy.

The lawyer criticized Brown, 41, for being vague about dates and sources in his testimony. In court last week, Brown testified he and his wife had read Holy Blood, Holy Grail, but it was one of 38 reference books used in writing The Da Vinci Code.

Brown said the outline of thenovel, which has sold 40 million copies,had been drafted before he referred to Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

On Friday, Random House lawyer John Baldwin said Brown's work gathered a number of incidents and put them together in a unique way.

"The ideas are of too general a nature to be capable of copyright protection," Baldwin said in his closing arguments. "The claimants' claim relates to ideas at a high level of generality, which copyright does not protect."

Baldwin concluded that Baigent and Leigh's case was "in tatters."

Rayner James sought to play down fears that a win for the historians would redefine copyright and limit the extent to which novelists can draw on other sources.

"In this case, Brown has used Holy Blood, Holy Grail with the intention of appropriating the work of its authors," he said.

"He and/or Blythe has intentionally used Holy Blood, Holy Grail in order to save the time and effort that independent research would have required."

The case is expected to end on Monday, but a judgment from Justice Peter Smith could take several weeks.