Court report:
The officer did not show up and I contested with the strategy that I laid out earlier in this thread and lost. After I made my motions, the judge took a "recess" and vanished for 30 mins. He said he was researching IRLJ 6.6 (d), but I doubt that took him 30 minutes. My theory is that he was contacting the officer and/or reading this forum. Due to small town nature of Pullman, I reckon that the judge likely knows the citing officer. The judge's behavior changed completely towards me after he returned from his "recess". Whereas in cases before mine, he allowed defendants to use their deferral even after a finding of committed, he was not budging in my case. Such selective application of rules is a remarkable quality that can be seen in small towns.
The Whitman district court in Pullman has a highly informal traffic docket.
I was expecting the process to be:
--> Judge considers my first motion and makes a ruling on it. I make subsequent motions later one by one sequentially.
Actual process was:
--> When I told the Judge that I had preliminary motions, he asked me to list them all. He took some notes and then vanished into his 30 minute "recess".
Results for my motions were (you can check out my motions in previous posts):
First: he didn't think the contradicting statements in my case had any effect on the fact that I was speeding or not. I tried to argue that the statements undermined the statement's credibility, but he didn't entertain the argument.
Second: he didn't think the certificates were hard to search and told me that he found them online.
Third: he found no prejudice in $187 vs $190. My final committed amount is $190 as well, he didn't even reduce it to $187 as a show of gesture to my attempt at contesting.
End of report.

