I really need to say this.
I listened to Dr. G's testimony this morning.
After noticing the extreme difference in answering the prosecutions questions and defenses, I think he may be the most reprehensible witness the defense used. As I listened to the testimony carefully, I realized that his whole affect is a sham. I believe he purposely spilled his water twice and burped. I think he uses a really likable, humble, non-threatening demeanor, to disarm the jury and create the "likeability" factor. Dr. D. was ultra professional, and did not try to ingratiate herself with the jury at all.
I came to this conclusion because though the bumbling Dr. appeared charming and quaint, all his cross testimony left me confused. That is crazy making behavior. If I am not drunk, high, or crazy, there is no reason why I should have a problem understanding his answers. I had no trouble at all understanding Dr. D's testimony for either defense or prosecution. I had no trouble understanding Dr. G's testimony on direct (though silly at times). When someone is able to create that dissonance in someone (intelligible, unintelligible) they are attempting to confuse. He disarms with his personality.
