I wondered the same thing. The only thing I can come up with is that the DT is troubled that the jury is doubting her "fog" and not remembering ANY of the stabbing (you know the truly vicious, violent stuff she did), and I think with this testimony, they're simply trying to say, "See? She's telling the truth about not remembering this part of that day - she's not lying."
I think it's pretty weak. If Samuels' explanations were more plausible, it might fly, but I don't think it's helping at all.
Anyway, that's the only reason I can come up with.
What they want to say about reactive, expressive cognition vs. instrumental, etc. as it relates to homicide - is what I find really troubling.
I seriously doubt the judge allowing it - unless it's with a very specific instruction, as they're attempting to say the crime scene indicates it is a case of manslaughter - based on psychological studies, not definitions of law, but they're trying to insinuate that they mean the same thing (sort of).
It would seem that this could have HUGE implications if allowed without very clear instructions as to what it is - and isn't.
We'll see on Monday!
