Trial Discussion Thread #45 - 14.07.3, Day 36

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
D: He fired at the sound and I'm sure it was to nullify any danger.

Nel wants break and asks for postponement to consult a psychiatrist (for the case. Don't think D has got to him that bad)

Nullify any danger! Sounds like just in case there was a danger as opposed to an actual danger.
 
Nel wants to make an application. He has an appointment with a psychiatrist who was on the panel. Nel needs hours of consultation. Wants to reconvene on Monday.
Oldwage wants to know who this witness is.
Nel said the Court appointed psychiatrist for the State.
Cross-examination will continue with Prof. Derman.
 
Sounding like a wounded lamb, Prof D agrees to 'make myself available Monday'.

But court is still in session tomorrow. Just not with this witness.

ETA: Or is it? What did judge just say?
 
Sounding like a wounded lamb, Prof D agrees to 'make myself available Monday'.

But court is still in session tomorrow. Just not with this witness.

ETA: Or is it? What did judge just say?

Lost my feed.
 
Sounding like a wounded lamb, Prof D agrees to 'make myself available Monday'.

But court is still in session tomorrow. Just not with this witness.

ETA: Or is it? What did judge just say?

they won't sit means "Keine Sitzung morgen" as I understood
 
Sounding like a wounded lamb, Prof D agrees to 'make myself available Monday'.

But court is still in session tomorrow. Just not with this witness.

ETA: Or is it? What did judge just say?

No I think is is adjourned until Monday.
 
Dr C Kotze (e acute, can't find it!) is what it says on the Psychiatric Report
 
Alioop - help! Is Nel likely putting the psychiatrist on to rebut this witness only or will it include other issues? And can the state psych be cross examined by the DT if he/she is largely there to rebut the DT "expert"?
 
Alioop - help! Is Nel likely putting the psychiatrist on to rebut this witness only or will it include other issues. And can the state psych be cross examined by the DT if he/she is largely there to rebut the DT "expert".

SA procedure bamboozles me so I am not the one to ask. But my guess is yes to all your questions. But someone correct me if I am wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
114
Guests online
2,196
Total visitors
2,310

Forum statistics

Threads
600,800
Messages
18,113,859
Members
230,990
Latest member
DeeKay
Back
Top