Trial Discussion Thread #45 - 14.07.3, Day 36

[PrimeSuspect]

Nel: I'm dealing with a criminal case here!

 

[zwiebel]

Nel trying to get Prof to concede he gave character eveidence not expert evidence.

N: Have you applied your evidence in a criminal field before?

D: No.

 

[MeeBee]

Sounds like Nel has nothing of substance to cross examine this witness about.

Wow...very much getting that.

 

[jay-jay]

Sounds like Nel has nothing of substance to cross examine this witness about.

He's only just got up! :facepalm:

.. mind you, there's probably not a lot to CE him on, seeing as most of what he said was totally irrelevant, so from that perspective, you are correct ;-)

 

[zwiebel]

N qouting guidelines that say docs 'must always act in best interest of patient'.

N: Would you say you are?

When doc agrees he is, Nel asks if he thinks that makes him objective in court.

 

[zwiebel]

N: That is the overriding factor? Am I right?

D: No, I am here to tell the truth. Overriding factor is to tell the truth...that is what I will do.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Nel says there are industry guidelines for psychologists to avoid giving evidence in matter relating to their clients.

Nel: wouldn't you say an expert witness requires a high sense of objectivity? WD agrees.

But you must act in the best interests of your patient (OP).

WD: I'm here to answer Nel's questions. To provide truth about my patient.




http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Oscar_Pistorius/Live/LIVE-UPDATES-Pistorius-trial-day-37-20140703

 

[zwiebel]

N: Guidelines...they should avoid giving evidence in any matter where they've been treating the accused. Know about that?

D: No, but I can understand that.

Judge asks for copy of those guidelines.

 

[katydid23]

wow. I just saw a slight smile from My Lady when Nel asked if he could give the witness a copy of the Rules Of Conduct of professional psychs....lol

 

[kaos]

I don't think Judge Masipa will like this. The guy is an expert but I agree that he's muddied the waters between character and expert testimony.

 

[zwiebel]

N: (Reads extracts from guuidelines)

Oldwage objects: One cannot do this...attempt to suggest Prof is here only to serve patient's best interest...

Then goes on to tell court how Nel should have asked his question.

 

[zwiebel]

Oldwage lecturing the court.

 

[zwiebel]

Now he's got a reference paper: 'Prof D has never suggested he's a psychologist.'

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Oldwage lecturing the court.

lol

 

[Viper]

Oldwage lecturing the court.

We know how this will end. :floorlaugh:

 

[zwiebel]

Oldwage called Nel 'opportunistic'.

 

[zwiebel]

N: It's not my intention to say there is a bar...in the context of his evidence I'm using analogy. Not saying this guideline applicable to the witness.

 

[AlexUK]

Oldwage lecturing the court.

Pleeeeeeeease can we have Roux back? :tantrum:

 

[jay-jay]

Oh FGS, O is up already, objecting :facepalm: .. flipping cheek he has got saying that Nel is misleading .. we've just sat and listening for hours on end your own expert witness giving a statement which is intended by the DT to mislead the court!

 

[Viper]

pleeeeeeeease can we have roux back? :tantrum:

agreed!