Trial Discussion Thread #45 - 14.07.3, Day 36

[katydid23]

Why would they interview people who were not close to OP? They wouldnt have much to add.

So now you think the psychiatrists and psychologists who spent 30 days evaluating OP are a bunch of hacks?

I think the point being made was that none of the people who had conflicts with him were interviewed. None of the people who might indicate he had an explosive temper, for example.

If they solely interview close friends and family, who are tryin g to protect him, then they might not have gotten the full story.

 

[minor4th]

I think the point being made was that none of the people who had conflicts with him were interviewed. None of the people who might indicate he had an explosive temper, for example.

If they solely interview close friends and family, who are tryin g to protect him, then they might not have gotten the full story.

How do you know who was interviewed?

The psychiatric team also had all the trial transcript and summaries, including the testimony of all those who testified against OP.

 

[kaos]

The Professor said at the start that he was testifying independently - not as part of any official body (or words to that effect) but if his findings were solid (or indisputable) then wouldn't the official body he currently works for be happy to have their name associated with his testimony?

 

[james83]

I listen to this and it rams home the fact that there is simply no chance what so ever he would have gone to that bathroom without putting his legs on.

 

[zwiebel]

Court's back.

 

[Forensics]

The point is does the fight response triggered in Oscar diminish culpability? Road rage is triggered by the fight response too but that doesn't make it any less of a crime.

 

[Giles]

Looking forward to Nel's cross examination.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Delete post

 

[zwiebel]

Oldwage has no further questions.

Nel up, sounding lively.

 

[zwiebel]

N: What is the purpose of your evidence....what are you giving evidnce as?

D: As an expert witness..

N: As a forensic evidence expert?

D: Nooooo...

 

[zwiebel]

D: ...my knowledge, experience of Mr P....startle response...

Nel wants to know how it's relevant, D says that's not up to him to say.

 

[minor4th]

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

 

[sweetcaro]

<crickets> lol that was an awkward moment. Nel is spot on. This evidence is about taking accountability away. Not okay and hopefully not going to fly.

 

[jay-jay]

Nel: .. "an expert ... " :floorlaugh:

 

[zwiebel]

N: You don't want the court to take into account accountability....what was your brief?

D: Pause...to detail my experience with OP over 6 yrs...anything that might be relevant...

N: 'Detail my experience'. That wld be a character witness, not an expert witness.

 

[james83]

Im so helpless and vulnerable without my legs yet i didnt put them on to go and face a potentially armed intruder.

 

[Viper]

Oh no, Nel is not going to be nice to this guy. I'm thinking about going to get some popcorn and a cold beer, but it is only 4:00AM.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I mentioned several pages back they are coming home with a strong run. Yes there is babble but there are some gems of logic in there connecting the dots

I think you need to listen to the eminently sensible Judge Chris Greenland and his comments on these late witnesses. He was, after all, an eminent judge and his knowledge is way superior to yours or mine.

 

[zwiebel]

D explains how all his work qualifies him.

N: I understand all your experience but I'm dealing with a criminal case here.

 

[zoran]

Nel,,,checkmate in 2 moves LOL