Trial Discussion Thread #45 - 14.07.3, Day 36

[zwiebel]

Nel repeats question.

D: I wouldn't be in a position to answer that.

Oldwage up. Saying Nel using flight instead of fight. All totally confused over fight and flight, it seems.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

WD can’t say when the response to the first noise would move out of the domain of the fight/flight mode.

You do have some cognitive function even if you're in a fight or flight mode, says WD. No function of brain "highly unlikely".

Nel: If there was only one startle and the accused shot and killed the deceased - he would have acted outside flight response.

 

[K.T]

Off topic
I’m reminded of the Dr Huizinga, who defense retained for O J Simpson trial. Dr. wasn’t a close friend or defensive like this expert seems but did tell court Simpson’s cuts on hand were more in line with cuts from a broken hotel glass. He also detailed arthritis, rheumatoid pain and the limp, bolstering defense claim he was too much arthritis with little knee left and too hobbled to commit any stabbings murders.
Dr. also said Simpson’s physical exam was too difficult to “lie about”.

Ahhh, trial medicine.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/15/u...thritis-hobbled-simpson-doctor-testifies.html

 

[zwiebel]

N: His last act of killing was out of the domain of FF?

D: I cannot conclude that....cannot tell you that that would be the case

Nel says he already said earlier another startle would be needed. D says but he KNOWS there were 3 startles.

 

[zwiebel]

D does not agree any of his answers have been contradictory. "I don't know. You would need to measure nervous system at the time'.

 

[kaos]

His posh accent is dropping a bit when answering now.

 

[zwiebel]

Nel wants to know why he said a second startle would be needed before.

D: Because there was a second startle.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

N: His last act of killing was out of the domain of FF?

D: I cannot conclude that....cannot tell you that that would be the case

Nel says he already said earlier another startle would be needed. D says but he KNOWS there were 3 startles.

Actually imo, Nel is wasting his time.

 

[zwiebel]

D: Milady, Mr N has got me really confused. Unfortunately I can't assist further.

 

[Val1]

Seriously, this guy is claiming to be an expert on these matters? Who better should be able to use the information in hypothetical situations unless he's so invested in OP's story that he cannot be objective...

 

[james83]

Is this the defence's last Biasedpert or is there more to come?.

 

[zwiebel]

N: Most interesting thing. On this contradiction, your previous statements do not make sense. Any comment?

D: I have no comment.

 

[katydid23]

NEL: No, Unfortunately, Professor, it is not that easy...I am dealing with a contradiction, and it is a concern.

D: I am not commenting...

 

[alioop]

This defence witness is a shocker.

 

[zwiebel]

Ah. Witness explaining to court how bad Nel's questions are again!

Witness heard 'calm' instead of 'arm'.

Judge is with witness on his hearing problem.

 

[Suthrnqt]

NEL: No, Unfortunately, Professor, it is not that easy...I am dealing with a contradiction, and it is a concern.

D: I am not commenting...

Dayum. Can he do that?

 

[zwiebel]

D: I understand he moved down corridor. Was interested in how. Understand it was carefully, one arm on wall...

N: Did you read he ran? Did you confront him?

D: I read it somewhere..

N: There is nothing in the court record that he ran. Why would you ask him that?

 

[zwiebel]

N: You stopped me. You wanted to tell the court there is one other aspect - that he ran. Because you read somewhere that he ran. Where did you read that?

D: It was somewhere in the record...

Nel wants five.

 

[zwiebel]

5 more of questioning, sorry. Not a break.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

D: he moved down the passageway with one hand on the wall and the gun in the other hand.

I asked how he moved, I wanted him to clarify.