Trial Discussion Thread #46 - 14.07.7, Day 37

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #241
Nel points out other place that refers to cognitive and visual impairment - WD agreed it's not relevant here.

Nel: there's no indication of where the violence happened. Am I right? Derman: That is correct.

Nel - don't you think you should have indicated shortcomings of these documents to court during your evidence?

WD: These are limitations in the study that was done. Every study has limitations.

Nel: We're in a court of law and we're dealing with relevance. Do you understand that? Derman: I do.
 
  • #242
  • #243
@barrybateman · 15s

#OscarTrial Derman: this is not such a major finding that it is a flawed report. I’d not bring a flawed report to court. BB
 
  • #244
N: Don't you think you should have indicated to the court the limitations in these documents?

D: If I was going to explain all the limitations in studies..it's just the nature of scientific study...

(Lol, Dermans just quoted a US DoJ report that I've read!) I still don't think Nel should be going along this track.

Did anyone hear that huge sneeze?
 
  • #245
I thought it was in reference to the testimony Prof Derman gave about the disabled people being statistically more likely to be the victim of a crime and think Nel was trying to infer that Prof Derman used cited a paper that used mentally disabled rather than physically disabled people.

I'm probably wrong though as medical stuff goes right over my head.

I think that is the impression Nel is trying to give, but I believe he is parsing a small portion of one of the papers. The DR just read part of the paper that dealt with persons with ambulatory difficulties.
 
  • #246
Gesundheit!
 
  • #247
  • #248
I mean, with or without data, it's intuitive that disabled persons are, as a group, more vulnerable as potential crime victims than non-disabled persons.

The same could be said about women.

It's irrelevant.
 
  • #249
One can lie and mislead by commission and omission.

IMHO, Derman relies mainly on omission.

He figured no one would be "smart enough" to call him out on anything.

Go Nel.
 
  • #250
N: Aren't you using the study merely to create an atmosphere and it's not relevant at all? (disability hate crime study)

D: Milady, that is correct. However.....

Then goes onto discussing attacks on ppl with disability and brings up the UK's recent Act again.
 
  • #251
Nel: Aren't you using the study to create an atmosphere. Mentions hate crime. There is no hate crime in this matter.
 
  • #252
  • #253
The same could be said about women.

It's irrelevant.

Well, OP's is not a woman, so that's irrelevant. He is disabled though ..so there's some relevance.
 
  • #254
So I just saw that leaked video, going to watch the full episode of the show after. Can't believe that was leaked!

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk
 
  • #255
Nel's enjoying this. Maybe he'll bring up the polar bear protecting its babies. Why not, Derman's mentioned every group of people who have absolutely no relevance to this trial.
 
  • #256
N: Vulnerability should be viewed in the context of the situation, am I right?

D agrees.

N: In this instance, we have someone with means to protect themselves - alarms, secure estate, large support system - including yourself. That reduces his vulnerabilty.

D: I disagree strongly.
 
  • #257
  • #258
I'd suggest Reeva was the most vulnerable on the night.
 
  • #259
Good day or good night everyone!! I can't take another minute. I just know I'm going to miss seeing a great court moment live... but.......... oh well.
 
  • #260
Nel puts it to D that OP would be less vulnerable with a gun in his hand.

D says he doesn't know, 'just can't think'.

Teatime. I have biscuits.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
125
Guests online
1,643
Total visitors
1,768

Forum statistics

Threads
632,314
Messages
18,624,588
Members
243,083
Latest member
Delmajesty
Back
Top