Quote:
Originally Posted by Caligari
And you have apparently not read this thread so you do not understand what the argument is about.
Many are saying this woman is nuts, batshit crazy etc., and I am simply saying that according to testimony of doctors within that document that she is not.
So my question to you is, if you really did read the document can you see where doctors who observed her for long periods of time came to the conclusion that she was sane?
If you do not see that, then there is no point...
I am not going to re-quote those passages of testimony, they are already in this thread.
.
|
Because there are doctors that say she isn't mentally ill does not mean that she isn't and it is the court that makes that determination after hearing all of the testimony. In most...if not all...cases where "expert" testimony is used there are contradicting "experts"...and it is up to the court or jury...if it is a jury trial to determine which experts are correct. In this case the court decided based upon "expert" testimony that she was to mentally ill to stand trial.
I watched the video and did not have any knowledge of this woman when I watched the video and it became apparent to me that she is a nut case.