Oldwage: I note from the third paragraph, third line. That you are prohibited on identifying patients.
WD: My lady, I witnessed an event that when I compiled my report that I was concerned that by speaking about this, that one would be able to indentify this group.
WD: Unless you give me an order to speak about this event.
Oldwage: Now having regard to that caption, can you tell the court whether infact there is a difference in regards to startled or fight / flight response?
Oldwage: Is it your evidence that persons that present a disability exhibit such a fight / flight response more than a able bodied person?
WD: There can be my lady. But it need not be. I have witnessed it is not athletes and athletes.
Oldwage: We move on to sources. From your report it appears that you deal with two communications from people that present disabilities.
WD: These are people that I have had communication with. It has attributed to my understanding of this response.
WD: Paragragh 29, 2012, I met a lady in the London camp. Mrs. Kent has the following impairment, not have full arms.
WD: Hands are somewhat functional not fully functional. However this did not prevent her from becoming a professional massage therapist.
Oldwage: Whilst you have testified that you have communicated with these two people. Have you had any personal communication, as in meeting her.
WD: I have met her personally met her in London and have had Skype contact with her since then.
Oldwage: Now, I refer you to the document on page 27 and 28, that appears to be the email that you made mention of. Is that correct?
Oldwage: My you read this into the record?
Nel: My lady, I object. How can the court sit and listen to an email from London and advise given on how she dealt with it. How is it relative?
Nel: And we allow it, my lady.
Oldwage: My lady with respect to Mr. Nel's objection. He then makes some content to this email not being relative. It would appear to me that he suggests that what is in this email is hearsay evidence.
Oldwage: Perhaps he objects to the concession as to what he thinks is hearsay.
Oldwage: I will begin right at the beginning in regard to hearsay evidence.
Oldwage: My argument is that this is not hearsay evidence. We have copies for the court. To the matter of the relevant information.
Oldwage: My lady in this matter I might simply explain the facts.
Oldwage: Now facts to that matter must in fact be a kin to this matter.
Oldwage: This goes to the heart of my submission. What must be part and parcel, arriving at the decision as to whether the evidence is truth.
Oldwage: I quote from a caption in a judgement "statements made by non-witnesses are not always hearsay. If they are tendered for their testimonial evidence"
Judge: I think it is page 5.
Judge: We are reading Millar. That is page 5.
Oldwage: I apologise, that is not the way I numbered it on my pages.
Oldwage: Before I deal with any other aspects of this judgement, the truthfulness of what is contained in this evidence. However what Mr. Nel did was to submit at the end of his objection was to state that this was irrelevant.