Nel: You view your evidence in court as being as objective in theroy. You never have considered that the accused version might be a lie?
WD: I think that is wrong. My lady I am involved in a court case where there are two sides. The state and the accused.
Nel: But you never thought of the states version.
WD: My lady, I know that any report given to the state would be cross-examined and you would ask if anything is not clear.
Nel: Okay, I have been through this and it is clear in my understanding is that the main focus is on mental illness.
WD: My lady, they went through various different studies. Clearly there is more data on these studies with people with mental illnesses.
WD: If you have more individuals with mental illnesses, you would get stronger numbers.
Nel: You explained it well, but you have not answered the question.
Nel: This is the one study where there is reference to S.A., you picked that up?
WD: That is one of our weaknesses, is that we do not have strong studies in S.A.
Nel: What was the S.A. study?
WD: I would need to find that my lady.
Nel: Please do, it is on page 48 at 22.
Nel: It dealt with people with Dementia.
Nel: So that study has nothing to do with the case?
Nel: One can also at the discussion on page 37, it is clear that this particular study was presented with other mental studies. Am I right?
WD: You are wrong. All the studies combined it was 1.31, at the summary paragraph on page 31. Under "Findings".
WD: The focus is on individuals with mental illness, bear the most brunt against attack.
Nel: Let us deal with the next document you used on page 61.
Nel: Also in this, we are dealing with statistics. It is not legal or court statistics, am I right?
WD: I will have to look and see how they gauge there violence.
Nel: There is no indication as to who inflicted that violence?
Nel: Let us go to page 69.
Nel: It is not based in official documentation?
WD: In other words it is not very reliable.
Nel: You see my question is you are here in court and you are giving evidence. Don't you think you should have indicated to the court the shortfalls of these two documents?
WD: That is typically the nature of science.
NEl: Although we are in a court of law and we are dealing with relevance?
WD: My lady, I have a problem here, it is well documented here.
WD: It is not a flawed paper, I would not bring in a flawed paper to the court.
Nel: Page 69, paragraph 4.
Nel: So we have those included in those samples.
Nel: Here I would like to point counsel for the defense, aren't you using the study to create an atmosphere.
Nel: Let us carry on and go to page 85.
Nel: This article deals with hate crime. There is no indication of that in this crime.
WD: My lady, we are speaking about the vunerability of people that are disabled. People who are disabled suffer more attacks then people who are not disabled.
Nel: Whilst you gave that answer. I thought about the word "vunerability" now, it should be viewed in the context of the person.