WD: My lady, my report was in three sections.
Nel: I asked you a question on Thursday?
Nel: "My brief was to detail my experience with OP. And anything I might found" That is totally objective?
Nel: You are not sure if that is subjective?
WD: Well, I think observations could be objective observations.
Nel: If, I will agree that you are unable to be objective because you are the treating physician.
Nel: Why would you draw a line between this person and a family member?
WD: He is not a family member, he is one of the team members that I traveled with.
Nel: You know that Dr. Fynn was appointed on this matter?
WD: I have met with Dr. Fyn before the period of observation began.
WD: I have spoken to him after the consultation was concluded.
Nel: You commented on Dr. Scholtz' report?
Nel: Are you entitled to comment on that?
WD: My lady, as far as it goes in the symptoms of anxiety, yes, that is what I am trained.
Nel: Are you qualified to comment on the results of these tests?
WD: I look at the interpretation of those tests and I then apply my skills on those results.
Nel: But as far as Dr. Scholtz' results, you went a step further?
WD: My lady, I looked at a cut-off.
Nel: Where did you get that?
WD: My lady, as far as the results. My lady, the interpretation has already been made.
Nel: Can you refer me to that?
WD: Page 14 of the results.
Nel: What it reads here is normal.
WD: Yes, that is correct.
Nel: But you did, you said 71 must have meant something.
WD: My lady, I am saying that 70 is high, that is what I am saying.
Nel: The question is "you felt yourself qualified to remark on that?"
WD: My lady that is why I spoke to Dr. Fun afterwards as well. To find out if the patient was on medication during these tests or before.