Nel: What is your understanding as to when did he run?
WD: There was a mention of running before he got to the corridor and at some stage there was a mention of running out of the corridor.
Nel: So at least in the accused mind there was mention of running?
Nel: When he demonstrated to you, he ran with his soulders and hips to the right and there is not rotation in the hips.
Nel: He is running with his chest facing the front?
Nel: Did you not see him running with his hand right up?
Nel: Do you think it is possible?
WD: I don't see why not, it would be difficult to balance like that.
Nel: I have looked at your supporting documents. Firstly, page 24, do you have it with you?
Nel: And at the bottom of that page, where it describes the sympathetic systems that promotes that body.
Nel: This is referred to as fight and flight response.
Nel: So that would cause you to run faster than you normally would be able to? Have more power to lift things?
WD: That would be possible.
WD: As I explained before, there is decrease in thinking.
Nel: Now, this flight and fight response is a normal response and is present in all of us?
Nel: There was at least an option for the accused to flee, even walk out of the room on the night of the incident?
WD: There is that option.
Nel: I am dealing with the documents that you attached, if you can turn to page 31.
WD: My lady, can I just go back and refer to Mr. Nel's last question? He asked me if he is able to flee, I would like to add that he is able to flee in the best possible way that he can.
WD: He cannot flee rapidly like any of us.
Nel: He could walk out the main bedroom door.
Nel: It was possible to hide in the room?
Nel: During, when there is a startle you would expect a heightened sense of awareness?
WD: It is a response that primes the system. The eyes blink and the body goes into reflection. The brain does have that awareness.
WD: If that matches the experience of the migular.
WD: Why I am hesitant is that we do know that there is decrease. To what extent we do not know, it varies in different situations.
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?