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.
WD: He might have been less vunerable with a gun in his hand, I cannot say.
Nel: If OP vunerable, he armed himself with a gun?
Judge: Court is adjourned.
Judge: You are still under oath.
Nel: Just one or two questions about the Arnu Fourie incident. Can you exclude the fact that you wanted to move the accused partly because of the phone?
Nel: Have you not had any further discussion about this over the week-end?