And because these ridiculous quotes need a separate response.
You know exactly what is being spoke about. The Doctors testimony. I do not need to provide that which you already know.
You asking for something you already know is nothing but a deflection from your being wrong.
Even she said she was not given that information so she could not consider it when making her conclusion.
It is clear that you do not understand what the word ignore means.
Pointing out that her conclusion is flawed because she wasn't given all the information to consider, is not ignoring it, but is putting it into proper perspective as flawed.
You can start @ 1:18:15 to listen to the cross examination.
Listen to her say she wasn't given all the information. Only the information given to her by law enforcement.
Listen to her say she was only operating under that information.
And once you are done listening to it all, smack your forehead for trying to argue the crap you have in regards to this.
She didn't have the information to come to a proper conclusion.
Conclusions reached that do not consider all available information, are faulty.
Had she had it, she could have, but she didn't.
She even said she would consider it if it was given to her.
So really, smack your forehead like this.