Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos' evidence-in-chief was presented in an unusual way. She gave her evidence with the assistance of a slide presentation. The slide presentation consisted predominantly of quotations or her interpretation of research papers of others. The evidence was not presented as opinion evidence in the traditional manner. During her evidence-in-chief much of the evidence was disjointed and difficult to understand. The research papers upon which she relied were not tendered. Rather, she referred to parts of the papers. Many of the research papers were put to her in cross-examination. In cross-examination, she was often non-responsive to questions. She gave lengthy answers which did not address the questions. On the occasions when she did answer the question, it was often difficult to understand her responses. On some occasions, she simply responded by refusing to accept the validity of work published by reputable scientists.
Overturning established scientific ideas by a powerpoint presentation! Is there no end to the bizarre methods denialists of all sorts will go to in order to push their cases (other than relying on real science, of course)?
EoR admires Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos' gall, when confronted with the fact that a study she relied on did not support the view she purported it to have:
"No, I did not know that. I did not know that. And if I knew, it wouldn't make any difference."
It's not true! It's not true! And even if it was, I don't care!
The judge points out how lacking her "research" is (which mainly consisted of reading and "thinking"):
The two instances to which I have referred demonstrate that Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos is not objective in her
evidence. She commences with a proposition which she then seeks to justify by reliance on material which, when properly understood, does not support the proposition.
EoR hopes Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos will soon turn to homeopathy or acupuncture or something, where such methods of fitting the evidence to the proposition are more welcome.