00:00What are you smiling for? This is not funny, sir.
00:03You used an approach that fell below the standard of forensic practice?
00:09No.
00:11You were unqualified to give an opinion that you attempted to give
00:16saying that it was perfectly appropriate to test by way of urine or blood
00:21people that are benefiting from the TAMF program
00:24because your testimony was that they belong to a class of people
00:29that I guess had to be tested.
00:32I don't agree with your conceptualization.
00:35Okay.
00:35So spoken to, by telephone perhaps, with the district attorneys,
00:40the prosecutors here.
00:43Yes.
00:44And where did you meet them?
00:47The prosecutors?
00:49Yeah.
00:52Only by phone.
00:54Okay.
00:54So you met them by phone.
00:55And basically they told you that they wanted you to evaluate a defendant
01:00who had been indicted for triple homicide of her own children by the name of
01:06Lindsay Clancy.
01:06You knew that from speaking with them, right?
01:10Effectively, I knew that, yes.
01:11And, you know, I normally don't go there with expert witnesses,
01:14but it was fair game on Dr. Zizel.
01:16How much money do you make a year on your forensic evaluations?
01:22It ranges over the years, you know, several hundred thousand of dollars.
01:29Yeah.
01:30It can be a few.
01:31And a lot of that, I'm sorry.
01:34Well, did you know what the factual allegations were of the case?
01:38Yes or no?
01:41Well, all the factual allegations, yes, I believe they were conveyed to me
01:46during a phone call.
01:48Yeah.
01:49Okay.
01:49Hold on, Dr.
01:50Please.
01:51Listen to the question and answer the question.
01:54Go ahead.
01:54Yes.
01:55So how many hours did you interview her the first time?
02:00The first day?
02:01It was roughly, ended up being about, I think, four or five hours.
02:07And have in mind, sir, as counsel has already elicited, she's incontinent.
02:12She has issues because of being paralyzed and had to have a break, didn't she?
Comments