(OC GANG RAPE) Judge won't allow testimony of ex-porn star.
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
Former adult film actress says video evidence is amateur pornography
By LISA B. McPHERON, Staff Writer
SANTA ANA - An adult film star-turned-health advocate believes the
video that Orange County prosecutors said is evidence of a sexual
assault is actually amateur pornography.
However, she won't be able to express her opinion to the jury since
the judge will not allow her to testify during the rape trial of three
Rancho Cucamonga teenagers.
"All in all I think this is a very amateurish attempt at making a porn
film," said Sharon Mitchell, who directed, produced or performed in
more than 1,000 adult films and co-founded the Adult Industry Medical
Health Care Foundation.
The video in question was made nearly two years ago at the Newport
Beach home of Don Haidl, an Orange County assistant sheriff.
Haidl's son Gregory Haidl, now 18, and Kyle Nachreiner and Keith
Spann, both 19, are on trial for raping and sexually assaulting an
unconscious 16-year-old girl, also from Rancho Cucamonga.
Haidl owns the camera the three defendants used to record the
20-minute alleged assault.
On Wednesday, Mitchell testified outside the jury's presence so the
judge could determine if her testimony is appropriate for the trial.
She said the video had aspects of professional pornography techniques,
including camera angles and sexual positions.
"You have to have a degree of athletic ability and clearly be
conscious," Mitchell said of one of the positions.
Previously, former friends of the accuser testified that around the
time of the alleged assault, the 16-year-old girl bragged about being
a porn star after viewing a short video of consensual sex she had with
Spann.
However, it also surfaced during the testimony of former friends
Melissa Matsumoto and Vanessa Obmann, both Rancho Cucamonga High
School seniors, that they went over their testimonies together and had
read transcripts of the alleged victim's testimony from the trial
before they testified. Generally, witnesses are told not to discuss
their testimony with other witnesses.
Prosecutor Dan Hess argued there is no connection between Mitchell's
opinion of the alleged rape tape and the trial.
Judge Francisco Briseno warned defense attorney Peter Scalisi before
Mitchell testified that it was "highly unlikely" he would allow her to
testify before the jury.
"You're at the bottom of Mt. Suribachi with no gun and no food,"
Briseno told Scalisi, a reference to World War II Marines storming the
island of Iwo Jima.
Scalisi attempted to sway the judge, but Briseno didn't bite.
"We have an expert who has worked in the field," Scalisi said. "And
she says it's consistent with a pornographic film."
The defense is also trying to allow two adult films of women acting as
though unconscious to be admitted as evidence in an attempt to get a
date-rape drug expert to testify that the sex actresses look to be
under the influence of a drug.
Previously, Trinka Porrata, a date-rape drug expert, testified that
the 16-year-old girl looked as if she were drugged during the alleged
assault. Her lack of muscle response to the boys inserting foreign
objects into her are clear indicators the girl was under the influence
of a sedative, she said.
The judge has not yet ruled if he will allow the two films and the
actresses to appear in court.
Today, the judge is expected to rule on motions including whether
Orange County Sheriff Michael Carona must testify, and if the defense
has presented grounds for a mistrial.
Defense attorneys have asked the judge for a mistrial because, they
argue, the prosecution failed to divulge information about injuries
the girl sustained from the alleged assault.
--
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our
number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
~ George Bush Jr. 2001-09-13
"I don't know where he (bin Laden) is. I have no idea and I really
don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
~ George Bush Jr. 2002-03-13
Michael Snyder
> Judge won't allow testimony of ex-porn star
>
> Former adult film actress says video evidence is amateur pornography
>
> By LISA B. McPHERON, Staff Writer
>
> SANTA ANA - An adult film star-turned-health advocate believes the
> video that Orange County prosecutors said is evidence of a sexual
> assault is actually amateur pornography.
> However, she won't be able to express her opinion to the jury since
> the judge will not allow her to testify during the rape trial of three
> Rancho Cucamonga teenagers.
>
> "All in all I think this is a very amateurish attempt at making a porn
> film," said Sharon Mitchell, who directed, produced or performed in
> more than 1,000 adult films and co-founded the Adult Industry Medical
> Health Care Foundation.
Oh my god, Sharon Mitchell? Surely you know who she is, Scorp.
They should definitely allow her testimony. Few people could
know more about porn, and she's also something of a women's
advocate. Hell, she's even a rape survivor. A better expert
witness would be hard to find.
I don't get it, though -- the subject line and first paragraph
suggest that the judge has already ruled against admitting her
testimony, but toward the end of the article it says he has yet
to rule.
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
<msn...@redhat.com> wrote:
>Scorpi...@attNOSPAM.net wrote:
>> Judge won't allow testimony of ex-porn star
>>
>> Former adult film actress says video evidence is amateur
pornography
>>
>> By LISA B. McPHERON, Staff Writer
>>
>> SANTA ANA - An adult film star-turned-health advocate believes the
>> video that Orange County prosecutors said is evidence of a sexual
>> assault is actually amateur pornography.
>> However, she won't be able to express her opinion to the jury since
>> the judge will not allow her to testify during the rape trial of
three
>> Rancho Cucamonga teenagers.
>>
>> "All in all I think this is a very amateurish attempt at making a
porn
>> film," said Sharon Mitchell, who directed, produced or performed in
>> more than 1,000 adult films and co-founded the Adult Industry
Medical
>> Health Care Foundation.
>
>Oh my god, Sharon Mitchell? Surely you know who she is, Scorp.
Of course I do, I just got an email from her like three days ago.
>They should definitely allow her testimony.
While she does claim to have a phd in human sexuality, I think it is,
she is not an expert in porn. This trail is about consent, not
quality of porn. She has nothing relevant to say on the subject.
Few people could
>know more about porn, and she's also something of a women's
>advocate. Hell, she's even a rape survivor. A better expert
>witness would be hard to find.
You mean better then the video tape itself?
Michael Snyder
Of course she is. She was a porn actress, I think she may have
directed some, and she now runs a health service for porn actors.
> This trail is about consent, not
> quality of porn. She has nothing relevant to say on the subject.
Of course she does. Did you even read her comments?
You may disagree, you may question her credentials, but
nothing could be more relevant than whether or not the
girl was conscious and cooperating.
>
> Few people could
>
>>know more about porn, and she's also something of a women's
>>advocate. Hell, she's even a rape survivor. A better expert
>>witness would be hard to find.
>
>
> You mean better then the video tape itself?
Absolutely. The tape is not a witness. It has no opinion,
expert or otherwise. It offers the jury an opportunity to
form an opinion, but the jury are not experts.
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
<msn...@redhat.com> wrote:
Yes I did.
>You may disagree, you may question her credentials, but
>nothing could be more relevant than whether or not the
>girl was conscious and cooperating.
I think that the girl given consent might be a bit more relevant. I
think most rape victims are conscious, and I think some even cooperate
to avoid injury, but that does not equal consent.
Sharon is not an expert on consciousness. She is not an MD. She is a
former porn star who heads up a couple of offices that run HIV and STD
tests. Actually I think they just take the urine and blood and send
it out to a lab. Pretty fun place to hang out if you like to talk to
porn chicks.
No, Sharon is not qualified to speak with any authority as to this
young lady giving consent.
Michael Snyder
I suppose you MIGHT see "cooperating" and not read "consent",
but since she never alleged that she was threatened or anything,
if she was conscious and cooperating (and not unconscious and
drugged, as she claims), then she's lying about NOT giving consent.
> I
> think most rape victims are conscious,
But we are discussing THIS alleged rape victim. This case.
I never said that Sharon Mitchell's testimony would be relevant
for ALL rape cases.
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
<msn...@redhat.com> wrote:
No Michael. Sharon is not qualified to testify in this matter.
That's it. Done.
I've driven cars, I've owned cars, I've wrecked cars, I've even worked
on cars, it does not make my an expert on cars.
Michael Snyder
> No Michael. Sharon is not qualified to testify in this matter.
> That's it. Done.
Oh yeah? Well, yes she is! That's it. Done.
Bo Raxo
"Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
news:c9qmuf$hhk$1...@stan.redhat.com...
>
> Oh my god, Sharon Mitchell? Surely you know who she is, Scorp.
> They should definitely allow her testimony. Few people could
> know more about porn, and she's also something of a women's
> advocate. Hell, she's even a rape survivor. A better expert
> witness would be hard to find.
>
So by your reasoning, if we were having a trial about someone who allegedly
got drunk and was in an accident, we should admit as an "expert" anyone who
drinks and drives regularly?
Doing something does not make you an expert on it. And just because the
tape shows similarities in the cinematography to porn - same angles,
positions - that only tells us that one or more of those idiots has viewed
porn. It does not inform us whether the young woman was drugged.
And as an aside, I still marvel that someone with as unattractive a face as
Sharon Mitchell did so well in porn. I guess there's a premium for showing
up on time.
Bo Raxo
Bo Raxo
Oh yeah? Well, the judge says she isn't. That's it. Done.
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
Don't try logic and reason here mister, we won't have it ;)
Mike Baudrillard
<Scorpi...@attNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:rqr1c0dpmidef23dv...@4ax.com...
What about 12th century Lithuanian literature? You gota know some stuff
about summat. I'm an expert in buying snowboards I never use.
Michael Snyder
> "Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
> news:c9qmuf$hhk$1...@stan.redhat.com...
>
>>Oh my god, Sharon Mitchell? Surely you know who she is, Scorp.
>>They should definitely allow her testimony. Few people could
>>know more about porn, and she's also something of a women's
>>advocate. Hell, she's even a rape survivor. A better expert
>>witness would be hard to find.
>>
>
>
> So by your reasoning, if we were having a trial about someone who allegedly
> got drunk and was in an accident, we should admit as an "expert" anyone who
> drinks and drives regularly?
And by yours, someone who's never even seen a porn movie
would be as expert as someone who's made a career in them?
>
> Doing something does not make you an expert on it.
Spending most of your adult life in a field, seeing it
from multiple angles, may make you more of an expert than
someone who has studiously avoided having anything to do
with it.
> And just because the
> tape shows similarities in the cinematography to porn - same angles,
> positions - that only tells us that one or more of those idiots has viewed
> porn.
You didn't read it. She spoke of the positions that the GIRL
was in, and how they required effort -- could not be maintained
while unconscious. One presumes she spoke from experience
(and don't pretend to think I mean experience of being unconscious).
> It does not inform us whether the young woman was drugged.
Neither does hearing from a rape victim's advocate, but
I don't see you arguing for their being barred from testimony.
> And as an aside, I still marvel that someone with as unattractive a face as
> Sharon Mitchell did so well in porn. I guess there's a premium for showing
> up on time.
I get it, you don't like her.
Bo Raxo
> Bo Raxo wrote:
> > "Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
> > news:c9qmuf$hhk$1...@stan.redhat.com...
> >
> >>Oh my god, Sharon Mitchell? Surely you know who she is, Scorp.
> >>They should definitely allow her testimony. Few people could
> >>know more about porn, and she's also something of a women's
> >>advocate. Hell, she's even a rape survivor. A better expert
> >>witness would be hard to find.
> >>
> >
> >
> > So by your reasoning, if we were having a trial about someone who
allegedly
> > got drunk and was in an accident, we should admit as an "expert" anyone
who
> > drinks and drives regularly?
>
> And by yours, someone who's never even seen a porn movie
> would be as expert as someone who's made a career in them?
>
No, by my reasoning an expert on rape can identify a rape on film. Someone
who has been a rape victim is not an expert on rape.
>
> >
> > Doing something does not make you an expert on it.
>
> Spending most of your adult life in a field, seeing it
> from multiple angles, may make you more of an expert than
> someone who has studiously avoided having anything to do
> with it.
>
And you know that the prosecution witness has studiously avoided porn? And
really, the fact that the camera angles and positions are reminiscent of
porn are irrelevant. If I drug a woman and rape her in a gothic haunted
house set, would you want testimony from horror movie actors? Goths?
>
> > And just because the
> > tape shows similarities in the cinematography to porn - same angles,
> > positions - that only tells us that one or more of those idiots has
viewed
> > porn.
>
> You didn't read it. She spoke of the positions that the GIRL
> was in, and how they required effort -- could not be maintained
> while unconscious. One presumes she spoke from experience
> (and don't pretend to think I mean experience of being unconscious).
>
I did read it. Looking at the position someone's body is in, and deciding
whether that could be held by an unconcious person, does not require expert
testimony. A jury can decide for themselves.
Deciding what is and isn't possible while whacked on GHB does require expert
testimony.
> > It does not inform us whether the young woman was drugged.
>
> Neither does hearing from a rape victim's advocate, but
> I don't see you arguing for their being barred from testimony.
>
I s'pose you can call her a rape victim advocate, just as a ballistics
expert might be considered a shooting victim advocate. Doesn't change
whether she is an expert on the effects of this drug and it's use in
assaults.
> > And as an aside, I still marvel that someone with as unattractive a face
as
> > Sharon Mitchell did so well in porn. I guess there's a premium for
showing
> > up on time.
>
> I get it, you don't like her.
>
I have no opinion about her personality, I've never met the woman. I just
think her face is fugly. There are plenty of fugly people I like; I'll
avoid the rather obvious jab I could make here...
Bo
Child
> Of course she does. Did you even read her comments?
> You may disagree, you may question her credentials, but
> nothing could be more relevant than whether or not the
> girl was conscious and cooperating.
Except nothing in her background suggests that she is an expert on
"concious" vs "unconcious" behavior. Just porn. The quality of the film
isn't in question.
Child
> You didn't read it. She spoke of the positions that the GIRL
> was in, and how they required effort -- could not be maintained
> while unconscious. One presumes she spoke from experience
> (and don't pretend to think I mean experience of being unconscious).
I am willing to bet this woman does not have experience trying this postions
unconcious, which is really whats under scrutiny. If she volunteered to be
drugged and they filmed her being done in these positions, perhaps that
would be a helpful witness.
Steve Sullivan
"Child" <be...@NOT-SO-bad-dawgs-in-ak.com> wrote:
HELLO??? MACFLY!! (bangs on Child's head). Assuming she was
unconscious assumes the defendants are guilty. They would suggest that
a *CONSCIOUS* person could PRETEND to be unconscious and do this.
If their are films of this, it would absolutefuckinglutely be relevant.
If a conscious person who HAS NOT BEEN DRUGGED can be dropped or shit
themselves or take it up the ass without wincing, like this lady
endured, it is absolutely informative. Personally I doubt it could be
done.
Michael Snyder
"Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message
news:ip7wc.1851$uX2....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Oh yeah? Well by my reading of the last paragraph or two,
he hasn't made up his mind yet.
Michael Snyder
"Child" <be...@NOT-SO-bad-dawgs-in-ak.com> wrote in message
news:10c2jtv...@corp.supernews.com...
Ah, come on. She said some of the positions the girl were in required
effort to maintain, and couldn't be done while unconscious.
Michael Snyder
"Child" <be...@NOT-SO-bad-dawgs-in-ak.com> wrote in message
Well, too bad -- she might be willing to do that, but if the judge
disallows her testimony, we'll never know.
Child
Has she tried this unconciously?
Child
Its pretty clear from the evidence that these boys did a heinous thing to
this girl. Your efforts woud be better spent defending other people who
haven't cried when their rape tape was found.
Michael Snyder
"Child" <be...@NOT-SO-bad-dawgs-in-ak.com> wrote in message
No, I think she did it on purpose.
;-/
Michael Snyder
"Child" <be...@NOT-SO-bad-dawgs-in-ak.com> wrote in message
I'm not defending them. In fact, I think they're guilty. Doesn't mean
I wouldn't want to hear another opinion, though, from someone who
has some relevant expertise. It can never hurt to hear additional,
relevant evidence. Although I think they're guilty, I might be wrong.
And it would suck to send them to prison if they aren't. So where's
the harm?
flick
>
> Ah, come on. She said some of the positions the girl were in
required
> effort to maintain, and couldn't be done while unconscious.
I'd think that would require the testimony of a different type of
expert witness, not an ex porn star.
A physiatrist? or somebody whose specialty is movement of the
human body.
flick 100785
>
>
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456 - Release Date: 6/4/2004
Michael Snyder
"flick" <fl...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:KuFwc.144$yR...@fe25.usenetserver.com...
> "Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
> news:mhtwc.15276$Fo4.2...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> >
> > Ah, come on. She said some of the positions the girl were in
> required
> > effort to maintain, and couldn't be done while unconscious.
>
> I'd think that would require the testimony of a different type of
> expert witness, not an ex porn star.
>
> A physiatrist? or somebody whose specialty is movement of the
> human body.
Well, look -- porn and the making of porn movies are elements that have been
legitimately introduced into the discourse of this trial. As such, it is
legitimate
to bring in an expert to testify about porn and the making of porn movies.
So
if you don't like someone who has worked in various aspects of the field for
several decades, what expert would YOU suggest?
Child
the harm is that the witness in question doesnt' really have legitimate or
relevant testimony. If you think having tried a sexual position conciously
(and I have tried a few, as I am sure you have) gives us the knowledge
whether it was possible or impossible unconcious, then your knowledge of
unconcious is far superior to mine. If you think that the fact that these
boys created a well crafted porn film of their rape is relevant.......you
need to explain how.
Michael Snyder
"Child" <be...@NOT-SO-bad-dawgs-in-ak.com> wrote in message
Well I think she does -- which is why I think she should have been allowed.
Michael Snyder
> >
> > Well, look -- porn and the making of porn movies are elements
> that have been
> > legitimately introduced into the discourse of this trial. As
> such, it is
> > legitimate
> > to bring in an expert to testify about porn and the making of
> porn movies.
>
>
> > So
> > if you don't like someone who has worked in various aspects of
> the field for
> > several decades, what expert would YOU suggest?
>
> porn and the making of porn movies.
>
> positions a body might maintain while unconscious; I think that
> requires a different type of expert.
Well then, get one. The rape victims advocates who are going to testify
aren't expert on what positions a body might maintain while unconscious
either -- but that isn't going to stop them from testifying. IMO they know
less about the situation in general than Sharon Mitchell does, but that
again
isn't going to prevent them from testifying -- moreover, it isn't going to
prevent them from giving their opinions ABOUT WHETHER SHE WAS
UNCONSCIOUS.
tinydancer
Why don't you volunteer? Have somebody stick a pool cue up your ass and
see if you flinch.
>
>
>
Michael Snyder
"tinydancer" <tinyd...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:s4Ywc.15758$Iu6....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Because I'd have so much more fun using you as a test subject, my dear.
tinydancer
You're the one debating it, questioning it, not me. You think it can be
done, you prove it.
>
>
>
Michael Snyder
Fine, I'll get the mickey and the pool cue, you just lie down on the table.
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
WOW! And jsut when ya think it can't go any lower.
Michael Snyder
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 18:41:31 +0000, Michael Snyder
> <msn...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>>tinydancer wrote:
>>
>>>>>Why don't you volunteer? Have somebody stick a pool cue up your
>>>>>ass and see if you flinch.
>>Fine, I'll get the mickey and the pool cue, you just lie down on the
>>table.
>
>
> WOW! And jsut when ya think it can't go any lower.
Unsurprisingly, you ignore Tiny's comment about somebody
sticking a pool cue up MY ass, and only comment on my
much milder remark directed back at her. Just pointing
out the bias, pal...
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
<msn...@redhat.com> wrote:
>Scorpi...@attNOSPAM.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 18:41:31 +0000, Michael Snyder
>> <msn...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>tinydancer wrote:
>>>
>
>>>>>>Why don't you volunteer? Have somebody stick a pool cue up
your
>>>>>>ass and see if you flinch.
>
>>>Fine, I'll get the mickey and the pool cue, you just lie down on
the
>>>table.
>>
>>
>> WOW! And jsut when ya think it can't go any lower.
>
>Unsurprisingly, you ignore Tiny's comment about somebody
>sticking a pool cue up MY ass, and only comment on my
>much milder remark directed back at her. Just pointing
>out the bias, pal...
Thanks. I was afraid you'd missed it.
tinydancer
You're the one disputing the fact that the girl was unconcious, not me.
That's not bias at all, it's fact. You think it can happen, prove it
yourself. You think somebody can have the atrocities these scum inflicted
upon her body without a reaction, prove it with your own body.
>
Nancy Rudins
Just a friendly wager, right? How about I offer to throw in
$100 to anyone who volunteers to take you up on your offer?
Anyone who turns it down is just chicken. We'll need videotaped
evidence of the bet.
Kind regards,
Nancy
--
Take a sad song and make it better (lennon/mccartney)
Nancy Rudins
nru...@ncsa.uiuc.edu
http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/People/nrudins
nimue
The mickey? Freudian slip, much? I guess you deep down know such a thing
CAN'T be done with no response unless someone is unconscious.
--
nimue
"If I had created reality television I would have had a much greater
influence, but then I would have had to KILL MYSELF."
Joss Whedon
Michael Snyder
> The mickey? Freudian slip, much? I guess you deep down know such a thing
> CAN'T be done with no response unless someone is unconscious.
>
I guess I'm the one arguing the side of open-mindedness, and you...
Bo Raxo
Er, what you're arguing for is about openness, but I don't think it's of the
mind. Much farther south.
nimue
are facing reality!
Michael Snyder
Amusing, but untrue. I only suggested that someone's testimony be
heard. Unles one has an incredibly tenuous case (which doesn't seem
to be true here), or something to hide, I don't see the argument for
exclusion.
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
<msn...@redhat.com> wrote:
It can never hurt to hear additional,
>relevant evidence. Although I think they're guilty, I might be
wrong.
>And it would suck to send them to prison if they aren't. So where's
>the harm?
1) lends legitimacy to the porn argument there by suggesting this
young lady is a porn chick.
2)WASTE of time and TAXPAYERS money.
Bo Raxo
She's not an expert on what this drug does to a person. Her area of
expertise is human sexuality; to the extent those issues arise, I don't see
the need for expert testimony on the subject. The jury can observe the sex
and draw common-sense judgements.
The argument for exclusion is on the grounds of relevance in her area of
expertise, and her non-expertise in the areas of pharmacology, neurology,
and physiology which might be relevant.
Really, what is your claim: that she's an expert on fucking, and that this
trial needs an expert on fucking? Because the lay person finds the subject
too complex?
Michael Snyder
"Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message
news:kztxc.26434$Tn6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
> news:ca56nr$51i$1...@stan.redhat.com...
> > Bo Raxo wrote:
> > > "Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
> > > news:ca30ed$tl$1...@stan.redhat.com...
> > >
> > >>nimue wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>The mickey? Freudian slip, much? I guess you deep down know such a
> > >
> > > thing
> > >
> > >>>CAN'T be done with no response unless someone is unconscious.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>I guess I'm the one arguing the side of open-mindedness, and you...
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Er, what you're arguing for is about openness, but I don't think it's
of
> the
> > > mind. Much farther south.
> >
> > Amusing, but untrue. I only suggested that someone's testimony be
> > heard. Unles one has an incredibly tenuous case (which doesn't seem
> > to be true here), or something to hide, I don't see the argument for
> > exclusion.
> >
>
> She's not an expert on what this drug does to a person.
Neither is the rape advocate.
Bo Raxo
>
> "Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message
> news:kztxc.26434$Tn6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Neither is the rape advocate.
>
Er, I think you mean rape victim advocate. Freudian slip.
That witness is I assume an expert on what a rape looks like, as versus
consensual sex with playacting.
In any event, here's the argument summed up:
Snyder: Why not let Dr. Mitchell testify?
Bo: Because her expertise fails the test of being relevant.
Snyder: Well, this other witness is irrelevant.
Bo: Which says nothing about having Mitchell testify. Particularly since
their areas of expertise are different.