When I originally started here as an editor my material referencing directly to court rulings was deleted as violating the Wikipedia rule on original research It didn t make much sense to me and I never got a clear answer on its permissibility Either way the subsection now contains 4 duplicate references to the court ruling which seems confusing and redundant Since the case came down to a dreaded war of opposing experts concerning false confession it would appear necessary to detail Dr Kassin s testimony and background to understand the case Lawblogger and Percival your elaborations on the legal details of the Free and Baumhammers case are in my opinion muddying Dr Welner s role Since I m apparently in a discussion with two members of the legal profession I feel I should remind you that Forensic Psychology is supposed to be a scientific discipline not a branch of Law I have a whole treatise describing how the practice of being a lawyer is in many ways the opposite of the Scientific Method if you d like to hear it Shouldn t Dr Welner s testimony be judged primarily as good Science rather than as a legal precedent