WAS SUCH A MINOR THING THAT BRYAN [sic] WASN'T TAKEN TO A DOCTOR; IS THAT CORRECT?
"A NO, BRYAN [sic] WASN'T TAKEN TO A DOCTOR.
"Q WHAT?
"A HE WASN'T TAKEN TO A DOCTOR.
"Q THAT IS NOT TRUE. HE WAS TAKEN TO A DOCTOR.
"A FOR HIS BURN?
"Q YES.
"MR. FUSILIER: THIS IS ARGUMENTATIVE. I WILL OBJECT, SHE JUST ANSWERED THAT.
"THE COURT: OVERRULED.
"THE WITNESS: NOT FOR HIS BURN.
"MR. RUBIN: IMPEACHMENT ON A COLLATERAL MATTER, YOUR HONOR. I OBJECT UNDER 352, IT'S TIME CONSUMING.
"THE COURT: OVERRULED.
"MR. RUBIN: THEN IT'S IRRELEVANT.
*762 "THE COURT: THAT IS OVERRULED, ALSO.
"BY MR. GINDES:
"Q NOW, YOUR SON, BRYAN [sic], WAS TAKEN TO A DOCTOR HUTCHISON; IS THAT CORRECT?
"A I THINK I REMEMBER TAKING HIM IN FOR A PHYSICAL, BUT I DON'T THINK IT WAS JUST FOR THE BURN.
"Q DIDN'T SCAN TAKE YOUR CHILD AND TAKE HIM TO A DOCTOR HUTCHISON?
"A I TOOK HIM, I THINK.
"Q TO DOCTOR HUTCHISON?
"A I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER.
"Q THAT WAS FOR THE BURN, WASN'T IT?
"MR. VAN METER: OBJECTION, HE'S NOT GIVING THE WITNESS AN OPPORTUNITY -
"THE WITNESS: NO, I THINK IT WAS FOR A COMPLETE PHYSICAL.
"THE COURT: OVERRULED.
".... .... .... .... ....
"BY MR. GINDES:
"Q ISN'T IS TRUE THAT SCAN TOOK BRYAN [sic] AND TOOK HIM TO DOCTOR HUTCHISON?
"A I THINK I REMEMBER NOW SOMETHING ABOUT TAKING HIM FOR A COMPLETE PHYSICAL FROM SCAN.
"Q DIDN'T DOCTOR HUTCHISON REPORT THERE IS NO WAY THIS BURN COULD HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY A SPOON?
"MR. VAN METER: OBJECTION, HEARSAY.
"THE COURT: OVERRULED.
*763 "THE WITNESS: NO, I DON'T THINK SO.
"BY MR. GINDES:
"Q DIDN'T THE PEOPLE AT SCAN TELL YOU THAT THE CHILD WAS TAKEN TO A DOCTOR AND THE DOCTOR HAD TOLD YOU THIS WAS NOT CAUSED BY A SPOON?
"A NO.
"MR. RUBIN: HEARSAY.
"MR. VAN METER: DOUBLE HEARSAY.
"THE COURT: OVERRULED.
"THE WITNESS: NO, THEY DIDN'T.
".... .... .... .... ....
"Q NOW, WHEN BRYAN [sic] WAS TAKEN TO A DOCTOR, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THE BURN INCIDENT OCCURRED APPROXIMATELY AROUND NOVEMBER 20TH, OF 1979?
"A SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE.
"Q AND WHEN BRYAN [sic] WAS TAKEN -
"MR. FUSILIER: IN THAT CASE, YOUR HONOR, I WILL SUBMIT IT'S IRRELEVANT IF IT HAPPENED IN 1979.
"THE COURT: MR. VAN METER OPENED THE DOOR. OVERRULED.
"BY MR. GINDES:
"Q WHEN BRYAN [sic] WAS TAKEN TO THE DOCTOR, THAT WASN'T THE ONLY INJURY ON HIM, WAS IT?
"A I DON'T THINK HE HAD ANY OTHER INJURIES.
"Q DIDN'T HE HAVE BLACK AND BLUE MARKS DOWN HIS BACKSIDE, STRAP MARKS?
"A NO.
*764 "Q ARE YOU SAYING THAT BRYAN [sic] DID NOT HAVE BLACK AND BLUE MARKS ON HIS BUTTOCKS AND O[N] HIS UPPER BACK?
"A HE MAY HAVE HAD A BRUISE.
"MR. VAN METER: OBJECTION, ASKED AND ANSWERED.
"THE COURT: OVERRULED.
"THE WITNESS: NO.
"BY MR. GINDES:
"Q DID HE HAVE BLACK AND BLUE MARKS ON HIS BUTTOCKS AND UPPER BACK?
"A