Opinion ID: 2623482
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dr. Krugman's testimony independently supports Dague's defense.

Text: In addition to giving Dr. Wolf added credibility, Dr. Krugman's testimony also independently supported Dague's defense that she had not acted knowingly. Although Krugman at times stopped short of expressing an opinion particular to Dague, he stated that he only declined to do so because he had not seen clinical data from the interview with Dague. Nonetheless he made it clear that her case seemed to fall within the norm about which he was testifying: this case is, to me, is like other cases I have seen in other situations through my career, so I feel comfortable that I, that based on what I've read I understand the situation and the stressors and the factors that went into this tragic event.... Similarly, he stated that based on all of the cases I've seen over twenty years, it is more probable than not that in cases like this one the individual was not aware of what was happening.... Krugman also expressed some opinions particular to Dague's case. He stated that it seemed to be a case involving a single loss of control. This is an important point, considering his testimony that during such losses of control most abusive adults are not cognizant of what they're doing at that time. He also stated that he would probably tend to agree with psychiatric testimony that at the moment of the abuse Dague had lost sight of what she was doing. Krugman also testified that psychiatric testimony that her actions were a loss of control, it was more like a reflexive act would be consistent with cases that he had seen.