I find it difficult to discuss this without bringing ethics into it, but that could be a failure on my part (for the purposes of this discussion).

"The key is to look at the actions taken when there's no stake involved." This is a crucial point.

In some situations, something might be "at stake" we're not aware of.

I apologize if some of my posts seemed confrontational. I actually find your ideas worthwhile for discussion in a clinical sense, but with so much at stake I think it's important to remember the immense consequences of his position in this trial. I find it hard to have this discussion without considering the ethics of the situation. But I appreciate how clinical your examination is.