I want to extend my deepest sympathies to all respectable members of the legal profession ...
who were, or felt, obligated for one reason or another to sit through the entirety of the "defense" presentation. It was a painful enough ordeal for one not educated in the law; it must have been an insufferable torment for those who are. It would be difficult to estimate how many human neurons were euthanized during the rampage of that lurching, shambling, Frankensteinian monster of an "argument".
As a scientist, I can only compare it to a bad sci-fi* movie filled with pseudoscientific gobbledygook** that goes way beyond radioactive spiders -- imagine an entire film with dialog along the lines of "you're invisible because your DNA helix is all screwed up"*** -- or perhaps the contents of a Web site selling "tachyonized" amulets to promote good health****.
*"SF" refers to the good stuff; "sci-fi" is what Hollywood produces when a good script by an established author is mindlessly butchered by producers who insist on rewrites, purportedly to enhance box-office appeal.
**I am in awe of my spellchecker, which knows the correct spelling of this word.
***Paraphrased due to imperfect memory, but yes, this was the actual explanation presented.
****You don't want to look this up. Trust me on this.
