.

Experts say Hemy Neuman Was Insane

Prosecutors began to rebut defense witness Dr. Adriana Flores

Dr. Adriana Flores, the forensic psychologist who diagnosed Hemy Neuman as legally insane, returned to the stand Monday and testified for nearly six hours in defense of her findings.

Flores sparred at times with prosecutors who contend that Neuman is faking an ailment to escape spending the rest of his life in prison for killing Russell “Rusty” Sneiderman.

"He was delusional," Flores testified. "He was not reality based at the time.”

Neuman has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity in the killing of Sneiderman, who was gunned down in Sept. 2010 after dropping his child off at a Dunwoody daycare center.

Flores, who was retained by the defense in September 2011, told jurors that someone who is bipolar could be delusional and manic, but could also appear perfectly normal to co-workers.

"Delusional people will look normal ... just like all of us in this room," she said.

This echoes what she told jurors in nearly a full day of testimony Thursday, when she discussed how Neuman's traumatic childhood, growing up in a home with a sometimes abusive father, confirm her diagnosis.

Flores again said that she believes that Neuman, an executive at GE Energy Atlanta, was having an on-again, off-again affair with the victim's wife, Andrea Neuman. She said the yo-yo nature of the relationship that aggravated his delusional mind and made him dangerous.

Flores testified that Neuman told her that an angel appeared to him and told him that Andrea Sneiderman's children were in danger from Rusty Sneiderman, and that Neuman believed that he had to save them by killing Rusty Sneiderman.

A second forensic psychologist, Dr. Tracey Marks, took the stand late Monday for the defense. Marks came to the same conclusion as Flores -- that Neuman was delusional at the time of the shooting and that he couldn't distinguish between right and wrong.

Also Monday, DeKalb County District Attorney Don Geary gave the clearest hint to the prosecution’s theory of the case.

While cross examining Flores, Geary posed a hypothetical question: "If there was any evidence that, if there was a plan, that the two [Andrea Sneiderman and Neuman] worked on this together, would that change your opinion?"

Flores said that such evidence could change her diagnosis, but she hasn't found any such evidence.

Both the defense, led by Doug Peters, and the prosecution, led by Geary, contend that Neuman and the widow were having an affair. Neuman was her supervisor at GE Energy.

Andrea Sneiderman has denied having an affair. She hasn't been in court for more than a week because Judge Gregory Adams banished her after reports that she was interacting improperly with other witnesses.

The case will not resume until 9 a.m. Thursday.

No official explanation was given other than there are unrelated matters that require the judge's attention. Court staffers wouldn't specify, but word in the court hallways is that there was a death in the judge's family, which is also the reason court was abruptly cut short Friday morning.

 

For those of you coming to us on a mobile device, here's an RSS feed where you can review today's live blog.

Rees Chapman March 05, 2012 at 03:01 PM
A clinical psychologist myself, I am troubled by Dr. Flores' statements that Neuman is not "criminally responsible" for the killing. Although seldom in a forensic context, I frequently find myself asked to determine whether or not a certain individual is psychotic, and to state whether he/she was psychotic at some time in the past. I have many tools and techniques at my disposal to determine the likelihood of psychosis at the time of my interview and testing, and often diagnose schizophrenia, bipolar disorder with psychosis, even organic mental disorders of neurologic etiology. Speculation about the presence of psychosis at some past event is a different matter altogether. If the person had a family history of psychosis, had his/her own history of psychiatric hospitalization/treatment, and showed other signs of having been "insane" (in terms of gross dysfunction at work, at home, or socially) at that time, I might say psychosis was probably a factor then, as well. Even so, I would never suggest that the mental disorder relieved the person of legal culpability; I've always understood that determination to be the responsibility of the judge and/or the jury, not a hired expert. In doing so, Dr. Flores draws a conclusion for which I believe she lacks the authority and competence.
DuchessM March 05, 2012 at 06:45 PM
This is an objective comment from a professional. Please make sure that the prosecution gets this - to include in his closing argument. Very important!
JR March 05, 2012 at 08:06 PM
Rees Chapman - send your business card ASAP to the prosecution! You are just the objective, fact-based, credible witness they need to counter this "I made my opinion and then retrospectively selected the facts I wanted to support my theory" Dr. Flores.
Jane Stewart March 06, 2012 at 07:23 AM
Wait. She's certain of her diagnosis. However, if presented with evidence of collusion, she would change her diagnosis. She's certain he is not making this all up, however, she could be swayed...??? Hmmm. Guess we can see where the prosecution plans to go here.
Sanna Sontel March 07, 2012 at 05:13 AM
PRAY guys! It is scary to see defense team can find "an expert" that fits PERFECTLY with what HN wants. Forget common sense huh? Just like juries can not find "the info" of the woman's state when the sex took place so OFF FREE Mr. Perrish Cox and hello fatherless baby with his DNA.... Pray guys, our justice system is corrupted!!! Ask Tim Tebow to help you pray......
Michael Mathews September 13, 2012 at 10:42 PM
Dr. Flores seemed more like she was more interested in her reputation & credibility than what was right. I saw part of her testimony & she seemed evasive in her answers plus seemed like she was lying by the looks of her body language always turning to the jury, like she was trying to convince them & herself. I seen this before in court rooms where the defendent tried this & was later found guilty
Michael Mathews September 13, 2012 at 10:45 PM
I've been to a lot of shrinks in my time, 59 yrs. I know you can fake them out. It is not too hard. Plus when you get too close with emotions & concerns one can start thinking with their EMOTIONS not their BRAINS.
kwn September 17, 2012 at 04:27 PM
It was so uncomfortable watching her testify. It was obvious she was paid by the defense, and when cornered by the prosecution, would look over at the defense and basically say with her eye, "object or something, will ya! Get this guy off of me! " its so sad that our medical professionals can be bought like this. Say what you want Dr Flores, he knew exactly what he was doing! We all have had tramas in our childhoods in one way or another, some extreme some not so. extreme, point being, I'm not out killing someone and blaming my daddy for it!!!! Seriously???? Is this really what our tax dollars are paying for???? Sick sick sick!!
Michael Mathews September 17, 2012 at 11:12 PM
If you are so concerned about TAX DOLLARS I hope you are NOT supporting ONERO the faux pres that campaigned while the America got NUKED BY IRAN & he wasted more money than ALL of his prev. real presidents combined.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »