No worries there. I watched most of the trial and know this: he used a variety of tactics repeatedly to delay, obstruct and interrupt the proceedings. He did not start using the “I don’t understand” line until the last day of trial and it was painfully obviously just a new tactic to create grounds for appeal. I mean, he was using “I don’t understand” to things he was told that were simple English declarative sentences with no jargon.
As to deeming his refusal to answer as a no, that is also a non-issue. She told him over and over and over again that his failure to answer her questions (are you calling a witness, do you intend to testify, do you agree with the jury instructions) would be regarded as a negative response.
I went back and forth between thinking the judge was way too patient, soft spoken and actually kind to this piece of filth. In the end, she was just giving him enough rope to hang himself by appearing before the jury as a rude, obnoxious jerk.
And then there were parts where he read a script written down (probably by others or that he had copied from a book). Yes - the judge, and the witnesses, were very patient with him (”who is him?”). I can understand the judge as she is a professional and didn’t want a mistrial, but I’m surprised none of the witnesses attempted to run out of the witness stand and go clobber the guy.
She was utterly amazing. Patience like I have never seen.