Re: I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels.
Well now, this is where your argument is a bit wrong. He left many messages on the systems, stating he was a friend to the American people, and asking the government to please increase their security. The prosecutors (and members of the British government, it should be added) then leapt upon an unrepresentative quote, and took it out of context to make it look like his aim was to make threats. It wasn't. And there's nothing incompatible about his position at all, when you consider WHY he was looking for evidence of UFOs. Which you don't seem to have troubled yourself with.
Back on topic, like you say. It is the job of medical professionals to state the facts accurately. And yes, to state their opinions. The thing is, 6 such clinicians (highly qualified in the relevant fields) have already done so, and there was no conflict between any of their views. On the prosecution side, they have chosen (against the advice of NAS) to instruct a clinician who is not qualified to pass comment, but yet who has chosen to do so without having even seen the patient. He's entitled to his opinion, but you've got to ask, what is it based on? And following your argument, if the prosecution believe the only way they can get evidence that he's fit for trial is to use someone that doesn't really know what they're talking about, doesn't that tell you something about the strength of their case?
But anyway, it is actually Theresa May's job, not the court's, to weigh up and decide, which is the more convincing set of evidence: a single, flimsy, in absentia report from a non-expert, or 6 unanimous in depth face-to-face assessments from the most eminent autism specialists in the land if not the world (including independently appointed ones, if I'm not mistaken). Hmm, it's a tough one isn't it? That must be why she's spent two years dithering.