In March 2006, George's lawyers sought an appeal on fresh evidence based on medical examinations suggesting he was not capable of committing the crime because of his mental disabilities. The defence brought in neuropsychiatrist Michael Kopelman to dispute the prosecution's claim that George showed signs of "histrionics, paranoia and narcissism" and had a personality disorder. Kopelman testified that " described to me that he can be aware of what's going on around him but he just can't respond", and concluded that George was not calculating enough to have committed the crime.