Those who had counselled and assessed Sophia McColgan following her father's conviction for years of sexual and physical abuse of her and her siblings spoke of trust, self-esteem, losses, of the need for her to "find her own truth", of intimate relationships which were not fulfilling.
Lawyers for the doctor and the health board had the problem of trying to reconcile this language, not often heard in courtrooms, with the concept of legal competence to make significant decisions.
A rape crisis counsellor, Ms Ruth McNeely, was asked by counsel for Ms McColgan, Mr James Nugent, whether she was in a position to make decisions on a "significant matter" when she first came to the counsellor in July 1995.
There were several minutes of legal argument between the lawyers as to whether Ms McNeely was qualified to answer this question, before Mr Justice Johnson ruled to allow it.
Ms McNeely then told the court that it was only when Sophia McColgan had her own baby in August 1996 that she had the space to talk about what had happened to her.
"Practically every week she would say to me, `I'm not too bad, am I, Ruth?'," the counsellor said. "She minimised the effects because looking at the losses would have been just too much.
"When she had her baby there was huge grief. She began to see what she had actually lost. There was the beginning of self-esteem. She saw she could produce something good."
Summing up the progress Sophia had made, she said: "Sophia can now listen. She can be with her feelings."
Mr John Rogers SC, for the North Western Health Board, asked her if Sophia had not got a 2:1 degree and held down a job. She had a boyfriend, and had had a baby with him, he said.
"So her emotional state did not prevent her from doing the things most of us normally do?" he asked.
"What is missing in her life is friends. You can have friends but they don't know what's going on in your life," replied Ms McNeely.
Mr Pat Hanratty SC, for Dr Moran, also raised the question as to how Sophia was incapable of making significant decisions concerning her life while getting an honours degree. Ms McNeely said that focusing on one thing often becomes a method of survival for incest survivors.
Mr Hanratty summed up the views of the plaintiffs when he said: "Sophia did suffer appalling abuse but admirably was able to get a degree and get on with her life albeit bearing the burden of anyone who suffers like this.
"I'm not suggesting that the effects of this were not enormous and that she did not need someone like you to talk to. But I am suggesting that this does not mean she was unable to manage her own affairs and was mentally incapacitated."
Ms Sabina Christiansen, a clinical psychologist who had examined Sophia in order to prepare an assessment, did not agree. "You try desperately to find one area of life where you are in control. She invested all this in the academic field, which is very typical," she said.
"If you look at her academically she could look after her own affairs. But this is not the whole person. She has very low self-esteem, a distorted body image. It (the abuse) debilitates people."
She told Mr Garrett Cooney SC, for Ms McColgan: "She doesn't trust you, she doesn't trust me, she doesn't trust anyone here. She was never taught the normal skills with which to trust.
"When we don't trust it's like living on an island. We can't reach out to people. That is a handicap."
The discussion as to whether Ms McColgan was so handicapped that she could not pursue legal action between 1988 and 1991, two years before she spoke to anyone about the abuse, will continue today.