This is the claim you've made:What claim am I making?
I'm guessing you consider this a mater of common sense. My admittedly meager understanding of the mater leaves me to disagree, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.in general, if an expert's opinion is not supported or substantiated by both science and the facts, a judge won't allow them to testify.
Some seek what they believe to be the truth, while others seek truths to discern what to believe. This results in conflict, and is arguably the root of all conflict. Such is the reality of our existence, at least best I've been able to tell, and I've grown comfortable with this. In that regard, I recommend Tool's Schism, a song which has considerably helped me down that path.Y'all, please stop fighting. We are all seeking the truth.
This is the claim you've made:
I'm guessing you consider this a mater of common sense. My admittedly meager understanding of the mater leaves me to disagree, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Some seek what they believe to be the truth, while others seek truths to discern what to believe. This results in conflict, and is arguably the root of all conflict. Such is the reality of our existence, at least best I've been able to tell, and I've grown comfortable with this. In that regard, I recommend Tool's Schism, a song which has considerably helped me down that path.
Then cite the requirements you allude to from such a textbook, please.I was, in general terms because there are textbooks devoted to it, simply stating what the law requires in order for an experts opinion to be admissible.
I've seen a few examples of that, but none which rightly support your claim that "if an expert's opinion is not supported or substantiated by both science and the facts, a judge won't allow them to testify." Rather, from what I've seen: a person must simply be able to prove notable experience in a field to qualify as an expert witness in that field, while what basis their testimony has in science and fact is ultimately left up to the jurors to discern for themselves.You may recall in Jessie's case, there were hearings and testimony held outside the presence of the jury to determine those exact questions in order to determine what opinions the expert could testify to in front of the jury and the Judge allowed some and disallowed others.
Then cite the requirements you allude to from such a textbook, please.
I've seen a few examples of that, but none which rightly support your claim that "if an expert's opinion is not supported or substantiated by both science and the facts, a judge won't allow them to testify." Rather, from what I've seen: a person must simply be able to prove notable experience in a field to qualify as an expert witness in that field, while what basis their testimony has in science and fact is ultimately left up to the jurors to discern for themselves.
Wkikins was allowed to give his expert opinion that he thinks "Jessie would be quite suggestible", and he was allowed to elaborate on his reasoning behind that. What he wasn't allowed to do is introduce results of suggestibility testing based on a methodology which he couldn't demonstrate as being accepted at large, much much like one can't present astrological charts as evidence either.
Where exactly are you finding any basis in fact and methodology to support Wilkins' claim that "Jessie would be quite suggestible"?
While best I've been able to discern, Wilkins' opinion that that "Jessie would be quite suggestible" has no basis in fact, and the same goes for the more recent claims of animal predation.you have succinctly put the requirements for the admissibility of expert testimony. It has to have some basis in fact
You said:
While best I've been able to discern, Wilkins' opinion that that "Jessie would be quite suggestible" has no basis in fact, and the same goes for the more recent claims of animal predation.