I just wanted to throw something out there for those rightfully upset with ALV's testimony. With genuine experts there are 4 crucial things to look for;
1) Balance, 2) Evidence-based theory,3) Veracity, and 4) a WIN/WIN communication style. None of which are present with her (or Samuels either)
A) she paints a picture of Jodi that is unrealistic, do you notice that according to AVL Jodi is never on the wrong side of anything--has no human imperfections despite this alleged abuse, rejection, and character assassination. This testimony is very remiscent of Borderline PD in that Travis is a perfect monster and Jodi is a perfect victim--trust me when I tell you that it is NEVER that cut and dry in Diagnostic Evaluations.
B) She used anecdotal and historic biographical information to construct and support her suppositions and opinions, i.e., expert testimony (this is very common in SA and DV fields). Most professionals know and accept that the history of SA and DV's theoretical foundation, however, it is explained in a court of law how this field arrives at its theoretical approaches and acknowledges its evidence-based shortcomings. This is why the field is so excited about the future of addiction with the movement of Neurobiology of Addiction and brain research.
C) She is restating or regurgitating Jodi Arias' testimony--There is no acknowledged COLLATERAL interviews/information to support her testimony, in fact it appears that each of the DT experts chose to forego the ever critical collateral information that helps MH professionals to determine the veracity of the defendants self-reporting (particularly in light of an admitted history of lying). The MMPI would have been an appropriate instrument to measure the defendants truthfulness IMO.
D) She has no integrity or committment to the field of psychology--it is our responsibility to educate and evaluate without spin or bias. This is an exercise in destroying one person to elevate the status of another person. Hence she communicates not as a professional but as a hack in which someone has to win and someone has to lose, thus signifcantly harming the profession itself. This is the most repulsive part because for the sake of the win she has disrespected and harmed the both the Alexander and Arias' families, dehumanized Travis to the tune of a win, and she has allowed her gender bias to negatively impact the slow growing acceptance that women are abusers as well.
I know I rambled on this but my frustration is great, however, on the flip side I would hope that the Prosecution has a real expert with all of these qualities.
