BBMJust pointing out that 32 years old IS very, very young for a testifying "expert." Most experts are at least in their 40's and usually in their 50's and older. The idea being that one is not an expert until they've had quite a bit of practical experience and become established in their field. I didn't watch the testimony yesterday, so this isn't a commentary on how this witness did, at all. Just sayin'...I'm seeing posters get onto the defense for pointing out her age and lack of practical experience, but that IS what makes one an expert -- among other things. Any defense in any case would do this and it would be justified since experience is something the jury should definitely consider in evaluating an expert's testimony. Imo, particularly in a highly interactive and subjective field such as psych. All jmo.
I hope you get an opportunity to watch her testimony. I think you will change your mind...
The difference in the intellectual level and objective evaluations (thoroughly explained) between this witness and the defense "experts" was profound.
Obviously her age has nothing to do with her competence and knowledge or ability to psychologically evaluate this defendant.
It was so on point I found myself saying "of course! That describes Jodi perfectly."
night and day difference from Alyce or Dr. Samuels