ScarlettScarpetta
When the going gets tough, drink coffee
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2012
- Messages
- 12,690
- Reaction score
- 175
Just 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.
Not if you are an expert. She could have gotten her license right after her doctorate but she did not. She chose to get more experience for another year first.
She is smart and educated.
Sometimes the older ones don't have more experience or knowledge, Just hold onto tightly to their ideals from 30 years ago.
She has shown that ALV and DR S were no where in her league. She is exactly as a professional on the stand should be. No mistakes, reports at the ready.
Watch her. She is an expert among experts.