This case gets easier for me every day. Along with the defendant's, I'd toss this guy's entire testimony. When you look up 'charlatan' in the dictionary, his picture should be there.
First, he answers wilmott's very leading questions to explain the defendant's demeanor and behavior on the stand. He even goes out of his way to tell the jury that you wouldn't see her shake unless you knew what to look for!
In other words, don't believe your lying eyes.
Then he has to admit he provided therapy to a person he was evaluating. That's HUGE. As a therapist, he could recommend a book to a client. He could loan her one, even. I don't think it's appropriate to buy one for a client, but to do so for a person you're evaluating for court isn't just inappropriate, it's totally unethical. If he doesn't understand that he's blurring lines there, then it begs the question whether he even understands those boundaries exist! And that's a very disturbing thought. He's sending her CARDS?????
Another victim of the Arias charm, I'd say.
And then, we have the test results he used in his conclusions, from the time she was going with door number 2! He's digging through crap he brought, can't find things, left crap in his office, etc. 'Sloppy' doesn't begin to describe that. Here's a guy who may have been buying milk at the store and ran across that TIME magazine and thought that a suitable piece of scientific research to bring before a jury in a case where he's an expert. I've never seen that before, and don't think any other judge (she's another story) would have allowed that.
JM will continue to dismantle this guy tomorrow until there's nothing up there but an empty chair.
This man is exactly the reason the general public does not like expert witnesses. Total fail for the defense.
lease: Hope we're nearing the end.
