What like when Dr Hughes testified twice, during the case in chief, that she didn't perform the test (the one allegedly not carried out correctly) after Dr Curry had submitted her results: and then admitted that she had.
And then in the rebuttal agreed that she had performed the test ten days after receiving Dr Curry's results.
That sort of thing?
im not sure what you’re referencing: Dr Hughes was on the stand four times is that correct?irstly During her testimony, for direct examination and the cross examination and redirect on May 4th? You’re talking about her rebuttal testimony?
she used multiple tests which she mentioned on her testimony, including a personality assessment inventory, trauma symptom inventory, Beck’s depression inventory and Beck’s anxiety Inventory. She also used the forensic assessment symptom test to detect if AH was faking anything.
I was referencing her being quizzed over the CAPS-5 test - which she completed after a diagnosis of PTSD and in which she left a blank box. She explained how this was basically dotting the Is and crossing the Ta (to paraphrase) as she felt AH had already presented enough symptoms for a diagnosis of PTSD. The CAPS-5 is the gold standard test for PTSD.
so I’m not sure what your point was exactly but I refer back to my original point; lawyers as a general rule, will work to undermine expert witnesses. By providing an alternative expert witness and by attacking the processes - in this case, the way in which Dr Hughes filled in a form and the timing surrounding that form.