I simply offer you this cross examination of every investigator or expert:

Q.   Thanks for your testimony, I am sure it will help the jury, but just a few things to clear up.  When did you get your training in the science of (whatver)?

A.  2005.

Q.  Twelve years ago?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And it is true, is it not, that you were told that it was accurate and up to date, and that you could rely on in in your investigations?

A.  Indeed.

Q.  And that you could and would rely on it in your testimony, including that you which you just gave, and in your responses to the detailed questions that will follow?

A. Absolutely.

Q.  Are you familiar with the questions that have been raised abut scientific testimony in general, and about the science of (whatever).

A.  Yes.

Q.  Good.  You are also familiar with the fact that the United States Department of Justice became so concerned about these issues, and their potential impact on the reliability and integrity of jury verdicts that they established an indepedent Commission to explore these issues?

A.  Of course.

Q.  And, is it possible that the results of the work of that Commission might have imapcted upon the conclusions that you have just offered?

A.  No.

Q.  Really, would you like to explain why such an exploration by the US Department of Justice would be of no use.  Never  mind.  Let me ask this:  Are you aware that the Commission has been closed down, and its functions brought directly into the Department and its command structure?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Do you have views about the wisdom of that?

A.  No.

Q.  Do you know who ordered the closure of the Commission?

A.  No.

Q.  Let me attempt to refresh you recollection.  It was the newly appointed Attorney General, wasn’t it?

A.  I guess so.

Q.  OK, with that clear, lets get into the detail of your conclusions, and the analysis upon which they were based.

.  .  .  .

I suspect that that will have some effect with most juries.  In some jurisdictions, will be quite devastating.