in this type of sim but you know you're also talking about a syndrome that i'm at and that i think it's not universally accepted in the psychological unity to say that she's an expert in something that behavior no perhaps you could be an expert in using it to help it to use in the way it was intended to be years which is to help in therapy with your clients if you're dealing with them dealing with their behaviors and trying to understand why they may be acting the way that they are but certainly there's no one can be an expert at predicting human behavior let alone children who have suffered from a number of different types of include the bus driver of the guy who goes fishing people that don't have that sort of relationship and that's one of the main criticisms of it is that time if that relationship is not there you're not going to have the sort of need to accommodate if you don't had out first of all it was the first evidence it was scientific report of the scientific evidence with the jury here scientific evidence they believe scientific benefits and stuff there and you know actually said that you know changes science has changed since the introduction of the syndrome that since the single most introduced in nineteen eighty three there's been a number of clinical studies on it involved as to determine whether or not it is valid and since then you know things have changed we've had different psychologists determining that it doesn't really work there's a lot of flaws in it so we need to go back yuri honestly and examine what are we considering scientific evidence this is still valid as our technology and our knowledge hearing and hearing all of this recent research it may be the poor who would determine the same thing but the fact that it was never held in the first place is problematic since we have had all this additional information that's been discovered this expert versus this expert the defense's expert dr mark wasn't allowed to testify that the child in thing about the way they go after her behavior and he was unable to make any kind of conclusions for guarding c s s applied to her so having the expert who was able to say look we have this syndrome this child acts like a child who's been sexually abused the jury has no other option but they're going it to a child who hasn't been sexually abused why else would they be using this this model of behavior on this child unless she was a child has been sexually abused and i think the jury could easily make that inference cross examine her and her inconsistency is between what happened the d v d and what she could remember but the syndrome is talking about certain behaviors that are contrary to human experience why they delay why they traditionally and doesn't have the number of instances or experimentation to verify such that it becomes a scientific wall and i think you'd agree that this syndrome would not be proven to occur in every instance of sexual abuse which means that this is not science and scientists would say if she were abused this is what would happen in every instance if you stop the temple izing oxygen you die if you can show me an exception to this scientific law which is a fixation around emotion says that the interactions between the molecules in the air she very specifically clarified upon questioning what actually happened so for those reasons the evidence to suggestions proves that charge with respect to be the claim of the plane in error violation of move thirty four thirty  the syndrome did not come for or the definition of the syndrome did not comport with the actions or the characteristics of the particular victim would that be sufficient to scientific method basically says you prove nothing what you really do is you just for theories which would make gage the theory for which you are proselytizing or proposing therefore if you can establish that this particular victim is not exhibiting the syndrome then this victim wasn't a victim because if she were a victim or he were a victim they would be exhibited exhibit event and therefore if the defense can prove that the syndrome doesn't apply to this particular individual has the defendant literally proved through an affirmative defense that he or she is not guilty of  you don't have been so there you don't have the point i'm trying to make is if this is supposed to be scientific evidence and it's supposed to establish that this child was injured  if you know there was no actual specification that it must have occurred during a particular time period but it might my point is that the there is no allegation against other people although there have been other caretakers in  but it could also mean that it's floating in the air for another reason and that's one of the problems with this testimony a child could be behaving in this manner because she's been abused sexually or she could be acting in that manner for many other reasons that's one of the main criticism able to include a babysitter that other psychologists have looked at this and expanded the scope of that it's one of the problems with that and it's one of the reasons why it needs to be readdressed and really looked at to see if it still continues to be valid in the face of the step guideline and said children behave in this manner so it wasn't a matter of her just saying i watched a o i spoke with her i talked with her we had an interview and then based on all of my experience dealing with other children this is what i believe that she  case because the type of evidence something the jury if they don't know that the defendant does not have to present evidence they're going to know that the defense doesn't have to present a counter medical opinion they're not going to know that he doesn't have to have another physician examine to find a different