Clearly, her presentation was well done and the panel was most engrossed and fascinated by the process she delineated.
The panel was eager to question her further. Like most professionals, they were deeply interested in a discipline they knew very little about.
"Is handwriting analysis reliable?" Anuse knew what her answer would be and wanted to pin this down first, but the question backfired on him.
"Yes," she answered confidently.
The panel hassled her for specifics. These were researchers who were consistently challenged to prove or disprove their own theories and then defend them. Statistics were their life.
"How have you measured your success rate, what percent of the time have you been right?" They questioned.
"In other words, have the courts accepted my qualifications?"
"No, not qualifications—evaluations. How many times are you right and how many times are you wrong?"
"It isn't looked at that way. The judge or jury look at the whole case, not just your presentation."
"I understand that the courts allow your testimony. I want to know the percentage of error in your analysis," asked Jane Astori, leaning forward.