Yeah, so from having listened to criminal lawyers discuss the calling of expert witnesses, I can tell you, you don't want to call someone to provide expert testimony on something they have not ever examined. What a bad decision. 1/
"'Dr. Peterson has no experience' assessing 'the reliability of confessions,'Justice Greenberg wrote in his ruling. 'In fact, he acknowledges that he has never seen a police confession and did not view the video of the confession in this case.'” 2/
I cannot even imagine the amount of hubris one needs to decided to go in front of a CRIMINAL COURT and claim one has the ability to assess false confessions made during police interrogations when one HASN'T EVER SEEN A REAL CONFESSION MADE IN A POLICE INTERROGATION. 3/
And...and...and when one DIDN'T EVEN STUDY THE CONFESSION THAT ONE IS TESTIFYING ON. #JordanPeterson is that loudmouth who didn't do the reading for today, didn't do previous readings either, but thinks he's totes qualified to lecture the instructor on the topic of the day. 4/
And then pipes up that because he once did a couple of readings for another class, he can now comment on this one: "The judge noted Peterson’s expertise on interview techniques was limited to job interviews." I'd LOL but this is about providing testimony in a murder case. 5/
It's a criminal court. Where a case has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant is accused of MURDER. And #JordanPeterson shows up sloppily and clueless (but always ready to hustle his personality test): "Peterson got basic facts about the case wrong too."6/
Of course, he got the case's facts wrong. He didn't do the reading. He rarely does. 7/
unroll @threadreaderapp
