LORANDOS: Doctor, The Journal of Psychological Assessment is a generally recognized and accepted peer review journal in your field, correct?
Witness: Oh yes, yes.
LORANDOS: And a 1999 article by Stricker and Gold published in Psychological Assessment titled The Rorschach: Toward a nomethetically based, idiographically applicable configurational model might be relevant to your conclusions in this case, correct?
Witness: It could be.
LORANDOS: Please consider Strickman and Gold's comments about the Rorschach, I'll read, "On the broad spectrum of sensitivity, the Rorschach is uniquely suited for understanding the underlying organization of the personality and for generating hypotheses about unconscious contents of the mind." Now my question; if the Rorschach is uniquely suited for "generating hypotheses about [the] unconscious contents of the mind," then using the Rorschach embraces one or more variations of psychoanalytic or Freudian theory, correct?
Witness: Well, given the considerations that you outline, citing Stricker and Gold, then my answer would be yes.
LORANDOS: And, our unconscious experiences exist out of our awareness, correct?
Witness: By definition, yes that is correct.
LORANDOS: And our unconscious experiences can rapidly shift and change, correct?
Witness: Yes.
LORANDOS: Therefore, we can never accurately identify experiences that are both outside our awareness and which can rapidly shift and change, correct?
Witness: If we are the person experiencing those experiences outside our awareness which could rapidly shift and change, no it becomes almost impossible for us to accurately identify them.
LORANDOS: Consequently, it becomes impossible to verify the accuracy with which the Rorschach assesses unconscious levels of experience, correct?
Witness: When you use the term "verify" in that manner, I would have to agree, yes.
LORANDOS: Attempting to identify experiences outside our awareness that rapidly shift and change invites conjecture and speculation, correct?
Witness: That can happen, yes.
LORANDOS: Psychologist A and psychologist B could therefore arrive at very different interpretations of the same person's unconscious experiences, correct?
Witness: In this case we're not talking about psychologist A nor psychologist B. We're talking about Dr. Campbell whose many years...
LORANDOS: Thank you doctor. Thank you doctor. Your honor, would you ask the witness to answer the question that's asked?
Judge: Doctor, you must answer the question and only the question that's asked of you. If you feel the need to explain, your council will give you that opportunity in redirect examination, ok?
Witness: Thank you.
Judge: You do understand that right?
Witness: Thank you, thank you your honor.
LORANDOS: Now my question; psychologist A and psychologist B could therefore arrive at very different interpretations of the same person's unconscious experiences, correct?
Witness: That outcome can occur, yes.
LORANDOS: And when psychologist A and psychologist B arrive at very different interpretations of someone's unconscious experiences, we don't know who's right, correct?
Witness: Correct.
LORANDOS: And when psychologist A and psychologist B arrive at very different interpretations of someone's unconscious experiences, they can both be mistaken, correct?
Witness: You could argue that position.
LORANDOS: And given mistaken interpretations of someone's unconscious experiences, those errors threaten to misinform and mislead a proceeding such as this, correct?
Witness: That outcome could occur.
