I got the impression she was competent at her job. I think the lawyer and judge rattled her a bit. I also think she should of been more thorough in her report and should of done more preparation.
I disagree. It was obvious she was not a forward thinker (had no published peer reviewed docs), was teaching using materials developed by others, had not personally done risk assesements (she said a team at her previous job did those). etc. She basically does training and is a paid for "expert witness". In this instance, she was not an expert and fell apart under questioning.