This is a frustrating book. On the one hand, there is some decent information here. However, it is very clear that the author did not spend much time thinking about how to communicate that information. This really just feels like a first pass outline/data dump which then should have been revised, edited and revised again. I will list a few of the problems below, but this is not a complete list.
First, the overall structure just seems to ramble along without a real plan of building from one section to the next.
Second, within sections it seems like topics just change in the middle of the section. I found myself reading some sections two or three times trying to figure out what connecting theme I was missing. I finally asked others to look at some of these sections (without any other prompting) and found that they could not figure out what was going on either.
Third, information is often repetitive across sections. A point will be covered once and then later covered again without any reference to the prior discussion and without any further insights.
Fourth, paragraphs are sometimes repeated almost verbatim. For example, a paragraph may occur at the beginning of a section and then again near the end with almost no change. My guess is that the author was moving things around in a quick edit and/or tossing it down either place it could work with the idea of returning to it later.
Fifth, the book uses bold faced paraphrases or quotes from other sources at the bottom of each page. I guess these are a clever way to show others have a similar view without really needing to work it smoothly into the text. However, they often are redundant (in the first chapter one page has a quote saying going to trial without an expert is on the edge of malpractice, two pages later there is a similar comment that says it is malpractice - both are from the same magazine). Worse, the references provided in no way allow a reader to go find the source and look at it for themselves. For example, if a magazine is cited there is neither date given nor a title of the article. It might have been quick, but it was not the most useful for readers.

Moving away from the specifics, I guess this shows how the author could write "over 100 books" as it says in his bio. I did find it strange that he kept stressing how careful we need to be in writing reports, yet he did such a sloppy job here.

To be fair (and why it got two stars instead of one) there is some useful information in here if you are willing to skim through and not get hung up on the flow. In the end, this is probably one or two decent articles of information if it was put together well, not a whole book. Of course, this is also cheaper than a lot of the other "comprehensive" books on being an expert witness.

Would I buy it again? No, but I would check it out of the library to take a quick look.