based his diagnosis on information obtained from the appellant’s statements and that he had not considered the code-fendants’ statements at arriving at a diagnosis. Rule 705, Ala.R.Evid., states that a testifying expert may give an opinion or diagnosis without initially testifying to the underlying facts or data, unless the Court requires otherwise; furthermore, on cross-examination, the expert may be required to disclose the underlying facts or data. The Advisory Committee’s Notes to Rule 705, state the following: “It is left to the cross-examiner to elicit the facts or data on which the opinion is based, and the witness must, if asked, disclose such information. See Polk v. Ford Motor Co., 529 F.2d 259, 271 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 907, 96 S.Ct. 2229, 48 L.Ed.2d 832 (1976) (<HOLDING>). The cross-examiner, of course, is under no
holding that the weight and credibility to be given to the opinions of expert witnesses is uniquely within the province of the fact finder  in this instance the trial court citation omitted holding the resolution of questions regarding credibility and the weight given to testimony is a function of the family court judge who heard the testimony holding that the weakness in the underpinnings of such opinions may be developed upon crossexamination and such weakness goes to the weight and credibility of the testimony holding that the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony holding that the postconviction court is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses