the theories supporting crime scene-analysis and victimology, the way the theories are applied by others with the same “specialized knowledge,” and the way the specialized knowledge was applied in this particular case. He further explained the method in which he conducted his investigation and the factors considered in reaching his determination. We recognize that through interviews, case studies, and research a person may acquire superior knowledge concerning characteristics of an offense. Thus, based on the record before us, adequate evidence was presented to establish the reliability of crime-scene analysis and victimology as fields of specialized knowledge. Cf. United States v. Alzanki 54 F.3d 994 (1st. Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1111, 116 S.Ct. 909, 133 L.Ed.2d 841 (1996)(<HOLDING>). Our review of the record further indicates
holding that the district court complied with the requirements of  lb13alb where it made specific references to testimony in the record relating to the scope of the defendants involvement in the drug trafficking conspiracy noted that the relevant testimony was unrefuted and stated that the testimony was internally consistent holding that psychologists testimony on the reliability of eyewitness testimony was both relevant and reliable and thus should have been admitted holding that testimony of victimologist was relevant in trial for holding household employee in involuntary servitude holding that a trial court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of an expert witness where the testimony would have been relevant to show that the defendant breached a duty of care holding that testimony at trial in violation of defendants constitutional confrontation right was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the testimony was cumulative