I’m not, but then I’m not reading any more into what she’s written than what’s actually there either.
***Sure you are. The expert says it’s not reliable evidence and you’re doing your best to argue around that.
By agreeing with the expert? That seems like a strange way to "argue around" it.
The expert did not say it was a forgery. What the expert said would apply just as well to a perfectly valid birth certificate, which was scanned, redacted, and posted on the internet.
Instead of arguing just to be contrary, you can prove this wrong by citing a single instance of the expert endorsing any specific allegation of forgery.
What does "not reliable" mean to you?