[connectthedots]

I'm unimpressed with the refutations. You think the defendants would have him as a defense expert, if his book was fatally flawed?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I'm unimpressed with the refutations. "

I'm not impressed with your answer. Be more specific; how are the refutations wrong?

"You think the defendants would have him as a defense expert, if his book was fatally flawed?"

Yes. They haven't shown they are particularly bright.

[Vive ut Vivas]

You think the defendants would have him as a defense expert, if his book was fatally flawed?

Yes.

[shuckmaster]

You think the defendants would have him as a defense expert, if his book was fatally flawed?

Seeing as it's a fatally flawed defense - YES.

[Ichneumon]

I'm unimpressed with the refutations.

Then you clearly don't understand them.

You think the defendants would have him as a defense expert, if his book was fatally flawed?

Sure, since court arguments are based on what *sounds* good (i.e., what can sway the jury), not on what might actually be valid, true, or logically correct.

Remember "if the glove does not fit, you must acquit", and countless other courtroom ploys that were used (and worked) despite their flaws which would have been obvious to anyone who took the time to actually think about them?