[NatureGirl]

The man's opinion comes from his being expert but its still potentialy wrong or based on mistaken data.

As is every "expert's" evidence that we've heard over the past few weeks! Should we disregard everything an "expert" says? Or does this only apply to defense evidence?

Sheesh!

[VRWC_minion]

As is every "expert's" evidence that we've heard over the past few weeks! Should we disregard everything an "expert" says? Or does this only apply to defense evidence

Not arguing that. Apparently some want to take this experts opinion and put it on the same level as DNA testing. I don't think that its that exact and if its not that exact one could arive at different conclusions using the same data and still be considered to be giving a valid opinion.

When the other evidence strongly suggests that Danielle was in the MH and their is no reasonable explanation (I don't buy the snuck in to play one for several reasons) and that Danielle has fibers on her that belong to Westerfield, I think the experts testimony contradicts facts and his opinion must be wrong.