sunny hostens...i know shes paid to give the defense pov, however
she also represents herself as a expert who helps the viewer understand whats happening.
she gets an F on this interpretation:
as to dr <modsnip> outrage that the skull wasn't opened. she said the defense may have scored because the jurors will want to know why it was not and thats good for the dt.
OR
since Dr G. did not open it, the jurors may discount Dr G's testimony, since dr. s. criticized it.
and thats a win for the DT
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
and thats it. those are the only two alternatives she offers to help the viewer understand the issue.
she did not offer a third, and most likely, alternative, which is that JA points out to the jury that it was not necessary to cut a whole in the skull (as is normally done when a brain is present) because there was ingress available elsewhere.
which JA DID in questioning dr s. and WILL DO again. He WILL make it plain to the jury that dr s's disagreement does not pass the smell test.
and sh's ignoring that most likely alternative, is inexcusable, imo.
playing the devils advocate is one thing, and I get it. but this is too much.
sunny hosten needs to be sanctioned. oh wait, this is TV. what am I thinking?
