Agreed that the router deal is critical. THE only thing that really could matter at this point - which is why I was scratching my head somewhat over the whole duck palaver yesterday. IMHO, that didn't prove anyone lied, only that they were saying what they thought to be true at the time and in the context give; it didn't prove a duck wasn't a murder weapon or was; it didn't do anything.
From MH's testimony, I could only conclude that he did get the ME letters mixed up, confusing mechanical engineer with medical examiner. I feel certain the prosecution let him go on as long as he did in order to make him look foolish. If his body language was any indication, he knew he looked foolish. I believe the prosecution wanted a physical embodiment of the SODDI'ers that are crawling out of the woodwork: someone unqualified to make an opinion, someone with a personal bias, someone who was quite vocal behind the anonymity of a computer monitor but squirming in public. To think the jury is blissfully ignorant of abundant theories is to live in an alternate universe.
I don't feel I'm in a place to second-guess Cummings either, or assume he's idiotic. I think he wanted to the jury to feel some irritation at the defense for what might be perceived at wasting the jury's time by being less interested in getting at the truth (which should not be something dodged by the defense, if their client is innocent) than in legal maneuverings.
The router is about all there is left of anything that isn't tainted with utter idiocy, gossip, posturing, and movie-of-the-week theories.