I agree 1000%. In my mind, an expert makes a conclusion based on certain facts and that's what they testify on. Not everything will be 100% in favor of their side, and they shouldn't be afraid to admit that. And they shouldn't be sparring with the atty, just sticking to the facts. It will be really interesting to see how Demarte comes across in comparison. I hope that the jury ends up thinking "Aah, that's what we were looking for. Someone who knows their stuff, is organized, lives in the 21st century instead of the 1970s, and actually answers freaking questions instead of wasting our time arguing that every single peg, even the square ones, fits into her round hole."