Your lack of understanding of Court room procedures is very apparent. There has been no challenge (at this stage) to Sisson providing an independent expert opinion. For you to say that he is acting as an advocate is not consistent with anything from either party said in Court. In contrast, Houston has been challenged on that issue by Borksi and Borksi has said he will make submissions to His Honour to treat the evidence of Houston as such. Ultimately, that is a question for His Honour.
Saying that Sisson said "nothing Borksi could disagree with" means nothing. Sisson was able to be cross examined by Collinson on all issues - it was up to Collinson to robustly cross examine him if he thought appropriate, not Borksi. If you felt that Sisson came across better as a witness, well Collinson is the one you should be looking at.
There was absolutely nothing wrong with Borksi and how he put questions to Houston. Actually the complete opposite, he appears to be a very good advocate.
Can't say I heard the last comment so I have no view on it.
SP1 Price at posting:
$1.07 Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
