I think it can go both ways tbh. He’s basically doing his job isn’t he when he tries to discredit them. The fact he brought up this drs lack of knowledge around air embolism was good for LL’s defence. However, given how rare they are & how rare the studies are etc there is a reasonable explanation for this. Hopefully he is covering all bases - like a pp said maybe in the last thread, could he be assisting the prosecution during his cross?
I do think his cross may have put some doubt in the jury’s mind however, as the evidence continues & a bigger picture is painted, it may not make a difference. She never claimed to be an expert in air embolism, just that she was using her existing knowledge to explain it/how it likely occurred so