nelson's ability to cut into this testimony wasn't as vong as i would have expected. this particular expert kept control of his testimony and kept it very succinct without allowing nelson to complicate it. >> there was a point at the beginning of eric nelson's cross-examination that he made clear that dr. tobin wasn't accepting a fee for his testimony, he's not being paid. was the point to suggest bias that somehow dr. tobin's opinion of the case was so strong that he wanted to get involved and have a role in this because he is in some way biased? >> i would think so because the defense -- the prosecution presented that aspect as he is not biased, he is not being paid here, so, therefore, he's objective. so the defense certainly in their attempt to rebut that particular aspect is showing that, well, he's motivated by a higher purpose. and that's why he's here. it was very interesting the defense started off with literally attacking his credibility so to speak in that he did not do a direct examination of the decedent and also attacking his accent and making a comment