Agreed. Doddington said the same thing. Perhaps I am underestimating Nelson, but I fear it whizzed over her head. I think this stuff needs to be shown in a few informative graphs using simple clear language. If Owen gets through the evidentiary hearing, the defense needs to improve their ability to explain these issues to the jury. In fact they need an expert to explain these issues more clearly to OMara.
I don't know Nelson, but my bias is that the technical material goes over her head. She doesn't have the background to facilitate processing the information that is coming to her. That is generally true of lawyers, other than the patent guys/gals. O'Mara the same, as a matter of technical understanding. Yes, a good expert educates his client, the lawyer, first. But that process takes time, and O'Mara has his hands and mind full of the legal issues too, so he may be a "difficult" student for all sorts of reasons.
I think French was the better expert, but his information is easily couched as directly opposite Owen and Reich, as all three are in the business of forensic analysis. Doddinton is brilliant, but not so good as an expert. A good expert will correlate the expert's input to the case, in a simple way. In short, will take the lead role, even to the point of rephrasing questions, noting questions that may be interesting or relevant in a general sense but don't fit the facts of this case, and otherwise be the primary force in keeping the flow of Q&A useful to the case. A good expert will know how to succinctly express his opinion in a way that unequivocally leads to a certain outcome under the issue at hand - in this case the issue being the admissibility of Owen and/or Reich under the relevant legal standard.
Assuming Owen and Reich are admitted, French and Doddinton (and O'Mara) will spend considerable time and effort to make their presentations more concise and to the point; and more clear. Diagrams and other aids will no doubt be brought to bear on the education process.