Trayvon and "Experts" Redux

I wrote a couple of days ago about the problematic opinions of experts contacted by the MSM to analyze the audio tapes of 911 calls surrounding the Trayvon Martin killing in Sanford, Florida.   Now we get this:

Enhanced video footage of George Zimmerman about 30 minutes after he shot Florida teenager Trayvon Martin shows little evidence of a broken nose, the president of the Florida College of Emergency Physicians said today.... "All of the ridges in his nose are clearly defined. You would expect significant swelling in the hour or two after a break. There appears to be none. It doesn't look like his nose was broken or badly broken," [Dr. Vidor] Friedman said.

Hmmmm.... here's how the cross-examination of this expert would go:

ANY COMPETENT ATTORNEY: Dr. Friedman, you never had the opportunity to examine Zimmerman, did you?
NOT VERY GOOD WITNESS DOCTOR:  No.
ACA:  You've never even been in the same room with him, have you?
NVGWD: No.
ACA: And it's true, isn't it, that medical ethics would require you to actually examine Zimmerman before you made a diagnosis?
NVGWD: Yes, that's true.
ACA:  So your opinion, to the extent that it's a diagnosis of Zimmerman's injury, would be unethical?
NVGWD:  I guess you could look at it that way.
ACA:  In any case, you would agree, wouldn't you, that the diagnoses of the doctor who actually examined Zimmerman the night of the shooting would be more well-grounded than yours as a matter of medical ethics?  
NVGWD:  I guess so.
ACA:  And you would defer to those diagnoses, wouldn't you?
NVGWD:  Yes.
ACA: If a competent doctor after performing a proper examination concluded that Zimmerman's nose had been broken, you wouldn't be in a position to disagree, would you?
NVGWD: No.
ACA:   No further questions.