ABSTRACT
This paucity, or incompleteness of data, or error, is often used to attack an expert in a manner that implies that data has either been skewed, disregarded, falsified, or that the computations are outside of standard scientific methodology and are therefore erroneous. Although many of the criticisms are warranted, opposing attorneys have mischaracterized the rulings and the cases in order to attack the opposing expert. Many jurisdictions have now supplanted the federal rules of evidence with Daubert style hearings on the admissibility of the evidence provided by experts. One phalanx of attack is to claim that the computations are full of errors so that they fall outside of the recognized values or procedures. Another method of attack is to state that all possible variations and conditions have not been properly investigated. Recall the trillions of permutations alluded to in the discussion of Chapter 8. We see that type of attack on experts frequently in criminal as well as civil cases. When a suspect is apprehended and the evidence is very pointed to that individual, the suspect may be arraigned and charged and brought to trial. A typical defense includes allegations that all suspects were not excluded so that the suspect is wrongly accused. In other words, the investigating officers did not question all possible suspects whether they existed or not.
