ABSTRACT
In this chapter, first, a distinction is made between straightforward facts and more elaborate and subjective analyses/opinions. Both may require advanced expertise, but there is an important difference. In the former, the experts on the two contending sides should present to the court essentially the same answer or very close to the same. In the latter, the court will likely expect and be tolerant of a much wider range of results. Forestry experts understand ordinary variability in establishing straightforward facts, but zealous advocates will often push for unvarying (and favorable) facts. The advocates may be dismayed by long-winded statistical explanations about probabilities. The ideas of necessary standards of proof are also introduced in the chapter. The chapter concludes with a case study about rebutting the insertion of false facts with a simple graph.
