where the professional and academic fraud and concealment of an expert hired by one party so tainted the trial that rim brandt was denied a fair trial upon remained for that new trial the district about we wanted to be able to have our expert talk about the data that he did not have before when he too long but when i looked through the transcript and i saw the back and forth with the judge on that very point it seemed to me that you had conceded once you heard jail was not going to rely on that expert's testimony it seems to me is if you said ok that's fine then and you was drew this objection or at least it wasn't clear to me that you maintained your additional discovery i believe that what took place was we submitted a supplemental report because at the very earliest free trial when the case was sent back and remained there was all kinds of discussion about what was going to be allowed permitted and again our statement  there's no shoot you direct me to twelve seven fifty nine but that's that's and that's page one the cover sheet it's excerpt what part of the expert report in particular because definitely not that page that's not says it's name part of the expert or in particular is it that you think absolutely puts the court on notice that you had not contrary to your discussion directly with the judge you would not acquiesce your honor it would be twelve seven eight stree what you're talking about so what it is like what precisely what sentence tell me say tell me out loud please the sentences and help me understand how these put everybody involved on notice that you were basically taken back your earlier acquiescence let me i don't know if i can reduce it to a single censure on or seventy five short talks about the study but let me let me let me take you seventy six he says j j b c's death profiling experiments further validate my service analysis methodology found in the changing lives in terms of the data and he was not allowed to do that and the fact of the matter is that was independent corroboration of his overall testimony and one of their big it was misleading or whatever but if you've been allowed to rely on this data which had been concealed from him he would have minimal say independent of my crime microfilming analysis i also have data from j and j ohn retained expert that support was he was critical of the way it was not good or he didn't have access to the concealed later it's not fair to hold up that criticism of the study and then say well now that you have something that wasn't revealed to you before it you're stuck with your own yes and point to your honor dr beebe testified that in the interim between the first trial in the second trial it was not five years and he testified that he had learned more about the procedure i don't believe that's inappropriate the court challenge in the first trial there was no doubt were challenged in the first trial about this methodology when jane jay tried to introduce did interviews so this is not some sort of junk science question he was critical of but he didn't have the whole picture once he had the full picture in the intervening five years that you know what this data actually shows me something that is useful and it confirms my own view and your honour's it was important especially because the lynchpin of their defense in have all out dr b b to challenge that and say no that's not right in fact they have the same kind of profile so the other reason that the other reason your honor just to just to follow up on my previous answer the other reason that he excluded dr b b from relying on this concealed data was he said it was beyond his portfolio has gone beyond his original breach so to speak that's just plainly incorrect he didn't do that kind of testing he there's he did tough sems testing so called conventional conventional tof since the testing that was at issue here was this soft buggering possums but it wasn't beyond what he talked about he had talked about incomplete and he was willing to say he wouldn't have done it himself quite that way but once he saw that they did that in concealment he said you know and five years intervening he was willing to say look now this shows that my conclude the district court abused its discretion in finding dr bibi's reasons for switching his testimony on persuasive when none of your current arguments seem to go to those points i respectfully disagree around for this reason i think it is very unfair to hold dr b b to every word he said before on the what was available to him when the ex for had deliberately concealed unfavorable data so yes he was critical of that expert and some of the methodology but he was it was it the results or was it the methodology itself was the methodology itself he testified that was you know didn't matter what the underlying data was or a thing it's the methodology that he was he disputed he absolutely said the methodology you know now i think it's you know i used to think it's terrible now i think it's great not to rely upon it because he wanted to do a know nothing analysis of it and that was the second reason it was excluded was excluded both because of his flip flop but the other reason it was earlier testimony he acknowledged that the early the initial few now meters of data are unreliable and cannot be relied upon in the expert report that he submitted supplemental ie he ignored the transition region independent reason under eleventh circuit law and then he says at the end the court finds dr bibi's reasons for altering his prior opinion unpersuasive and then this is the transition region  excuse me it he may have said the judge may have from time to time said i don't want to hear about the last piece name everyone agreed with that's a possible you're looking at something from later but it was never a surprise to us that they were going to do but basically we tried a fair case judge corrigan you know granted some motions that they made in granted some motions that we may they say he was he had prejudge the issues well you know we were hoping he would just piece report coming in it may have been that at that point he had said it's not coming in but it was it was pretty clear and i don't think there's really a dispute about this that we put this in his expert repo he was deposed about it he gave a clear intention of what he was intended to testify about they move to strike it under go bare in the court granted he said we couldn't talk about it and said we could not talk about the it was never our position that we had agreed to that if we had agreed to it we would have would have pushed so hard to have dr b b talk about it i certainly understand the court's concern as given some of these questions that dr beebe was critical of the methodology i think that is something that is fair game for cross examination it is to many a remarkable result that the data the concealed data that causes this court to gran new trial could not be used top side or bottom by our expert in the new trial at all we weren't we were asking to put in all the evidence we have of readiness because that data is a result of made those he made those assessments at least initially without exposure to the concealed information and the fact is whatever he said later he said and in his expert report and intended to say in the trial that this information was corroborated because if it was if it was a worthless junk science then the concealment of it shouldn't have prompted this court to do the extraordinary remedy of a new trial so our position is that he should have been allowed to rely on that i haven't dealt with the modulus information that's pretty well briefed we don't believe that we got the fair trial which we're entitled i know this court has is if no doubt finds on appeal in the idea of having this retried