seems implausible. Totten had testified that a young gang member would get a teardrop tattoo for one of three reasons. But
according to his evidence, not a single gang member among the
71 obtained a teardrop tattoo to signify the loss of a family
member or fellow gang member, or to signify having been in a
correctional facility. The implausibility of Totten’s answer raises
a concern about whether he had become a partisan advocate for
the Crown, instead of an objective and impartial expert witness.
 Even more significant, Totten’s assertion that all 71
obtained a teardrop tattoo to signify the killing of a rival gang
member cannot be tested or verified. All six of his studies are
silent — none contains even a single reference to a teardrop tattoo, let alone the number of gang members who had one. In at
least two of his studies, the listed interview questions do not
include a question on tattoos. Moreover, the figure from which
the 71 is drawn, 97 who were convicted of a homicide, is itself
suspect. And Totten claims to no longer have the raw data that
could support his assertion.
( vi) Duplication
 In Gager, Totten was asked: “Is there any duplication
between the participants in any of these studies? Did you ever
use gang members more than once in different studies?” He
replied: “Never.” His reply was false.
 At least three participants were used in both Guys,
Gangs and Girlfriend Abuse (2000) and The Gays in the Gang
(2005). Their names are Bob, Phil and Brian. Identical quotes
from these three participants are found in the interview summaries in both studies.
 Other aspects of this duplication are even more concerning. Totten said that the primary research for Guys, Gangs and
Girlfriend Abuse was done in 1993-94, and the interviews for
The Gays in the Gang was done ten years later in 2004. Despite
the ten-year gap the verbatim quotes attributed to Bob, Phil and
Brian are identical in the two studies, as is the age of each one.
In the first study, Guys, Gangs and Girlfriend Abuse, none of the
three are overtly said to be gay (although there are suggestions
that Bob and Phil are questioning their sexuality); in the second
study, The Gays in the Gang, all three are said to be gay.
 The amount of duplication uncovered by the fresh evidence is small. But that it exists at all, contrary to Totten’s
sworn testimony, raises further concerns about the credibility
and reliability of his opinion evidence. Indeed, the duplication
raises a legitimate concern that Totten’s interview summaries