The fresh evidence, in my view, shows that Totten’s evidence is too unreliable to go to a jury. Because of its unreliability,
its probative value and its benefit to the trial process would be
minimal at best, and the prejudice and harm from admitting it
would be great both because it would consume too much valuable court time and because the jury would likely be unable to
effectively and critically assess the evidence. In short, the fresh
evidence is so cogent that if known by the trial judge at the
gatekeeper stage he would have ruled Totten’s evidence on the
meaning of a teardrop tattoo inadmissible.
 The Crown is correct that the fresh evidence does not
challenge the qualitative branch of Totten’s opinion — the teardrop tattoo on a young gang member could mean one of three
things and one of those meanings is to signify the killing of a
rival gang member. But that distinction does not help the Crown.
The qualitative branch of Totten’s opinion is inseparable from
the quantitative branch of his opinion. The quantitative branch
gives the qualitative branch the veneer of being grounded in
powerful scientific data, and thus the appearance of being objectively reliable. The fresh evidence all but washes away that
veneer, and with it the reliability of Totten’s opinion.
 The Crown is also correct that on the voir dire in Gager
Totten was not confronted with a good deal of the fresh evidence.
And on this appeal, Totten was not asked to explain any of the
deficiencies and inaccuracies in his evidence and research. But
the absence of any explanation from Totten cannot assist the
Crown in its objection to the admissibility of the fresh evidence.
The Crown did not seek leave to call Totten on the fresh evidence
application. Nor did the Crown offer evidence that might explain
these flaws in Totten’s testimony and research revealed by the
fresh evidence. These flaws remain unchallenged.
 Still, as Totten has not been directly confronted with
some of these deficiencies and inaccuracies in his testimony and
research I think it would be unfair to make the positive finding
that Abbey urges us to make: Totten fabricated or concocted part
of his research, or gave deliberately misleading testimony. But
when assessing the reliability of Totten’s opinion, I see nothing
unfair in taking into account that the many serious problems in
both Totten’s evidence and research, which were identified by
the fresh evidence, remain entirely unexplained.
 I conclude that the fresh evidence was sufficiently cogent
that if it had been known by the trial judge, Totten’s opinion
evidence on the meaning of a teardrop tattoo would have been