Please review three reports provided in the attached documents below (2002 report, 2004 report, 2008 report).  You will summarize each report as to the conclusions drawn by the expert and list the support or basis for these conclusions.  Next, please compare and contrast the three reports for the conclusions drawn and the support used within the report to draw these conclusions.  Finally, provide your opinion as to whether this expert and his reports should be permitted to testify in court as it relates to the Daubert criteria for expert testimony. 

1.    Summarize the conclusions reached by the expert within each report
a.    2002 report
i.    Origin
1.    Basis / Support
ii.    Cause
1.    Basis / Support
iii.    Responsibility
1.    Basis / Support
iv.    Discuss the findings.  Was the methodology correct?  What type of methodology was used?  Where, if any, were there holes in the analysis?  What, if any, other issues need to be addressed for a true evaluation of this investigation?
b.    2004 report
i.    Origin
1.    Basis / Support
ii.    Cause
1.    Basis / Support
iii.    Responsibility
1.    Basis / Support
iv.    Discuss the findings.  Was the methodology correct?  What type of methodology was used?  Where, if any, were there holes in the analysis?  What, if any, other issues need to be addressed for a true evaluation of this investigation?
c.    2008 report
i.    Origin
1.    Basis / Support
ii.    Cause
1.    Basis / Support
iii.    Responsibility
1.    Basis / Support
iv.    Discuss the findings.  Was the methodology correct?  What type of methodology was used?  Where, if any, were there holes in the analysis?  What, if any, other issues need to be addressed for a true evaluation of this investigation?

2.    Compare / Contrast the three reports.  Specifically evaluate the major conclusions drawn and the support provided by the expert in the three reports and how/if these changed. 
a.    Origin
i.    Basis / Support
b.    Cause
i.    Basis / Support
c.    Responsibility
i.    Basis / Support
d.    Compare / contrast the findings.  Was the methodology correct?  What type of methodology was used?  Where, if any, were there holes in the analysis?  What, if any, other issues need to be addressed for a true evaluation of this investigation?

3.    Provide your opinion as to whether this expert and his opinions should be permitted to testify in court as it relates to the Daubert criteria for expert testimony.
a.    Identify what the Daubert criteria requires and specifically identify how/if the experts reports and opinions fall short, meet, or exceed these requirements.