Evan Thomas said:That's almost inevitable in a system where opposing parties hire and pay their own experts. No matter how cut-and-dried a set of facts might seem, there's always incentive for some "expert" out there to testify to the opposite. In many cases, it would be more sensible to have both parties stipulate to a single, court-appointed expert, or even to more than one, but that would never fly in the US system, which takes "adversarial" to ridiculous levels.
Since both sides can shop around to find an "expert" to say what they want to hear in court, what is the point in an expert witness other than to run up the bill?