Dr. Weir, you testified on cross-examination that you made some calculation mistakes when you did the calculations of the frequencies at the criminal trial?

That's right, yes.

What were the circumstances under which you did those calculations?

Objection, irrelevant.

Overruled.

Well, the prosecution called me to Los Angeles two weeks earlier than they said they would. At that time when I went out, I'd done no calculation for more than two contributors. The prosecution asked me to do three-contributor calculations, which I did in my hotel room. After testifying about them for a full day, the judge ordered me to do four-person calculation before 9 o'clock the following morning.

I think my only mistake was in agreeing to work under those conditions.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) The calculations that you presented to the jury today, were those calculations done under those kind of conditions?

No, sir.

What conditions were they done under?

Well, after the trial, I -- as I said earlier, I sat down and thought about the issue a little more carefully, and developed some formulas to avoid having to do these tedious enumerations. So it's almost 18 months since I first met this problem, and I've had the opportunity to think about it a great deal.

And have you been able to put that formula into your computer so you can avoid having to do hand calculations in these matters?

I have.

And these calculations that you presented here today, they're the result of that -- of the use of that formula?

They are.

Have you presented some of these same results in some of these seminars you've attended with other statisticians to review them?

I was present for some of the conversation and several forums and I've also had the methodology peer review that will appear in the press early next year.

And, Dr. Weir, are you comfortable that these numbers are the appropriate numbers to be presented to this jury for the frequencies that are set forth on them?

I am.

Thank you. No further questions.