All right. We are over at the side bar. What have you got, Mr. Clarke?

There was--the Court may recall that the Court had left the subject to a motion to strike the witness' testimony about previously testifying about RFLP concerning PCR--confirming PCR results. This is the page from this line. They don't seem to be numbered, but what would be the fifth line down through--through this line here, (Indicating).

First of all, we have something different on the same page--this is McIntosh, right?

Correct.

Our page 201 (Sic) For McIntosh is a little different. And there is two points here. First he testifies regarding the technology in the broad sense. "Do you recall ever testifying about the best validation technology is to use traditional RFLP technology to cross-check?" And they talk about cross-checking, but the specific kind of questions that Mr. Clarke is asking about the samples is that it goes on--

End of the direct.

End of the direct examination at page 1970. What becomes clear is that when he is asked about separate and independent testing of the samples, even is asked a question on page 1970 of the transcript: "Finally you have taken the position that there is an indication or a suggestion that particular testing in this case that contamination was involved? "Yes. "The fact that the lab went to a secondary reference, that is a separate sample, and did testing, is that really the same as a repeat or independent test? "Answer: No. An independent test would have been that they sent the specimens to a different laboratory and ideal specimens that hadn't been handled. These had already been handled." So Dr. Gerdes' position in the McIntosh case is consistent with this one and that is that independent testing in a split of samples means that the samples haven't been handled by the laboratory, so to the extent that he was impeaching him with prior testimony from McIntosh in that regard in terms of validation, that was unfair. And in terms of just asking him in a general sense, as indicated on page 2018: "Doesn't RFLP in the general sense serve as a check against PCR?" In the general sense. I think he has indicated his position on that is yes, but in terms of--

But the only--

--unfair impeachment on the other point concerning independent testing, and in other words, the samples handled in the lab--

Exactly.

I think what is clear here is that his position has been consistent and I think that that impeachment suggesting that he testified previously in the sense of independent laboratories confirming each other, in a situation whether the samples had already been handled by laboratory no. 1, that a second laboratory test would independently confirm the other one. That is not what he meant by independent confirmation. And in that respect page 1970 of the Moffitt (Sic) case indicates that Dr. Gerdes was unfairly impeached on that point, and Mr. Clarke did not have a particular page that he was confirming and that was my objection at the time and I think that the actual transcript bears it out.

We are talking apples and oranges at the moment. My only question relates exactly to what is stated here about RFLP using to confirm PCR results. Fortunately we got the original transcript, not a rough draft unedited.

This is the one you provided is.

That may be. I mean, I had to go back. I can't find this section of transcript. From the transcript it states now: "Regarding technological confirmation could RFLP be used then to confirm PCR results? "Answer: Yes."

He has already said that.

Exactly. I was just concerned because you had made it subject to a motion to strike until I got the transcript.

My point is that the motion to strike was--was involved in the issue, which is a critical issue in this case, and that is, you spent an hour talking about concordance and confirmation and everything when the fact of the matter is the man's position is completely consistent. He says a cross-contamination at LAPD on samples that have been handled there. It is not an independent cross-check unless the samples are split at the beginning. And you tried to impeach him on that point and that is--suggested that when he said independent testing in the Moffitt case--McIntosh case, I'm sorry, that it involved a situation where the samples had--that he did not make the distinction about handling--that if the laboratory no. 1 handles the sample and then you give to it laboratory no. 2, that that is not an independent cross-check and that was an incorrect and unfair impeachment--

No.

--because the transcript doesn't bear you out.

The only thing that is at issue at there is whether or not he had maintained that position three years ago or within the last year. That was the issue that I took subject to a motion to strike. So if this is in July of `84--

`94.

--there is a sufficient foundation on the record. The objection is overruled.

Excuse me, your Honor.