George Clarke conducted a brief recross-examination of Dr. Shields on the topic of DNA mixture statistics. Clarke got Dr. Shields to concede that the UK methodology described by Dr. Weir—including likelihood ratios and Bayesian analysis—actually incorporates the known types of individuals involved in a case, whereas the simpler 'one in 71' frequency statistic Weir offered does not. Clarke's implicit point: Weir's method was more conservative and favorable to the defense than the more sophisticated techniques would have been.
# 1 MR. CLARKE: Just a moment if I might, your Honor.
# 2 (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.) # 3 MR. CLARKE: Just briefly, your Honor.
# 4 THE COURT: Briefly.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CLARKE
# 5 MR. CLARKE: Dr. Shields, with regard to mixtures, are you aware of whether or not mixture calculations are made by the methods described by Dr. Weir in the United Kingdom?
# 6 DR. SHIELDS: I believe they are.
# 7 MR. CLARKE: And that actually includes likelihood ratios; does it not?
# 8 DR. SHIELDS: It does. They go so far as to go all the way to a bayesian analysis.
KEY QUOTE # 9 MR. CLARKE: And likelihood ratios even incorporate the known types of the individuals involved in the case, don't they?
# 11 MR. CLARKE: Dr. Weir's offered frequencies such as the one in 71 that we discussed don't even incorporate the known types of the individuals who may be associated with the case, do they?
KEY QUOTE # 12 DR. SHIELDS: That's correct.
# 13 MR. CLARKE: Thank you.
# 14 MR. CLARKE: Nothing further, your Honor.