I'd like to touch on a couple of the topics that you just discussed while they're fresh in our minds. As far as coincidental identity and laboratory error, it's your belief that those should be incorporated into one figure?
Now, with regard to this particular hearing, is it your understanding that what the Court is making a decision about is whether or not likelihood ratios should be admitted?
What's your understanding of the issue before this Court in terms of what the Court has to decide?
It's been my understanding both from watching the proceedings and from discussions with attorneys that the decision has to do with whether the National Research Council's method of providing a number for mixtures is useful.
Okay. So it's your understanding that what the Court has to decide in this hearing is whether or not the NRC's recommendation is useful?
If the Court's decision was something different from that, would that impact any of your answers to any of the questions by Mr. Thompson?
As far as likelihood ratios--and you've discussed likelihood ratios in the course of your testimony--is it your testimony that a likelihood ratio is the same as the frequencies that Dr. Weir described on one of the exhibits with the mixture from the steering wheel, item no. 29?
Is Dr. Weir an individual who is well known in the area of statistics and population frequency data?
No. My Ph.D. was on the evolution of sex in all organisms, and that's population genetics. I was in a zoology department, but it was an evolutionary biology and in particular, population genetic dissertation.
Is it correct that those or at least the clear majority of those publications are directed towards animals?
Population genetic and evolution theory and how they--how they have interactions with each other.
Yeah. I'm a member of the society of the study of evolution and the American society of naturalists, both of which have large memberships in the areas of genetics.
As far as your publications--and just briefly, was one of your publications what causes rape, a descending view?
Do you have any peer reviewed articles or publications on statistics and human DNA?
Depends on how you define "Human DNA." The answer is yes. I have paper on the behavioral brain sciences that looks at how genetics, which is how genes, which is DNA, influence human behavior. Parts of my book deal with the distribution of variation in human populations. And in that--from that perspective, the book is also peer review.
In your opinion, are you as qualified as Dr. Weir to offer an opinion about the calculation of frequencies with mixed forensic DNA typing stains?
Do you have a rating system of people involved in the area of DNA and population frequencies?
I wouldn't call it a rating system. In a prior case, during a deposition, I tongue and cheek described how I felt people's representations were in the areas of population genetics, and I used the words "God, demigod and hemigod."
Yes. They were asking me about the relative reputations of different population geneticists.
In Dr. Weir's report in this case--and I believe you said you read that; is that right?
In terms of population genetics, yes. But this is not an issue of simply population genetics. It's an issue of logical inference as well, and I think he's wrong and I think I'm right.
KEY QUOTEHave you read Dr. Weir's publications in the area of forensic DNA typing and population frequencies?
In terms of this case, have you examined the databases that were used in this case?
Depends on how you define working on, but yes, I've interacted with members of the Defense team since then.
Well, do you expect to receive--well, have you received any money from the Defense for this case?
You've described seeing, for instance, this chart that's on the easel at the moment where that shows the results of the Bronco automobile. You've said you had seen that previously; is that right?
I couldn't possibly be sure of that. A lot of them that I've seen previously have actually been seen from watching on television.
Were you provided raw data from those testing laboratories in terms of bench notes, photographs, et cetera?
I was provided with raw data on the statistical aspects of this case. I have not looked at autorads and I've not looked at strips.
So you basically directed your attention towards frequency data as opposed to the science involved in producing exclusions or inclusions?
Again, it's tongue and cheek, but I use the word gods.
In terms of population genetics, yes. But this is not an issue of simply population genetics. It's an issue of logical inference as well, and I think he's wrong and I think I'm right.
I have not looked at autorads and I've not looked at strips.
I have only one non-peer reviewed paper.