All right. Good morning, Dr. Weir. Doctor, you are reminded, sir, you are still under oath. And Mr. Clarke, you may conclude with your direct examination.
Thank you, your Honor. Good morning again, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. CLARKE
Just a few more frequencies to report. And what I would like to have you do, Dr. Weir, is return to the Bundy crime scene results, in particular item no. 78, if that would be acceptable.
With regard to that particular item--and I believe yesterday you described approximately how often this combination of RFLP frequencies would be observed assuming that two persons contributed to a mixture with regard to that boot drop stain; is that right?
Can you describe for us also the approximate frequency that those genetic types would be found if that stain consisted of three donors or three contributors?
All right. Do you have that in front of you, Mr. Neufeld? Do you have that in front of you? Doctor, what page is that?
300 million. That is the frequency of finding that mixed stain from three contributors, three unknown contributors.
Now, Dr. Weir, there appears to have been added, since yesterday, on this board, and in particular next to item no. 78, a label that says "Mix."
Yes. I think that is--I think that is just to emphasize that these calculations are for mixed stain where there is evidence that there was more than one contributor to that stain and this is the frequency of getting that mixture from either looks like two or three contributors.
And I believe, to your knowledge, we also see that label "Mix" to describe other mixed stains, most of which you have already testified about yesterday?
Would that be, in your view, an appropriate way to ensure that when one looks at this chart and as to any frequencies that are written to the left of the term "Mixture," that what is being described in those frequencies is approximately how often one would see these combinations of types, assuming two contributors, which is a "2" circled and then with frequencies to the right or assuming three contributors, which is denoted by a "3" with a circle and approximate frequencies to the right of that?
Yes. I think that is an accurate description. I guess we could have also put a "1" colon with the single stains. Those all assume one contributor.
All right. Very well. Now, if I could turn your attention to the glove and a few more results on that, do you have that before you now?
Dr. Weir, with regard to this particular board, and you have at this point described a number of the results already yesterday; is that right?
There again appear to be, and in the instance of this board, a number of labels that say "Mix" off to the right of the "Frequency" column?
And are those used to describe the same thing as to the term "Mix" on the previous boards, that the frequencies to the left of that word are again approximations when they are assumed to be two or three contributors to each of those particular evidence items?
Now, let's start with at the very top there appears to be an item number, actually they are all item no. 9, but there is one result at the very top of the board containing what appear to be DQ-Alpha results only; is that right?
In other words, that was a particular stain for which there was only one genetic marker result following the use of PCR?
Did you calculate an approximate frequency of again these two-contributor possibilities versus three-contributor possibilities as you did with the other stains yesterday?
And for that uppermost stain on the results board, do you have an approximate frequency, assuming that two contributors donated that set of characteristics?
Now, with regard to the glove, can you tell us--and what I'm referring you to now are items G1, G2 and G4?
In particular the RFLP typing results, and yesterday we spoke about assuming two contributors, can you describe for us what those approximations would be, assuming three contributors?
Yes, I can. So the items G1 and G2 both have the same number of bands in the RFLP profiles so for item G1 and for G2 the range is from 1 in 3000 up until 1 in 10 million.
And that would apply also to the three-contributor situation on the RFLP results on G--I'm sorry G2?
And then lastly, with regard to this board, did you make a similar calculation for G4, assuming again three contributors to the RFLP mixture?
With regard to that range again, what is the reason that that range could be from 20,000 to 90 million?
Well, it depends on the databases used. We are assuming three contributors, all of whom are unknown to us. Any of those three can be from any racial background so that we should use any of the current databases. We don't know which to use so we use them all, we use all possible combinations, and that is just the various bands have different frequencies in the different databases.
Which I believe, your Honor, is People's exhibit 260. It is labeled the "Results board" and we have described it as the results board for the Bronco.
Dr. Weir, turning your attention to this particular board, is this another board that you have been provided basically a smaller Xeroxed version of?
And that board or that chart that you were provided contained results as are written in currently on this board, the large chart that is here in court?
Did you make calculations in a similar manner as you've described yesterday and this morning for various different situations in which two contributors may have provided the characteristics shown in these results or three contributors?
Have you also, in the instance of the results from the Bronco automobile, calculated estimates for how often the characteristics would be seen in these pieces of evidence if four contributors were involved?
Specifically with regard to item no. 29, there were results obtained from that item using PCR markers alone; is that right?
Then using these PCR markers alone, did you calculate again for two, three and four potential contributors these same estimates of frequencies?
And let's start, if we could, with no. 29 and assuming two contributors, could you give us the approximate frequency that those characteristics would be found?
Did you make the same types of estimates, assuming that there were three people who provided those DNA characteristics?
Well, we have some fairly common bands in this profile and if we allow four people to contribute, it is going to be very likely that amongst the four we will see the mixture.
KEY QUOTENow, when you use the term "1 in 1," that is what you are saying, that if four people were selected at random that there would nearly be 100 percent chance that they would have this combination of markers?
During your attention to item 31 from the center console--and again these were results generated by PCR only?
--did you make these same types of calculations for the DQ-Alpha marker and the D1S80 marker?
For item 31 and two contributors the range is from 1 in 4700--4700, to 1 in him 19,000.
All right. Dr. Weir, then lastly, if I can turn your attention to items 303, 304 and 305, did you again perform this similar calculation process?
Yes, I did, and these items once again have the same profile as each other so the numbers are going to be the same for the whole three, so for item 303 and assuming two contributors the range is 1 in 1400 to 1 in 18,000.
Did you also perform a calculation assuming three contributors to each of these three stains?
Dr. Weir, you have had an opportunity to review all of the frequencies and I'm talking about now the frequencies other than those that you've described for the mixtures over the last two days?
And you have had an opportunity to examine the reports of the testing laboratories wherein they describe relative frequencies for those stains that appear to be from one person; is that right?
You have also examined the results as reported on all five of the results boards, that is, DNA results board in this case; is that right?
You have examined those results, as well as the databases that these laboratories utilize; is that right?
Umm, yes, the FBI's. I have not examined all the data used by DOJ in their report. I have not examined the Orange County Hispanic database. When I was doing calculations I was using FBI Hispanic.
When you performed your calculations, you utilized or used the databases from the FBI that you described yesterday; is that right?
And as a result of your use of those databases and the specific results in this case, you produced your own approximate frequencies, not only for the mixtures but also for the stains that appear to come from one person?
Did you compare those results that you obtained with those reported by the testing laboratories in this case, Cellmark and the Department of Justice?
Do you have an opinion about the accuracy and reliability about--that is, of the results produced by those two laboratories in this case?
Yes. I think the results reported generated by those, they are all good estimates of the frequencies.
KEY QUOTEWell, we have some fairly common bands in this profile and if we allow four people to contribute, it is going to be very likely that amongst the four we will see the mixture.
That's correct.
I think the results reported generated by those, they are all good estimates of the frequencies.