All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
Dr. Weir, would you resume the witness stand, please.
Bruce Weir, the witness on the stand at the time of the lunch recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
Dr. Weir, just so we can explain this--these fractions a little bit to the Court and to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, for instance, taking item no. 29, when I show that fraction 1 over 2, doesn't that mean that approximately 50 percent of the population could not be excluded as a potential contributor to the mixture reflected on the steering wheel stain? Is that what 1 over 2 means?
Thank you. Now, what I would like you to do, sir, is I'm going to also ask you to do--using the same approach that we utilized for item no. 29, I'm going to ask you to do the same thing for item 303, which is 304 and 305 as well as well as G10. And to do that, sir, again, referring to the databases that you received in this case, the database from Cellmark and then the database for D1S80--
On the D1S80. But I also showed you, as you may recall, Cellmark's tables for the data on DQ-Alpha; is that correct?
That's right. So we're not only doing different calculations, we're using different databases.
Well, you remember that the DQ-Alpha calculations that you relied on--that you relied on for arriving at that NRC number was Defendant's 1201. I'll just show it again to you to refresh your recollection, sir.
Okay. But I think you said frankly that it shouldn't make much difference or the difference should be rather minimal for these DQ-Alpha frequencies whether one uses the FBI's database or the Cellmark database; is that correct?
Okay. But I want to--since we already did the calculation for item 29 using Cellmark's database and since Cellmark did report DQ-Alpha typing results in this case, I'm going to ask you to use Cellmark's table again, and then, of course, for the D1S80, you would use the FBI's databases since Cellmark doesn't have any databases for D1S80. Item 303, 304 and 305 has been typed, has it not, referring to People's exhibit 260, both on the DQ-Alpha locus and also on the D1S80 locus; is that correct, sir?
Okay. So one could--so if one wanted to answer the question, that is the same question that is posed in the NRC report, which is what percentage of the population cannot be excluded as being a potential contributor to this mixture, namely, the mixture on the console of 303, 304 and 305, one could make certain calculations and generate certain sums for the DQ-Alpha locus and then again for the D1S80 locus and then you would combine those; is that correct, sir?
Yes. You've just pointed out something in fact, that we didn't do that of course here. We've only done the one locus. What--my figures are on all the loci. Yours are just on the one locus.
The 303, 304 and 305 is typed, the DQ-Alpha and D1S80. The figures I've given are typed based on both loci. You've only given half the story.
Well, on item 29, there is only one locus; isn't that correct? I'm sorry. Withdrawn. There are polymarkers in the DQ-Alpha locus; isn't that right?
That's--that's right. So there were six loci. And I've given a six-locus result and you've given a one-locus result.
Well, excuse me, sir. But for item 29, isn't it true that the polymarkers do not discriminate, the polymarker results themselves?
Well, let me ask you the question specifically, sir. Isn't it true that a hundred percent of the population is reflected in those polymarker results alone?
I think--I think finally we've put our finger on our main difference. To calculate the frequency of a mixture, I take the mixtures of people and then the correct method that does not sum to a hundred percent. Your method does. So we've got them on the same piece of paper and we're talking about very different things.
KEY QUOTEI'm not talking about my methods. I'm talking about the NRC method, Dr. Weir. And what I'm asking you is, applying the NRC method to item 29, would you agree that there is no--there's no one in the population who could not be included or who wouldn't be included as a potential contributor to the polymarker profile that you see for item 29?
KEY QUOTEThank you. And would you agree, sir, that the one genetic system where there is some portion of the population who would be excluded is for the DQ-Alpha system in item 29?
Only if you mean excluded meaning single people. For the mixtures, of course, we've got several people.
Right. I'm talking about single people who could be excluded saying that there's some people who just could not have been a contributor to this mixture.
Okay. Fine. Now, here's what I'm asking you, sir. For items 303, 304 and 305, if we use that NRC method and we use the D1S80 databases from the FBI and we use the DQ-Alpha databases that Cellmark used in doing their own calculations for 303, 304 and 305--
So it's even more misleading than I had realized.
I think finally we've put our finger on our main difference. To calculate the frequency of a mixture, I take the mixtures of people and then the correct method that does not sum to a hundred percent. Your method does.
I think that's the point. That's why it's so absurd.
I'm not talking about my methods. I'm talking about the NRC method, Dr. Weir.