Well, I don't think so. I think during cross-examination, there was obviously a serious attack on not only databases that were used, but also the manner in which laboratories calculated their frequencies, whether or not this witness felt it was appropriate to calculate frequencies in the manner that was done, the validity of the databases.
My intent is simply to refer to item 12, the Rockingham foyer, and in the same manner I just did, and then lastly, on the socks as to the RFLP matches with Nicole Brown and Mr. Simpson.
Your Honor, I never went into--at any time on cross-examination, I didn't go into any of the Rockingham stains. I didn't go into any of these Bundy stains at all. And all I said was, I questioned the databases. But he's not rehabilitating. He's just using this assumption to reemphasize all the missing numbers they have on other items of evidence, none of which I went into on cross-examination. This is all beyond the scope at this point.
I don't think so at all when you talk about the confidence limits and their use, whether or not these laboratories--for instance, as to the databases, the Court can remember the attack that was made. This witness has compared these results with the databases obtained by both Cellmark database as well as FBI, both of which Mr. Neufeld brought out during cross-examination.
No. To demonstrate the means of these results with the witness taking into account his own calculation that he knew to describe the fact that he had made calculations during that time.
Judge, he was limited to challenging the source of database. I never made any attempt at all on any of these numbers other than A. and he's not questioning now on the database or the source of the database. He's simply going off into other things that came through other witnesses which I never even got into at all on cross. We never mentioned the Rockingham stains. This is total bootstrapping at this point. It really is.
I don't think it's bootstrapping at all when an attack is made during cross-examination on this witness' ability to make comments about various pieces of evidence from a statistical standpoint. There's a clear implication that each of these pieces of evidence were being attacked. I mean yes, he didn't call them item by item, but I think when there's a general attack on these laboratories and their calculations--
I'll allow some questioning on the databases, but that's what it's going to be restricted to.
KEY QUOTEHe's just using this assumption to reemphasize all the missing numbers they have on other items of evidence, none of which I went into on cross-examination. This is all beyond the scope at this point.
This is total bootstrapping at this point. It really is.
The attack was on DQ-Alpha.
I'll allow some questioning on the databases, but that's what it's going to be restricted to.