I think at this point, there's two misstatements of the evidence. This second version so to speak included that, quote, the blood drops at Bundy did not come--it wasn't even an assumption this time around. Secondarily, it included that these drops came into contact with the drops from the Rockingham scene. So I think at this point, there's two misstatements of the evidence.
Wait a minute. If your objection is that I have to repeat each time I say the Bundy drops didn't come from Mr. Simpson, that's an assumption, I have no problem with that, although I think it's clear from the series of questions that's all part of the initial assumption. I have no problem repeating that each time. Secondly, I'm saying that they came in contact with the swatches of the blood drops from Rockingham, and if your objection is that I omitted the word "assumption," I would be more than happy to include it.
I think that misstates the evidence also, that they came in contact with one another.
Assumes for purposes of the hypothetical I believe there is insufficient evidence, your Honor, given the way this evidence was poorly processed by Fung and Mazzola. And by the way, we intend to, you know, call other witnesses as well on our case that we're allowed to suggest the we're allowed to suggest the hypothesis here there was cross-contamination just to show if there was cross-contamination, we would get this result because it's been suggested repeatedly by the People in their direct examination that degradation can never change a genotype or DNA type and we want to show through this witness that in fact degradation in conjunction with cross-contamination--
I understand what you are trying to do. The problem is, you have to have some good faith basis to offer the condition in the hypothetical.
The evidence I think to this point is absolutely contrary to that fact about swatches--different samples getting mixed up or in contact with one another, and that's the major problem with this hypothetical.
Your Honor, the evidence so far is that the Bundy drops and the Rockingham drops were processed by Fung and Mazzola at the same time in the same room both on the evening of the 13th and again on the morning of the 14th. Moreover, there is testimony subject to connection, which you'll hear from Mr. Yamauchi, that actually the serology process of all the Bundy blood drops occurred at the same time as Mr. Simpson's reference sample, and that's going to be the next part of this hypothetical. So we have a good faith basis for every single question.
I think the problem is, there has not been and never will be a foundation that swatches were mixed up, came into contact with one another in this case, and the evidence is to the contrary. At the point that various items were processed, the testimony is clear at this point they were done one at a time and there's no basis to conclude, even for purposes of a hypothetical, that in fact the type of mixing up or contact of samples that Mr. Neufeld has just described has any basis in fact whatsoever. In other words, the problem is, the hypothetical is irrelevant, extremely misleading.
we're allowed to suggest the hypothesis here there was cross-contamination just to show if there was cross-contamination, we would get this result because it's been suggested repeatedly by the People in their direct examination that degradation can never change a genotype or DNA type
The problem is, you have to have some good faith basis to offer the condition in the hypothetical.
the Bundy drops and the Rockingham drops were processed by Fung and Mazzola at the same time in the same room both on the evening of the 13th and again on the morning of the 14th
Mr. Neufeld, I've asked you to keep your voice down now about 18 times.
the problem is, the hypothetical is irrelevant, extremely misleading.