I'm assuming, as the Court picked up, the poly-marker and DQ-Alpha. There's nothing about--
The point is, DQ-Alpha and poly-marker have the same system. I assume that he has disaggregated the DQ-Alpha. In other words, that's number one. Number two, this is my objection. Is that Mr. Harmon asked a series of questions of this witness about six probes that were duplicative of the Cellmark probes, a whole series of questions about how those six probes were discriminated among people and further differentiated and further made these things more rare. That was the basis of my relevancy objection, your Honor, because he asked a whole series of questions to make it seem as though those six probes were somehow--that were not--they can't be included in the calculation because the duplicatives were somewhat added to the rareness here. And my whole problem with that form of presentation and the charts and everything that he's doing here is that it's calculated to unduly confuse the jury as to how much it really is and isn't. Now, it's a limited relevance with respect to the sock I agree. But I get very concerned when it's--you know, the whole cumulative effect, and I just wanted to put on the record that I thought that whole line of questions was a clear 352 violation and was unduly confusing.
My whole problem with that form of presentation and the charts and everything that he's doing here is that it's calculated to unduly confuse the jury as to how much it really is and isn't.
I want to note for the record Patrick Ewing is a great player.
Maybe I can have misconduct added to my tab here.
You caused this problem, you guys.