I gave Mr. Harmon, before the break, a proposed chart that lists the combinations of genotypes that can occur between two people when you combine it with Mr. Simpson's genotype on the DQ-Alpha system in stain 305. In other words, it is literally just a list of all the possible genotypes. And I wanted to use that with the witness, and I gave it to Mr. Harmon. The witness has looked at it. He has even made some notes on this particular copy. And I thought while the jury was looking at the photograph, if Mr. Harmon has any objections to it, we could get those out of the way.
I think Mr. Sims disagrees that that, based on--this is where we get into the whole mixture business. He disagrees, based on his results from 305, that the list is as full as that list is. And since he is the only one in the chair, that is the objection. It is misleading.
Well, the--the--this is a very simple set of alternatives. That is to say that calls were made on the presence of Mr. Simpson's genotype, the 1.1, 1.2. And on their board they list, you know, the genotypes present that are consistent with various individuals, and all that this list does is take the alternative combinations that one can have if you started with a 1.1, 1.2 and assume that this is there and then look at all the other different possible combinations. This is exactly what we did with Dr. Cotton before, so I just wanted to, since it is a longer list than the one we used before and it would save time to have all of them printed out, I just did that. I mean, I don't think it is in any way exceptional, that just as a shear mathematical calculation, those are all the possibilities.
The only problem, he is not a shear mathematician; he's a forensic scientist. Relative intensities of doing strip dots and D1S80 bands and he interprets these things.
KEY QUOTEAnd so it is not--if they want to call the witness, that is inaccurate based on Mr. Sims' review of the actual data, not just blindly him setting up all the possibilities, because that is not what these forensic scientists have done.
Well, at this point, Mr. Scheck, why don't you see if you can lay a foundation for Mr. Sims' ability to tell us what the possible combinations are.
The other problem I have with this is that you need to state what the beginning combination is before--
With regard to the Bronco--to the Bronco--to the Bronco and the chain of custody of the Bronco, subject to--can he make an offer of proof what he expects the evidence to show with Meraz and others and people getting in and out so that we can ask those questions subject to linking up?
No. He got his chain of custody question in and out, but he was making a--his question was assuming certain legal implications that weren't there.
Two of us aren't talking. So can he then rephrase that and put it in a different context other than--
I thought you did allow the question with regard to--you struck the thing--you sustained the objection regarding burglary. You allowed the question regarding chain of custody, but I thought he might be able to use--instead of using the word "Burglary," there seems to be one more question that might be appropriate.
While we are up there and waiting for the jury to do their thing, Mr. Cochran and I wanted to address the Court on the matter of this weekend, the timing, what day, if any, was going to be taken off. Tuesday?
No, no, I don't have time. Well, given the jury's desire to work on a full day Saturday, we are just going to--
We are going to break at noon on the 26th and reconvene at nine o'clock on the 30th.
The only problem, he is not a shear mathematician; he's a forensic scientist. Relative intensities of doing strip dots and D1S80 bands and he interprets these things.
It is not a burglary under California law.
We have spent enough time on that.
Which means no day off?