Related topics

Excerpts of Testimony in the O.J. Simpson Trial

June 23, 1995

EDITOR’S NOTE _ Excerpts are from unofficial trial transcripts compiled by West Publishing Co. and made available on its WESTLAW(r) service. Any use of these transcripts must be credited to West Publishing Co.


By The Associated Press

Excerpts of testimony Friday in the O.J. Simpson murder trial:

(In the following segment, Bruce Weir, professor of genetics and statistics at North Carolina State University, admits he made a mistake in his calculations:)

DEFENSE ATTORNEY PETER NEUFELD: Well, let me ask you this: Were you told by Gary Sims or by Robin Cotton that when we say possible 1.2 in a mixture situation, we mean that there may not be any 1.2 there at all? Didn’t they tell you that?

WEIR: They may have. I don’t recall specifically that conversation.

NEUFELD: So it’s your position, sir, that in this particular table, for instance, that the reason you did not consider the possibility of no 1.2 allele is because whenever it’s listed as possible, you included it in the calculations as if it was there?

WEIR: That’s what I’ve done, yes. I’ve taken every allele listed on the board as being there.

NEUFELD: And that’s your position throughout, sir?

WEIR: That’s what I _

PROSECUTOR GEORGE CLARKE: Objection to the form of the question.


WEIR: I don’t know if it’s a position. It’s what I’ve done.

NEUFELD: Well, Dr. Weir, I call your attention to table _ if I may, I call your attention to _ I’d like to put up as the next exhibit, Dr. Weir’s table 25A and 25B.

ITO: All right. That’ll be People’s 1199. Excuse me, Defense 1199.

NEUFELD: Do you see that, Dr. Weir?

WEIR: Yes, I do.


NEUFELD: You see the little asterisk you have there underneath the line?

WEIR: I see it, yes.

NEUFELD: And you see where it says allele 1.2 are present would not be detected?

WEIR: Yes.

NEUFELD: Now, in this particular table, Dr. Weir, given the same results from the DOJ laboratory?

WEIR: Yes.

NEUFELD: As you have for table 24B, the table I just showed you, in this instance, you chose to accept the possibility that the allele, namely 1.2, which is the possible allele, could be masked and therefore not be there?

WEIR: Yes.

NEUFELD: Isn’t that correct, sir?

WEIR: Well, I don’t know what you mean. The statement holds. Of course, all my calculations include the possibility of it being there.

NEUFELD: And your calculations also include in this particular table the possibility of it not being there, isn’t that right?

WEIR: That’s correct. I have _ I have a whole range of possibilities, either with it being present or not present.

NEUFELD: So for table 25A, which were certain mixed stains on the glove, G1 and G4, you chose to include both the frequencies, given the assumption that allele 1.2 is there and the assumption that allele 1.2 is not there, isn’t that correct, sir?

WEIR: That looks like right, yes, sir.

NEUFELD: Whereas in the table _ and by the way, as a result of taking that approach, sir, in table 25A, how many different pairs did you have to sum up for the DQ-alpha type?

WEIR: It looks like 18.

NEUFELD: And _ one moment. Just so the jury can be clear on this, as well, are the lists of pairs that you summed up reflected along this first column?

WEIR: Those _ those two columns.

NEUFELD: Right. Well, it’s a pair. This would be the first person and this would be the genotype of the second person, correct?

WEIR: That’s right, yes.

NEUFELD: And so you have 18 different frequencies that you sum up on this particular table for those particular items, isn’t that correct?

WEIR: That’s correct.

NEUFELD: And you did that in a situation where there is a possible 1.2 allele, which may or may not actually be there because of the masking phenomenon, isn’t that correct?

WEIR: That’s correct.

NEUFELD: Now going back, sir, to _ to table 24A.

ITO: 1198.

NEUFELD: Exhibit 1198. Again, the same _ it being a mixture, is that correct, sir?

WEIR: That’s what _ that’s a mixture, yes.

NEUFELD: And consequently, the 1.2 allele in that particular mixture may actually be there or may actually not be there, isn’t that correct?

WEIR: That’s correct.

NEUFELD: But this time, sir, unlike the other items on the glove, you chose not to include the frequencies of those pairs assuming the 1.2 allele wasn’t there, isn’t that correct?

WEIR: I think you found my mistake, Mr. Neufeld.


Update hourly