defendant was inadmissible and it was referred to as the Potsdam Boys murder case may hinge on miniscule DNA sample from fingernail", in the New York times, apparently, and there's a reference to DNA results wouldn't be allowed in the Hillary murder trial. Are you familiar with that's two cases they're referring to, as I read it, the Hillary case?I think it's Or it's the one ?I think it's just the one case, just the Hillary case. You didn't give evidence or you did give evidence in that trial, in the pretrial proceedings?I wasn't involved in that at all. Okay. And does include that you weren't involved in the prosecution as your services personally hadn't been retained on the STRmix result for the purpose of seeking to have it admitted?Correct, that will all handled by John Buckton, one of the codevelopers of STRmix. All right. Let's go to issue 4, "Under what circumstances and why does the method produce results (random inclusion probabilities) that differ substantially from those produced by other methods". Do you agree with that?Yes, that's useful information to know. I'll skip a paragraph. If you we should go back to it, tell me, but I will pea go to the paragraph, "Most importantly current studies have adequately explored only a limited range of mixture types (with respect to number of contributors, ratio of minor contributors and total amount of DNA)". Do you agree with that sentence?Um, yes, but go on. "The two most widely used methods", is that right, that STRmix an True Allele to your knowledge are the two most widely
defendant was inadmissible and it was referred to as the Potsdam Boys murder case may hinge on miniscule DNA sample from fingernail", in the New York times, apparently, and there's a reference to DNA results wouldn't be allowed in the Hillary murder trial. Are you familiar with that's two cases they're referring to, as I read it, the Hillary case?I think it's Or it's the one ?I think it's just the one case, just the Hillary case. You didn't give evidence or you did give evidence in that trial, in the pretrial proceedings?I wasn't involved in that at all. Okay. And does include that you weren't involved in the prosecution as your services personally hadn't been retained on the STRmix result for the purpose of seeking to have it admitted?Correct, that will all handled by John Buckton, one of the codevelopers of STRmix. All right. Let's go to issue 4, "Under what circumstances and why does the method produce results (random inclusion probabilities) that differ substantially from those produced by other methods". Do you agree with that?Yes, that's useful information to know. I'll skip a paragraph. If you we should go back to it, tell me, but I will pea go to the paragraph, "Most importantly current studies have adequately explored only a limited range of mixture types (with respect to number of contributors, ratio of minor contributors and total amount of DNA)". Do you agree with that sentence?Um, yes, but go on. "The two most widely used methods", is that right, that STRmix an True Allele to your knowledge are the two most widely
tuite-20april17-afternoon-p178-229.docx