http://video.uniontrib.com/news/metro/danielle/transcripts/020624_pm1.html
Q MISS PEER, I BELIEVE WE HAD LEFT OFF WITH YOU HAD DESCRIBED SOME POPULATION STATISTICS ABOUT THE COMPARISON YOU MADE BETWEEN MR. WESTERFIELD'S KNOWN SAMPLE AND THE BLOOD ON THE JACKET LAPEL. DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A YES.
SNIP Q A BILLION IS -- SIX OR SEVEN BILLION IS MORE COMMON THAN THE NUMBERS THAT YOU'VE WRITTEN ON THE CHART WITH REGARD TO THE CARPET STAIN AND THE SHOULDER STAIN, IS THAT CORRECT?A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q NOW, I'M SORRY, I SPOKE TOO SOON ABOUT THE CHART. BUT PERHAPS YOU CAN DO IT WITH A POINTER.WE SEE THAT WITH THE CARPET STAIN AND THE SHOULDER STAIN THAT THE ESTIMATED RARITY OF THOSE PROFILES ARE DIFFERENT FROM ONE ANOTHER. IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES, THEY ARE.
Q THOUGH THEY'RE BOTH CONSISTENT WITH THE UNDERPANTS AND LATER TESTING THAT YOU DID OF DANIELLE VAN DAM'S RIB SAMPLE, IS THAT RIGHT?A THAT'S CORRECT.
SNIP
A THEY'RE DIFFERENT BECAUSE ONE OF THE MARKERS IN THE BLOODSTAIN FROM THE CARPET DID NOT SHOW ANY D.N.A. TYPES. WHEN THE STATISTICAL CALCULATION IS MADE, IT'S MADE ONLY WITH THE NUMBERS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED TO THE MARKERS IN THE EVIDENCE SAMPLE, NOT TO THE REFERENCE, BUT IN THE EVIDENCE SAMPLE. THEREFORE, WHEN A STATISTICAL CALCULATION WAS MADE OF THE CARPET STAINS, IT ONLY TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE TWELVE MARKERS THAT ARE THERE. AND WITH THE BLOODSTAIN FROM THE JACKET, IT TOOK INTO ACCOUNT ALL THIRTEEN MARKERS THAT ARE PRESENT.