With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a composite frequency for defendant’s six-loci genotype. At the Rule 104 hearing, the defense’s expert, Dr. Shaler, did not contest the accuracy of Cellmark’s databases. Instead, he relied on them in his own statistical calculations. Although the defense still does not criticize the databases, it contends that the State’s population databases were not large enough to be an accurate sampling of the population. Post at 291, 699 A.2d at 682. In addition, the defense never sought to introduce evidence disputing the general acceptance or the mathematical soundness of the product rule. Even on this appeal, the defense does not challenge the use of the product rule. Indeed, the defense states that “everyone agrees that the product rule is absolutely valid.” The dissent, how 2d 799, 803 (1995) (<HOLDING>); State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313, 317

A: holding that calculations done by applying product rule were generally accepted in relevant scientific community
B: holding that expert opinion based on scientific technique is inadmissible unless technique is generally accepted as reliable in relevant scientific community
C: holding under the restrictive frye test that pcrstr testing is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community
D: holding that product rule method of dna statistical evidence is now generally accepted in the relevant scientific community
D.