claims, which were addressed by the appellate courts. Arguably, because he raised these claims, all additional claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are waived. The Court, will, however, address the claims raised in the petition. (emphasis added). Finally, turning to the relevant claim, the Court of Criminal Appeals stated: Frazier fails to attach to his Rule 32 petition any of the alleged documentation he contends was readily available to establish these claims, nor does he identify the source of this alleged evidence. Frazier also fails to proffer in his Rule 32 petition the names of any witnesses that he contends could have been called to testify or proffer to the Court what their testimony would have been. See Thomas v. State, 766 So.2d [860] at 893 [(Ala.Crim.App.1998)] (<HOLDING>). These claims are summarily dismissed because
holding that where larzelere claimed that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a concrete expert defendant failed to prove prejudice because she failed to show what a concrete expert would have testified to or how testimony would have cast doubt on her guilt holding that the failure to call certain witnesses was not ineffective assistance because witnesses already presented similar evidence and counsel is not required to present cumulative evidence holdingthat a defendant could not show prejudice based on his trial counsels alleged failure to thoroughly investigate the case and call potential witnesses because he made no proffer as to what additional investigation would have uncovered or what the witnesses would have said if they had testified holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial holding that a claim of failure to call witnesses is deficient of sic it does not show what the witnesses would have testified to and how that testimony might have chanted sic the outcome