Susan, you just brought up something I've been wondering about. Is it your impression that the hair had the follicle attached (confirming DNA) or was there decomp ON the hair that the lab was able to swab off? Or is it both? The big news would be follicle AND decomp ON the hair.
You know, I saw something last night - I'm pretty sure - on NG from one of the expernts.
Hair follicle with decomp on it was found in the trunk.
However, hair folicle with decomp could be hair pulled from someone when alive, and over a long period of time, it too shall become hair follicle with decomp. So, it's not the hair follicle with decomp on it that's the killer evidence. And the hair in the trunk could be Caylee's or could be Casey's. Mitochondrial DNA testing would not be able to tell if it was the mother's or the child's hair. They would have to conduct Nuclear DNA testing to tell if it was the mother's or the child's hair. The expert says that when they report about this hair, they are not telling us what kind of testing was done on it.
The expert said you have to take all of this DNA & decomp testing together in a picture and then, this is why, they are close to certain that it is not good news as far as finding Caylee alive.
Did anyone else catch that somewhat detailed scientific explanation on NG last night?
I found it pretty darn interesting, because this is what Jose & Cindy & George keep saying - they don't really know.
Interesting also because this is where DNA evidence sometimes is beaten up in court. JMHO