indicat
Justice for Travis and his family
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,953
- Reaction score
- 2
Snipped for space and relevance, respectfully.
First I want to say that I hope you don't think I am stalking you or attacking or being snarky directly to you, because that is not the case. I am simply answering your questions and posts because they are valid and ones that I feel that I can answer and I am just trying to help clear things up. If you would rather I didn't you can tell me not to and I won't be offended.
Anyway, the reason that they can't be said for certain to be hairs belonging to these two men is because that is true, they could belong to other maternal relatives of them. But that's about it. Just them or their maternal relatives. It is the same as when they found the hair in the trunk of Casey Anthony's car. They couldn't say for certain that the hair was Caylee's because if there is no root and just the hair they can only get mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). When they took this DNA and compared it to David Jacoby and Terry Hobbs it matched their mtDNA. This doesn't mean that it was them, because they share their mtDNA with all of their maternal relatives. But I think when you put 2 and 2 together, what are the chances that 2 of their maternal relatives hairs were at the crime scene as opposed to being theirs?
I for one would give a lot more weight to 2 hairs with mtDNA than I would 10 fibers consistent with clothes sold at Walmart. What would we all have given for 2 hairs in the duct tape in Caylee's case that weren't Caylee's?
HRCODEPINK,
From somebody who waffles on this case I just wanted to say that your posts are a credit to the "innocent" side of the issue. I appreciate the way you answer questions with valid information and a respectful non attacking way.
:tyou: