That's interesting if it is a facial hair. I've tried to find that cited on the web, but I can't; if you (or anyone) can find it, I'd greatly appreciate it.
I believe this is the hair in question: Page 7
Hair
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's interesting if it is a facial hair. I've tried to find that cited on the web, but I can't; if you (or anyone) can find it, I'd greatly appreciate it.
I believe this is the hair in question: Page 7
Hair
I believe this is the hair in question: Page 7
Hair
IMO, it's not critical to establish that it was a facial hair. I have heard that stated many times over the years. I'm sorry, but I can't recall the initial source of the statement. However, it is evidence that a prosecutor could use in a case. Although the defense would argue that the hair is not unique to TH, it was much weaker circumstantial evidence that convicted Damien, Jason and Jessie. Therefore, IMO, it is something that should be considered, especially when taken in conjunction with the other circumstantial evidence pointing to TH which is, IMHO, much stronger than the circumstantial evidence that convicted Damien, Jason and Jessie.
I feel that the laces were used either to ensure drowning or to restrain them while still alive; not for hauling purposes. I almost feel like it would have been harder to transport bodies that are awkwardly tied in that fashion.
I also feel that the killer(s) may have accidentally dumped the shoe with the lace in while they were in the process of disposing the bodies, and that is why they had to resort to using one of their own laces. This would mean that the 2 boys found together were disposed of before Moore and the clothes. If there were at least 2 killers working together, confusion could have arose with one disposing of the clothes and the other disposing of the bikes and/or binding the victims.
The problem I've always had with that theory is, if you're carrying them by those strings, would they really be strong enough to hold? A lot of people refute that they could've been tied while alive strictly because the bindings weren't tightly tied, and even a moderate amount of struggle would've untangled the knots.
My own personal thoughts are that the bindings probably simply served multiple purposes. Restraint. Transport. Dominance. Sick enjoyment. Regardless of the purpose, the fact that this fashion was used tells me, personally, that CR may have a good point. I just haven't seen many people bound as these boys were. It suggests to me some previous familiarity with that fashion of binding.
I'm a little confused -- is the "red hair fragment" the same as the "possible beard hair" fragment on page 7, or are those 2 different strands -- and how do we know which strand came from which binding? I ask because I've also heard that hair strands were found on the bindings of Chris Byers as well -- has anyone else heard this? I see "animal hairs" found within that report on page 5, but again, it doesn't specify where they were found (unless I'm missing something).