I think the point is that only one hair with "apparent signs of decomp" is needed. It's kinda like someone being shot and killed for example. The person is shot 4 times but only one bullet was recovered from the body and crime scene. Do the other 3 bullets really need to be found? Yeah it wouldn't hurt the case if they were found but they aren't exactly necessary either since you have the one bullet.
Yes I understand bullet and hairs are different but the point still remains you have one hair showing signs of decomp. Would five hairs "showing signs of decomp" really make a difference? To me then the argument would be well they only found 5 hairs and not 10, 100, ect.
That and that one hair coupled with everything else...well kinda seals the deal. Q12 matches the hair from Q59 as supported by links from AZLawyer on this thread. The "signs of decomp" as shown by the FBI reports (linked in Valhall's blog and posts here) were the presence of the dark band on the proximal end.
If a juror walks in with an open mind and is presented with this evidence along with the expert testimony, statements by witnesses about the car smell, cadaver dog hits, the fact that Caylee was found dead. Well like the poll on this very forum showed. It was pretty overwhelming in favor of the fact the Caylee was deceased and in the car.
I'm all for minority opinions and looking at things from a different angle but to me it seems kind of futile to have a circular argument as to why water isn't wet. Not saying that's what DA is doing . DA it's my opinion your just stepping back and looking at this evidence from various angles so that comment wasn't directed at you. However this (circular argument against known evidence of the case) does seem to be a common occurrence with this particular topic. Perhaps the FBI evidence link talking about apparent decomp and the dark ring on the hair should be placed in the myth busters thread if it hasn't already. Not that it would do any good.
Even one of the defense experts seemed to be pretty convinced of this evidence until he was contracted by the defense. (Kobi)
All moo
Results of examination: (as stated in the docs)
A Caucasian head hair found in specimen Q12 exhibits characteristics of apparent decomposition at the proximal root end. The hair is microscopically similar to the Caucasian head hair recovered from the Q15 hairbrush, however a more meaningful conclusion cannot be reached as this is not a suitable known hair sample. The proximal (root) portion of the hair, which exhibits the apparent decomposition has been preserved on a glass microscope slide. The remainder of the hair Q12.1, has been submitted for mitochondrial DNA analysis.
This is what we are all going in circles over. Most are satisfied that the above should be interpreted as proof that Caylees remains were at one time in the trunk. Most are willing to accept that characteristics of apparent deomposition at the proximal root end, on a hair that is not a suitable known hair sample is acceptable as proof that Caylees remains were in the trunk at one time. Nothing wrong with this opinion.
A few question whether or not a hair that, is not a suitable known hair sample, that displays apparent decomposition at the proximal root end, meets the burden of proof required in a court of law. They would like a better understanding of how something that is not suitable can be used to determine anything of value. They would also like a better understanding of what apparent decomposition means in layman terms, and what is meant by a more meaningful conclusion cannot be reached. Nothing wrong with this opinion.
This all seems pretty simple to me, at trial if the SA and the experts successfully convince the jury that the results of the examination are correct, and have removed all reasonable doubt from the minds of the jurors regarding this single hair, then this single hair will be a great help to the states overall case. If the defense successfully raises reasonable doubt to this one hair, it will do damage to the states overall case.
I think we can all agree to disagree, on the results of examination above, most believe the single hair is strong evidence for the prosecution and will favor the prosecutions position, a few have some questions whether or not that will be the case. We have examined this piece repeatedly, and both sides are standing firm in their opinions.
For me personally, this one single hair is only one area where I have questions. I have many questions about a small percentage of the evidence that I am not sure of as being entirely correct. I question the death band, the Adipocere, the smell of death, officer Cains termination, RKs inconsistent statements in police interviews, when Caylees remains were placed in the woods, how Caylee actually died, 2.6 days in the trunk, ugly coping, is there a real ZFG, did KC make her own chloroform and use it on Caylee, where Caylee died, why were only traces of decomp found in the trunk instead of substantial amounts of decomp, how reliable is the analysis of a single hair showing characteristics of apparent decomp, when Caylee died, were CAs arguments with KC really terrible enough to cause KC to murder Caylee in a fit of rage, or to premeditate the cold blooded murder of Caylee, why Caylee died, how accurate are cadaver dog hits, did LE investigate everyone thoroughly that needed to be investigated thoroughly, why were no matching fibers found between the remains site and the trunk, was the decomp in the trunk from a decomposition event that was not of human origin, how could only one diptera leg be found, was the white trash bag evidence compromised while sitting in a dumpster for 30 hours, was Dr. Lee mistaken about what he said was food in the white trash bag on national tv, was the defense being truthful when they stated somebody other than KC is responsible, when they said those were not coffin flies, why was DCs depo sealed, why did LE wait 15 months to attempt to get fingerprints from the trash in the white garbage bag, and so on and so on and so on. These are just some of the questions I still have on my mind, and I have not been able to satisfactorily answer from the docs we know of.. Future doc dumps may answer some of my questions, and the trial itself will answer all of these questions, one way or the other. I have a whole lot of questions I would like to have satisfactorily answered, before I can jump onto the DP bandwagon. I have found within the threads on this site many satisfactory answers to some of my questions, I have also found more questions as well. That is why I admire this site and its members.
These questions are the result of much research, and reading in many threads on this site. In an unrelated case, Dr. Haskell and another highly regarded expert were both given the same details about a case. Based on the same details, these two experts came up with completely different results. In court, Dr. Haskell won the argument. Does this mean the other highly regarded expert did not read all the details, or was illogical. NO, it just means he interpreted the information differently than Dr. Haskell and Dr. H was more convincing in a court of law. My point is that just because someone may have an opinion that differs from the majority, does not mean that person has not researched much of, if not, all the same information in the documents as everyone else, they simply have come up with a different opinion, much like the highly regarded expert whose opinion differed greatly from Dr. Haskells. As always, my post in its entirety is my opinion only.
