South Africa - Martin, 55, Theresa, 54, Rudi van Breda, 22, murdered, 26 Jan 2015 #1

[Interested Bystander]

What we need to hear is that it is HVB's with no other contamination that might have been picked up from grabbing at a carpet and, I think, that there were multiple hairs.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Botha - when you were given these hair samples, all you knew was it had a number, no name attached?

Stuart - at that point no. The moment I did my examination, they were just numbers.

Botha says the photo exhibit is of Marli with hair in her hand.

Lt Col's qualifications had nothing to do with hair analysis, but he had attended a course in this.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Ne...ay-11-20170515

 

[PrimeSuspect]

What we need to hear is that it is HVB's with no other contamination that might have been picked up from grabbing at a carpet and, I think, that there were multiple hairs.

Yep. Stuart seems certain it was pulled from the head, I'd say HvBs. Botha using smoke and mirrors, from here on in.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Anthony Molyneaux‏ @AJGMolyneaux 2m2 minutes ago @TimesLIVE

Botha assess forensic Colonel Stewart's education and training. Did any of your diplomas concern hair training? Colonel: no. However Colonel did receive training in hair analysis after diplomas. Was trained by FBI in 2000s.

Colonel also received training in the United States. But Botha brings up 96% of previous cases where hair analysis was flawed.

Botha: Hair analysis is better used to exclude a suspect or witness rather than identify. Colonel agrees.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Okay, so hair analysis is not an exact science. And if it's HvBs, what then? 101 reasons why Marli is holding it?

 

[JudgeJudi]

If root still attached, can do a DNA analysis, Stuart says.

Stuart - Hair analysis is also seen as associative evidence in court, only seen in association with other evidence. We are only stating what we found.

Botha - you are saying the hair only showed a resemblance?

Stuart - yes.

Botha - it is used to exclude, not identify somebody?

Stuart - I agree 100%

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Ne...ay-11-20170515

 

[JudgeJudi]

Botha - Five samples from same family. Is that something you take into consideration?

Stuart - I have to. Don't have other samples to compare it to.

Stuart - The goal is to exclude something. Known donor of a hair to one found on crime scene.

Botha - Hair in 3.1 didn't show any resemblance to four others?

Stuart - That is correct.

Stuart - If foreign hair found, it would have been part of the end results.

Botha - how many of the hairs in 3.6 (14 hairs) did you compare with reference sample 3.1?

Stuart - all of them.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Ne...ay-11-20170515

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Tracey Stewart‏ @Traceyams 4m4 minutes ago @CapeTownEtc #vanbreda

if a foreign hair was found we would have reported it.

Colonel in the context of this case its hugely important if you say under oath that all 14 hairs corresponded to 3.1

so that means you didnt examine all 14? No I did examine all 14 of the comparitively to the reference sample
and there were some of the 14 which did not correspond with the reference sample in 3.1 -yes
from that its logical that we have exhibit K1 unidentified hairs that couldn't be linked to a family member - yes

Colonel concedes that there are unidentified hairs despite saying no foreign hairs were detected

3.1 appears to be marli's hair. You didn't know at the time. I compared the other reference samples with K- yes

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I wonder if this trial will take a different course once HvB takes the stand.

 

[L2L]

I wonder if this trial will take a different course once HvB takes the stand.

Hope so, Prime, because right now I'm having trouble staying awake!

 

[JudgeJudi]

You always compare all your unknown samples to your reference sample.

All 14 hairs showed a resemblance to the sample hair? Stuart - I can't say all 14 correspond.

Botha - that can only be correct because you didn't examine all 14. Is that a fair statement?

Stuart - I did all 14 and compared it to the reference sample. There were some that didn't correspond.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Ne...ay-11-20170515

 

[JudgeJudi]

Samples are of five family members. 3.1 is that of Marli.

You didn't know at the time. Despite analysing it, there were hairs in exhibit K that you couldn't link to the family. Unknown hairs.

Stuart - yes.

Botha - how many times have you testified as an expert witness?

Stuart - three times

Can you show the court where did you say in your statement there were unknown hairs?

Stuart - I didn't say that. I wasn't required to say that.


http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Ne...ay-11-20170515

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Hope so, Prime, because right now I'm having trouble staying awake!

LOL this is getting too technical for everyone. One moment it's about the hair in Marli's hand, and then it's about the other strands found.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Anthony Molyneaux‏ @AJGMolyneaux 3m3 minutes ago

Colonel states some hairs he tested did match van Breda family & some did not match I.e were not from van Breda family @TimesLIVE

 

[Interested Bystander]

Botha clutching at hairs, methinks.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Anthony Molyneaux‏ @AJGMolyneaux 3m3 minutes ago @TimesLIVE

Botha having a good go at Colonel now. Botha telling Stewart he will argue that his report is a misleading piece of evidence.

 

[L2L]

Anthony Molyneaux‏ @AJGMolyneaux 3m3 minutes ago

Colonel states some hairs he tested did match van Breda family & some did not match I.e were not from van Breda family @TimesLIVE

This is where Sasha comes in!

 

[Interested Bystander]

Anthony Molyneaux‏ @AJGMolyneaux 3m3 minutes ago

Colonel states some hairs he tested did match van Breda family & some did not match I.e were not from van Breda family @TimesLIVE

I expect some were dog hairs - lol! I am sure one could reasonably expect to find hair from visitors, housemaids etc or even hair brought in on one's clothes. Botha tells Stewart he is not there to advance the case of the Prosecution!

 

[JudgeJudi]

We are stating we found hair that corresponded, but obviously there are some that didn't correspond.

Judge Desai - why didn't you report the fact that some of the hair did not match? Was it not a duty on your part as an expert?

Stuart - it wasn't expected to state which were foreign.

Botha telling Stewart he will argue that his report is a misleading piece of evidence.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Ne...ay-11-20170515

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Botha clutching at hairs, methinks.

LOL Botha is aiming to discredit this Stuart/Stewart fellow. It's getting dirty now.