What do we know about hair decomp ***REVISITED***

[treeseeker]

I thought this study on postmortem hair was really helpful:

http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-01242005-145140/unrestricted/Collier_thesis.pdf

 

[lin]

Bumpity bump...

Right? Anyone???

I saw it; I read it; you should put in MythBusters sticky.

For those that missed it, they show a part of an email from Yuri that reads 'dead man's ring' or something along those lines. Bob Kealing also quotes it, 'dead man's ring' during the video at about 0:33 specifically. (It starts, as magic-cat stated at about 0:30)

I just checked; listened again; this is the correct link.

ETA: Dare I add that I kind of thought this debate was... um... splitting hairs?

ETA 2 & 3: For some reason, it's showing a video on Baez withholding evidence, not the video I was watching when I grabbed the link. I think that happened to Magic-Cat too. UPDATED -- hope that link goes direct now; if it doesn't, select the latest doc dump video from the menu below.

 

[Tuffy]

I saw it; I read it; you should put in MythBusters sticky.

For those that missed it, they show a part of an email from Yuri that reads 'dead man's ring' or something along those lines. Bob Kealing also quotes it, 'dead man's ring' during the video at about 0:33 specifically. (It starts, as magic-cat stated at about 0:30)

I just checked; listened again; this is the correct link.

ETA: Dare I add that I kind of thought this debate was... um... splitting hairs?

ETA 2 & 3: For some reason, it's showing a video on Baez withholding evidence, not the video I was watching when I grabbed the link. I think that happened to Magic-Cat too. UPDATED -- hope that link goes direct now; if it doesn't, select the latest doc dump video from the menu below.

Thanks, lin!

The link you posted was to a different video. I'm glad that it is not my hearing that is failing!

Yeah, I do think the debate was "splitting hairs" as well. (ok, yeah, its a bad pun, but it fits)

 

[lin]

Thanks, lin!

The link you posted was to a different video. I'm glad that it is not my hearing that is failing!

Yeah, I do think the debate was "splitting hairs" as well. (ok, yeah, its a bad pun, but it fits)

I corrected it; think it's the right one now; if not, please use menu below the video.

(It was noted "updated" in the 27th or 49th ETA)

 

[magic-cat]

On the debate about the hair and if it had root banding or simply signs of decomposition, here is a link detailing a report or email that specifies the hair had "the dead mans ring".
http://www.wesh.com/video/20229004/index.html

At approximately 30 seconds into the video it specifies "dead mans ring" so I think that clearly ends the debate on whether or not their was root banding, right?

I do not know what happened to the link but it is incorrect (and was previously NOT)...so here is the new link, as kindly provided by Lin...
http://www.wesh.com/video/20320826/index.html

Don't know how it happened...but there we go. It was Yuri and he stated dead mans ring and it is shown on the video, whatever document it was, at approximately 30 seconds...

:waitasec:

 

[magic-cat]

http://a11news.com/840/death-band-caylee-hair/

This article is from 10-27-08 and very clearly states there was a death band on the hair. How on earth did we miss this one? Or did we?

 

[magic-cat]

Also if that document was in the latest document dump why have we not seen it? They showed it on the video so why was it not released to us? Or was it and I somehow missed it?

 

[lin]

http://a11news.com/840/death-band-caylee-hair/

This article is from 10-27-08 and very clearly states there was a death band on the hair. How on earth did we miss this one? Or did we?

I think some folks wanted to see it from the forensic reports rather than the media. There was a lot of hoopla about it being a myth created by the media and/or Nancy Grace specifically. Bad pun aside, I really didn't understand the purpose of accepting "evidence of decomposition" and rejecting "banding" without a report signed by some authority. Once it got started some of our most esteemed and reliable members started questioning and then folks were off to the races. Not the exact debate, I realize; just sayin'...

 

[lin]

Also if that document was in the latest document dump why have we not seen it? They showed it on the video so why was it not released to us? Or was it and I somehow missed it?

I haven't seen it either but I haven't gone through everything yet. Anyone else see it yet?

 

[Tuffy]

I haven't seen it either but I haven't gone through everything yet. Anyone else see it yet?

I haven't seen the document, and I went through all of them. There were so many that I don't think I would swear to it, but I don't think it was in there.

 

[JBean]

ETA: Dare I add that I kind of thought this debate was... um... splitting hairs?

I think some folks wanted to see it from the forensic reports rather than the media. There was a lot of hoopla about it being a myth created by the media and/or Nancy Grace specifically. Bad pun aside, I really didn't understand the purpose of accepting "evidence of decomposition" and rejecting "banding" without a report signed by some authority. Once it got started some of our most esteemed and reliable members started questioning and then folks were off to the races. Not the exact debate, I realize; just sayin'...

Hi Lin:
Maybe I can help you understand.

A perfect example of why some of us don't take media reports at face value is the "book" found at the remains location.

Some of us are not looking for a specific answer, we are just trying to get the true facts. It was unclear to some of us as to whether there were death bands or not. I didn't realize it was a race or a problem to challenge unclear information? Your picture is odd to me.
??????

??????

Even though you do not see them as such,these were legitimate questions because there are other ways that decomp manifests itself on hair. Hence the term "signs of decomp" did not necessarily mean rings. The media is notorious for jumping to conclusions (Caylee's book found at death scene LOL) and so many of us are not afarid to challenge news reports. They make mistakes all the time.
I was also given a fair amount of grief for challenging that there was no actual source that said it was a "book" found at the location of the remains and that I was unconvinced it actually was a book.I was waiting for an authority to report it as such.

But as you know , it never happened. But there were 3 or more threads discussing this "book." But I wouldn;t say I don't understand why it was being discussed. It looked like the book and there were media agencies referring to it as a book.

That's why some of us choose to dig deeper and make sure we do not carry misinformation as a group.

When an actual report spells it out, it is a good day because we finally know what the truth is .

Hopefully this will be the last reference to what you percieve as "hoopla" about something you don't think was worthy of discussion.

 

[Tuffy]

Hi Lin:
Maybe I can help you understand.

A perfect example of why some of us don't take media reports at face value is the "book" found at the remains location.

Some of us are not looking for a specific answer, we are just trying to get the true facts. It was unclear to some of us as to whether there were death bands or not. I didn't realize it was a race or a problem to challenge unclear information? Your picture is odd to me.
??????

??????

Even though you do not see them as such,these were legitimate questions because there are other ways that decomp manifests itself on hair. Hence the term "signs of decomp" did not necessarily mean rings. The media is notorious for jumping to conclusions (Caylee's book found at death scene LOL) and so many of us are not afarid to challenge news reports. They make mistakes all the time.
I was also given a fair amount of grief for challenging that there was no actual source that said it was a "book" found at the location of the remains and that I was unconvinced it actually was a book.I was waiting for an authority to report it as such.

But as you know , it never happened. But there were 3 or more threads discussing this "book." But I wouldn;t say I don't understand why it was being discussed. It looked like the book and there were media agencies referring to it as a book.

That's why some of us choose to dig deeper and make sure we do not carry misinformation as a group.

When an actual report spells it out, it is a good day because we finally know what the truth is .

Hopefully this will be the last reference to what you percieve as "hoopla" about something you don't think was worthy of discussion.

I was curious as to what else the term "signs of decomp" could refer to other than root banding. At first I couldn't find any other signs, so I thought they must be meaning to say "banding."

But then I found this:

A review of these cases found that the most common putrid hair proximal end change did not contain the postmortem root band. Four primary types of hair proximal end postmortem change were identified. Postmortem banding, which may appear proximal or distal, is infrequently seen, possibly because it occurs only in late anagen/early catagen, or late catagen stage hair roots. Much more common are the hard keratin points and brush-like ends, both of which most likely result from complete decomposition of the soft anagen hair root/stem elements that are just below the hard (permanent) keratinous shaft. The hard keratin point form is usually associated with advanced moist scalp decomposition, and the brush-like form is usually associated with advanced dry scalp decomposition. One scalp can have both moist and dry areas. Although postmortem hair proximal end morphologic changes appear to be relatively specific for the decomposition process, the timing of their appearance does not appear to be helpful in determining postmortem interval.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx?id=187165

So my assumption was wrong. The report could have referred to hard keratin points, brush-like ends, or banding.

Or am I still not understanding correctly?

 

[JBean]

I was curious as to what else the term "signs of decomp" could refer to other than root banding. At first I couldn't find any other signs, so I thought they must be meaning to say "banding."

But then I found this:

A review of these cases found that the most common putrid hair proximal end change did not contain the postmortem root band. Four primary types of hair proximal end postmortem change were identified. Postmortem banding, which may appear proximal or distal, is infrequently seen, possibly because it occurs only in late anagen/early catagen, or late catagen stage hair roots. Much more common are the hard keratin points and brush-like ends, both of which most likely result from complete decomposition of the soft anagen hair root/stem elements that are just below the hard (permanent) keratinous shaft. The hard keratin point form is usually associated with advanced moist scalp decomposition, and the brush-like form is usually associated with advanced dry scalp decomposition. One scalp can have both moist and dry areas. Although postmortem hair proximal end morphologic changes appear to be relatively specific for the decomposition process, the timing of their appearance does not appear to be helpful in determining postmortem interval.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx?id=187165

So my assumption was wrong. The report could have referred to hard keratin points, brush-like ends, or banding.

Or am I still not understanding correctly?

You got it. All some of us were after was exactly what was found on the hair. No more no less.

 

[lin]

I was curious as to what else the term "signs of decomp" could refer to other than root banding. At first I couldn't find any other signs, so I thought they must be meaning to say "banding."

But then I found this:

A review of these cases found that the most common putrid hair proximal end change did not contain the postmortem root band. Four primary types of hair proximal end postmortem change were identified. Postmortem banding, which may appear proximal or distal, is infrequently seen, possibly because it occurs only in late anagen/early catagen, or late catagen stage hair roots. Much more common are the hard keratin points and brush-like ends, both of which most likely result from complete decomposition of the soft anagen hair root/stem elements that are just below the hard (permanent) keratinous shaft. The hard keratin point form is usually associated with advanced moist scalp decomposition, and the brush-like form is usually associated with advanced dry scalp decomposition. One scalp can have both moist and dry areas. Although postmortem hair proximal end morphologic changes appear to be relatively specific for the decomposition process, the timing of their appearance does not appear to be helpful in determining postmortem interval.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx?id=187165

So my assumption was wrong. The report could have referred to hard keratin points, brush-like ends, or banding.

Or am I still not understanding correctly?

Thanks for taking the time to illustrate the debate, Tuffy. You are one of those I was thinking of when I wrote about those that will take the time to ferret out the science, learn it, understand it and break it down for the rest of us.

 

[lin]

I haven't seen the document, and I went through all of them. There were so many that I don't think I would swear to it, but I don't think it was in there.

So, we know the media has it but for some reason they have released it to us yet, sounds like. Has anyone specifically requested this from the media?

 

[RR0004]

I do not know what happened to the link but it is incorrect (and was previously NOT)...so here is the new link, as kindly provided by Lin...
http://www.wesh.com/video/20320826/index.html

Don't know how it happened...but there we go. It was Yuri and he stated dead mans ring and it is shown on the video, whatever document it was, at approximately 30 seconds...

:waitasec:

Were the emails in the docs? Anyone have a link...or general idea where they can be found?

Thanks for posting this video. Finally I'm clear about the chloroform. Wow! If a scientist references it...there must have been an amount above and beyond what's released during decomp. Very interesting!

 

[Tuffy]

Were the emails in the docs? Anyone have a link...or general idea where they can be found?

Thanks for posting this video. Finally I'm clear about the chloroform. Wow! If a scientist references it...there must have been an amount above and beyond what's released during decomp. Very interesting!

Thanks for mentioning the emails. I completely forgot about them.

Why haven't we seen them yet?

 

[RR0004]

Thanks for mentioning the emails. I completely forgot about them.

Why haven't we seen them yet?

Did MM p/u the latest docs? I can see the media wanting to hold onto the "exclusive", but if they got them they'd have to be out there for the public to get as well. Unless, LE requested them not to post them for some reason.This is info that's never been seen...now I wonder if there is more. I guess someone can always ask WESH.

ETA: gonna try and track them down...having a hard time locating them on WESH.

 

[magic-cat]

Were the emails in the docs? Anyone have a link...or general idea where they can be found?

Thanks for posting this video. Finally I'm clear about the chloroform. Wow! If a scientist references it...there must have been an amount above and beyond what's released during decomp. Very interesting!

You are most welcome. I know we have all wondered about this since the beginning if it was root banding or one of the other signs of decomp on the proximal root end of the hair, and seeing those words "the dead mans ring" certainly clears THAT one up for us...

I know the media, at least the ones who did that report, have the document because they showed it on screen, and it was apparently an email between Yuri and someone? as he was discussing the hair that the FBI had. But why we have not seen it released is a big mystery to me.

I did read something about the chloroform, an email where a fellow did not think it was a good idea that the info was released to the public and his hesitation to "continue in this work"...but cannot recall exactly which section it was in.

Hopefully someone can figure out where that document is and get it released so we can have look/see.:banghead:

 

[magic-cat]

Also am unsure if Muzikman posted these or not.