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

New Posts

Tulessa said:
I hope it's ok to bump this, seeing as how it may relate to the letter published yesterday.
Click to expand...

It was brilliant of you Tulessa. :clap:
Sometimes we get thrown for loops as was the case with that letter. It was the intention of the letter IMO, but no fear real science will win the day.
It`s weird reading all the posts where we assumed the worst based on death bands. Now that Caylee has been found the jury will have enough to deal with looking at duct tape and roots growing through tiny femurs to care if death bands may occur in the absence of death.

Does the hair with the death band match the hair in the mat found attached to the duct tape and mandible? That`s what the wannabe biologist should be focusing on IMO. The ME sure will be.
 
kaRN said:
It was brilliant of you Tulessa. :clap:
Sometimes we get thrown for loops as was the case with that letter. It was the intention of the letter IMO, but no fear real science will win the day.
It`s weird reading all the posts where we assumed the worst based on death bands. Now that Caylee has been found the jury will have enough to deal with looking at duct tape and roots growing through tiny femurs to care if death bands may occur in the absence of death.

Does the hair with the death band match the hair in the mat found attached to the duct tape and mandible? That`s what the wannabe biologist should be focusing on IMO. The ME sure will be.
Click to expand...

Hi KaRN

Dare I say it? LOL!!

The hair in the mat was "not a suitable known sample" so there was no expection that it would match. It had been out in the weather, exposed to insects etc so the bacteria & microscopic peculiarities that might be present on the Q.12.1 hair shortly after death would not be the same as any that might have been found on hairs from the mat after it was collected.

Do you have a link to the document that says there is a death band on the Q12.1 hair? It is the primary piece of evidence which led to Casey being charged, so I am surprised that I cannot find a photo of it. The FBI say that it was preserved under a slide. They do not elaborate at all on what the signs of apparent decomposition are, that I can see.

I may be wrong but I think this is because additional details could be inculpatory, so under Sunshine they do not have to release them in discovery. They only have to release exculpatory evidence. (Can any Florida lawyers here explain for me?)

From from the documents released to date, it appears that OCSO decided not to have the vacuum cleaners from the house tested by the FBI.

So I'm still undecided....


TIA
 
InspectorGadget said:
Hi KaRN

Dare I say it? LOL!!

The hair in the mat was "not a suitable known sample" so there was no expection that it would match. It had been out in the weather, exposed to insects etc so the bacteria & microscopic peculiarities that might be present on the Q.12.1 hair shortly after death would not be the same as any that might have been found on hairs from the mat after it was collected.

Do you have a link to the document that says there is a death band on the Q12.1 hair? It is the primary piece of evidence which led to Casey being charged, so I am surprised that I cannot find a photo of it. The FBI say that it was preserved under a slide. They do not elaborate at all on what the signs of apparent decomposition are, that I can see.

I may be wrong but I think this is because additional details could be inculpatory, so under Sunshine they do not have to release them in discovery. They only have to release exculpatory evidence. (Can any Florida lawyers here explain for me?)

From from the documents released to date, it appears that OCSO decided not to have the vacuum cleaners from the house tested by the FBI.

So I'm still undecided....


TIA
Click to expand...

There may not have been any expectation that the Q12.1 hair (from the trunk) would match the Q59 hair (from the body), but they did, in fact, match, as noted in the links given many many times on this thread.

The FBI report doesn't say "death band." It says characteristics of decomposition at the proximal (root) end. The Q59 hairs also had characteristics of decomp. Caylee's hair from when she was alive did not have characteristics of decomp.

The photo of at least one of the decomp hairs was released, but had a big black square over it, because the media decided it was a photo of a part of a deceased person, which cannot be published pursuant to Florida law.

They have to release both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence in this case. The Sunshine laws and the discovery rules are separate and have separate standards, but this is the short answer. ;)

I agree with you that the contents of the vacuums were not tested, and it appears they are not going to be tested.
 
InspectorGadget said:
Hi KaRN

Dare I say it? LOL!!

The hair in the mat was "not a suitable known sample" so there was no expection that it would match. It had been out in the weather, exposed to insects etc so the bacteria & microscopic peculiarities that might be present on the Q.12.1 hair shortly after death would not be the same as any that might have been found on hairs from the mat after it was collected.

Do you have a link to the document that says there is a death band on the Q12.1 hair? It is the primary piece of evidence which led to Casey being charged, so I am surprised that I cannot find a photo of it. The FBI say that it was preserved under a slide. They do not elaborate at all on what the signs of apparent decomposition are, that I can see.

I may be wrong but I think this is because additional details could be inculpatory, so under Sunshine they do not have to release them in discovery. They only have to release exculpatory evidence. (Can any Florida lawyers here explain for me?)

From from the documents released to date, it appears that OCSO decided not to have the vacuum cleaners from the house tested by the FBI.

So I'm still undecided....


TIA
Click to expand...

Me, I could convict in a heartbeat and not lose a moments sleep with doubt. :innocent: But that's just me LOL!
No I don't have a link to the hair in question sorry. I don't believe the case will be proven on a death band on a single strand of hair anyway. That death band coupled with a missing child and odor of human decomp suggested to LE they were looking for a dead Caylee, not a living one and that deduction proved right.
Do you think this will be a big issue at trial?
 
InspectorGadget said:
Hi KaRN

Dare I say it? LOL!!

The hair in the mat was "not a suitable known sample" so there was no expection that it would match. It had been out in the weather, exposed to insects etc so the bacteria & microscopic peculiarities that might be present on the Q.12.1 hair shortly after death would not be the same as any that might have been found on hairs from the mat after it was collected.

Do you have a link to the document that says there is a death band on the Q12.1 hair? It is the primary piece of evidence which led to Casey being charged, so I am surprised that I cannot find a photo of it. The FBI say that it was preserved under a slide. They do not elaborate at all on what the signs of apparent decomposition are, that I can see.

I may be wrong but I think this is because additional details could be inculpatory, so under Sunshine they do not have to release them in discovery. They only have to release exculpatory evidence. (Can any Florida lawyers here explain for me?)

From from the documents released to date, it appears that OCSO decided not to have the vacuum cleaners from the house tested by the FBI.

So I'm still undecided....


TIA
Click to expand...

InspectorG, how do you know the Q12 hair sample was the primary evidence that led to KC being charged? I believe the Grand Jury indicted KC after hearing the totality of the evidence presented by the SA. I believe GA's statements (car smelled like decomp.) (cadaver dog hit on trunk)also played a big part in the GJ's decision. Is it your opinion,the hair sample is the only viable evidence that supports a deceased body being in the trunk of the car?
 
AZlawyer said:
There may not have been any expectation that the Q12.1 hair (from the trunk) would match the Q59 hair (from the body), but they did, in fact, match, as noted in the links given many many times on this thread.

The FBI report doesn't say "death band." It says characteristics of decomposition at the proximal (root) end. The Q59 hairs also had characteristics of decomp. Caylee's hair from when she was alive did not have characteristics of decomp.

The photo of at least one of the decomp hairs was released, but had a big black square over it, because the media decided it was a photo of a part of a deceased person, which cannot be published pursuant to Florida law.

They have to release both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence in this case. The Sunshine laws and the discovery rules are separate and have separate standards, but this is the short answer. ;)

I agree with you that the contents of the vacuums were not tested, and it appears they are not going to be tested.
Click to expand...

Hello AZlawyer

Thank you for clarifying the discovery rules for me and also explaining that the photo of the hair was redacted by the media - I do remember the judge ruled against the photo's of the remains from being released. It looks as though I am going to have to wait till the trial to finally put an end to my "bad hair days"!

I agree with you that the DNA from the Q12.1 hair matched the hair from the hair mat, which proves it was Caylees hair, but I am not sure if they have the Q12.1 hair root or how strong the "apparant signs of decomposition" are, particularly since it is implied that more conclusive results could have been hoped for.

The result would be more conclusive if more hairs could be provided, so I am puzzled as to why they would not want to test the contents of the vacuum cleaners.

Can you tell to me whether we can expect to see the pages that are missing from the discovery released before the trial begins? Or is there some evidence that we won't see before trial?

TIA
 
magnolia said:
InspectorG, how do you know the Q12 hair sample was the primary evidence that led to KC being charged? I believe the Grand Jury indicted KC after hearing the totality of the evidence presented by the SA. I believe GA's statements (car smelled like decomp.) (cadaver dog hit on trunk)also played a big part in the GJ's decision. Is it your opinion,the hair sample is the only viable evidence that supports a deceased body being in the trunk of the car?
Click to expand...


Hi Magnolia

I think Caylee's DNA in the trunk would convince me that she had been in the trunk. The lack of it leaves me somewhat doubtful.

I should have said "IMO" the hair is the primary or most inculpatory piece of evidence. My reason for thinking so, is because they had the cadaver dog hits and George's statements early on but they didn't charge her with murder until later, I believe after they got the results of the Q12.1 hair back.

Its my opinion that even if there was a deceased body in the trunk of the car, it doesn't prove that Casey killed Caylee.

I want to see more evidence about what Casey was doing between 26th June and 5th July but I am not sure if we will see that in the discovery.
 
InspectorGadget said:
Hello AZlawyer

Thank you for clarifying the discovery rules for me and also explaining that the photo of the hair was redacted by the media - I do remember the judge ruled against the photo's of the remains from being released. It looks as though I am going to have to wait till the trial to finally put an end to my "bad hair days"!

I agree with you that the DNA from the Q12.1 hair matched the hair from the hair mat, which proves it was Caylees hair, but I am not sure if they have the Q12.1 hair root or how strong the "apparant signs of decomposition" are, particularly since it is implied that more conclusive results could have been hoped for.

The result would be more conclusive if more hairs could be provided, so I am puzzled as to why they would not want to test the contents of the vacuum cleaners.

Can you tell to me whether we can expect to see the pages that are missing from the discovery released before the trial begins? Or is there some evidence that we won't see before trial?

TIA
Click to expand...



BBM
Strong enough for the Grand Jury to believe that Caylee was dead.
 
AZlawyer said:
There may not have been any expectation that the Q12.1 hair (from the trunk) would match the Q59 hair (from the body), but they did, in fact, match, as noted in the links given many many times on this thread.

The FBI report doesn't say "death band." It says characteristics of decomposition at the proximal (root) end. The Q59 hairs also had characteristics of decomp. Caylee's hair from when she was alive did not have characteristics of decomp.
The photo of at least one of the decomp hairs was released, but had a big black square over it, because the media decided it was a photo of a part of a deceased person, which cannot be published pursuant to Florida law.

They have to release both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence in this case. The Sunshine laws and the discovery rules are separate and have separate standards, but this is the short answer. ;)

I agree with you that the contents of the vacuums were not tested, and it appears they are not going to be tested.
Click to expand...

Quoting myself--sorry--Valhall pointed out in her blog that the FBI notes http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21252257/detail.html p. 918 clarify that the "apparent decomp" on the Q12 hair was a "dark band."
 
InspectorGadget said:
Hello AZlawyer

Thank you for clarifying the discovery rules for me and also explaining that the photo of the hair was redacted by the media - I do remember the judge ruled against the photo's of the remains from being released. It looks as though I am going to have to wait till the trial to finally put an end to my "bad hair days"!

I agree with you that the DNA from the Q12.1 hair matched the hair from the hair mat, which proves it was Caylees hair, but I am not sure if they have the Q12.1 hair root or how strong the "apparant signs of decomposition" are, particularly since it is implied that more conclusive results could have been hoped for.

The result would be more conclusive if more hairs could be provided, so I am puzzled as to why they would not want to test the contents of the vacuum cleaners.

Can you tell to me whether we can expect to see the pages that are missing from the discovery released before the trial begins? Or is there some evidence that we won't see before trial?

TIA
Click to expand...

responding to bolded statement

Apparently Jeff Ashton thinks that one hair is enough...

vacuumspage22.jpg


page 22 http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/GASTANK-DUCTTAPEEVIDENCE.pdf


(One hair worked in the Scott Peterson case.)
 
AZlawyer said:
There may not have been any expectation that the Q12.1 hair (from the trunk) would match the Q59 hair (from the body), but they did, in fact, match, as noted in the links given many many times on this thread.

The FBI report doesn't say "death band." It says characteristics of decomposition at the proximal (root) end. The Q59 hairs also had characteristics of decomp. Caylee's hair from when she was alive did not have characteristics of decomp.

The photo of at least one of the decomp hairs was released, but had a big black square over it, because the media decided it was a photo of a part of a deceased person, which cannot be published pursuant to Florida law.

They have to release both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence in this case. The Sunshine laws and the discovery rules are separate and have separate standards, but this is the short answer. ;)

I agree with you that the contents of the vacuums were not tested, and it appears they are not going to be tested.
Click to expand...

They match with what? dna? I thought Kc and Caylee could not be excluded. I would hardly call that a match. Characteristics? what characteristics? length? color? what could possibly be left after 3 months in the elements? Just curious. I did see the word microscopically similiar, but do not know what characteristics they are talking about. Could it be Ca hair? I mean that car was in the family for a long time. What about La girlfriends? La owned the car at one time. I do not believe they ever said it was limited to Kc and Caylee. I am sure there are many people possible.

Does anyone knows what happens to dark hair that is bleached? for instance, if someone with dark hair bleaches their hair to make it blonde, does the bleach product evaporate or disenegrate after a couple of years? Leaving no product to examine? Can someone have dark hair, but yet it bleaches in the sun, but still has dark roots? I see a lot of people with light hair and dark roots. I think color would be different than bleach. I would sure like to see some bench notes or details.
 
notthatsmart said:
They match with what? dna? I thought Kc and Caylee could not be excluded. I would hardly call that a match. Characteristics? what characteristics? length? color? what could possibly be left after 3 months in the elements? Just curious. I did see the word microscopically similiar, but do not know what characteristics they are talking about. Could it be Ca hair? I mean that car was in the family for a long time. What about La girlfriends? La owned the car at one time. I do not believe they ever said it was limited to Kc and Caylee. I am sure there are many people possible.

Does anyone knows what happens to dark hair that is bleached? for instance, if someone with dark hair bleaches their hair to make it blonde, does the bleach product evaporate or disenegrate after a couple of years? Leaving no product to examine? Can someone have dark hair, but yet it bleaches in the sun, but still has dark roots? I see a lot of people with light hair and dark roots. I think color would be different than bleach. I would sure like to see some bench notes or details.
Click to expand...
With all due respect NTS, I don't know what the heck you're referring to.
 
notthatsmart said:
They match with what? dna? I thought Kc and Caylee could not be excluded. I would hardly call that a match. Characteristics? what characteristics? length? color? what could possibly be left after 3 months in the elements? Just curious. I did see the word microscopically similiar, but do not know what characteristics they are talking about. Could it be Ca hair? I mean that car was in the family for a long time. What about La girlfriends? La owned the car at one time. I do not believe they ever said it was limited to Kc and Caylee. I am sure there are many people possible.

Does anyone knows what happens to dark hair that is bleached? for instance, if someone with dark hair bleaches their hair to make it blonde, does the bleach product evaporate or disenegrate after a couple of years? Leaving no product to examine? Can someone have dark hair, but yet it bleaches in the sun, but still has dark roots? I see a lot of people with light hair and dark roots. I think color would be different than bleach. I would sure like to see some bench notes or details.
Click to expand...

The notes are at the links I provided in the last few posts. They discuss numerous specific details regarding the hair. The Q12.1 (trunk) and Q59 (skull) hairs match exactly in every detail, and the Q12.1 (trunk) hair fails to match KC's hair in several respects.
 
notthatsmart said:
They match with what? dna? I thought Kc and Caylee could not be excluded. I would hardly call that a match. Characteristics? what characteristics? length? color? what could possibly be left after 3 months in the elements? Just curious. I did see the word microscopically similiar, but do not know what characteristics they are talking about. Could it be Ca hair? I mean that car was in the family for a long time. What about La girlfriends? La owned the car at one time. I do not believe they ever said it was limited to Kc and Caylee. I am sure there are many people possible.

Does anyone knows what happens to dark hair that is bleached? for instance, if someone with dark hair bleaches their hair to make it blonde, does the bleach product evaporate or disenegrate after a couple of years? Leaving no product to examine? Can someone have dark hair, but yet it bleaches in the sun, but still has dark roots? I see a lot of people with light hair and dark roots. I think color would be different than bleach. I would sure like to see some bench notes or details.
Click to expand...

BTW a dark decomp band is nothing remotely like "dark roots" on dyed hair. No possibility whatsoever that any scientist would be confused between those two things.
 
RR0004 said:
With all due respect NTS, I don't know what the heck you're referring to.
Click to expand...

...same stuff as here [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4669581&postcount=93"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Evidence for "Dead body in the Damn Car"#2[/ame] when JBean said to knock it off ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Crimestopper88888
Murder of Patricia Richmond
Replies
3
Views
372
Crimestopper88888
Crimestopper88888
Ponytale
Just a theory about JBR case
4 5 6
Replies
107
Views
7K
CloudedTruth
CloudedTruth
midnight_inthegarden
Who killed Barbara Jean Kemp? And why does no one seem to care?
Replies
12
Views
697
Twistinginthewind
Twistinginthewind
U
IN IN - Amanda Martin, 40, Endangered, friend says she was gone when he ret from store, didn't take phone, ID or false teeth, Scott Co, 13 Sep 2024
Replies
15
Views
2K
OroSleuthr
O
D
CA Doug Costello, TGIFridays murder, San Mateo, 21 Jan 2008
Replies
0
Views
279
dougdeservesjustice
D

Members online

... and 136 more.
Total: 787 (members: 137, guests: 650)

Online statistics

Members online
137
Guests online
650
Total visitors
787
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
626,982
Messages
18,536,160
Members
241,161
Latest member
kyearsley420
Back
Top