08-05-2008, 10:37 PM #1
Larry King 8/5 Cindy's Question
Cindy did a call in on the show and wanted to talk to Dr. Larry Kobilinsky to ask him a forensic question. Cindy wanted to know how CSI could tell the difference between hair that is from a live body or that of a deceased person.
Post Larry King Show Comments on this thread and maybe someone can check the CNN Web site for a transcript a bit later.
Just trying to Lead by Example.
08-05-2008, 10:41 PM #2
Cindy and George must have no money at all. Those two need to shut up and get a spokesperson. Can you imagine calling in to a talk show to get information like that? I was in shock! These people really have no clue.
08-05-2008, 11:13 PM #3
Stacey Honowitz, whose lip-glossed mouth looks like a a flopping fish, tried to tell Cindy the answer to her question was...
Honowitz, who usually has all the answers finally had to admit she didn't know.
Mark Geragos was jumping up and down in his seat and told Cindy forensics such as hair and blood and Dna were circumstantial evidence.
08-05-2008, 11:39 PM #4
I just scheduled to tape Larry King because I have to hear this phone call.
Gee , Cindy should have called me because I heard it discussed one night on NG. One forensic scientist said that a dark ring would be around the hair shaft once it fell off a person who died.:Banane59: Pekingese "Best Of Show" 2012
08-05-2008, 11:41 PM #5
08-05-2008, 11:46 PM #6
I can't remember which show or which day with this crazy case, but I did hear an expert say that there is a definitive difference when analyzing hair from a live person compared to that from a deceased person.
08-05-2008, 11:54 PM #7
08-06-2008, 07:17 AM #8
Up until this point I have been going back and forth as to whether or not Cindy was involved, or at least knew if Caylee was alive or not. After hearing her ask this question I am convinced she def. knows that Caylee is dead and probably was involved. Once she was told that it is circumstantial evidence and they probably can't tell whether or not the hair fell off a dead or alive body she almost sounded relieved. Am I the only one who thought this? It was a very strange thing for her to call about, especially when you can get online and find out an answer like that in 5 mins.
08-06-2008, 07:25 AM #9
08-06-2008, 07:28 AM #10
I think Cindy is doing some "odd" things to keep herself in the spotlight, she wanted the world to hear her ask that questions, it's a game
08-06-2008, 08:03 AM #11
And so here we go again or maybe I follow too many cases. Geragos kept saying that in the media but it was made known that circumstantial evidence holds the same weight as direct evidence. Most evidence is circumstantial, direct is eye witness or confession. All forensics are circumstantial.
08-06-2008, 09:16 AM #12
Which sounds to me like Cindy thinks or has been told by LE that the hair is Caylees. I think Cindy was making a preliminary strike against this damaging evidence.
Michael Baden has been interviewed on Fox News Network several times and says hair from a deceased person is different than hair from a living person. Geragas called it junk science.
I think Caylee's hair next to dirt combined with biological material is powerful evidence. I think the reason LE got Caylee's DNA over the weekend is because investigators have gotten enough back from the lab to know there was a body. They needed Caylee's exemplar.
08-06-2008, 09:47 AM #13Registered User
- Join Date
- May 2005
Cindy seems to have the attitude she & her family are much smarter then the OPD & the FBI. To date they seem to be under the impression that if they say it its true.
She went as far to say in regards to the hair found in the trunk that they'd owned the car for 7 or 8 yrs & the families DNA would be all over in the car. I think she was askingthe question so they can get a story fabricated to fit the timeline.....such as: Grandpa was cleaning the car out & Caylee wanted to sit in the trunk & watch him. Being he is such a loving Gpa he gave in.
Then for Geragos to call hair DNA junk science showed his mentality. I think MG would gladly represent Casey if he was asked.
08-06-2008, 04:34 PM #14Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
<<Personally, I don't think Geragos should get too excited about circumstantial evidence. He defended a man who is sitting on death row because of circumstancial evidence>>
Bravo! Took the words right out of my mouth. Geragos .... what a joke.
08-06-2008, 04:42 PM #15
Jury instructions include instructions on circumstantial evidence; a jury can convict on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
By dragonfly707 in forum JonBenet RamseyReplies: 9Last Post: 08-21-2006, 10:32 AM