677 users online (86 members and 591 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 99
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    AZ/IL
    Posts
    263

    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.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    AZ/IL
    Posts
    263

    Need Attorneys

    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    AZ/IL
    Posts
    263

    Cindy

    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16,427
    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16,427
    Quote Originally Posted by delaney View Post
    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.
    , just love your report on the pros!

  6. #6
    Liz's Avatar
    Liz is offline I am not a chemist and this is not my 1st rodeo
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    25,446
    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16,427
    Quote Originally Posted by Liz View Post
    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.
    I think it was NG's show the other day!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    80
    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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Posts
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by delaney View Post

    Mark Geragos was jumping up and down in his seat and told Cindy forensics such as hair and blood and Dna were circumstantial evidence.
    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,067
    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


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    5,593
    Quote Originally Posted by Ginny View Post
    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.

    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.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by ShouldBWorking View Post
    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
    Cindy wanted the world to hear that Caylee's hair could have been transferred from a sweater (or any article of clothing) that had been placed in the trunk.

    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.

    IMO

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,983
    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.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    667
    <<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.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,284

    Circumstantial Evidence

    Jury instructions include instructions on circumstantial evidence; a jury can convict on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Larry King 9/17/09
    By amysmom in forum Annie Le
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 09-18-2009, 07:16 AM
  2. Larry King 4/25
    By goofeegyrl in forum Sandra Cantu
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-04-2009, 01:12 PM