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.

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.

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.

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.

delaney said:

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.

Click to expand...

, just love your report on the pros!

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.

Liz said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think it was NG's show the other day!

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.

delaney said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

Ginny said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

ShouldBWorking said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

<<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.

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

KING: With us on the phone is the grandmother, Cindy Anthony. The obvious question, Cindy, everyone asks, why won't your daughter talk?

CINDY ANTHONY, GRANDMOTHER OF CAYLEE ANTHONY: Well, Casey's maintained that she's protecting Caylee, and she's also protecting the family from physical harm. We believe that 100 percent. The reason I called in, I spoke to Nancy, is I had a question for Doctor Kobilinsky. He made a comment -- because I'm kind of intrigued when asking the authorities about what constitutes decomposition, things like that. He talked about check and see if the hair samples postmortem. I just want to know how can you determine a hair that's fallen off of someone's head, is it postmortem or is it just a hair that's fallen off on a normal thing, maybe shedded on clothes, and will sit there and decompose?

KING: Good question. Dr. Kobilinsky has left, but Stacy Honowitz might be able to answer it. Is there a difference?

HONOWITZ: Well, you know, hair transfers all the time, but I guess the forensics person would really be able to tell you whether or not there is a difference. Obviously, if he made that distinction early on, there is an ability for them to analyze it. He would not have said it if it wasn't the truth. They're able to make a distinction as to whether or not it's a transfer or --

GERAGOS: I'll tell you, my experience with the hairs and with this postmortem, there's a lot of courts that believe that's junk science. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in that. ANTHONY: Thank you. That's kind of what I'm wondering. We were also told that, you know, sweat cells, old blood, urine, those can also be used for DNA purposes. But my question is, how long, you know, is that something, because I know that car has had lots of hairs from all of our family. That's been a family car for at least seven or eight years.

KING: Hold it, Cindy, he's going to answer you.

GERAGOS: Cindy, actually the one thing they can do with hair with some degree of certainty is what's called mitochondrial DNA, which goes through the maternal line. They can take a sample of your hair and they could then --

ANTHONY: That just proves that its Caylee's hair, or Casey's hair or my hair or my son's hair, whoever's hair. But does that prove that that hair follicle fell off an article of clothing that was placed in the trunk, or did that fall off of a body that was placed in the trunk?

GERAGOS: They're never going to be able to prove, even if they find a hair that's in there.

ANTHONY: Then that's circumstantial evidence.

GERAGOS: That's all it is.

KING: Cindy, do you have any doubt? Are you convinced your granddaughter is alive?

ANTHONY: I'm absolutely 100 percent convinced she's alive or at least was alive when Casey gave her to the person she gave her to.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/05/lkl.01.html

omg - she must be totally whacked out crazy to call in and ask that question.

Unbelievable.

Hi everyone!
I'm a newbie here, can't get enough of this case!

I too thought that was a very strange question that Cindy would call in and ask on national television!Very suspicious, imo! I don't trust her either!


So glad I found this site!

Too bad Dr. K had left. He was on another news show previous to LKL explaining exactly how they can tell if a hair with root is from a live person or a dead person.

Thanks for following up and providing the transcript.