Limaes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,389
- Reaction score
- 1,228
A snippet of Wiegert's testimony at BD's trial regarding hair.
..........................................
Q What stopped you from asking either the Wisconsin State Crime Lab or another lab from doing a hair comparison?
A Well, if you'd like me, I'll explain the whole thing about hair, if that's what you'd like.
Q I don't want to know your spin on the value of doing the comparisons. I just want to know why you didn't ask somebody to do it?
ATTORNEY FALLON: Well, then, he's then he's now entitled to answer that question.
THE COURT: I think he is, Counsel. I think -- I think -- You -- you may characterize it, editorially, as a spin, but you've asked him, so go ahead and answer it.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
(By Attorney Edelstein) Why didn't you do it?
A Thank you. Hair evidence -- First of all, we took a carpet cleaner, which you've all seen. There's a vacuum cleaner that was taken as well. Okay? There is probably thousands and thousands and thousands of hairs both in there and in the vacuum cleaner. Number one. Number two, we had to prioritize things on this case. It was a huge case. One of the biggest submissions of evidence ever done to the Wisconsin State Crime Lab. Had we had somebody look through every piece of hair that we found, they'd still be doing it today, and probably still be doing it two years from now. The Crime Lab is -- has only so many people, which you all know, which you've all seen. We took the evidence that we thought best would solve this crime and bring the murderer of Teresa Halbach to justice, and that's what we did.
Could we have spent two, three, four years going through every hair? Absolutely. Is it feasible? It's not feasible. And if he's going to talk to me about DNA, which he's probably going to, on hair, almost impossible unless you have a root. He never cut any of the -- He never pulled the hair out. He said he cut it. Thus, there's no root there. So there's a lot of reasons we didn't do hair analysis. Not to mention the Crime Lab does very limited hair analysis anymore to begin with. DNA? Absolutely, if you have the root. Even if you have the root of that hair, and it went through that cleaner, you have to have skin follicles on that root. The odds of having skin follicles on the root of that hair when it goes through a cleaner like that are probably slim to none. Could we have done it in the next couple years? Certainly. That's the reason.
........................................
Sooo, since it was a big job to examine every hair, why not just grab a hair from her hairbrush or something and just drop it somewhere they can "find" it? The fact that they could have but did not do something that was very simple just makes the planting theory crazier.
JMO
..........................................
Q What stopped you from asking either the Wisconsin State Crime Lab or another lab from doing a hair comparison?
A Well, if you'd like me, I'll explain the whole thing about hair, if that's what you'd like.
Q I don't want to know your spin on the value of doing the comparisons. I just want to know why you didn't ask somebody to do it?
ATTORNEY FALLON: Well, then, he's then he's now entitled to answer that question.
THE COURT: I think he is, Counsel. I think -- I think -- You -- you may characterize it, editorially, as a spin, but you've asked him, so go ahead and answer it.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
(By Attorney Edelstein) Why didn't you do it?
A Thank you. Hair evidence -- First of all, we took a carpet cleaner, which you've all seen. There's a vacuum cleaner that was taken as well. Okay? There is probably thousands and thousands and thousands of hairs both in there and in the vacuum cleaner. Number one. Number two, we had to prioritize things on this case. It was a huge case. One of the biggest submissions of evidence ever done to the Wisconsin State Crime Lab. Had we had somebody look through every piece of hair that we found, they'd still be doing it today, and probably still be doing it two years from now. The Crime Lab is -- has only so many people, which you all know, which you've all seen. We took the evidence that we thought best would solve this crime and bring the murderer of Teresa Halbach to justice, and that's what we did.
Could we have spent two, three, four years going through every hair? Absolutely. Is it feasible? It's not feasible. And if he's going to talk to me about DNA, which he's probably going to, on hair, almost impossible unless you have a root. He never cut any of the -- He never pulled the hair out. He said he cut it. Thus, there's no root there. So there's a lot of reasons we didn't do hair analysis. Not to mention the Crime Lab does very limited hair analysis anymore to begin with. DNA? Absolutely, if you have the root. Even if you have the root of that hair, and it went through that cleaner, you have to have skin follicles on that root. The odds of having skin follicles on the root of that hair when it goes through a cleaner like that are probably slim to none. Could we have done it in the next couple years? Certainly. That's the reason.
........................................
Sooo, since it was a big job to examine every hair, why not just grab a hair from her hairbrush or something and just drop it somewhere they can "find" it? The fact that they could have but did not do something that was very simple just makes the planting theory crazier.
JMO