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

[Tulessa]

Results of examination: (as stated in the docs)
A Caucasian head hair found in specimen Q12 exhibits characteristics of apparent decomposition at the proximal root end. The hair is microscopically similar to the Caucasian head hair recovered from the Q15 hairbrush, however a more meaningful conclusion cannot be reached as this is not a suitable known hair sample. The proximal (root) portion of the hair, which exhibit’s the apparent decomposition has been preserved on a glass microscope slide. The remainder of the hair Q12.1, has been submitted for mitochondrial DNA analysis.

This is what we are all going in circles over. Most are satisfied that the above should be interpreted as proof that Caylee’s remains were at one time in the trunk. Most are willing to accept that characteristics of apparent deomposition at the proximal root end, on a hair that is not a suitable known hair sample is acceptable as proof that Caylee’s remains were in the trunk at one time. Nothing wrong with this opinion.
A few question whether or not a hair that, is not a suitable known hair sample, that displays apparent decomposition at the proximal root end, meets the burden of proof required in a court of law. They would like a better understanding of how something that is not suitable can be used to determine anything of value. They would also like a better understanding of what apparent decomposition means in layman terms, and what is meant by a more meaningful conclusion cannot be reached. Nothing wrong with this opinion.

This all seems pretty simple to me, at trial if the SA and the experts successfully convince the jury that the results of the examination are correct, and have removed all reasonable doubt from the minds of the jurors regarding this single hair, then this single hair will be a great help to the states overall case. If the defense successfully raises reasonable doubt to this one hair, it will do damage to the states overall case.

I think we can all agree to disagree, on the results of examination above, most believe the single hair is strong evidence for the prosecution and will favor the prosecutions position, a few have some questions whether or not that will be the case. We have examined this piece repeatedly, and both sides are standing firm in their opinions.

For me personally, this one single hair is only one area where I have questions. I have many questions about a small percentage of the evidence that I am not sure of as being entirely correct. I question the death band, the Adipocere, the smell of death, officer Cain’s termination, RK’s inconsistent statements in police interviews, when Caylee’s remains were placed in the woods, how Caylee actually died, 2.6 days in the trunk, ugly coping, is there a real ZFG, did KC make her own chloroform and use it on Caylee, where Caylee died, why were only traces of decomp found in the trunk instead of substantial amounts of decomp, how reliable is the analysis of a single hair showing characteristics of apparent decomp, when Caylee died, were CA’s arguments with KC really terrible enough to cause KC to murder Caylee in a fit of rage, or to premeditate the cold blooded murder of Caylee, why Caylee died, how accurate are cadaver dog hits, did LE investigate everyone thoroughly that needed to be investigated thoroughly, why were no matching fibers found between the remains site and the trunk, was the decomp in the trunk from a decomposition event that was not of human origin, how could only one diptera leg be found, was the white trash bag evidence compromised while sitting in a dumpster for 30 hours, was Dr. Lee mistaken about what he said was food in the white trash bag on national tv, was the defense being truthful when they stated somebody other than KC is responsible, when they said those were not coffin flies, why was DC’s depo sealed, why did LE wait 15 months to attempt to get fingerprints from the trash in the white garbage bag, and so on and so on and so on. These are just some of the questions I still have on my mind, and I have not been able to satisfactorily answer from the docs we know of.. Future doc dumps may answer some of my questions, and the trial itself will answer all of these questions, one way or the other. I have a whole lot of questions I would like to have satisfactorily answered, before I can jump onto the DP bandwagon. I have found within the threads on this site many satisfactory answers to some of my questions, I have also found more questions as well. That is why I admire this site and its members.

These questions are the result of much research, and reading in many threads on this site. In an unrelated case, Dr. Haskell and another highly regarded expert were both given the same details about a case. Based on the same details, these two experts came up with completely different results. In court, Dr. Haskell won the argument. Does this mean the other highly regarded expert did not read all the details, or was illogical. NO, it just means he interpreted the information differently than Dr. Haskell and Dr. H was more convincing in a court of law. My point is that just because someone may have an opinion that differs from the majority, does not mean that person has not researched much of, if not, all the same information in the documents as everyone else, they simply have come up with a different opinion, much like the highly regarded expert whose opinion differed greatly from Dr. Haskell’s. As always, my post in its entirety is my opinion only.

Wonderful post TDA.

 

[JBean]

It is not unusual for data to be interpreted differently and challenged to the degree we are able to intelligently argue it.

We have taken this to the point where most interested have put forth their understanding and interpretation of the information supplied and it is now up to true experts to argue the results and challenge the expert findings and what they mean.

Please keep it constructive.

If something is nonsensical,ignore it and don't go around in circles.

If you don't want to keep debating it, then don't. Posting is 100% voluntary.

If you have no idea about facts behind your posts,or if you posts something blatantly contradictory to the known facts, then don't be surprised when posters call you on it.

Thanks

ETA: Where this post lands on the thread is no reflection on immediately surrounding posts.

 

[Marina2]

An informative, in-depth article on the reliability and admissibility of forensic hair comparison evidence.

The Science of Forensic Hair Comparisons and the Admissibility of Hair Comparison Evidence: Frye and Daubert Considered

http://www.modernmicroscopy.com/main.asp?article=36&searchkeys=

 

[Marina2]

It is not unusual for data to be interpreted differently and challenged to the degree we are able to intelligently argue it.

We have taken this to the point where most interested have put forth their understanding and interpretation of the information supplied and it is now up to true experts to argue the results and challenge the expert findings and what they mean.

Respectfully snipped and BBM.

From the article I linked above.

"The finding of the same microscopic characteristics in the questioned hair as in the known sample is objective and demonstrable to the trier of fact; the nature and breadth of the inferences adduced can be explained easily by the qualified expert."

http://www.modernmicroscopy.com/main.asp?article=36&page=9 (p.9)

You are so right JBean. We've argued this as best we can, both sides of the issue. It's now up to the experts to do the convincing.

 

[TinaD]

Results of examination: (as stated in the docs)
A Caucasian head hair found in specimen Q12 exhibits characteristics of apparent decomposition at the proximal root end. The hair is microscopically similar to the Caucasian head hair recovered from the Q15 hairbrush, however a more meaningful conclusion cannot be reached as this is not a suitable known hair sample. The proximal (root) portion of the hair, which exhibit’s the apparent decomposition has been preserved on a glass microscope slide. The remainder of the hair Q12.1, has been submitted for mitochondrial DNA analysis.

I haven't read this whole thread, but if the above is a direct quote, then I think the paragraph is being misinterpreted. In regard to the sentence:

The hair is microscopically similar to the Caucasian head hair recovered from the Q15 hairbrush, however a more meaningful conclusion cannot be reached as this is not a suitable known hair sample.

the rules of English grammar would indicate that "this" referred to in the last prase is actually referring to the last "noun" used in the sentence - ie the "Caucasian head hair recovered from the Q15 hairbrush". Unless other parts of the report indicate differently, I believe this paragraph is stating that the hair brush hair is not a suitable known hair sample - and as we know that at least both Caylee and KC used the brush, that is probably a fair statement.

MOO

 

[Marina2]

I haven't read this whole thread, but if the above is a direct quote, then I think the paragraph is being misinterpreted. In regard to the sentence:

The hair is microscopically similar to the Caucasian head hair recovered from the Q15 hairbrush, however a more meaningful conclusion cannot be reached as this is not a suitable known hair sample.

the rules of English grammar would indicate that "this" referred to in the last prase is actually referring to the last "noun" used in the sentence - ie the "Caucasian head hair recovered from the Q15 hairbrush". Unless other parts of the report indicate differently, I believe this paragraph is stating that the hair brush hair is not a suitable known hair sample - and as we know that at least both Caylee and KC used the brush, that is probably a fair statement.

MOO

I agree Tina and made this same point on another thread. As you said, the rules of grammar indicate what the statement refers to. It's still being misinterpreted though.

The Q12 hair is a "questioned" hair. The Q59 hair is a "known" hair whether it's unsuitable or not. The hair that is "known" to have come from Caylee is microscopically similar to the "questioned" hair and a positive association has been made. The mtDNA match strengthens this association.

 

[RR0004]

Looks like it. BTW, the Q59 hair (found on the skull) was also about 9 inches long.

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/GASTANK-DUCTTAPEEVIDENCE.pdf p. 7

On page 7 it says Q12.1 = Q 59. Then the next few pages are blackened out. Was this always that way?

 

[AZlawyer]

On page 7 it says Q12.1 = Q 59. Then the next few pages are blackened out. Was this always that way?

Yes. IIRC, those are the photos of the Q59 hair. There are also blacked-out photos of the Q12.1 hair in the documents. The media determined that these photos were covered by the judge's order not to release photographs of the remains.

 

[The World According]

Scott Peterson was convicted on a lot less! Don't worry.

 

[nums24]

Anthony Defense Gets OK To Test Coffin Flies, Caylee's Hair
Items To Be Tested By Defense Experts

http://www.wesh.com/r/25368899/detail.html

 

[Reagan]

Yes. IIRC, those are the photos of the Q59 hair. There are also blacked-out photos of the Q12.1 hair in the documents. The media determined that these photos were covered by the judge's order not to release photographs of the remains.

Thanks AZ.
I was just wondering recently why we have never been able to see the photo of the "death band" hair. Makes sense, being that it's from a deceased person *smacks forehead*.

 

[MADJGNLAW]

Mod's plz move as needed. I didn't want this to get lost, I hope the media will write an article regarding this very very important testimony.
One of our WS members was kind enough to post this during this AM hearing. I will post the audio/videos in the media links this evening so that we can hear the testimony.
Take a close listen to the morning portion of today's testimony from Karen Lowe on June 4.
The hair in the trunk had a death band, and the hair taken from the duct tape did not!!!!!! The way it sounds, The tape was placed on a live Caylee!!

"Snip" Originally Posted by USARDOG Wow, I missed it before but the hair in the trunk had a death band, and the hair taken from the duct tape did not, ergo... The tape was placed on a live Caylee!! This also goes to prove murder, not accident!!! There is no way a little girl falls in the pool so you take her out when she is alive and put duct tape over her mouth and nose to make her feel better... This is also likely the instrument of death. Ouch, no wonder they don't want this witness to testify!!

 

[nursebeeme]

bumping up

 

[eaglemom]

From mombomb: testimony from Karen Lowe-

Direct exam of FBI analyst Karen Lowe by JA - continued

Top of poster - hair in 2 growth stages. Andigen active growth phase. Top of poster shows two hairs - one forceably removed and one naturally shed.

Only hairs showing decomp are in the Andigen phase where karatin is still soft.

Determination of artifacts of characteristics is visual. Some of the articles mention location of banding, but it is not a standard.

Her exam of hair is looked at in 3 dimensions. She can increase magnification and focus to see characteristics better.

Training to recognize post mort root banding - in 13 years of case work she has worked over 2000 cases, not all decomp. Doesn't want to guess how many cases.

She has frequently seen post mort banding in the cases she has worked.

She found post mortim banding in this case.

She was shown Exhibit 87. She examined this in this case. She also examined Exhibit 89, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100.

She was also given samples from known individuals in this case. State's Exhibit 103, 104, (sample from CA), (sample from GA). She was also given a hairbrush and comb. She found sample on the brush - Exhibit 105.

Her exam found human hairs. In the unknown exhibits, she found at least 11 hairs. One hair had characteristics of decomposition. It was Q-12. Exhibit 99.

This hair was a caucasion head hair with a post mortim root band. She examined with a stereo and comparison microscope, looking at it in 3 dimensions. Hair was light to medium brown, 9 inches long. None of the hairs had post mortim changes. She did not compare the hairs to each other.

Q-12 hair was dissimilar to ICA. It was similar to hair in the hairbrush from Caylee, but there was only one hair in the brush. Not compared to CA's hair.

It is her opinion that the hair in Exhibit 99 has a darkened band at the root portion of the hair which is consistent with apparent decomposition.

A portion of the hair with sent for midocondrial analysis. She retained the darkened root band and preserved it on a slide.

Exhibit 106 is the hair sample portion sent for midocondrial analysis.

JA - no further questions.

 

[MaryAnn]

JB doesn't make sense. If he's saying that George and ICA disposed of caylee after she drowned, wouldn't there be a death band hair in the trunk??? He's not denying she died, but of course hasn't explained any of it. But since GA is supposedly trying to pin it on George I would think he would run with this one in a positive way..

 

[twall]

Mod's plz move as needed. I didn't want this to get lost, I hope the media will write an article regarding this very very important testimony.
One of our WS members was kind enough to post this during this AM hearing. I will post the audio/videos in the media links this evening so that we can hear the testimony.
Take a close listen to the morning portion of today's testimony from Karen Lowe on June 4.
The hair in the trunk had a death band, and the hair taken from the duct tape did not!!!!!! The way it sounds, The tape was placed on a live Caylee!!

I am not saying the above is not true but I want to question how can this be determined from Saturday's testimony of Karen Lowe?
The reports discussed during Saturday's testimony were from before Caylee's remains were found. IIRC the last report JB questioned the witness about was from October 2008.
Also, the only hairs discussed today were from the car and the trash bag found in it, not from Caylee's remains.

 

[twall]

JB doesn't make sense. If he's saying that George and ICA disposed of caylee after she drowned, wouldn't there be a death band hair in the trunk??? He's not denying she died, but of course hasn't explained any of it. But since GA is supposedly trying to pin it on George I would think he would run with this one in a positive way..

JB is trying to prove Caylee was never in the trunk. I think he did a good job of getting the point across as the death band on the hair found in the trunk is "consistent with" or "similar to" bands found on hairs of deceased people done in studies. The witness could not say for a fact death is what caused the hair to look that way, only that it is a possibility.

Also, even though the hair with the band on it was "similar to" or "consistent with" a hair found from Caylee's brush it can not be scientifically proven it belonged to her since there was no tissue present to test for nuclear DNA, another point for the DT.

 

[magnolia]

JB is trying to prove Caylee was never in the trunk. I think he did a good job of getting the point across as the death band on the hair found in the trunk is "consistent with" or "similar to" bands found on hairs of deceased people done in studies. The witness could not say for a fact death is what caused the hair to look that way, only that it is a possibility.

Also, even though the hair with the band on it was "similar to" or "consistent with" a hair found from Caylee's brush it can not be scientifically proven it belonged to her since there was no tissue present to test for nuclear DNA, another point for the DT.

In science, there is no such thing as 100% certainty.