The “Letter-Writer’s” claims about the Death Hair - Valhall

The “Letter-Writer’s” claims about the Death Hair

Posted on January 17th, 2010 by by Valhall

Excerpt:

This article is in response to a portion of the recently released letter written to Judge Strickland by a self-ascribed “researcher and scientist”. In particular, we will address the errant statements made in this letter concerning the forensics associated with the “dark-band” found on hair Q12.1 found in Casey’s trunk. The “death hair”.

On the first page of the letter the writer states:

One of the most compelling pieces of evidence in this case is invalid
involving the single hair claimed to belong to a deceased Caylee
Anthony. I can assure you there is NO WAY possible that there
was any DEATH HAIR belonging to Caylee anthony with a black
post-mortem ring found in Casey Anthony’s vehicle. That is
impossible because Caylee had only been missing 30 days when the
vehicle was inspected, and it takes a minimum of 90 days of a hair
remaining in the bacterial environment of the scalp of a cadaver for a
black death ring to form. This is a proven fact and not debatable
(see link below or verify with experts and view the physical evidence),
yet the prosecution has perpetuated the myth that such a hair exists
taken from her car and they claim it is proof of Caylee’s deceased body
being in the car.

Other types of decomposition can occur naturally in hairs of living
or dead persons, including the formation of yellow rings,
but there is no proof a person is dead unless that post-mortem black
ring exists. Also, if someone deceased were in the car, more than one
hair likely would be found, as well as significant DNA remains, and
there have been none in the trunk or interior of the car according to
all the forensic reports I have examined.

The following is just one example of a recent thesis paper demonstrating
in all hair samples studied the post-mortem interval (PMI) where black death
banding occurs is greater than 90 days:
http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-01242005-145140/unrestricted/Collier_thesis.pdf
[Bolded emphasis added by Valhall.]

The writer then spins off on a very “Anthony-esque” type of conspiracy rant about how this claim of a death hair and other allegedly nefarious deeds committed by investigators “makes any of their claims suspect.”

Let us look at the bolded statements made by the letter writer to see if I should have even wasted any time considering them.

First and foremost it should be pointed out that while the writer did the smart thing and referred to Collier’s paper as “just one example”, I’m ready to lay $100 on the table that it is the only example the letter writer read…or should I say MISREAD. Further to that, the insinuation that this “researcher and scientist” has poured over literature to come to their conclusions is laughable since the only reference given is the one paper, and it can be found on just about every discussion board and blog that has delved into the issue of the death hair from Casey’s trunk. It apparently also doesn’t bother this “researcher” that the single reference given is that of a Masters student’s thesis, but that is ALMOST beside the point.


Read more: http://www.thehinkymeter.com/?p=1427

I think I would like to marry Valhall someday.