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 Collier 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.
I would like to first address the obfuscating statements made by the letter writer concerning “yellow-banding”. In no place of any forensic report to date has yellow-banding been ascribed to the Q12.1 hair taken from Casey’s trunk, so the entire statement is to create confusion of the forensic findings. In the October 9, 2009 release of forensic testing from the TEU (Trace Evidence Unit) of the FBI lab, on page 918 at the bottom of the page we have:
apparent decomp-dark band, no tissue.
Note there is no mention of “yellow-banding”. It clearly states “dark band”.
At the top of page 594 in the report concerning the hair mass taken from the remains the following statement is made:
The previously reported Caucasian head hair exhibiting characteristics of apparent decomposition at the proximal end (specimen Q12.1, FBI Laboratory report dated August 1, 2008, FBI Laboratory Number 080730003 TO LF) exhibits the same microscopic characteristics as the Caucasian head hairs found in specimen Q59.
I am wondering if the letter writer is also arguing that the hairs from the remains (which we know were dead for at least 3 to 6 months due to entomology and plant growth data) ALSO couldn’t have had dark-bands at the proximal ends? Clearly (according to my calendar – and that’s even if February is thrown in) 3 months equates to 90 days! 4 months blows the whole argument out of the water.
So what are some of these “same microscopic characteristics found both in the trunk hair and the hair mass with the remains? Page 621 of this same pdf tells us
…numerous with apparent decomp roots (dark band just above the proximal end with no tissue)…
So the unmerited statements concerning “yellow-banding” made by the letter writer are rejected as extraneous to the finding, and (in the words of Cindy Anthony) “not relevant” to the topic at hand.
Since the letter writer clearly based ALL statements quoted above on this single paper, let’s take the writer’s DEFINITIVE statements (there is no wiggle room in the letter writer’s statements) and compare them back to this single reference in an effort to discern whether they have any substance.
Okay, the “researcher” makes the declaration that it is IMPOSSIBLE there could be a death hair with dark-banding at the proximal end because the hair was recovered only 30 days after Caylee was missing and IT TAKES A MINIMUM of 90 days…and THIS IS A PROVEN FACT AND NOT DEBATABLE!
The problem is the very source the letter writer uses as their SOLE source of information PROVES (BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT) that dark-bands can appear in proximal end morphology BEFORE A PMI OF 90 DAYS! What we are about to PROVE is that the letter writer either never bothered reading Collier’s entire paper, OR did not understand what they were reading.
First we should be clear on what Collier’s thesis statement is: That hairs taken from decedents can be used to give an approximation of PMI. The rest of the work presented in this paper is to establish the statement as accurate. The next very important point that should be made is that Collier shows the statement to be true based on statistics. And we will revisit this in a moment, because it is a VERY important point in showing that the entire argument presented by the letter writer is FALSE.
On page 25 of Collier’s paper Collier states:
“null hypothesis that the proximal end morphology of the hair from the same individual changes independently of one another is rejected”.
This statement (I am absolutely not stating any disrespect to Collier because from a statistical standpoint it is an accepted conclusion) is a classic example of what many in the scientific community will call “lying with statistics”. Why do I say this? Because in the same paragraph in which Collier declares the null hypothesis rejected it is stated
“One of the hairs, 4 percent, has category four proximal end morphology. Two of the hairs, 8 percent, have category five proximal end morphology.“
That’s 12 percent of the hairs collected from this decedent showing advanced signs of proximal end morphology that would include dark-banding at the root. (As can be seen in Table 2.1 of Collier’s paper on page 16 and included below.)
To put it in layman’s terms, Collier is stating that statistically speaking the MAJORITY of hairs from the same decedent will have the same proximal end morphology. What the letter writer has done (and I’m actually giving the writer more credit than is proven to be due) is rejected the existence of these hairs showing advanced proximal end morphology. While there is nothing wrong with what Collier has stated for the purpose of the conclusions (i.e. the conclusion being to take at least 25 hairs from a decedent and using statistics establish the predominant characteristics of the hairs collected (i.e. those characteristics that appear in the largest number of hairs tested) and use them for the purpose of establishing PMI), if one takes the statistical conclusion and attempts to use it for the purpose of stating that hairs OTHER than the majority could NOT be of the same PMI (as the writer of the letter is trying to do) it would be UNEQUIVOCALLY WRONG because Collier’s data PROVES there can be hairs from a decedent that are more advanced than the majority!
It should be pointed out that in Table 3.1 of Collier’s paper, on page 28, Case A has a PMI of 44 days – which completely decimates the letter writer’s contention that “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 deathing ring to form.” THAT IS ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT! In gaming terms…L2read! (learn to read)
Because Collier only gives the actual number of hairs showing advanced proximal end morphology for the one case A, we are left not knowing how many hairs in the other cases (4 having PMI’s less than 30 days) showed dark-banding. And because the data presented in Table 3.2 on page 29 of Collier’s paper is “condensed categorical assignments” (i.e. categorized due to the characteristics of the majority of hairs taken from the decedent in each case), we cannot discern any more specificity on whether or not EVERY case had a few hairs that showed extensively advanced proximal end morphology characteristics, including dark bands.
What the letter writer may have just accomplished is that Jamie Collier, along with ALL the actual data collected for the thesis statement, may end up on the witness stand. Because I’m willing to bet another $100 – there were advanced proximal end morphologies in other “short PMI” cases studied by Collier.
In conclusion, I found the ludicrous, unsubstantiated, and unscientific statements made by this “researcher” concerning the death hair about as laughable as the whole O-Town Finest and Casey’s “virgina” story.
Valhall.
References:
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/22246396/detail.html
http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-01242005-145140/unrestricted/Collier_thesis.pdf
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21252257/detail.html
Related posts:
- Caylee Anthony case: Hair today, gone tomorrow
- Caylee Anthony case: Heart, Hair, Hounds…in
- Caylee Anthony case: Linda Drane Burdick argues…death really isn’t all that different
- Today’s Hearing: Death or Cake
- Caylee Anthony case: Ashton responds in a hairy argument
Click here to join the discussion
