[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 6/19/03
Time: 11:25:18 PM
Remote Name: 68.73.193.246
Miss Marple,
The hair evidence gets messier every time you look at it.
Depending on when (the trial date) and where (the witness) you look for information about the limb hair you got a different answer. I found nothing about the limb hairs IN the Rockingham glove prior to Susan’s Brockbank’s testimony of June 28.
MS. CLARK: Well, did you--did you detect any black limb hair in the debris and hair that you recovered from the Rockingham glove?
MS. BROCKBANK: No. I did not describe anything like that.
MS. CLARK: And when I say "Limb hair," tell us what that means.
MS. BROCKBANK: It means a hair from a limb like an arm or a leg as opposed to a head hair or a pubic hair or other body hair.
MS. CLARK: Okay. When you examined the hairs recovered from the interior of the Rockingham glove in the company of Mr. Deedrick, did he point out anything with respect to the--did he point out any limb hair to you recovered from the interior of the Rockingham glove?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, he did.
MS. CLARK: And what did you see?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Calling for hearsay.
THE COURT: "What did you see?" Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: I saw a limb hair.
MS. CLARK: What kind of limb hair did you see?
MS. BROCKBANK: A darkly pigmented limb hair.
This is Marcia cleaning up after Kestler – who didn’t see blood on the socks, either. In this case, though, I believe Kestler, Brockbank and Deedrick. Kestler and Brockbank could have easily missed seeing two human limb hairs in the Rockingham glove. Deedrick pointed out one of them to Brockbank. She never saw the other one. Nobody ever attempted to explain who there were so few human limb hairs in the Rockingham glove and NONE in the Bundy glove.
The head hair evidence is just a shaky. Scheck was right. This stuff is junk. – Jasper