Lol, you can't be serious.

There, fixed it for ya.
:-)

Sadly I am. One of the investigators in this case did make the statement I quoted.

Prove it or stop talking ****.

So much unsubstantiated crap in this thread.

The video of this was linked at least once ITT. I even watched the video. I think Ken Dine also linked to it at one point recently. Honestly, you probably just ignored the posts, and were therefore unable to easily observe what you are now asking to have verified.

still waiting for cites for any mention whatsoever of african hairs at crime scene

.

If only you donkeys could read or google.

http://womanonawire.blogspot.com/201...-profiler.html

And there it is.....

That's your cite? A random blog of an interview with someone not even connected to the case? Get a grip man. You should return all the shill money you have received. You are terrible at this. The absolute worst.

You don't know the evidence bro.

IIRC, 239 recently explicitly stated in a post that we don't know if there were 'negroid' hairs, but that John Douglass apparently had mentioned them. Now he provided a cite for that. LostOstrich said he required cites for 'any mention whatsoever of NEGROID hairs'. We can infer that 239 is not necessarily advancing this as proof, but merely seeing to LostOstrich's request for a cite. If LostOstrich needs to see it in Massei, or needs to hear it from an investigator, then he has the option to specify that those are the conditions he requires. Tldr?

if only you donks could read!

OK, I guess I stand corrected on that point.

However, also from your previous post:

"You refuse to offer any evidence of this finding, beyond the fact that you think it must have happened."

I think this is a bit of a stretch, at least in that it likely isn't only because Ken thinks it must have happened and nothing more, since, apparently, a reputable "FBI profiler" suggested it in an interview.

Also, it would be silly to be in full support of Dershowitz, and totally disregard what John Douglass has to say about the case! I think it's pretty safe to say that John Douglass spent more time reviewing it.

Um, again, the specific claim at issue is "negroid hair ... found under Meredith's fingernail."

Nothing has been offered to show that the "hair" was found under the fingernail. Massei specifically states nothing but MK's DNA was found under her fingernails.

Furthermore, Douglass does not claim that he found any such hair - he claims "negroid hair" found at the scene. He does not offer anything more and this "fact" does not show up in any report. He either made it up (unlikely) or was misinformed. He was working off file materials available to many other people - it doesn't seem others share his opinion about the negroid hair.

Also comparing Dershowitz and Douglass is inapposite: Douglass approaches the case as a profiler; Dershowitz as a commentator. These are two very different roles.

The better question is why would you take Douglass at face value when he provides an unsourced "fact" as opposed to the Court records which includes the testimony and writings of the investogators - none who appeared to have found a "negroid hair."

I find it hard to take Douglass seriously. His interview reveals that he believes the break in was real and that the killing was done by a lone attacker (among other things) which is against the weight of the evidence and expert testimony. I find further find it difficult to take him seriously as he's offering said opinions outside the scrutiny of the Court and without any cross-examination. In law, a good practitioner can spin an apparent strong argument for anything if it is not held up to any scrutiny.

... Which is why murder trials are not decided on the internet outside the protective procedures and protocols of an adversarial proceeding.

If you could retain what you read or comprehend it, you'd know that I've already stated that we don't know if the contention is true or what in the case file led Douglas to say it. I also specifically stated Douglas was the source of the contention as far as I know.

Why you're becoming unhinged, simply because I'm providing the cite of him saying it, which supports exactly what I've maintained the entire time, is beyond me.

239, I asked Ken for a cite and I couldn't have been any clearer as to the standard of source material that I'd consider acceptable. You stepped in, announced that I must be unable to either read or use Google, and linked a source that doesn't even come close to meeting the standard I requested.

Whilst I enjoyed the irony of this, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in your ability to evaluate evidence.

Not to mention the part about "under the fingernail" does not appear.

Its also funny how 239 made a big deal about him not having to step in for the other shills - yet, here he is doing just that.

I'm not trying to meet the standard, I'm giving you the information you're looking for. I'm actually helping you, but because you're so blinded by your bias you apparently can't see it.

The information I was looking for was any single mention of african male hair at the crime scene, in any single piece of evidence from any related trial. You linked me to a blog site that mentions that some former FBI guy says it was there. That's not helpful, and the fact that you don't appear to understand this speaks volumes about your inability to honestly evaluate evidence.

Again, I'm refuting what Ken is saying, but you're apparently not able to see through the fog of your own bias to see that. Further if you'd reviewed the case you'd know that there is nothing described as hair consistent with Guede in the official exhibits although you have to wonder why they took hair samples from Guede's place.

At the end of the day this is all fairly pointless when you have posters like yourself and Lost Ostrich who are apparently too lazy to sort this stuff out for yourselves.

Again, I'm telling you there isn't by explaining to you the source and context of the contention. I'm not sure why you're unable to connect the dots here.

I got bored of Ken making stuff up, so I called him out on it. I don't need to trawl the internet in search of proof of there being NEGROID hairs under meredith's fingernails, because I'm not the guy who claimed there was. You can't just make stuff up and pass it off as accepted fact.

And as Oski says, this is why crimes are tried in a courtroom and not on an internet message board!

At the end of the day it's an inconsequential piece of information really. If it is true, and it might be, it merely brings into focus the mind state of the authorities on November 6th. They might also have thought they had videotape evidence proving Raf had lied to the police and that Amanda had walked into the cottage that night. While these tidbits don't seem to mean much to the guilt side who want to ignore the possibility of confirmation bias in this case, in reality it would be impossible not to be biased.

ETA: If there was a hair like this in the official case evidence it would probably have been Rep 198 which was a 6cm dark brown hair found on the window in Filomena's room. It yielded no DNA.