Question? would SUNBLEACHED appear, upon microscopic exam the same as CHEMICALLY bleached?
I definitely think you can microscopically tell the difference.
From this page:
http://www.instantweb.com/v/vlr/w21_pd.html
Q Was the hairs, to your knowledge, that were tested for chemichal characteristics or bleaches or things like that which would be individual to the person?
A Well, I would dispute the statement of being individual, even if we had chemial treatment and things like that, those can be helpful in drawing conclusions about comparison. For example, we can get an area of where people dye or bleach there hair and it grows at a certain distance from the scalp, it's bleached and dyed and again we can see that along the hair shaft that doesn't acquire a chemical, it simply requires it being observed microscopically where it's ovservable and there are some times where it's obscured but that can be a very, very
30
helpful thing in doing - - in augmenting the regular comparison of innate charactheristics in the hair. I had a thought here and lost it.
Q I think we're talking about bleaching and individual characteristics of hair and simply I am asking was there any evidence that Mr. Malone or you received or any one found evidence of bleaching on one hair and matching another hair bleaching or something like that?
A No, no, not as such, no.
Q Several statements in the FBI report, I am going to go ahead and read them and ask you if you agree with them. "Unequivocal identification of an individual from a hair sample does not appear to be possible in the present state of the science." Do you agree with that?
A I would agree with that.
Q Secondly, "The consensus from all reports recieved was that microscopic examination of hairs, unlike fingerprints, did not permit a positive identification to be made, except in a few rare instances."
A I would agree with that.
No on exam the chemicals would show..also I would think the root would be clearly visible (says she that has roots easily seen by the naked eye:>)