See, I'm no expert. That's a why Iz'a asskin!
I will keep looking for you.
this is commentary about testing for trace minerals:
http://www.tracemin.com/hair_mineral_analysis.htm
Contamination of the hair can occur from air, water, perspiration and shampoos. This type of contamination is removed during TMI's sample washing procedure. However, contamination from dyes, permanents or bleaching of hair cannot be removed. These cosmetic procedure permanently change the structure of the hair and therefore, only natural hair (head, pubic or beard hair) is suitable for hair mineral analysis. Underarm hair is unsuitable for analysis.
I think I found another weird thing, but I need to go back and read it very slowly.
Here's the link in case anybody would like to join me:
http://www.760kfmb.com/personalities/rick_roberts/fullstory.php?storyid=53
It's a story that lists all the DNA-type evidence and where it went. It's weird that they compared Danielle's hair to her underpants stain, but sent hairs from her hairbrush to be compared with the jacket stain. And then they said the hair from the hairbrush didn't contain enough mitDNA to test, but when I brush my hair, I yank out big old clumps, roots and all. EVERY day! How can there not be enough DNA in the hairbrush to test? And why is mitDNA an issue anyway? Just test Brenda, for goodness' sakes.
Anyhow, it may turn out to be nothing, but it would be great if one of you other suspicious-minded folks could have a look. Thanks.
Oh - it also says that the mitDNA lady's tests can't tell if a hair was chemically treated or not. I need to go back and find out the characteristics of all the hairs - who said which ones were color-treated, etc.