[UCANSEE2]

I went back and read the transcript.

It is very hard to tell for sure without seeing what was going on in court,

BUT, my interpretation is that there WAS a HUGE WAD of hair, very dirty/grimy and there were some hairs stuck to the choker with the orange fiber tied to them. I think that your interpretation that a HUGE WAD HAIR had been stuck to her choker isn't right. After her body started decomposing and parts of her scalp were pulled loose by animals, that a wad was there. Maybe stuck to the choker.

None of this (your or my interpretation) clears up how long the hair or fiber could have been stuck to the choker.

SO, my thoughts went this way.......
Little girls tie their hair up with those elastic-cloth covered things. I don't know what they are called.

Could Danielle have had one of those ? Orange fibers ?

[UCANSEE2]

getting hungry, gotta go til tomorrow.

[the Deejay]

"Little girls tie their hair up with those elastic-cloth covered things. I don't know what they are called."

"Scruncies", I think.

[hoosiermama]

COuld be, But again ist is not relevant if the fiber expert testified they were similar but not mecessarily from the same source. No need to discuss! MUTE topic. Feldmanized!
That's why we're not hearing anymore fiber testimony. Only if source was IDed and tied to a specific DW item is it relevant. Similar source just doesn't do it. Read the Cross exam. I think you'll find that Feldy got her to testify any time, any similar but not identical source. Or something close to that. Stick a for in it!

[cyncooper]

Your interpretation is incorrect. From the cross-exam by Feldman Jennifer Shen states:

A. WELL, I THINK THE FIBER CERTAINLY COULD HAVE BEEN THERE FOR AS LONG AS THE BODY WAS IN ITS RESTING LOCATION. THINK IT'S UNLIKELY THE FIBER WAS THERE FOR MUCH PRIOR TO THAT BECAUSE IT WAS TANGLED IN SUCH A LARGE WAD OF HAIR ON THE NECKLACE.

Now, read that carefully. The fiber "was tangled in such a large wad of hair on the necklace."

It is very clear.