[shezza]

You know something that kind of "bugs" me? Why is it that forensic specialist Tanya Dulaney says "20 to 30 fibers found in Westerfield's washer, 50 to 100 found on top of the washer, another 50 to 100 in his laundry, and 10 to 20 found in the bedding in his master bedroom"?

If she's a specialist and this is evidence, why can it not be "26 fibers found in the washer, 64 found on top of the washer, another 53 found in his laundry, and 17 found in the bedding"? Did she just get tired of counting, or did she look at a little baggie in which tiny fibers were collected and make a "best judgment" estimate of the numbers? I would think precision would be a little more impressive than generalities. But that's just me.

[gigi]

"If she's a specialist and this is evidence, why can it not be "26 fibers found in the washer, 64 found on top of the washer, another 53 found in his laundry, and 17 found in the bedding"? Did she just get tired of counting, or did she look at a little baggie in which tiny fibers were collected and make a "best judgment" estimate of the numbers? I would think precision would be a little more impressive than generalities. But that's just me."

Thats a good question. Why is 50 - 100 ect. She should have an exact #.

[Freedom2specul8]

Shezza, that's a great question. I think they led us to believe it was an "exact" count. If it were more, they hurt their own case by not telling us.