If you just wanted to clarify, you would have used a bit of the direct examination, not Feldman's pathetic attempt at cross-exam.
Ok...here is the direct:A: WELL, THESE WERE ALREADY MOUNTED HAIRS, SO I COMPARED THE HAIRS THAT SHE HAD PREPARED FOR EXAMINATION BOTH WITH A STEREO MICROSCOPE AND A TRANSMITTED-LIGHT MICROSCOPE AND FOUND THAT THE HAIRS THAT SHE HAD ISOLATED FROM 13A, 55, AND 74 WERE MICROSCOPICALLY SIMILAR TO THE REFERENCE HAIRS FROM THE DOG.
Q: DOES THAT MEAN THAT THOSE HAIRS IN THE EVIDENCE COULD HAVE COME FROM THE VICTIM'S DOG?
A: YES.
A: THEY HAD BROWNISH PIGMENT IN IT. IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO TELL FROM A SINGLE HAIR WHAT THE ENTIRE ANIMAL LOOKS LIKE, BUT THEY DID HAVE PIGMENTATION IN THEM.
If one stops listening at direct....they miss the rest of the story in crossexam.