I just rewatch his interview on Greta from off my Tivo and he never said he did not see any hair. He even described the hair as being 2 toned. He was acting odd because he did not understand some of Greta's questions and had her repeat at least one of them.
Well I'm kinda curious, since the Kalpoe's (and their mommie dearest) claim to be so innocent, why didn't they jump at the chance to give their DNA and prove it? Why did the court have to order them? Inquiring minds want to know....Does ALE have something to compare DNA with or are they running a bluff (7 weeks late)?
Was Greta's question something along the lines of "Did you notice the hair? Was it hard to see?". Seems like I remember him saying that it wasn't hard to see because it shiny and silver. (Trying to remember) Seems like he misunderstood the question.
Thank you for checking this out.
Anyway, I have business to take care of today..and most of tomorrow.
I don't see this case going anyway, and I'm not a psychic..:)
sw
Well I guess it depends on what Mario Rasmijn's meaning of no is to Greta's question "Did you see the hair/s.
I will post a copy of the transcript if and when it comes available.