“Consistent with”, is pretty weak.
Another pebble on the scale. It all adds up.
Coffin flies were found in the car trunk. Drip, drip, drip.
No, it is not weak.
It’s a legal term of art.
You cannot say, legally, that it is her hair. Even if everything points to it being hers.
So you have to say consistent with.
That fits into the rest of the case.
Remember the DNA in the Simpson case. They said it was his DNA subject to a miniscule chance that it was someone else’s. They cited the statistical probability that it was anyone else’s DNA on the planet. Forget the numbers but it was like a chance in a billion or some such. But they had to state it that way instead of saying it was his blood, period.
They went on to point out that this blood was found in several places it should not have been, and they showed that Simpson had suffered some kind of injury to his hand, and projected that he dripped his own blood at these various parts of the total crime scene.
I know he was aquitted because “if the glove doesn’t fit you must acquit” and because of jury nullification, but the blood evidence made him guilty as sin.
But for legal purposed they had to state qualifiers when they presented the blood evidence.
Wrong. “Consistent with” is the legal standard. The defendant is skewered with this physical evidence.
Actually it’s the legal standard for hair.