This is a quote from an article in the Oct 8th, Modesto Bee,titled,"Defense Question Hair Evidence".This begins about the 17th paragraph.
link for the entire article:
http://www.modbee.com/local/story/7561226p-8471812c.html Many explanations for extra hair
There are explanations short of planting evidence to explain the appearance of a second hair after police reports only referred to a single hair, said Dr. Michael Baden, a New York forensic pathologist who worked on Simpson's defense team when the former football star was accused of killing his ex-wife and her friend in 1995.
"Sometimes people can make a mistake," Baden said. "Some kinds of hair can break."
Roger C. Park, an evidence law specialist at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law, said the appearance of two hairs did not automatically taint the evidence.
"The fact that it was one hair here and two hairs later, I don't know if that's enough for a jury to conclude it wasn't the same hair sample," Park said.
If prosecutors could effectively demonstrate the hair they want to submit was found on the pliers in the boat, a judge would be compelled to allow it into evidence, observers said.
"It all comes back to relevancy," said Bradley Brunon, a prominent Los Angeles defense attorney. "There has to be enough reliable identification of the source and identity of the hair to connect it the investigation."
"The significance would be for the jury to decide," he said.
That significance was an open question, according to some observers.
"Her hair would have some evidentiary significance if she'd never been in that boat before," Baden said. "Then the issue comes up, what if one hair got caught on Scott's clothing and then was passed to the boat and dropped there?"