The case of writer Helen Bailey

Andrew wrote:Just catching up - interesting stuff re: hair analysis on this case and the drugs etc.

No wonder why Gerry had to sod off back to Rothley and collect an old strand of hair.

Dee Coy wrote:http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/DAYS_1_to_50.htm

Just on the notorious twins haircut reference in the blog, this was made by GM on Day 23, 26 May. This was only 3 weeks after the disappearance, so cutting hair at this point would not have removed any drug traces in the hair shaft as these would still be very close to the scalp.

How long was the twins' hair that summer? About 2-3 inches? A child's hair grows at about a quarter of an inch per month. That's a good 8 months before any drug traces would reach the end of the hair.

So unless they were shaved that summer, which they weren't (see airport pictures of them returning home), any traces that existed would still be in the hair at September 2007.

Of course, this doesn't matter as long as the hairs were not tested. I am sure the McCanns would have taken great steps to avoid this (one of the reasons for the flight home?). Do we know if any of the hairs recovered were from the twins?

Do we know of any haircuts late on in the holiday or after they returned home?

Either way, the haircuts mentioned in the blog are irrelevant to this issue - far too early. So why mention them? I'm certain there would have been another, alternative but valid, reason. It's just too much of a random thing to say.

Thoughts?

Dee Coy wrote:

Andrew wrote:Just catching up - interesting stuff re: hair analysis on this case and the drugs etc.

No wonder why Gerry had to sod off back to Rothley and collect an old strand of hair.

Spot on.  Bet this was one of the a avoidance tactics employed to prevent the testing of the twins' hair that summer - provide an alternative and pretend it's freshly plucked?

Makes you wonder about all this talk about GM having to return home for a hair sample as a sample of Madeleine's DNA. Why the need, when there would have been loads of samples with them on the holiday? This has always been a mystery which has led to speculation that she was either never there or there only for a short time.

Would a more logical explanation simply be that he wasn't there to collect Madeleines's hair at all, instead he was collecting 'clean' hairs from the twins from prior to the holiday?

chirpyinsect wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/DAYS_1_to_50.htm

Just on the notorious twins haircut reference in the blog, this was made by GM on Day 23, 26 May. This was only 3 weeks after the disappearance, so cutting hair at this point would not have removed any drug traces in the hair shaft as these would still be very close to the scalp.

How long was the twins' hair that summer? About 2-3 inches? A child's hair grows at about a quarter of an inch per month. That's a good 8 months before any drug traces would reach the end of the hair.

So unless they were shaved that summer, which they weren't (see airport pictures of them returning home), any traces that existed would still be in the hair at September 2007.

Of course, this doesn't matter as long as the hairs were not tested. I am sure the McCanns would have taken great steps to avoid this (one of the reasons for the flight home?). Do we know if any of the hairs recovered were from the twins?

Do we know of any haircuts late on in the holiday or after they returned home?

Either way, the haircuts mentioned in the blog are irrelevant to this issue - far too early. So why mention them? I'm certain there would have been another, alternative but valid, reason. It's just too much of a random thing to say.

Thoughts?

The only thing I can think of is this. If the LP was taken just before the release date of the photo, would A's hair have given the game away if they didn't have it cut? G doesn't say what date the haircut happened but could have been a few days before he wrote in his blog.
Not very likely but as you say, why mention it?

ETA. This is going round in my head and I can't quite get over what I'm trying to say. Maybe it could be something to do with the length of A's hair whenever the shot of her at the pool was taken.