RmDebArc_5Asking the real questions
IlovethebombActually, I’d really like to know the answer to this as well.
Not an investigator nor a lawyer but as I understand to be incriminated it needs to be proven you did the crime and it depending on the type of the crime it needs to be proven you did it intentionally.
Unless she has anything else to do with the crime a hair follicle isn’t enough to be incriminating, because it alone doesn’t really prove anything. Worst case it just sets her at the scene of the crime and best case the hair is used to narrow down the actual list of suspects.
proven you did the crime
None of that matters if the jury decides you are guilty, regardless of what they’re supposed to do. The same mechanism that allow for jury nullification also works the opposite.
Just look at Texas… At an otherwise peaceful sound protest where one person shot a cop. Everyone wearing black was rounded up and charged as “antifa terrorists”. As if simply wearing black was enough to prove they conspired. Oh and the terrorist “zine” they had that the prosecution used as “evidence of ideologically driven intent”, was actually a years old movie analysis of feminism’s relationship to horror cinema. And it wasn’t even written by anyone there. In fact the author didn’t even have anything to do with the protest, and was never even contacted by law enforcement about it.
https://theintercept.com/2026/03/13/movie-review-antifa-prairieland-trial/
The hair its self is dead and contains no DNA. Only the follicle, which isn’t part of the donated hair, has DNA. You would be safe.
As I understand it, the dna is usually sourced when the hair root is intact as that contains skin cells. Hair itself is keratin and can be type matched - eg coarseness, colour, texture, tested for chemicals (eg environmental, dyes, medication, recreational) which all amount to circumstantial evidence but to get a DNA match actual cells would be required. Assuming the donation is the result of a haircut and not epilation or scalping - she’s probably in the clear.
As a frequent watcher of Forensic Files, I concur. There is no DNA to match in hair. Donated hair is also washed in these programs, so any other sources of DNA, other than an attached root, is going to be washed away.
As someone who has watched Forensic Files and rewatched almost every episode multiple times, I would slightly disagree. It’s true that hair without the root usually doesn’t contain nuclear DNA that can be used to directly match a person. However, hair shafts can still contain mitochondrial DNA.
Mitochondrial DNA is inherited through the maternal line and can sometimes be recovered even when the root is missing. While it’s not as specific as nuclear DNA and usually can’t identify a single individual, it can still help investigators narrow things down to a maternal lineage.
Not an investigator nor a lawyer but as I understand to be incriminated it needs to be proven you did the crime and it depending on the type of the crime it needs to be proven you did it intentionally.
Unless she has anything else to do with the crime a hair follicle isn’t enough to be incriminating, because it alone doesn’t really prove anything. Worst case it just sets her at the scene of the crime and best case the hair is used to narrow down the actual list of suspects.
SundrayWhat does the age have something to do with this? Its a genuine shower thought, nothing related to age.
I think the implied meaning is that it’s a very clever question and it’s unexpected for someone so young to think of it. So it’s kind of a humblebrag that their daughter is smart.
She could definitely be smart and likely isn’t dumb, but I don’t think this level of thinking is out of the ordinary for a 12 year old.
don’t think this level of thinking is out of the ordinary for a 12 year old.
Agreed, that’s why I find it weird to be bragging about the age. It could be insulting for the person, and specifically their intelligence.
I think it’s less about “my daughter is smart” and more about “my innocent young daughter is anxious” as a commentary on the surveillance state. Although she’s more likely in danger from faulty AI facial recognition.
That could possibly be it as well. It really depends in what tone you read the passage in and how it is interpreted. I do agree on the faulty ai; it doesnt matter how young or “innocent” you are, if they want to mess your life up, they will.
See also: Jeffrey Epstein
In addition to the donated hair lacking DNA, they can only do DNA matchrd against samples they already have or could legally acquire (generally with a warrant).
So if she’s not otherwise in their system or already a suspect, she should be in the clear!
Turns out you can use DNA from relatives too. And with large databases of ancestry this can go up to 4th cousins and narrows it down from there.
Not in the future with palintir. They combine from every source
Jerb322Doesn’t Locks of Love charge their customers? I’ve been donating to “Children With Hair Loss”.
Aviandelight I took a peek at their website because I haven’t donated to them since my hair started turning white. They say that they do now provide hairpieces free of charge but they are still selling discarded hair to keep up with costs.
Lock her up
Better than your niece asking “can I donate my hair to Locks of Love, kill somebody, and incriminate the person who got my hair?”
Cut hair doesn’t have DNA. You need torn out or shed hair with the intact skin root. The skin is where all the tasty dioxyriboneucleic acid resides.
pancakes