Forensic anthropology
Forensic anthropology
2010-12-18 00:18:46
A news article I read today provides an example of how sets of experts can come to different conclusions when examining bone fragments, especially when the studies are done decades apart and the state of investigative science has advanced:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101217/ap_on_re_us/us_search_for_amelia
The bones in question were originally said to have come from a male of possible mixed race; a later examination indicates they were from a female of Northern European descent.
If DNA can be extracted from these bone fragments and if, by some lucky stroke, they can be linked to one of the most famous mysterious disappearances in history, maybe the push re-examine the bones in the urn will get a little more impetus.
Katy
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101217/ap_on_re_us/us_search_for_amelia
The bones in question were originally said to have come from a male of possible mixed race; a later examination indicates they were from a female of Northern European descent.
If DNA can be extracted from these bone fragments and if, by some lucky stroke, they can be linked to one of the most famous mysterious disappearances in history, maybe the push re-examine the bones in the urn will get a little more impetus.
Katy
Re: Forensic anthropology
2010-12-18 13:51:53
That is fascinating - and sad.
Then there are the remains of Dr Crippen's murdered wife - which now turn out to be those of a man.
The list goes on, doesn't it? Egyptian mummy K55 has been the subject of raging controversy. It's a woman. No, it's a man. It's a woman again. It's Akhenaten, Smenkhkhare, Smenkhkhare = Nefertiti in drag. Aged about twenty - can't be Akhenaten. No, it isn't, it's aged about 35.
Now it is claimed that DNA evidence proves it to have been Tutankhamun's father after all. But the debate rages on.
The big problems seem to have occurred not only through lack in the past of some of the scientific tools we have now, but because too often the examiners - however well qualified - started out with an assumption and were seeking to prove it. This was certainly the case with Tanner and Wright.
--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> A news article I read today provides an example of how sets of experts can come to different conclusions when examining bone fragments, especially when the studies are done decades apart and the state of investigative science has advanced:
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101217/ap_on_re_us/us_search_for_amelia
>
> The bones in question were originally said to have come from a male of possible mixed race; a later examination indicates they were from a female of Northern European descent.
>
> If DNA can be extracted from these bone fragments and if, by some lucky stroke, they can be linked to one of the most famous mysterious disappearances in history, maybe the push re-examine the bones in the urn will get a little more impetus.
>
> Katy
>
Then there are the remains of Dr Crippen's murdered wife - which now turn out to be those of a man.
The list goes on, doesn't it? Egyptian mummy K55 has been the subject of raging controversy. It's a woman. No, it's a man. It's a woman again. It's Akhenaten, Smenkhkhare, Smenkhkhare = Nefertiti in drag. Aged about twenty - can't be Akhenaten. No, it isn't, it's aged about 35.
Now it is claimed that DNA evidence proves it to have been Tutankhamun's father after all. But the debate rages on.
The big problems seem to have occurred not only through lack in the past of some of the scientific tools we have now, but because too often the examiners - however well qualified - started out with an assumption and were seeking to prove it. This was certainly the case with Tanner and Wright.
--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> A news article I read today provides an example of how sets of experts can come to different conclusions when examining bone fragments, especially when the studies are done decades apart and the state of investigative science has advanced:
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101217/ap_on_re_us/us_search_for_amelia
>
> The bones in question were originally said to have come from a male of possible mixed race; a later examination indicates they were from a female of Northern European descent.
>
> If DNA can be extracted from these bone fragments and if, by some lucky stroke, they can be linked to one of the most famous mysterious disappearances in history, maybe the push re-examine the bones in the urn will get a little more impetus.
>
> Katy
>
Forensic anthropology
2010-12-18 14:20:56
This gets a little off-topic but I also read the article about the bone fragments being tested in hopes to prove they belong to Amelia Earhart.
The current bone fragments are really tiny and are not the same bone fragments originally analysed to have been "a man of mixed race" or a "woman of Nordic origen". Those were from a fuller skeleton found years ago. These new bone fragments are so small it might be impossible to retrieve any DNA from them although the scientists are hoping to get mitrochondrial DNA, proving the person was a woman. There is actually a female descendent from Amelia Earhart's family who could show the new fragments belong to Amelia as well. But it is a long shot. The article I read said the bones COULD BE from a turtle!
So we will have to wait awhile for the tests to be run. This is another enduring mystery...what happened to Amelia? There are other clues that non-Islander humans had a camp in that area but nothing conclusive can be drawn from this since WW II occured all around that part of the Pacific.
Anyway, as science advances it becomes more possible to find the truth out about what happened in the past. That is why testing the bones in the Westminster Abbey urn is important. If DNA could be found in "those bones" it would at least answer the question of whether or not they were the Princes. I, personally, do not believe they are but many people require that info to give Richard a break.
At least it would prove that the whole Thomas More story about their death is a fabrication, and if that is, what else is?
L.M.L.,
Janet
The current bone fragments are really tiny and are not the same bone fragments originally analysed to have been "a man of mixed race" or a "woman of Nordic origen". Those were from a fuller skeleton found years ago. These new bone fragments are so small it might be impossible to retrieve any DNA from them although the scientists are hoping to get mitrochondrial DNA, proving the person was a woman. There is actually a female descendent from Amelia Earhart's family who could show the new fragments belong to Amelia as well. But it is a long shot. The article I read said the bones COULD BE from a turtle!
So we will have to wait awhile for the tests to be run. This is another enduring mystery...what happened to Amelia? There are other clues that non-Islander humans had a camp in that area but nothing conclusive can be drawn from this since WW II occured all around that part of the Pacific.
Anyway, as science advances it becomes more possible to find the truth out about what happened in the past. That is why testing the bones in the Westminster Abbey urn is important. If DNA could be found in "those bones" it would at least answer the question of whether or not they were the Princes. I, personally, do not believe they are but many people require that info to give Richard a break.
At least it would prove that the whole Thomas More story about their death is a fabrication, and if that is, what else is?
L.M.L.,
Janet
Re: Forensic anthropology
2010-12-18 16:37:50
Hi Janet,
Yes, I too went on to read some more articles on the same subject, it was so interesting. The partial skeleton found in 1940 has been lost, hasn't it, but as with the Princes X-rays remain on the basis of which the original analysis has been called into question.
I agree that the current find is a long shot - it has only sparked interest because of the earlier finds and reports of a camp. But apparently the skeleton was incomplete, probably because of giant crabs carrying bits away, and so I guess the hope is that this may be one of the missing bits.
Some of the earlier finds were not, so I read, consistent with the World War II activity - for instance a glass bottle or jar (don't remember which) with a melted bottom as though someone had been trying to cook in it, and of course the make-up and woman's shoe. I take it this wasn't an army issue shoe or it would have been mentioned.
I think it is very unlikely that DNA could be got from the Tower bones - unless, perhaps, from inside a tooth. The T&W report noted that they were all dark in colour, and that this indicated that there was no remaining organic matter. However, there were a couple of small bones - finger bones, I think (I'll have to look it up again) - which were white. T&W surmised that these may have been protected in some way, but it looks as though these bones were entirely white, and the adjacent-belonging ones entirely dark. Should we again be asking ourselves whether these little white bones actually belong to a different individual? It would be pointless extracting DNA from those little bones if we couldn't be sure they belonged to the rest of that set of remains.
Hopefully, if the bones were carbon dated this on its own would prove enough to put the Princes out of the picture.
Marie
--- In , "J. T," <treenbagh@...> wrote:
>
> This gets a little off-topic but I also read the article about the bone fragments being tested in hopes to prove they belong to Amelia Earhart.
>
> The current bone fragments are really tiny and are not the same bone fragments originally analysed to have been "a man of mixed race" or a "woman of Nordic origen". Those were from a fuller skeleton found years ago. These new bone fragments are so small it might be impossible to retrieve any DNA from them although the scientists are hoping to get mitrochondrial DNA, proving the person was a woman. There is actually a female descendent from Amelia Earhart's family who could show the new fragments belong to Amelia as well. But it is a long shot. The article I read said the bones COULD BE from a turtle!
>
> So we will have to wait awhile for the tests to be run. This is another enduring mystery...what happened to Amelia? There are other clues that non-Islander humans had a camp in that area but nothing conclusive can be drawn from this since WW II occured all around that part of the Pacific.
>
> Anyway, as science advances it becomes more possible to find the truth out about what happened in the past. That is why testing the bones in the Westminster Abbey urn is important. If DNA could be found in "those bones" it would at least answer the question of whether or not they were the Princes. I, personally, do not believe they are but many people require that info to give Richard a break.
> At least it would prove that the whole Thomas More story about their death is a fabrication, and if that is, what else is?
>
> L.M.L.,
> Janet
>
Yes, I too went on to read some more articles on the same subject, it was so interesting. The partial skeleton found in 1940 has been lost, hasn't it, but as with the Princes X-rays remain on the basis of which the original analysis has been called into question.
I agree that the current find is a long shot - it has only sparked interest because of the earlier finds and reports of a camp. But apparently the skeleton was incomplete, probably because of giant crabs carrying bits away, and so I guess the hope is that this may be one of the missing bits.
Some of the earlier finds were not, so I read, consistent with the World War II activity - for instance a glass bottle or jar (don't remember which) with a melted bottom as though someone had been trying to cook in it, and of course the make-up and woman's shoe. I take it this wasn't an army issue shoe or it would have been mentioned.
I think it is very unlikely that DNA could be got from the Tower bones - unless, perhaps, from inside a tooth. The T&W report noted that they were all dark in colour, and that this indicated that there was no remaining organic matter. However, there were a couple of small bones - finger bones, I think (I'll have to look it up again) - which were white. T&W surmised that these may have been protected in some way, but it looks as though these bones were entirely white, and the adjacent-belonging ones entirely dark. Should we again be asking ourselves whether these little white bones actually belong to a different individual? It would be pointless extracting DNA from those little bones if we couldn't be sure they belonged to the rest of that set of remains.
Hopefully, if the bones were carbon dated this on its own would prove enough to put the Princes out of the picture.
Marie
--- In , "J. T," <treenbagh@...> wrote:
>
> This gets a little off-topic but I also read the article about the bone fragments being tested in hopes to prove they belong to Amelia Earhart.
>
> The current bone fragments are really tiny and are not the same bone fragments originally analysed to have been "a man of mixed race" or a "woman of Nordic origen". Those were from a fuller skeleton found years ago. These new bone fragments are so small it might be impossible to retrieve any DNA from them although the scientists are hoping to get mitrochondrial DNA, proving the person was a woman. There is actually a female descendent from Amelia Earhart's family who could show the new fragments belong to Amelia as well. But it is a long shot. The article I read said the bones COULD BE from a turtle!
>
> So we will have to wait awhile for the tests to be run. This is another enduring mystery...what happened to Amelia? There are other clues that non-Islander humans had a camp in that area but nothing conclusive can be drawn from this since WW II occured all around that part of the Pacific.
>
> Anyway, as science advances it becomes more possible to find the truth out about what happened in the past. That is why testing the bones in the Westminster Abbey urn is important. If DNA could be found in "those bones" it would at least answer the question of whether or not they were the Princes. I, personally, do not believe they are but many people require that info to give Richard a break.
> At least it would prove that the whole Thomas More story about their death is a fabrication, and if that is, what else is?
>
> L.M.L.,
> Janet
>
Re: Forensic anthropology
2010-12-18 19:29:53
Not to mention that the chain of custody was often suspect at best, as
in the case of the tower bones.
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
--- In , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> That is fascinating - and sad.
>
> Then there are the remains of Dr Crippen's murdered wife - which now
turn out to be those of a man.
>
> The list goes on, doesn't it? Egyptian mummy K55 has been the subject
of raging controversy. It's a woman. No, it's a man. It's a woman again.
It's Akhenaten, Smenkhkhare, Smenkhkhare = Nefertiti in drag. Aged about
twenty - can't be Akhenaten. No, it isn't, it's aged about 35.
> Now it is claimed that DNA evidence proves it to have been
Tutankhamun's father after all. But the debate rages on.
>
> The big problems seem to have occurred not only through lack in the
past of some of the scientific tools we have now, but because too often
the examiners - however well qualified - started out with an assumption
and were seeking to prove it. This was certainly the case with Tanner
and Wright.
>
>
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy"
oregon_katy@ wrote:
> >
> > A news article I read today provides an example of how sets of
experts can come to different conclusions when examining bone fragments,
especially when the studies are done decades apart and the state of
investigative science has advanced:
> >
> > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101217/ap_on_re_us/us_search_for_amelia
> >
> > The bones in question were originally said to have come from a male
of possible mixed race; a later examination indicates they were from a
female of Northern European descent.
> >
> > If DNA can be extracted from these bone fragments and if, by some
lucky stroke, they can be linked to one of the most famous mysterious
disappearances in history, maybe the push re-examine the bones in the
urn will get a little more impetus.
> >
> > Katy
> >
>
in the case of the tower bones.
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
--- In , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> That is fascinating - and sad.
>
> Then there are the remains of Dr Crippen's murdered wife - which now
turn out to be those of a man.
>
> The list goes on, doesn't it? Egyptian mummy K55 has been the subject
of raging controversy. It's a woman. No, it's a man. It's a woman again.
It's Akhenaten, Smenkhkhare, Smenkhkhare = Nefertiti in drag. Aged about
twenty - can't be Akhenaten. No, it isn't, it's aged about 35.
> Now it is claimed that DNA evidence proves it to have been
Tutankhamun's father after all. But the debate rages on.
>
> The big problems seem to have occurred not only through lack in the
past of some of the scientific tools we have now, but because too often
the examiners - however well qualified - started out with an assumption
and were seeking to prove it. This was certainly the case with Tanner
and Wright.
>
>
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy"
oregon_katy@ wrote:
> >
> > A news article I read today provides an example of how sets of
experts can come to different conclusions when examining bone fragments,
especially when the studies are done decades apart and the state of
investigative science has advanced:
> >
> > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101217/ap_on_re_us/us_search_for_amelia
> >
> > The bones in question were originally said to have come from a male
of possible mixed race; a later examination indicates they were from a
female of Northern European descent.
> >
> > If DNA can be extracted from these bone fragments and if, by some
lucky stroke, they can be linked to one of the most famous mysterious
disappearances in history, maybe the push re-examine the bones in the
urn will get a little more impetus.
> >
> > Katy
> >
>