Are we being prepared for an inconclusive DNA result?

DNA testing is not always black and white, warns Foxhall. If it
comes back negative there are various conclusions we can draw. We may simply
not have had a large enough sample of DNA.

The whole investigation has been carried out in complete secrecy - "leaks" in this case are definite journalistic inventions. The Mail has a history of printing rubbish about Richard.

----- Original Message -----
From: P BARRETT
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 1:15 PM
Subject: Are we being prepared for an inconclusive DNA result?




DNA testing is not always black and white, warns Foxhall. If it
comes back negative there are various conclusions we can draw. We may simply
not have had a large enough sample of DNA.

Hi, Pat 



Here's the URL for the article and a tinyurl 



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9836709/Richard-III-tests-on-skeleton-could-rewrite-history-books-says-lead-scientist.html



http://tinyurl.com/acdz5mr



For the most part it's a pretty good article. They have been kind of hinting that they may not get a definite DNA result; however, Buckley indicated a while ago that that wouldn't prevent them from identifying the remains on the basis of all the factors. They have a lot more than DNA. Here is the relevant paragraph from the article you're citing:



The scientific team has been on lock-down in case the results of the investigation are leaked before the official announcement, but Foxhall hinted that the department was very excited. She's optimistic that there are sufficient pieces of the puzzle in order for them to reach a meaningful conclusion.



I wasn't too happy with the last paragraph of the article however:



Professor Foxhill is less optimistic about how the society will react if there is hard evidence that this is their fellow. It could be quite shattering, she says. One popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis.



That sort of negativity is a bit irksome. I believe that most (really I hope *all*) members of the Society realize that if RIII did, as it appears, suffer from severe scoliosis, if anything he would be even more of a hero than we realized. However, I also think that if Richard had a serious physical defect, even if it wasn't a handicap, considering the beliefs of the day, mightn't that have been a serious impediment to people being willing to follow him or accept him as king? As I said, I think, accomplishing what he was able to may have been even more extraordinary than we realized. I suggest that the Society be well prepared to fight the suggestion, which may be not long in coming, that it proves More and Shakespeare et al to be true. Ackkk!



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of P BARRETT
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 9:15 AM
To:
Subject: Are we being prepared for an inconclusive DNA result?






DNA testing is not always black and white, warns Foxhall. If it
comes back negative there are various conclusions we can draw. We may simply
not have had a large enough sample of DNA.

Nothing has been said about a withered arm on the Greyfriars Warrior. Also, kyphosis (hunchback) is not scoliosis (curvature of the spine). There will be plenty to challenge in the traditional picture.

The nice thing about a DNA sample is that, if they were able to obtain a reasonable amount, it can be reinterpreted as our ability to read DNA grows more sophisticated. Anything said pro or contra tomorrow will hardly be the last word.

--- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, Pat â€"
>
>
>
> Here’s the URL for the article and a tinyurl â€"
>
>
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9836709/Richard-III-tests-on-skeleton-could-rewrite-history-books-says-lead-scientist.html
>
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/acdz5mr
>
>
>
> For the most part it’s a pretty good article. They have been kind of hinting that they may not get a definite DNA result; however, Buckley indicated a while ago that that wouldn’t prevent them from identifying the remains on the basis of all the factors. They have a lot more than DNA. Here is the relevant paragraph from the article you’re citing:
>
>
>
> The scientific team has been on lock-down in case the results of the investigation are leaked before the official announcement, but Foxhall hinted that the department was “very excited”. She’s optimistic that there are sufficient pieces of the puzzle in order for them to reach a “meaningful conclusion”.
>
>
>
> I wasn’t too happy with the last paragraph of the article however:
>
>
>
> Professor Foxhill is less optimistic about how the society will react if there is hard evidence that this is their fellow. “It could be quite shattering,” she says. “One popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis.”
>
>
>
> That sort of negativity is a bit irksome. I believe that most (really I hope *all*) members of the Society realize that if RIII did, as it appears, suffer from severe scoliosis, if anything he would be even more of a hero than we realized. However, I also think that if Richard had a serious physical defect, even if it wasn’t a handicap, considering the beliefs of the day, mightn’t that have been a serious impediment to people being willing to follow him or accept him as king? As I said, I think, accomplishing what he was able to may have been even more extraordinary than we realized. I suggest that the Society be well prepared to fight the suggestion, which may be not long in coming, that it “proves” More and Shakespeare et al to be true. Ackkk!
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of P BARRETT
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 9:15 AM
> To:
> Subject: Are we being prepared for an inconclusive DNA result?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> “DNA testing is not always black and white,” warns Foxhall. “If it
> comes back negative there are various conclusions we can draw. We may simply
> not have had a large enough sample of DNA.”
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The Daily Mail printing rubbish..........O' my how unusual
G

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 3, 2013, at 9:05 AM, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

> The whole investigation has been carried out in complete secrecy - "leaks" in this case are definite journalistic inventions. The Mail has a history of printing rubbish about Richard.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: P BARRETT
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 1:15 PM
> Subject: Are we being prepared for an inconclusive DNA result?
>
> DNA testing is not always black and white, warns Foxhall. If it
> comes back negative there are various conclusions we can draw. We may simply
> not have had a large enough sample of DNA.
>
>
>
>
>
>