Daily Mail articles today

I really shouldn't laugh since it was generally a pro-Richard comment, but one of the people commenting on the facial reconstruction said "I have a close connection to Richard III, we share the same Grandfather John of Gaunt"
 
Liz (feeling a bit mean)
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2273703/The-face-Richard-III-Reconstruction-reveals-slain-king-500-years-killed-battle.html#axzz2Jkvr92hJ

Gaunt was Richard's great-grandfather and quite possibly an ancestor of the commentator.

----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 1:12 PM
Subject: Daily Mail articles today



I really shouldn't laugh since it was generally a pro-Richard comment, but one of the people commenting on the facial reconstruction said "I have a close connection to Richard III, we share the same Grandfather John of Gaunt"

Liz (feeling a bit mean)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2273703/The-face-Richard-III-Reconstruction-reveals-slain-king-500-years-killed-battle.html#axzz2Jkvr92hJ

Well obviously I guessed that's what he meant but it was the phrasing - that they shared the same Grandfather!  I had the image of a 500 year old man reading the DM.



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 13:19
Subject: Re: Daily Mail articles today

 
Gaunt was Richard's great-grandfather and quite possibly an ancestor of the commentator.

----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 1:12 PM
Subject: Daily Mail articles today

I really shouldn't laugh since it was generally a pro-Richard comment, but one of the people commenting on the facial reconstruction said "I have a close connection to Richard III, we share the same Grandfather John of Gaunt"

Liz (feeling a bit mean)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2273703/The-face-Richard-III-Reconstruction-reveals-slain-king-500-years-killed-battle.html#axzz2Jkvr92hJ

liz williams provided a link to a new article on the reconstruction of Richard's face:
 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2273703/The-face-Richard-III-Reconstruction-reveals-slain-king-500-years-killed-battle.html#axzz2Jkvr92hJ
>
Carol responds:

Hm. These clearer photos make him look a little angrier and more stressed than the ones we saw earlier--also a little closer to his true age. I suspect that he may have looked very much like that on the day of the battle, minus the dark coloring and bushy eyebrows.

Sigh. I liked the other version better. (Maybe that's how he looked, again minus the coloring and eyebrows, at Middleham before Edward IV died and, in so doing, ruined Richard's life.)

Carol

Does anyone know who did the spinal analysis for Richard's skeleton? Was it a forensic anthropologist (who is basically an orthopedic specialist qualified to analyze bones of the dead), or is that analysis still pending?

I ask because a friend pointed out that the spacing between and alignment of the vertebrae in the press photo of the skeleton is not anatomically true to a living frame. It looks like the placement of the bones in the photo released to the press is based on how Richard's skeleton was found -- which is without the discs between the vertebrae and the ligaments holding it all together; and after the vertebrae sagged, shifted and collapsed into empty space as the body decayed. The body may also have been curved when it was placed in the grave, which also would only have intensified the curvature of the spine. It does not look like the photo reflects the actual curvature of his spine when he was on his feet.

The more I look at the photo, the more I think the archaeologist who found Richard positioned the bones to replicate how she found the skeleton, and the placement is not true to life. Which is why I'm asking if there was any mention made in the documentary of an analysis having been done by a forensic anthropologist.

Because the anatomical positioning of the vertebrae and the spaces between the bones in the press conference photo simply is not right if you're trying to illustrate how severe or not severe his scoliosis is.

~Weds

wednesday wrote:
>
> Does anyone know who did the spinal analysis for Richard's skeleton? Was it a forensic anthropologist (who is basically an orthopedic specialist qualified to analyze bones of the dead), or is that analysis still pending?
>[snip]
> The more I look at the photo, the more I think the archaeologist who found Richard positioned the bones to replicate how she found the skeleton, and the placement is not true to life. Which is why I'm asking if there was any mention made in the documentary of an analysis having been done by a forensic anthropologist.
[snip]

Carol responds:

Sorry to snip your excellent post. I tried to compromise between content and conciseness.

I don't know who did the spinal analysis, but it was Richard Taylor, not Jo Appleby, who made the important distinction (reported in most of the early reports on the dig) between scoliosis and kyphosis:

http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/news/richard-iii-found.htm

I don't know whether Richard Taylor appeared in the Channel 4 documentary, but it seems that the distinction has been missing from much of the recent discussion.

Here's another article from September 12 that makes the distinction:

http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/scoliosis.htm

The author states:

"Scoliosis is an abnormal sideways curvature of the spine, where the spine curves either to the left or to the right of the body. As this is usually a double curve, the neck and head remain in their usual central position. In a living person, the signs of scoliosis vary depending on the severity. These may include having one shoulder higher than the other, one shoulder blade higher and more prominent than the other, one hip more prominent than the other, or a slight lean to one side."

We know that Richard exhibited only one of these symptoms, one shoulder higher than the other, and it seems not to have been noticeable to most people as it was not mentioned in the few descriptions written while he was living.

Possibly we should link to this article, which appeared in "Current Archaeology," when we encounter people who mindlessly repeat the "hunchback" slander. Maybe we can finally get it through a few people's heads that a sideways curve does not cause a hunch/hump.

Anyway, I'd like to see your ideas about the placement of the vertebrae addressed. The article indicates that scoliosis is more apparent in a skeleton than in a living person but she didn't mention its being more apparent in a skeleton lying on its back than a standing skeleton or address your other very interesting ideas.

Carol

Dr. Appleby is identified as... hang on, I'll go look it up, I've been wrong a lot the past few days...

Here we go. She is listed on the ULeic RIII site as "leading the osteological analysis and lecturer [in Human Bioarchaeology] in the School of Archaeology and Ancient History." So... Lecturer, specializing in Bioarchaeology, Bronze Age, Slavery. (Ugh, poor woman, that last one has got to be infinitely depressing.) She has made some cogent comments about how the deformations to the vertebrae identify the scoliosis as having originated during Richard's adolescence (defined, for scoliosis-diagnosing purposes, as at or later than 10 years of age). She also clarified that the curvature to the spine was not the result of the burial or later pressure from, you know, cars driving over the blacktop and whatnot.

Overall, she sounds like she knows her stuff. That doesn't quite square with her having used the term "hunchback" at the dig site, but I get the impression that they were all kind of dazed. Archeology just doesn't go like this: this just looked like, "Oh, let's go find Richard, wup, there he is, great, shall we go have a pint?" Maybe Dr. Appleby wasn't watching her yap that day. If she's a pro she'll regret that.

My take on how the skeleton was laid out is that it's not an attempt to reconstruct the actual position of the bones, which they wouldn't do with the originals anyway: we are talking WAY fragile and you NEVER want them to so much as brush up against one another. That's why, when they're laid out, they're carefully spaced so they can't touch even by accident.

Any reconstruction would be done with 3D replicas--they have a 3D prototyping unit, essentially a 3D printer that uses plastic instead of ink--and the replicas would be what you assemble into a simulacrum of the skeleton, the real bones being too precious to goof around with. I think we probably will see a replica of the intact skeleton at some point. That would be when we could start drawing some reasonable conclusions about the extent and effects of the scoliosis.

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
> wednesday wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone know who did the spinal analysis for Richard's skeleton? Was it a forensic anthropologist (who is basically an orthopedic specialist qualified to analyze bones of the dead), or is that analysis still pending?
> >[snip]
> > The more I look at the photo, the more I think the archaeologist who found Richard positioned the bones to replicate how she found the skeleton, and the placement is not true to life. Which is why I'm asking if there was any mention made in the documentary of an analysis having been done by a forensic anthropologist.
> [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Sorry to snip your excellent post. I tried to compromise between content and conciseness.
>
> I don't know who did the spinal analysis, but it was Richard Taylor, not Jo Appleby, who made the important distinction (reported in most of the early reports on the dig) between scoliosis and kyphosis:
>
> http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/news/richard-iii-found.htm
>
> I don't know whether Richard Taylor appeared in the Channel 4 documentary, but it seems that the distinction has been missing from much of the recent discussion.
>
> Here's another article from September 12 that makes the distinction:
>
> http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/scoliosis.htm
>
> The author states:
>
> "Scoliosis is an abnormal sideways curvature of the spine, where the spine curves either to the left or to the right of the body. As this is usually a double curve, the neck and head remain in their usual central position. In a living person, the signs of scoliosis vary depending on the severity. These may include having one shoulder higher than the other, one shoulder blade higher and more prominent than the other, one hip more prominent than the other, or a slight lean to one side."
>
> We know that Richard exhibited only one of these symptoms, one shoulder higher than the other, and it seems not to have been noticeable to most people as it was not mentioned in the few descriptions written while he was living.
>
> Possibly we should link to this article, which appeared in "Current Archaeology," when we encounter people who mindlessly repeat the "hunchback" slander. Maybe we can finally get it through a few people's heads that a sideways curve does not cause a hunch/hump.
>
> Anyway, I'd like to see your ideas about the placement of the vertebrae addressed. The article indicates that scoliosis is more apparent in a skeleton than in a living person but she didn't mention its being more apparent in a skeleton lying on its back than a standing skeleton or address your other very interesting ideas.
>
> Carol
>

Thank you
That was a very interesting answer to several questions I had
When they took DNA samples and carbon dating samples I could see how fragile the bones looked, was it a radius? It looked hollow and the right shape to be a radius ?
George

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 5, 2013, at 10:17 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:

> Dr. Appleby is identified as... hang on, I'll go look it up, I've been wrong a lot the past few days...
>
> Here we go. She is listed on the ULeic RIII site as "leading the osteological analysis and lecturer [in Human Bioarchaeology] in the School of Archaeology and Ancient History." So... Lecturer, specializing in Bioarchaeology, Bronze Age, Slavery. (Ugh, poor woman, that last one has got to be infinitely depressing.) She has made some cogent comments about how the deformations to the vertebrae identify the scoliosis as having originated during Richard's adolescence (defined, for scoliosis-diagnosing purposes, as at or later than 10 years of age). She also clarified that the curvature to the spine was not the result of the burial or later pressure from, you know, cars driving over the blacktop and whatnot.
>
> Overall, she sounds like she knows her stuff. That doesn't quite square with her having used the term "hunchback" at the dig site, but I get the impression that they were all kind of dazed. Archeology just doesn't go like this: this just looked like, "Oh, let's go find Richard, wup, there he is, great, shall we go have a pint?" Maybe Dr. Appleby wasn't watching her yap that day. If she's a pro she'll regret that.
>
> My take on how the skeleton was laid out is that it's not an attempt to reconstruct the actual position of the bones, which they wouldn't do with the originals anyway: we are talking WAY fragile and you NEVER want them to so much as brush up against one another. That's why, when they're laid out, they're carefully spaced so they can't touch even by accident.
>
> Any reconstruction would be done with 3D replicas--they have a 3D prototyping unit, essentially a 3D printer that uses plastic instead of ink--and the replicas would be what you assemble into a simulacrum of the skeleton, the real bones being too precious to goof around with. I think we probably will see a replica of the intact skeleton at some point. That would be when we could start drawing some reasonable conclusions about the extent and effects of the scoliosis.
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> >
> > wednesday wrote:
> > >
> > > Does anyone know who did the spinal analysis for Richard's skeleton? Was it a forensic anthropologist (who is basically an orthopedic specialist qualified to analyze bones of the dead), or is that analysis still pending?
> > >[snip]
> > > The more I look at the photo, the more I think the archaeologist who found Richard positioned the bones to replicate how she found the skeleton, and the placement is not true to life. Which is why I'm asking if there was any mention made in the documentary of an analysis having been done by a forensic anthropologist.
> > [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Sorry to snip your excellent post. I tried to compromise between content and conciseness.
> >
> > I don't know who did the spinal analysis, but it was Richard Taylor, not Jo Appleby, who made the important distinction (reported in most of the early reports on the dig) between scoliosis and kyphosis:
> >
> > http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/news/richard-iii-found.htm
> >
> > I don't know whether Richard Taylor appeared in the Channel 4 documentary, but it seems that the distinction has been missing from much of the recent discussion.
> >
> > Here's another article from September 12 that makes the distinction:
> >
> > http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/scoliosis.htm
> >
> > The author states:
> >
> > "Scoliosis is an abnormal sideways curvature of the spine, where the spine curves either to the left or to the right of the body. As this is usually a double curve, the neck and head remain in their usual central position. In a living person, the signs of scoliosis vary depending on the severity. These may include having one shoulder higher than the other, one shoulder blade higher and more prominent than the other, one hip more prominent than the other, or a slight lean to one side."
> >
> > We know that Richard exhibited only one of these symptoms, one shoulder higher than the other, and it seems not to have been noticeable to most people as it was not mentioned in the few descriptions written while he was living.
> >
> > Possibly we should link to this article, which appeared in "Current Archaeology," when we encounter people who mindlessly repeat the "hunchback" slander. Maybe we can finally get it through a few people's heads that a sideways curve does not cause a hunch/hump.
> >
> > Anyway, I'd like to see your ideas about the placement of the vertebrae addressed. The article indicates that scoliosis is more apparent in a skeleton than in a living person but she didn't mention its being more apparent in a skeleton lying on its back than a standing skeleton or address your other very interesting ideas.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>

Hi, George 



I'm still feeling somewhat hung over as a result of all the awesomeness and solemnity of all this. (Oh, my head!)



Anyway, I'm fairly sure that on the video Turi (I think it was) said she would be taking the second sample from the femur, the second best place on the body (after the teeth) to extract a DNA sample.



After all the events of recent days  the fellow I feel somewhat sorry for is Michael Ibsen, who seems like a rather shy, diffident fellow (typical Canadian!) whom the press seems to keep after for statements. Fortunately he is not objecting, which is good for us, as he makes the events even more immediate.



I still find it incredible that they could locate two modern maternal lines of descent, prove it, and then find three exact matches for the DNA. I certainly didn't expect that it would actually happen  I am sure from what they were saying that the odds were against it  and they didn't have the results till last Saturday. No wonder they were preparing us for the possibility that there might *not* be an exact match!



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 George Butterfield
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 11:55 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Questions About Spinal Analysis





Thank you
That was a very interesting answer to several questions I had
When they took DNA samples and carbon dating samples I could see how fragile the bones looked, was it a radius? It looked hollow and the right shape to be a radius ?
George

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 5, 2013, at 10:17 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" mcjohn@... <mailto:mcjohn%40oplink.net> > wrote:

> Dr. Appleby is identified as... hang on, I'll go look it up, I've been wrong a lot the past few days...
>
> Here we go. She is listed on the ULeic RIII site as "leading the osteological analysis and lecturer [in Human Bioarchaeology] in the School of Archaeology and Ancient History." So... Lecturer, specializing in Bioarchaeology, Bronze Age, Slavery. (Ugh, poor woman, that last one has got to be infinitely depressing.) She has made some cogent comments about how the deformations to the vertebrae identify the scoliosis as having originated during Richard's adolescence (defined, for scoliosis-diagnosing purposes, as at or later than 10 years of age). She also clarified that the curvature to the spine was not the result of the burial or later pressure from, you know, cars driving over the blacktop and whatnot.
>
> Overall, she sounds like she knows her stuff. That doesn't quite square with her having used the term "hunchback" at the dig site, but I get the impression that they were all kind of dazed. Archeology just doesn't go like this: this just looked like, "Oh, let's go find Richard, wup, there he is, great, shall we go have a pint?" Maybe Dr. Appleby wasn't watching her yap that day. If she's a pro she'll regret that.
>
> My take on how the skeleton was laid out is that it's not an attempt to reconstruct the actual position of the bones, which they wouldn't do with the originals anyway: we are talking WAY fragile and you NEVER want them to so much as brush up against one another. That's why, when they're laid out, they're carefully spaced so they can't touch even by accident.
>
> Any reconstruction would be done with 3D replicas--they have a 3D prototyping unit, essentially a 3D printer that uses plastic instead of ink--and the replicas would be what you assemble into a simulacrum of the skeleton, the real bones being too precious to goof around with. I think we probably will see a replica of the intact skeleton at some point. That would be when we could start drawing some reasonable conclusions about the extent and effects of the scoliosis.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> >
> > wednesday wrote:
> > >
> > > Does anyone know who did the spinal analysis for Richard's skeleton? Was it a forensic anthropologist (who is basically an orthopedic specialist qualified to analyze bones of the dead), or is that analysis still pending?
> > >[snip]
> > > The more I look at the photo, the more I think the archaeologist who found Richard positioned the bones to replicate how she found the skeleton, and the placement is not true to life. Which is why I'm asking if there was any mention made in the documentary of an analysis having been done by a forensic anthropologist.
> > [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Sorry to snip your excellent post. I tried to compromise between content and conciseness.
> >
> > I don't know who did the spinal analysis, but it was Richard Taylor, not Jo Appleby, who made the important distinction (reported in most of the early reports on the dig) between scoliosis and kyphosis:
> >
> > http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/news/richard-iii-found.htm
> >
> > I don't know whether Richard Taylor appeared in the Channel 4 documentary, but it seems that the distinction has been missing from much of the recent discussion.
> >
> > Here's another article from September 12 that makes the distinction:
> >
> > http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/scoliosis.htm
> >
> > The author states:
> >
> > "Scoliosis is an abnormal sideways curvature of the spine, where the spine curves either to the left or to the right of the body. As this is usually a double curve, the neck and head remain in their usual central position. In a living person, the signs of scoliosis vary depending on the severity. These may include having one shoulder higher than the other, one shoulder blade higher and more prominent than the other, one hip more prominent than the other, or a slight lean to one side."
> >
> > We know that Richard exhibited only one of these symptoms, one shoulder higher than the other, and it seems not to have been noticeable to most people as it was not mentioned in the few descriptions written while he was living.
> >
> > Possibly we should link to this article, which appeared in "Current Archaeology," when we encounter people who mindlessly repeat the "hunchback" slander. Maybe we can finally get it through a few people's heads that a sideways curve does not cause a hunch/hump.
> >
> > Anyway, I'd like to see your ideas about the placement of the vertebrae addressed. The article indicates that scoliosis is more apparent in a skeleton than in a living person but she didn't mention its being more apparent in a skeleton lying on its back than a standing skeleton or address your other very interesting ideas.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>

Let's see... Dr. Turi King did the DNA sampling and comparisons, and I believe she said they had extracted DNA from a rear bottom left molar, handling the material carefully to avoid cross-contamination (which testing revealed they had indeed avoided). I think they were also saying they would test material from deep in a femur, but I don't know that that was done. It'd make sense, though, given how cautious and comprehensively they did the examination: they took the ancient DNA to two separate labs, one in England and on in France, that specialize in handling DNA from the long departed. They got the same results from both labs.

I haven't seen anything specific about the radiocarbon dating. Maybe someone else knows where that material originated?

--- In , George Butterfield wrote:
>
> Thank you
> That was a very interesting answer to several questions I had
> When they took DNA samples and carbon dating samples I could see how fragile the bones looked, was it a radius? It looked hollow and the right shape to be a radius ?
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 5, 2013, at 10:17 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
>
> > Dr. Appleby is identified as... hang on, I'll go look it up, I've been wrong a lot the past few days...
> >
> > Here we go. She is listed on the ULeic RIII site as "leading the osteological analysis and lecturer [in Human Bioarchaeology] in the School of Archaeology and Ancient History." So... Lecturer, specializing in Bioarchaeology, Bronze Age, Slavery. (Ugh, poor woman, that last one has got to be infinitely depressing.) She has made some cogent comments about how the deformations to the vertebrae identify the scoliosis as having originated during Richard's adolescence (defined, for scoliosis-diagnosing purposes, as at or later than 10 years of age). She also clarified that the curvature to the spine was not the result of the burial or later pressure from, you know, cars driving over the blacktop and whatnot.
> >
> > Overall, she sounds like she knows her stuff. That doesn't quite square with her having used the term "hunchback" at the dig site, but I get the impression that they were all kind of dazed. Archeology just doesn't go like this: this just looked like, "Oh, let's go find Richard, wup, there he is, great, shall we go have a pint?" Maybe Dr. Appleby wasn't watching her yap that day. If she's a pro she'll regret that.
> >
> > My take on how the skeleton was laid out is that it's not an attempt to reconstruct the actual position of the bones, which they wouldn't do with the originals anyway: we are talking WAY fragile and you NEVER want them to so much as brush up against one another. That's why, when they're laid out, they're carefully spaced so they can't touch even by accident.
> >
> > Any reconstruction would be done with 3D replicas--they have a 3D prototyping unit, essentially a 3D printer that uses plastic instead of ink--and the replicas would be what you assemble into a simulacrum of the skeleton, the real bones being too precious to goof around with. I think we probably will see a replica of the intact skeleton at some point. That would be when we could start drawing some reasonable conclusions about the extent and effects of the scoliosis.
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > wednesday wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Does anyone know who did the spinal analysis for Richard's skeleton? Was it a forensic anthropologist (who is basically an orthopedic specialist qualified to analyze bones of the dead), or is that analysis still pending?
> > > >[snip]
> > > > The more I look at the photo, the more I think the archaeologist who found Richard positioned the bones to replicate how she found the skeleton, and the placement is not true to life. Which is why I'm asking if there was any mention made in the documentary of an analysis having been done by a forensic anthropologist.
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Sorry to snip your excellent post. I tried to compromise between content and conciseness.
> > >
> > > I don't know who did the spinal analysis, but it was Richard Taylor, not Jo Appleby, who made the important distinction (reported in most of the early reports on the dig) between scoliosis and kyphosis:
> > >
> > > http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/news/richard-iii-found.htm
> > >
> > > I don't know whether Richard Taylor appeared in the Channel 4 documentary, but it seems that the distinction has been missing from much of the recent discussion.
> > >
> > > Here's another article from September 12 that makes the distinction:
> > >
> > > http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/scoliosis.htm
> > >
> > > The author states:
> > >
> > > "Scoliosis is an abnormal sideways curvature of the spine, where the spine curves either to the left or to the right of the body. As this is usually a double curve, the neck and head remain in their usual central position. In a living person, the signs of scoliosis vary depending on the severity. These may include having one shoulder higher than the other, one shoulder blade higher and more prominent than the other, one hip more prominent than the other, or a slight lean to one side."
> > >
> > > We know that Richard exhibited only one of these symptoms, one shoulder higher than the other, and it seems not to have been noticeable to most people as it was not mentioned in the few descriptions written while he was living.
> > >
> > > Possibly we should link to this article, which appeared in "Current Archaeology," when we encounter people who mindlessly repeat the "hunchback" slander. Maybe we can finally get it through a few people's heads that a sideways curve does not cause a hunch/hump.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I'd like to see your ideas about the placement of the vertebrae addressed. The article indicates that scoliosis is more apparent in a skeleton than in a living person but she didn't mention its being more apparent in a skeleton lying on its back than a standing skeleton or address your other very interesting ideas.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

That's a very good point. Also, in life he may have worn some sort of brace or corset, which would have pulled the spine up a little bit.
Marie

--- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> Does anyone know who did the spinal analysis for Richard's skeleton? Was it a forensic anthropologist (who is basically an orthopedic specialist qualified to analyze bones of the dead), or is that analysis still pending?
>
> I ask because a friend pointed out that the spacing between and alignment of the vertebrae in the press photo of the skeleton is not anatomically true to a living frame. It looks like the placement of the bones in the photo released to the press is based on how Richard's skeleton was found -- which is without the discs between the vertebrae and the ligaments holding it all together; and after the vertebrae sagged, shifted and collapsed into empty space as the body decayed. The body may also have been curved when it was placed in the grave, which also would only have intensified the curvature of the spine. It does not look like the photo reflects the actual curvature of his spine when he was on his feet.
>
> The more I look at the photo, the more I think the archaeologist who found Richard positioned the bones to replicate how she found the skeleton, and the placement is not true to life. Which is why I'm asking if there was any mention made in the documentary of an analysis having been done by a forensic anthropologist.
>
> Because the anatomical positioning of the vertebrae and the spaces between the bones in the press conference photo simply is not right if you're trying to illustrate how severe or not severe his scoliosis is.
>
> ~Weds
>

The femur is hollow. That is what enables hip replacements!

On Feb 5, 2013, at 9:55 PM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1@...>> wrote:



Thank you
That was a very interesting answer to several questions I had
When they took DNA samples and carbon dating samples I could see how fragile the bones looked, was it a radius? It looked hollow and the right shape to be a radius ?
George

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 5, 2013, at 10:17 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" mcjohn@...<mailto:mcjohn%40oplink.net>> wrote:

> Dr. Appleby is identified as... hang on, I'll go look it up, I've been wrong a lot the past few days...
>
> Here we go. She is listed on the ULeic RIII site as "leading the osteological analysis and lecturer [in Human Bioarchaeology] in the School of Archaeology and Ancient History." So... Lecturer, specializing in Bioarchaeology, Bronze Age, Slavery. (Ugh, poor woman, that last one has got to be infinitely depressing.) She has made some cogent comments about how the deformations to the vertebrae identify the scoliosis as having originated during Richard's adolescence (defined, for scoliosis-diagnosing purposes, as at or later than 10 years of age). She also clarified that the curvature to the spine was not the result of the burial or later pressure from, you know, cars driving over the blacktop and whatnot.
>
> Overall, she sounds like she knows her stuff. That doesn't quite square with her having used the term "hunchback" at the dig site, but I get the impression that they were all kind of dazed. Archeology just doesn't go like this: this just looked like, "Oh, let's go find Richard, wup, there he is, great, shall we go have a pint?" Maybe Dr. Appleby wasn't watching her yap that day. If she's a pro she'll regret that.
>
> My take on how the skeleton was laid out is that it's not an attempt to reconstruct the actual position of the bones, which they wouldn't do with the originals anyway: we are talking WAY fragile and you NEVER want them to so much as brush up against one another. That's why, when they're laid out, they're carefully spaced so they can't touch even by accident.
>
> Any reconstruction would be done with 3D replicas--they have a 3D prototyping unit, essentially a 3D printer that uses plastic instead of ink--and the replicas would be what you assemble into a simulacrum of the skeleton, the real bones being too precious to goof around with. I think we probably will see a replica of the intact skeleton at some point. That would be when we could start drawing some reasonable conclusions about the extent and effects of the scoliosis.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> >
> > wednesday wrote:
> > >
> > > Does anyone know who did the spinal analysis for Richard's skeleton? Was it a forensic anthropologist (who is basically an orthopedic specialist qualified to analyze bones of the dead), or is that analysis still pending?
> > >[snip]
> > > The more I look at the photo, the more I think the archaeologist who found Richard positioned the bones to replicate how she found the skeleton, and the placement is not true to life. Which is why I'm asking if there was any mention made in the documentary of an analysis having been done by a forensic anthropologist.
> > [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Sorry to snip your excellent post. I tried to compromise between content and conciseness.
> >
> > I don't know who did the spinal analysis, but it was Richard Taylor, not Jo Appleby, who made the important distinction (reported in most of the early reports on the dig) between scoliosis and kyphosis:
> >
> > http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/news/richard-iii-found.htm
> >
> > I don't know whether Richard Taylor appeared in the Channel 4 documentary, but it seems that the distinction has been missing from much of the recent discussion.
> >
> > Here's another article from September 12 that makes the distinction:
> >
> > http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/scoliosis.htm
> >
> > The author states:
> >
> > "Scoliosis is an abnormal sideways curvature of the spine, where the spine curves either to the left or to the right of the body. As this is usually a double curve, the neck and head remain in their usual central position. In a living person, the signs of scoliosis vary depending on the severity. These may include having one shoulder higher than the other, one shoulder blade higher and more prominent than the other, one hip more prominent than the other, or a slight lean to one side."
> >
> > We know that Richard exhibited only one of these symptoms, one shoulder higher than the other, and it seems not to have been noticeable to most people as it was not mentioned in the few descriptions written while he was living.
> >
> > Possibly we should link to this article, which appeared in "Current Archaeology," when we encounter people who mindlessly repeat the "hunchback" slander. Maybe we can finally get it through a few people's heads that a sideways curve does not cause a hunch/hump.
> >
> > Anyway, I'd like to see your ideas about the placement of the vertebrae addressed. The article indicates that scoliosis is more apparent in a skeleton than in a living person but she didn't mention its being more apparent in a skeleton lying on its back than a standing skeleton or address your other very interesting ideas.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>

So are lots of other bones including heads!


Sent from my iPad

On Feb 6, 2013, at 9:17 AM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> The femur is hollow. That is what enables hip replacements!
>
> On Feb 5, 2013, at 9:55 PM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Thank you
> That was a very interesting answer to several questions I had
> When they took DNA samples and carbon dating samples I could see how fragile the bones looked, was it a radius? It looked hollow and the right shape to be a radius ?
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 5, 2013, at 10:17 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" mcjohn@...<mailto:mcjohn%40oplink.net>> wrote:
>
>> Dr. Appleby is identified as... hang on, I'll go look it up, I've been wrong a lot the past few days...
>>
>> Here we go. She is listed on the ULeic RIII site as "leading the osteological analysis and lecturer [in Human Bioarchaeology] in the School of Archaeology and Ancient History." So... Lecturer, specializing in Bioarchaeology, Bronze Age, Slavery. (Ugh, poor woman, that last one has got to be infinitely depressing.) She has made some cogent comments about how the deformations to the vertebrae identify the scoliosis as having originated during Richard's adolescence (defined, for scoliosis-diagnosing purposes, as at or later than 10 years of age). She also clarified that the curvature to the spine was not the result of the burial or later pressure from, you know, cars driving over the blacktop and whatnot.
>>
>> Overall, she sounds like she knows her stuff. That doesn't quite square with her having used the term "hunchback" at the dig site, but I get the impression that they were all kind of dazed. Archeology just doesn't go like this: this just looked like, "Oh, let's go find Richard, wup, there he is, great, shall we go have a pint?" Maybe Dr. Appleby wasn't watching her yap that day. If she's a pro she'll regret that.
>>
>> My take on how the skeleton was laid out is that it's not an attempt to reconstruct the actual position of the bones, which they wouldn't do with the originals anyway: we are talking WAY fragile and you NEVER want them to so much as brush up against one another. That's why, when they're laid out, they're carefully spaced so they can't touch even by accident.
>>
>> Any reconstruction would be done with 3D replicas--they have a 3D prototyping unit, essentially a 3D printer that uses plastic instead of ink--and the replicas would be what you assemble into a simulacrum of the skeleton, the real bones being too precious to goof around with. I think we probably will see a replica of the intact skeleton at some point. That would be when we could start drawing some reasonable conclusions about the extent and effects of the scoliosis.
>>
>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> wednesday wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone know who did the spinal analysis for Richard's skeleton? Was it a forensic anthropologist (who is basically an orthopedic specialist qualified to analyze bones of the dead), or is that analysis still pending?
>>>> [snip]
>>>> The more I look at the photo, the more I think the archaeologist who found Richard positioned the bones to replicate how she found the skeleton, and the placement is not true to life. Which is why I'm asking if there was any mention made in the documentary of an analysis having been done by a forensic anthropologist.
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Carol responds:
>>>
>>> Sorry to snip your excellent post. I tried to compromise between content and conciseness.
>>>
>>> I don't know who did the spinal analysis, but it was Richard Taylor, not Jo Appleby, who made the important distinction (reported in most of the early reports on the dig) between scoliosis and kyphosis:
>>>
>>> http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/news/richard-iii-found.htm
>>>
>>> I don't know whether Richard Taylor appeared in the Channel 4 documentary, but it seems that the distinction has been missing from much of the recent discussion.
>>>
>>> Here's another article from September 12 that makes the distinction:
>>>
>>> http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/scoliosis.htm
>>>
>>> The author states:
>>>
>>> "Scoliosis is an abnormal sideways curvature of the spine, where the spine curves either to the left or to the right of the body. As this is usually a double curve, the neck and head remain in their usual central position. In a living person, the signs of scoliosis vary depending on the severity. These may include having one shoulder higher than the other, one shoulder blade higher and more prominent than the other, one hip more prominent than the other, or a slight lean to one side."
>>>
>>> We know that Richard exhibited only one of these symptoms, one shoulder higher than the other, and it seems not to have been noticeable to most people as it was not mentioned in the few descriptions written while he was living.
>>>
>>> Possibly we should link to this article, which appeared in "Current Archaeology," when we encounter people who mindlessly repeat the "hunchback" slander. Maybe we can finally get it through a few people's heads that a sideways curve does not cause a hunch/hump.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I'd like to see your ideas about the placement of the vertebrae addressed. The article indicates that scoliosis is more apparent in a skeleton than in a living person but she didn't mention its being more apparent in a skeleton lying on its back than a standing skeleton or address your other very interesting ideas.
>>>
>>> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Ha Ha, correct. I just meant that in life the femur is hollow, and having had a hip replacement, I read up, so to speak. Lots of good DNA stored there.

On Feb 6, 2013, at 9:05 AM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1@...>> wrote:



So are lots of other bones including heads!

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 6, 2013, at 9:17 AM, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:

> The femur is hollow. That is what enables hip replacements!
>
> On Feb 5, 2013, at 9:55 PM, "George Butterfield" gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Thank you
> That was a very interesting answer to several questions I had
> When they took DNA samples and carbon dating samples I could see how fragile the bones looked, was it a radius? It looked hollow and the right shape to be a radius ?
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 5, 2013, at 10:17 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" mcjohn@...<mailto:mcjohn%40oplink.net>> wrote:
>
>> Dr. Appleby is identified as... hang on, I'll go look it up, I've been wrong a lot the past few days...
>>
>> Here we go. She is listed on the ULeic RIII site as "leading the osteological analysis and lecturer [in Human Bioarchaeology] in the School of Archaeology and Ancient History." So... Lecturer, specializing in Bioarchaeology, Bronze Age, Slavery. (Ugh, poor woman, that last one has got to be infinitely depressing.) She has made some cogent comments about how the deformations to the vertebrae identify the scoliosis as having originated during Richard's adolescence (defined, for scoliosis-diagnosing purposes, as at or later than 10 years of age). She also clarified that the curvature to the spine was not the result of the burial or later pressure from, you know, cars driving over the blacktop and whatnot.
>>
>> Overall, she sounds like she knows her stuff. That doesn't quite square with her having used the term "hunchback" at the dig site, but I get the impression that they were all kind of dazed. Archeology just doesn't go like this: this just looked like, "Oh, let's go find Richard, wup, there he is, great, shall we go have a pint?" Maybe Dr. Appleby wasn't watching her yap that day. If she's a pro she'll regret that.
>>
>> My take on how the skeleton was laid out is that it's not an attempt to reconstruct the actual position of the bones, which they wouldn't do with the originals anyway: we are talking WAY fragile and you NEVER want them to so much as brush up against one another. That's why, when they're laid out, they're carefully spaced so they can't touch even by accident.
>>
>> Any reconstruction would be done with 3D replicas--they have a 3D prototyping unit, essentially a 3D printer that uses plastic instead of ink--and the replicas would be what you assemble into a simulacrum of the skeleton, the real bones being too precious to goof around with. I think we probably will see a replica of the intact skeleton at some point. That would be when we could start drawing some reasonable conclusions about the extent and effects of the scoliosis.
>>
>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> wednesday wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone know who did the spinal analysis for Richard's skeleton? Was it a forensic anthropologist (who is basically an orthopedic specialist qualified to analyze bones of the dead), or is that analysis still pending?
>>>> [snip]
>>>> The more I look at the photo, the more I think the archaeologist who found Richard positioned the bones to replicate how she found the skeleton, and the placement is not true to life. Which is why I'm asking if there was any mention made in the documentary of an analysis having been done by a forensic anthropologist.
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Carol responds:
>>>
>>> Sorry to snip your excellent post. I tried to compromise between content and conciseness.
>>>
>>> I don't know who did the spinal analysis, but it was Richard Taylor, not Jo Appleby, who made the important distinction (reported in most of the early reports on the dig) between scoliosis and kyphosis:
>>>
>>> http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/news/richard-iii-found.htm
>>>
>>> I don't know whether Richard Taylor appeared in the Channel 4 documentary, but it seems that the distinction has been missing from much of the recent discussion.
>>>
>>> Here's another article from September 12 that makes the distinction:
>>>
>>> http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/scoliosis.htm
>>>
>>> The author states:
>>>
>>> "Scoliosis is an abnormal sideways curvature of the spine, where the spine curves either to the left or to the right of the body. As this is usually a double curve, the neck and head remain in their usual central position. In a living person, the signs of scoliosis vary depending on the severity. These may include having one shoulder higher than the other, one shoulder blade higher and more prominent than the other, one hip more prominent than the other, or a slight lean to one side."
>>>
>>> We know that Richard exhibited only one of these symptoms, one shoulder higher than the other, and it seems not to have been noticeable to most people as it was not mentioned in the few descriptions written while he was living.
>>>
>>> Possibly we should link to this article, which appeared in "Current Archaeology," when we encounter people who mindlessly repeat the "hunchback" slander. Maybe we can finally get it through a few people's heads that a sideways curve does not cause a hunch/hump.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I'd like to see your ideas about the placement of the vertebrae addressed. The article indicates that scoliosis is more apparent in a skeleton than in a living person but she didn't mention its being more apparent in a skeleton lying on its back than a standing skeleton or address your other very interesting ideas.
>>>
>>> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Sorry if I sounded snippy I am running a small network of computers so I can get the DVDs out and one of them is not talking but telling the rest to restart%#%^^%%%><>><~£
G

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 6, 2013, at 10:08 AM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> Ha Ha, correct. I just meant that in life the femur is hollow, and having had a hip replacement, I read up, so to speak. Lots of good DNA stored there.
>
> On Feb 6, 2013, at 9:05 AM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> So are lots of other bones including heads!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 6, 2013, at 9:17 AM, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:
>
>> The femur is hollow. That is what enables hip replacements!
>>
>> On Feb 5, 2013, at 9:55 PM, "George Butterfield" gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you
>> That was a very interesting answer to several questions I had
>> When they took DNA samples and carbon dating samples I could see how fragile the bones looked, was it a radius? It looked hollow and the right shape to be a radius ?
>> George
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Feb 5, 2013, at 10:17 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" mcjohn@...<mailto:mcjohn%40oplink.net>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dr. Appleby is identified as... hang on, I'll go look it up, I've been wrong a lot the past few days...
>>>
>>> Here we go. She is listed on the ULeic RIII site as "leading the osteological analysis and lecturer [in Human Bioarchaeology] in the School of Archaeology and Ancient History." So... Lecturer, specializing in Bioarchaeology, Bronze Age, Slavery. (Ugh, poor woman, that last one has got to be infinitely depressing.) She has made some cogent comments about how the deformations to the vertebrae identify the scoliosis as having originated during Richard's adolescence (defined, for scoliosis-diagnosing purposes, as at or later than 10 years of age). She also clarified that the curvature to the spine was not the result of the burial or later pressure from, you know, cars driving over the blacktop and whatnot.
>>>
>>> Overall, she sounds like she knows her stuff. That doesn't quite square with her having used the term "hunchback" at the dig site, but I get the impression that they were all kind of dazed. Archeology just doesn't go like this: this just looked like, "Oh, let's go find Richard, wup, there he is, great, shall we go have a pint?" Maybe Dr. Appleby wasn't watching her yap that day. If she's a pro she'll regret that.
>>>
>>> My take on how the skeleton was laid out is that it's not an attempt to reconstruct the actual position of the bones, which they wouldn't do with the originals anyway: we are talking WAY fragile and you NEVER want them to so much as brush up against one another. That's why, when they're laid out, they're carefully spaced so they can't touch even by accident.
>>>
>>> Any reconstruction would be done with 3D replicas--they have a 3D prototyping unit, essentially a 3D printer that uses plastic instead of ink--and the replicas would be what you assemble into a simulacrum of the skeleton, the real bones being too precious to goof around with. I think we probably will see a replica of the intact skeleton at some point. That would be when we could start drawing some reasonable conclusions about the extent and effects of the scoliosis.
>>>
>>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> wednesday wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone know who did the spinal analysis for Richard's skeleton? Was it a forensic anthropologist (who is basically an orthopedic specialist qualified to analyze bones of the dead), or is that analysis still pending?
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>> The more I look at the photo, the more I think the archaeologist who found Richard positioned the bones to replicate how she found the skeleton, and the placement is not true to life. Which is why I'm asking if there was any mention made in the documentary of an analysis having been done by a forensic anthropologist.
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> Carol responds:
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to snip your excellent post. I tried to compromise between content and conciseness.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know who did the spinal analysis, but it was Richard Taylor, not Jo Appleby, who made the important distinction (reported in most of the early reports on the dig) between scoliosis and kyphosis:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/news/richard-iii-found.htm
>>>>
>>>> I don't know whether Richard Taylor appeared in the Channel 4 documentary, but it seems that the distinction has been missing from much of the recent discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Here's another article from September 12 that makes the distinction:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/scoliosis.htm
>>>>
>>>> The author states:
>>>>
>>>> "Scoliosis is an abnormal sideways curvature of the spine, where the spine curves either to the left or to the right of the body. As this is usually a double curve, the neck and head remain in their usual central position. In a living person, the signs of scoliosis vary depending on the severity. These may include having one shoulder higher than the other, one shoulder blade higher and more prominent than the other, one hip more prominent than the other, or a slight lean to one side."
>>>>
>>>> We know that Richard exhibited only one of these symptoms, one shoulder higher than the other, and it seems not to have been noticeable to most people as it was not mentioned in the few descriptions written while he was living.
>>>>
>>>> Possibly we should link to this article, which appeared in "Current Archaeology," when we encounter people who mindlessly repeat the "hunchback" slander. Maybe we can finally get it through a few people's heads that a sideways curve does not cause a hunch/hump.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, I'd like to see your ideas about the placement of the vertebrae addressed. The article indicates that scoliosis is more apparent in a skeleton than in a living person but she didn't mention its being more apparent in a skeleton lying on its back than a standing skeleton or address your other very interesting ideas.
>>>>
>>>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

The summary of the thoughts of a friend of mine (with a police and medical background, but not in forensics and by no means an expert; she only worked with the experts) and myself (with only curiosity) on Richard's spinal condition is that to properly assess the severity of his scoliosis, Leicester University might consider asking an orthopedic surgeon (at the very least) and/or a forensic pathologist to take a look at Richard's skeleton to further assess the severity of his scoliosis.

An orthopedic surgeon is the medical expert needed to assess the severity of Richard's scoliosis. A forensic anthropologist is needed to properly analyze the wounds inflicted on Richard's ancient skeleton.

Here is a video from Leicester University releasing scanned images of Richard's spine as they laid it out on the gurney, and Leicester University staff commenting on its condition:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfi6gOX0Nf4

Two people make statements about Richard's bones:

Dr Turi E. King - Cited as a Lecturer in Genetics and Archaeology. Her professional CV is here:
http://www.le.ac.uk/users/tek2/tek2.html

Dr. Jo Appleby - Cited as a Lecturer in Bioarchaeology. Her background is here:
http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/archaeology/people/jo-appleby/dr-jo-appleby

It appears neither one is an orthopedic surgeon or forensic anthropologist qualified to assess the severity of scoliosis before death. From the information Leicester has released, it does not appear that either an orthopedic surgeon or a forensic anthropologist has been consulted.

At 3:03 in the video referenced above (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfi6gOX0Nf4)
is an image of Richard's scanned spine. Vertebrae — even those damaged on their edges by scoliosis — line up like puzzle pieces. If you do not know how to assess the damage to each edge, you can't line up the puzzle pieces correctly. So depending on how you construct the puzzle, you'll get a less curved or more curved spine.

Some of the spacing (wide gaps) and angling (top angles not matching bottom angles of individual vertebrae) in the images released in the video (so far the clearest and most detailed we can find) doesn't look correct. If the angles and the spacing between the vertebrae is incorrect, then the entire spine's angle of curvature will be incorrect. Depending on how you line up those vertebrae, Richard's scoliosis can go from relatively mild to an absolute nightmare in seconds.

This begs the question: who analyzed the damage to each vertebrae, and who positioned them for the scan to ensure they were aligned properly for an accurate analysis of the severity of his scoliosis?

At 3:19 in the video is yet another layout of Richard's spine. Again, the spacing and angling between the vertebrae may not be accurate. If it is not, then the conclusions regarding Richard's scoliosis will not be accurate.

As presented, the severity of his scoliosis would indicate that one of his lungs would be severely compromised, which means his breathing would be severely compromised. This, all by itself, means we have a contradiction between what we know of his physical capability in life vs. the alleged severity of his physical condition: if one cannot breathe well, one cannot do as he did.

We would also suggest that such a severe misalignment (as presented) between his left shoulder and his left hip would create excessive wear on his left hip socket; something else an orthopedic surgeon could assess that the current team may not have seen. One photo we could find indicates there may be some wear. Another photo showed little wear, which seems a bit unbelievable if Richard's condition was as severe as the current photos of his spine indicate. The absence of excessive wear would also indicate his scoliosis was not as severe as it's currently being presented.

Previously here, Carol Darling wrote:

> Re, spinal deformity: Since the grave hole was too small for Richards body, and his body was laid in feet first and then folded a bit to fill the grave cavity and lay there for over 500 years….well, might the extreme bend of his spine be accentuated by his taller body folded into the smaller grave hole? After 500 years of dirt pressure, how much unnatural curvature was added to his spine, other than the normal distortion in his living body. Has this been addressed. Is this idea valid. it seems the extreme curvature would almost inhibit even a fit man, from wearing armor, fighting with heavy weapons, and riding a horse for many miles many days. Any thoughts on this?


Wednesday writes:

The angling of Richard's torso in the grave could very well affect the angling of his spine. The placement of his body in the grave and the resulting placement of the bones 530 years later certainly doesn't reflect the alignment of his body when he was on his feet during life.

Dr. Appleby states in the video that there was no movement in the bones after death. But how can this be possible, given the decay of soft tissue originally in between and surrounding the bones?

We already know his head was propped up, which means his neck and back were not lying flush against the bottom of the grave; part of him was suspended over empty space. That alone would suggest there had to be movement in the bones after death, as at the very least the dissolution of his soft tissue would cause the vertebrae to collapse. A forensic anthropologist would have to be consulted for the definitive analysis on this, and he or she could likely work from photos.

It should also be noted that the majority of the structural problem in adult scoliosis is *not* the vertebrae; it is *soft tissue adaptation*, which is gone in Richard's case. The soft tissue adaptation occurs in the muscle, ligaments, and discs and is secondary to the scoliosis, not the cause of it. The more soft tissue adaptation that takes place over time, the more rigid the spinal column becomes.

We have lost that soft tissue, which might make it even more imperative that the Leicester team consult an orthopedic surgeon who can assess from the current condition of the individual vertebrae where, exactly, each vertebrae was positioned during Richard's life rather than in his grave. He or she might even tell us how rigid his spinal column was, as the surgeon can analyze the wear on the vertebrae itself.

Since Richard's bones are still available for the next year or so, at the very least might an orthopedic surgeon be asked to analyze the vertebrae so a professional medical analysis of Richard's scoliosis and the condition of his hip bones can be made? As it stands, it seems that current medical expertise might be used to properly assess his condition. Additionally, a forensic anthropologist might also find wounds or marks on the bones that the current team may have missed.

~Weds



--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
> wednesday wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone know who did the spinal analysis for Richard's skeleton? Was it a forensic anthropologist (who is basically an orthopedic specialist qualified to analyze bones of the dead), or is that analysis still pending?
> >[snip]
> > The more I look at the photo, the more I think the archaeologist who found Richard positioned the bones to replicate how she found the skeleton, and the placement is not true to life. Which is why I'm asking if there was any mention made in the documentary of an analysis having been done by a forensic anthropologist.
> [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Sorry to snip your excellent post. I tried to compromise between content and conciseness.
>
> I don't know who did the spinal analysis, but it was Richard Taylor, not Jo Appleby, who made the important distinction (reported in most of the early reports on the dig) between scoliosis and kyphosis:
>
> http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/news/richard-iii-found.htm
>
> I don't know whether Richard Taylor appeared in the Channel 4 documentary, but it seems that the distinction has been missing from much of the recent discussion.
>
> Here's another article from September 12 that makes the distinction:
>
> http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/scoliosis.htm
>
> The author states:
>
> "Scoliosis is an abnormal sideways curvature of the spine, where the spine curves either to the left or to the right of the body. As this is usually a double curve, the neck and head remain in their usual central position. In a living person, the signs of scoliosis vary depending on the severity. These may include having one shoulder higher than the other, one shoulder blade higher and more prominent than the other, one hip more prominent than the other, or a slight lean to one side."
>
> We know that Richard exhibited only one of these symptoms, one shoulder higher than the other, and it seems not to have been noticeable to most people as it was not mentioned in the few descriptions written while he was living.
>
> Possibly we should link to this article, which appeared in "Current Archaeology," when we encounter people who mindlessly repeat the "hunchback" slander. Maybe we can finally get it through a few people's heads that a sideways curve does not cause a hunch/hump.
>
> Anyway, I'd like to see your ideas about the placement of the vertebrae addressed. The article indicates that scoliosis is more apparent in a skeleton than in a living person but she didn't mention its being more apparent in a skeleton lying on its back than a standing skeleton or address your other very interesting ideas.
>
> Carol
>

Excellent post Wednesday........Eileen
On 6 Feb 2013, at 17:45, wednesday_mc wrote:

> The summary of the thoughts of a friend of mine (with a police and medical background, but not in forensics and by no means an expert; she only worked with the experts) and myself (with only curiosity) on Richard's spinal condition is that to properly assess the severity of his scoliosis, Leicester University might consider asking an orthopedic surgeon (at the very least) and/or a forensic pathologist to take a look at Richard's skeleton to further assess the severity of his scoliosis.
>
> An orthopedic surgeon is the medical expert needed to assess the severity of Richard's scoliosis. A forensic anthropologist is needed to properly analyze the wounds inflicted on Richard's ancient skeleton.
>
> Here is a video from Leicester University releasing scanned images of Richard's spine as they laid it out on the gurney, and Leicester University staff commenting on its condition:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfi6gOX0Nf4
>
> Two people make statements about Richard's bones:
>
> Dr Turi E. King - Cited as a Lecturer in Genetics and Archaeology. Her professional CV is here:
> http://www.le.ac.uk/users/tek2/tek2.html
>
> Dr. Jo Appleby - Cited as a Lecturer in Bioarchaeology. Her background is here:
> http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/archaeology/people/jo-appleby/dr-jo-appleby
>
> It appears neither one is an orthopedic surgeon or forensic anthropologist qualified to assess the severity of scoliosis before death. From the information Leicester has released, it does not appear that either an orthopedic surgeon or a forensic anthropologist has been consulted.
>
> At 3:03 in the video referenced above (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfi6gOX0Nf4)
> is an image of Richard's scanned spine. Vertebrae ý even those damaged on their edges by scoliosis ý line up like puzzle pieces. If you do not know how to assess the damage to each edge, you can't line up the puzzle pieces correctly. So depending on how you construct the puzzle, you'll get a less curved or more curved spine.
>
> Some of the spacing (wide gaps) and angling (top angles not matching bottom angles of individual vertebrae) in the images released in the video (so far the clearest and most detailed we can find) doesn't look correct. If the angles and the spacing between the vertebrae is incorrect, then the entire spine's angle of curvature will be incorrect. Depending on how you line up those vertebrae, Richard's scoliosis can go from relatively mild to an absolute nightmare in seconds.
>
> This begs the question: who analyzed the damage to each vertebrae, and who positioned them for the scan to ensure they were aligned properly for an accurate analysis of the severity of his scoliosis?
>
> At 3:19 in the video is yet another layout of Richard's spine. Again, the spacing and angling between the vertebrae may not be accurate. If it is not, then the conclusions regarding Richard's scoliosis will not be accurate.
>
> As presented, the severity of his scoliosis would indicate that one of his lungs would be severely compromised, which means his breathing would be severely compromised. This, all by itself, means we have a contradiction between what we know of his physical capability in life vs. the alleged severity of his physical condition: if one cannot breathe well, one cannot do as he did.
>
> We would also suggest that such a severe misalignment (as presented) between his left shoulder and his left hip would create excessive wear on his left hip socket; something else an orthopedic surgeon could assess that the current team may not have seen. One photo we could find indicates there may be some wear. Another photo showed little wear, which seems a bit unbelievable if Richard's condition was as severe as the current photos of his spine indicate. The absence of excessive wear would also indicate his scoliosis was not as severe as it's currently being presented.
>
> Previously here, Carol Darling wrote:
>
> > Re, spinal deformity: Since the grave hole was too small for Richards body, and his body was laid in feet first and then folded a bit to fill the grave cavity and lay there for over 500 yearsý.well, might the extreme bend of his spine be accentuated by his taller body folded into the smaller grave hole? After 500 years of dirt pressure, how much unnatural curvature was added to his spine, other than the normal distortion in his living body. Has this been addressed. Is this idea valid. it seems the extreme curvature would almost inhibit even a fit man, from wearing armor, fighting with heavy weapons, and riding a horse for many miles many days. Any thoughts on this?
>
> Wednesday writes:
>
> The angling of Richard's torso in the grave could very well affect the angling of his spine. The placement of his body in the grave and the resulting placement of the bones 530 years later certainly doesn't reflect the alignment of his body when he was on his feet during life.
>
> Dr. Appleby states in the video that there was no movement in the bones after death. But how can this be possible, given the decay of soft tissue originally in between and surrounding the bones?
>
> We already know his head was propped up, which means his neck and back were not lying flush against the bottom of the grave; part of him was suspended over empty space. That alone would suggest there had to be movement in the bones after death, as at the very least the dissolution of his soft tissue would cause the vertebrae to collapse. A forensic anthropologist would have to be consulted for the definitive analysis on this, and he or she could likely work from photos.
>
> It should also be noted that the majority of the structural problem in adult scoliosis is *not* the vertebrae; it is *soft tissue adaptation*, which is gone in Richard's case. The soft tissue adaptation occurs in the muscle, ligaments, and discs and is secondary to the scoliosis, not the cause of it. The more soft tissue adaptation that takes place over time, the more rigid the spinal column becomes.
>
> We have lost that soft tissue, which might make it even more imperative that the Leicester team consult an orthopedic surgeon who can assess from the current condition of the individual vertebrae where, exactly, each vertebrae was positioned during Richard's life rather than in his grave. He or she might even tell us how rigid his spinal column was, as the surgeon can analyze the wear on the vertebrae itself.
>
> Since Richard's bones are still available for the next year or so, at the very least might an orthopedic surgeon be asked to analyze the vertebrae so a professional medical analysis of Richard's scoliosis and the condition of his hip bones can be made? As it stands, it seems that current medical expertise might be used to properly assess his condition. Additionally, a forensic anthropologist might also find wounds or marks on the bones that the current team may have missed.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> >
> > wednesday wrote:
> > >
> > > Does anyone know who did the spinal analysis for Richard's skeleton? Was it a forensic anthropologist (who is basically an orthopedic specialist qualified to analyze bones of the dead), or is that analysis still pending?
> > >[snip]
> > > The more I look at the photo, the more I think the archaeologist who found Richard positioned the bones to replicate how she found the skeleton, and the placement is not true to life. Which is why I'm asking if there was any mention made in the documentary of an analysis having been done by a forensic anthropologist.
> > [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Sorry to snip your excellent post. I tried to compromise between content and conciseness.
> >
> > I don't know who did the spinal analysis, but it was Richard Taylor, not Jo Appleby, who made the important distinction (reported in most of the early reports on the dig) between scoliosis and kyphosis:
> >
> > http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/news/richard-iii-found.htm
> >
> > I don't know whether Richard Taylor appeared in the Channel 4 documentary, but it seems that the distinction has been missing from much of the recent discussion.
> >
> > Here's another article from September 12 that makes the distinction:
> >
> > http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/scoliosis.htm
> >
> > The author states:
> >
> > "Scoliosis is an abnormal sideways curvature of the spine, where the spine curves either to the left or to the right of the body. As this is usually a double curve, the neck and head remain in their usual central position. In a living person, the signs of scoliosis vary depending on the severity. These may include having one shoulder higher than the other, one shoulder blade higher and more prominent than the other, one hip more prominent than the other, or a slight lean to one side."
> >
> > We know that Richard exhibited only one of these symptoms, one shoulder higher than the other, and it seems not to have been noticeable to most people as it was not mentioned in the few descriptions written while he was living.
> >
> > Possibly we should link to this article, which appeared in "Current Archaeology," when we encounter people who mindlessly repeat the "hunchback" slander. Maybe we can finally get it through a few people's heads that a sideways curve does not cause a hunch/hump.
> >
> > Anyway, I'd like to see your ideas about the placement of the vertebrae addressed. The article indicates that scoliosis is more apparent in a skeleton than in a living person but she didn't mention its being more apparent in a skeleton lying on its back than a standing skeleton or address your other very interesting ideas.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>

Just going by my own Scoliosis, I have noticed when I stand I try to hold my back as straight as I can ( I would think Richard would do that too) and the curvature is less noticeable. When I am tired it becomes very crooked.  I also notice when I lie down, I am unable to hold it straight, of course, and it becomes very crooked.  So this leads me to believe that when Richard was placed in the grave, his spine would be more crooked than when he stood.  No scientific proof, just personal observations.
Vickie

From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: Questions About Spinal Analysis

 
The summary of the thoughts of a friend of mine (with a police and medical background, but not in forensics and by no means an expert; she only worked with the experts) and myself (with only curiosity) on Richard's spinal condition is that to properly assess the severity of his scoliosis, Leicester University might consider asking an orthopedic surgeon (at the very least) and/or a forensic pathologist to take a look at Richard's skeleton to further assess the severity of his scoliosis.

An orthopedic surgeon is the medical expert needed to assess the severity of Richard's scoliosis. A forensic anthropologist is needed to properly analyze the wounds inflicted on Richard's ancient skeleton.

Here is a video from Leicester University releasing scanned images of Richard's spine as they laid it out on the gurney, and Leicester University staff commenting on its condition:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfi6gOX0Nf4

Two people make statements about Richard's bones:

Dr Turi E. King - Cited as a Lecturer in Genetics and Archaeology. Her professional CV is here:
http://www.le.ac.uk/users/tek2/tek2.html

Dr. Jo Appleby - Cited as a Lecturer in Bioarchaeology. Her background is here:
http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/archaeology/people/jo-appleby/dr-jo-appleby

It appears neither one is an orthopedic surgeon or forensic anthropologist qualified to assess the severity of scoliosis before death. From the information Leicester has released, it does not appear that either an orthopedic surgeon or a forensic anthropologist has been consulted.

At 3:03 in the video referenced above (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfi6gOX0Nf4)
is an image of Richard's scanned spine. Vertebrae  even those damaged on their edges by scoliosis  line up like puzzle pieces. If you do not know how to assess the damage to each edge, you can't line up the puzzle pieces correctly. So depending on how you construct the puzzle, you'll get a less curved or more curved spine.

Some of the spacing (wide gaps) and angling (top angles not matching bottom angles of individual vertebrae) in the images released in the video (so far the clearest and most detailed we can find) doesn't look correct. If the angles and the spacing between the vertebrae is incorrect, then the entire spine's angle of curvature will be incorrect. Depending on how you line up those vertebrae, Richard's scoliosis can go from relatively mild to an absolute nightmare in seconds.

This begs the question: who analyzed the damage to each vertebrae, and who positioned them for the scan to ensure they were aligned properly for an accurate analysis of the severity of his scoliosis?

At 3:19 in the video is yet another layout of Richard's spine. Again, the spacing and angling between the vertebrae may not be accurate. If it is not, then the conclusions regarding Richard's scoliosis will not be accurate.

As presented, the severity of his scoliosis would indicate that one of his lungs would be severely compromised, which means his breathing would be severely compromised. This, all by itself, means we have a contradiction between what we know of his physical capability in life vs. the alleged severity of his physical condition: if one cannot breathe well, one cannot do as he did.

We would also suggest that such a severe misalignment (as presented) between his left shoulder and his left hip would create excessive wear on his left hip socket; something else an orthopedic surgeon could assess that the current team may not have seen. One photo we could find indicates there may be some wear. Another photo showed little wear, which seems a bit unbelievable if Richard's condition was as severe as the current photos of his spine indicate. The absence of excessive wear would also indicate his scoliosis was not as severe as it's currently being presented.

Previously here, Carol Darling wrote:

> Re, spinal deformity: Since the grave hole was too small for Richards body, and his body was laid in feet first and then folded a bit to fill the grave cavity and lay there for over 500 years&.well, might the extreme bend of his spine be accentuated by his taller body folded into the smaller grave hole? After 500 years of dirt pressure, how much unnatural curvature was added to his spine, other than the normal distortion in his living body. Has this been addressed. Is this idea valid. it seems the extreme curvature would almost inhibit even a fit man, from wearing armor, fighting with heavy weapons, and riding a horse for many miles many days. Any thoughts on this?

Wednesday writes:

The angling of Richard's torso in the grave could very well affect the angling of his spine. The placement of his body in the grave and the resulting placement of the bones 530 years later certainly doesn't reflect the alignment of his body when he was on his feet during life.

Dr. Appleby states in the video that there was no movement in the bones after death. But how can this be possible, given the decay of soft tissue originally in between and surrounding the bones?

We already know his head was propped up, which means his neck and back were not lying flush against the bottom of the grave; part of him was suspended over empty space. That alone would suggest there had to be movement in the bones after death, as at the very least the dissolution of his soft tissue would cause the vertebrae to collapse. A forensic anthropologist would have to be consulted for the definitive analysis on this, and he or she could likely work from photos.

It should also be noted that the majority of the structural problem in adult scoliosis is *not* the vertebrae; it is *soft tissue adaptation*, which is gone in Richard's case. The soft tissue adaptation occurs in the muscle, ligaments, and discs and is secondary to the scoliosis, not the cause of it. The more soft tissue adaptation that takes place over time, the more rigid the spinal column becomes.

We have lost that soft tissue, which might make it even more imperative that the Leicester team consult an orthopedic surgeon who can assess from the current condition of the individual vertebrae where, exactly, each vertebrae was positioned during Richard's life rather than in his grave. He or she might even tell us how rigid his spinal column was, as the surgeon can analyze the wear on the vertebrae itself.

Since Richard's bones are still available for the next year or so, at the very least might an orthopedic surgeon be asked to analyze the vertebrae so a professional medical analysis of Richard's scoliosis and the condition of his hip bones can be made? As it stands, it seems that current medical expertise might be used to properly assess his condition. Additionally, a forensic anthropologist might also find wounds or marks on the bones that the current team may have missed.

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
> wednesday wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone know who did the spinal analysis for Richard's skeleton? Was it a forensic anthropologist (who is basically an orthopedic specialist qualified to analyze bones of the dead), or is that analysis still pending?
> >[snip]
> > The more I look at the photo, the more I think the archaeologist who found Richard positioned the bones to replicate how she found the skeleton, and the placement is not true to life. Which is why I'm asking if there was any mention made in the documentary of an analysis having been done by a forensic anthropologist.
> [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Sorry to snip your excellent post. I tried to compromise between content and conciseness.
>
> I don't know who did the spinal analysis, but it was Richard Taylor, not Jo Appleby, who made the important distinction (reported in most of the early reports on the dig) between scoliosis and kyphosis:
>
> http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/news/richard-iii-found.htm
>
> I don't know whether Richard Taylor appeared in the Channel 4 documentary, but it seems that the distinction has been missing from much of the recent discussion.
>
> Here's another article from September 12 that makes the distinction:
>
> http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/scoliosis.htm
>
> The author states:
>
> "Scoliosis is an abnormal sideways curvature of the spine, where the spine curves either to the left or to the right of the body. As this is usually a double curve, the neck and head remain in their usual central position. In a living person, the signs of scoliosis vary depending on the severity. These may include having one shoulder higher than the other, one shoulder blade higher and more prominent than the other, one hip more prominent than the other, or a slight lean to one side."
>
> We know that Richard exhibited only one of these symptoms, one shoulder higher than the other, and it seems not to have been noticeable to most people as it was not mentioned in the few descriptions written while he was living.
>
> Possibly we should link to this article, which appeared in "Current Archaeology," when we encounter people who mindlessly repeat the "hunchback" slander. Maybe we can finally get it through a few people's heads that a sideways curve does not cause a hunch/hump.
>
> Anyway, I'd like to see your ideas about the placement of the vertebrae addressed. The article indicates that scoliosis is more apparent in a skeleton than in a living person but she didn't mention its being more apparent in a skeleton lying on its back than a standing skeleton or address your other very interesting ideas.
>
> Carol
>

Great analyses.
Again, so many questions and so little information.....




________________________________
From: eileen bates <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Questions About Spinal Analysis

Excellent post Wednesday........Eileen
On 6 Feb 2013, at 17:45, wednesday_mc wrote:

> The summary of the thoughts of a friend of mine (with a police and medical background, but not in forensics and by no means an expert; she only worked with the experts) and myself (with only curiosity) on Richard's spinal condition is that to properly assess the severity of his scoliosis, Leicester University might consider asking an orthopedic surgeon (at the very least) and/or a forensic pathologist to take a look at Richard's skeleton to further assess the severity of his scoliosis.
>
> An orthopedic surgeon is the medical expert needed to assess the severity of Richard's scoliosis. A forensic anthropologist is needed to properly analyze the wounds inflicted on Richard's ancient skeleton.
>
> Here is a video from Leicester University releasing scanned images of Richard's spine as they laid it out on the gurney, and Leicester University staff commenting on its condition:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfi6gOX0Nf4
>
> Two people make statements about Richard's bones:
>
> Dr Turi E. King - Cited as a Lecturer in Genetics and Archaeology. Her professional CV is here:
> http://www.le.ac.uk/users/tek2/tek2.html
>
> Dr. Jo Appleby - Cited as a Lecturer in Bioarchaeology. Her background is here:
> http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/archaeology/people/jo-appleby/dr-jo-appleby
>
> It appears neither one is an orthopedic surgeon or forensic anthropologist qualified to assess the severity of scoliosis before death. From the information Leicester has released, it does not appear that either an orthopedic surgeon or a forensic anthropologist has been consulted.
>
> At 3:03 in the video referenced above (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfi6gOX0Nf4)
> is an image of Richard's scanned spine. Vertebrae  even those damaged on their edges by scoliosis  line up like puzzle pieces. If you do not know how to assess the damage to each edge, you can't line up the puzzle pieces correctly. So depending on how you construct the puzzle, you'll get a less curved or more curved spine.
>
> Some of the spacing (wide gaps) and angling (top angles not matching bottom angles of individual vertebrae) in the images released in the video (so far the clearest and most detailed we can find) doesn't look correct. If the angles and the spacing between the vertebrae is incorrect, then the entire spine's angle of curvature will be incorrect. Depending on how you line up those vertebrae, Richard's scoliosis can go from relatively mild to an absolute nightmare in seconds.
>
> This begs the question: who analyzed the damage to each vertebrae, and who positioned them for the scan to ensure they were aligned properly for an accurate analysis of the severity of his scoliosis?
>
> At 3:19 in the video is yet another layout of Richard's spine. Again, the spacing and angling between the vertebrae may not be accurate. If it is not, then the conclusions regarding Richard's scoliosis will not be accurate.
>
> As presented, the severity of his scoliosis would indicate that one of his lungs would be severely compromised, which means his breathing would be severely compromised. This, all by itself, means we have a contradiction between what we know of his physical capability in life vs. the alleged severity of his physical condition: if one cannot breathe well, one cannot do as he did.
>
> We would also suggest that such a severe misalignment (as presented) between his left shoulder and his left hip would create excessive wear on his left hip socket; something else an orthopedic surgeon could assess that the current team may not have seen. One photo we could find indicates there may be some wear. Another photo showed little wear, which seems a bit unbelievable if Richard's condition was as severe as the current photos of his spine indicate. The absence of excessive wear would also indicate his scoliosis was not as severe as it's currently being presented.
>
> Previously here, Carol Darling wrote:
>
> > Re, spinal deformity: Since the grave hole was too small for Richards body, and his body was laid in feet first and then folded a bit to fill the grave cavity and lay there for over 500 years&.well, might the extreme bend of his spine be accentuated by his taller body folded into the smaller grave hole? After 500 years of dirt pressure, how much unnatural curvature was added to his spine, other than the normal distortion in his living body. Has this been addressed. Is this idea valid. it seems the extreme curvature would almost inhibit even a fit man, from wearing armor, fighting with heavy weapons, and riding a horse for many miles many days. Any thoughts on this?
>
> Wednesday writes:
>
> The angling of Richard's torso in the grave could very well affect the angling of his spine. The placement of his body in the grave and the resulting placement of the bones 530 years later certainly doesn't reflect the alignment of his body when he was on his feet during life.
>
> Dr. Appleby states in the video that there was no movement in the bones after death. But how can this be possible, given the decay of soft tissue originally in between and surrounding the bones?
>
> We already know his head was propped up, which means his neck and back were not lying flush against the bottom of the grave; part of him was suspended over empty space. That alone would suggest there had to be movement in the bones after death, as at the very least the dissolution of his soft tissue would cause the vertebrae to collapse. A forensic anthropologist would have to be consulted for the definitive analysis on this, and he or she could likely work from photos.
>
> It should also be noted that the majority of the structural problem in adult scoliosis is *not* the vertebrae; it is *soft tissue adaptation*, which is gone in Richard's case. The soft tissue adaptation occurs in the muscle, ligaments, and discs and is secondary to the scoliosis, not the cause of it. The more soft tissue adaptation that takes place over time, the more rigid the spinal column becomes.
>
> We have lost that soft tissue, which might make it even more imperative that the Leicester team consult an orthopedic surgeon who can assess from the current condition of the individual vertebrae where, exactly, each vertebrae was positioned during Richard's life rather than in his grave. He or she might even tell us how rigid his spinal column was, as the surgeon can analyze the wear on the vertebrae itself.
>
> Since Richard's bones are still available for the next year or so, at the very least might an orthopedic surgeon be asked to analyze the vertebrae so a professional medical analysis of Richard's scoliosis and the condition of his hip bones can be made? As it stands, it seems that current medical expertise might be used to properly assess his condition. Additionally, a forensic anthropologist might also find wounds or marks on the bones that the current team may have missed.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> >
> > wednesday wrote:
> > >
> > > Does anyone know who did the spinal analysis for Richard's skeleton? Was it a forensic anthropologist (who is basically an orthopedic specialist qualified to analyze bones of the dead), or is that analysis still pending?
> > >[snip]
> > > The more I look at the photo, the more I think the archaeologist who found Richard positioned the bones to replicate how she found the skeleton, and the placement is not true to life. Which is why I'm asking if there was any mention made in the documentary of an analysis having been done by a forensic anthropologist.
> > [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Sorry to snip your excellent post. I tried to compromise between content and conciseness.
> >
> > I don't know who did the spinal analysis, but it was Richard Taylor, not Jo Appleby, who made the important distinction (reported in most of the early reports on the dig) between scoliosis and kyphosis:
> >
> > http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/news/richard-iii-found.htm
> >
> > I don't know whether Richard Taylor appeared in the Channel 4 documentary, but it seems that the distinction has been missing from much of the recent discussion.
> >
> > Here's another article from September 12 that makes the distinction:
> >
> > http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/scoliosis.htm
> >
> > The author states:
> >
> > "Scoliosis is an abnormal sideways curvature of the spine, where the spine curves either to the left or to the right of the body. As this is usually a double curve, the neck and head remain in their usual central position. In a living person, the signs of scoliosis vary depending on the severity. These may include having one shoulder higher than the other, one shoulder blade higher and more prominent than the other, one hip more prominent than the other, or a slight lean to one side."
> >
> > We know that Richard exhibited only one of these symptoms, one shoulder higher than the other, and it seems not to have been noticeable to most people as it was not mentioned in the few descriptions written while he was living.
> >
> > Possibly we should link to this article, which appeared in "Current Archaeology," when we encounter people who mindlessly repeat the "hunchback" slander. Maybe we can finally get it through a few people's heads that a sideways curve does not cause a hunch/hump.
> >
> > Anyway, I'd like to see your ideas about the placement of the vertebrae addressed. The article indicates that scoliosis is more apparent in a skeleton than in a living person but she didn't mention its being more apparent in a skeleton lying on its back than a standing skeleton or address your other very interesting ideas.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>







------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Wednesday wrote:
>
> The summary of the thoughts of a friend of mine (with a police and medical background, but not in forensics and by no means an expert; she only worked with the experts) and myself (with only curiosity) on Richard's spinal condition is that to properly assess the severity of his scoliosis, Leicester University might consider asking an orthopedic surgeon (at the very least) and/or a forensic pathologist to take a look at Richard's skeleton to further assess the severity of his scoliosis.
>
> An orthopedic surgeon is the medical expert needed to assess the severity of Richard's scoliosis. A forensic anthropologist is needed to properly analyze the wounds inflicted on Richard's ancient skeleton. [snip]
>
Carol responds:

This is a brilliant post, Weds. I suggest that you send these observations and suggestions to the team at Leicester University (without the links, which they won't need).

Carol

Weds, I agree with Carol! Lets find a way to get this to the people involved so we can get real answers. I feel I am try to pick up morsels here and there and is no close to The matter than I was a week ago.......

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 6, 2013, at 3:59 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> Wednesday wrote:
> >
> > The summary of the thoughts of a friend of mine (with a police and medical background, but not in forensics and by no means an expert; she only worked with the experts) and myself (with only curiosity) on Richard's spinal condition is that to properly assess the severity of his scoliosis, Leicester University might consider asking an orthopedic surgeon (at the very least) and/or a forensic pathologist to take a look at Richard's skeleton to further assess the severity of his scoliosis.
> >
> > An orthopedic surgeon is the medical expert needed to assess the severity of Richard's scoliosis. A forensic anthropologist is needed to properly analyze the wounds inflicted on Richard's ancient skeleton. [snip]
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> This is a brilliant post, Weds. I suggest that you send these observations and suggestions to the team at Leicester University (without the links, which they won't need).
>
> Carol
>
>

This is slightly off to the edge of this actual topic - but could anyone
please let me know if it is possible now to access a tape of the original
news conference held Monday morning?

A friend of mine who is deeply interested, was unable to hear it at the time
and is now really eager to hear what was said.

I personally heard the live broadcast and have no link to any way of hearing
it now.

Is there anything?

I'd be most grateful for a link, if one exists.

Thanks so much,

Barbara



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013 4:46 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Questions About Spinal Analysis





The summary of the thoughts of a friend of mine (with a police and medical
background, but not in forensics and by no means an expert; she only worked
with the experts) and myself (with only curiosity) on Richard's spinal
condition is that to properly assess the severity of his scoliosis,
Leicester University might consider asking an orthopedic surgeon (at the
very least) and/or a forensic pathologist to take a look at Richard's
skeleton to further assess the severity of his scoliosis.

An orthopedic surgeon is the medical expert needed to assess the severity of
Richard's scoliosis. A forensic anthropologist is needed to properly analyze
the wounds inflicted on Richard's ancient skeleton.

Here is a video from Leicester University releasing scanned images of
Richard's spine as they laid it out on the gurney, and Leicester University
staff commenting on its condition:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfi6gOX0Nf4

Two people make statements about Richard's bones:

Dr Turi E. King - Cited as a Lecturer in Genetics and Archaeology. Her
professional CV is here:
http://www.le.ac.uk/users/tek2/tek2.html

Dr. Jo Appleby - Cited as a Lecturer in Bioarchaeology. Her background is
here:
http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/archaeology/people/jo-appleby/dr-jo-appleby

It appears neither one is an orthopedic surgeon or forensic anthropologist
qualified to assess the severity of scoliosis before death. From the
information Leicester has released, it does not appear that either an
orthopedic surgeon or a forensic anthropologist has been consulted.

At 3:03 in the video referenced above
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfi6gOX0Nf4)
is an image of Richard's scanned spine. Vertebrae - even those damaged on
their edges by scoliosis - line up like puzzle pieces. If you do not know
how to assess the damage to each edge, you can't line up the puzzle pieces
correctly. So depending on how you construct the puzzle, you'll get a less
curved or more curved spine.

Some of the spacing (wide gaps) and angling (top angles not matching bottom
angles of individual vertebrae) in the images released in the video (so far
the clearest and most detailed we can find) doesn't look correct. If the
angles and the spacing between the vertebrae is incorrect, then the entire
spine's angle of curvature will be incorrect. Depending on how you line up
those vertebrae, Richard's scoliosis can go from relatively mild to an
absolute nightmare in seconds.

This begs the question: who analyzed the damage to each vertebrae, and who
positioned them for the scan to ensure they were aligned properly for an
accurate analysis of the severity of his scoliosis?

At 3:19 in the video is yet another layout of Richard's spine. Again, the
spacing and angling between the vertebrae may not be accurate. If it is not,
then the conclusions regarding Richard's scoliosis will not be accurate.

As presented, the severity of his scoliosis would indicate that one of his
lungs would be severely compromised, which means his breathing would be
severely compromised. This, all by itself, means we have a contradiction
between what we know of his physical capability in life vs. the alleged
severity of his physical condition: if one cannot breathe well, one cannot
do as he did.

We would also suggest that such a severe misalignment (as presented) between
his left shoulder and his left hip would create excessive wear on his left
hip socket; something else an orthopedic surgeon could assess that the
current team may not have seen. One photo we could find indicates there may
be some wear. Another photo showed little wear, which seems a bit
unbelievable if Richard's condition was as severe as the current photos of
his spine indicate. The absence of excessive wear would also indicate his
scoliosis was not as severe as it's currently being presented.

Previously here, Carol Darling wrote:

> Re, spinal deformity: Since the grave hole was too small for Richards
body, and his body was laid in feet first and then folded a bit to fill the
grave cavity and lay there for over 500 years..well, might the extreme bend
of his spine be accentuated by his taller body folded into the smaller grave
hole? After 500 years of dirt pressure, how much unnatural curvature was
added to his spine, other than the normal distortion in his living body. Has
this been addressed. Is this idea valid. it seems the extreme curvature
would almost inhibit even a fit man, from wearing armor, fighting with heavy
weapons, and riding a horse for many miles many days. Any thoughts on this?

Wednesday writes:

The angling of Richard's torso in the grave could very well affect the
angling of his spine. The placement of his body in the grave and the
resulting placement of the bones 530 years later certainly doesn't reflect
the alignment of his body when he was on his feet during life.

Dr. Appleby states in the video that there was no movement in the bones
after death. But how can this be possible, given the decay of soft tissue
originally in between and surrounding the bones?

We already know his head was propped up, which means his neck and back were
not lying flush against the bottom of the grave; part of him was suspended
over empty space. That alone would suggest there had to be movement in the
bones after death, as at the very least the dissolution of his soft tissue
would cause the vertebrae to collapse. A forensic anthropologist would have
to be consulted for the definitive analysis on this, and he or she could
likely work from photos.

It should also be noted that the majority of the structural problem in adult
scoliosis is *not* the vertebrae; it is *soft tissue adaptation*, which is
gone in Richard's case. The soft tissue adaptation occurs in the muscle,
ligaments, and discs and is secondary to the scoliosis, not the cause of it.
The more soft tissue adaptation that takes place over time, the more rigid
the spinal column becomes.

We have lost that soft tissue, which might make it even more imperative that
the Leicester team consult an orthopedic surgeon who can assess from the
current condition of the individual vertebrae where, exactly, each vertebrae
was positioned during Richard's life rather than in his grave. He or she
might even tell us how rigid his spinal column was, as the surgeon can
analyze the wear on the vertebrae itself.

Since Richard's bones are still available for the next year or so, at the
very least might an orthopedic surgeon be asked to analyze the vertebrae so
a professional medical analysis of Richard's scoliosis and the condition of
his hip bones can be made? As it stands, it seems that current medical
expertise might be used to properly assess his condition. Additionally, a
forensic anthropologist might also find wounds or marks on the bones that
the current team may have missed.

~Weds

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
> wednesday wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone know who did the spinal analysis for Richard's skeleton? Was
it a forensic anthropologist (who is basically an orthopedic specialist
qualified to analyze bones of the dead), or is that analysis still pending?
> >[snip]
> > The more I look at the photo, the more I think the archaeologist who
found Richard positioned the bones to replicate how she found the skeleton,
and the placement is not true to life. Which is why I'm asking if there was
any mention made in the documentary of an analysis having been done by a
forensic anthropologist.
> [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Sorry to snip your excellent post. I tried to compromise between content
and conciseness.
>
> I don't know who did the spinal analysis, but it was Richard Taylor, not
Jo Appleby, who made the important distinction (reported in most of the
early reports on the dig) between scoliosis and kyphosis:
>
> http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/news/richard-iii-found.htm
>
> I don't know whether Richard Taylor appeared in the Channel 4 documentary,
but it seems that the distinction has been missing from much of the recent
discussion.
>
> Here's another article from September 12 that makes the distinction:
>
> http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/scoliosis.htm
>
> The author states:
>
> "Scoliosis is an abnormal sideways curvature of the spine, where the spine
curves either to the left or to the right of the body. As this is usually a
double curve, the neck and head remain in their usual central position. In a
living person, the signs of scoliosis vary depending on the severity. These
may include having one shoulder higher than the other, one shoulder blade
higher and more prominent than the other, one hip more prominent than the
other, or a slight lean to one side."
>
> We know that Richard exhibited only one of these symptoms, one shoulder
higher than the other, and it seems not to have been noticeable to most
people as it was not mentioned in the few descriptions written while he was
living.
>
> Possibly we should link to this article, which appeared in "Current
Archaeology," when we encounter people who mindlessly repeat the "hunchback"
slander. Maybe we can finally get it through a few people's heads that a
sideways curve does not cause a hunch/hump.
>
> Anyway, I'd like to see your ideas about the placement of the vertebrae
addressed. The article indicates that scoliosis is more apparent in a
skeleton than in a living person but she didn't mention its being more
apparent in a skeleton lying on its back than a standing skeleton or address
your other very interesting ideas.
>
> Carol
>

Gosh, I went to Google and found probably eight different snippets, from the first of the dig to the DNA testing.

On Feb 6, 2013, at 6:51 PM, "barbara" <barbaragd@...<mailto:barbaragd@...>> wrote:



This is slightly off to the edge of this actual topic - but could anyone
please let me know if it is possible now to access a tape of the original
news conference held Monday morning?

A friend of mine who is deeply interested, was unable to hear it at the time
and is now really eager to hear what was said.

I personally heard the live broadcast and have no link to any way of hearing
it now.

Is there anything?

I'd be most grateful for a link, if one exists.

Thanks so much,

Barbara

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013 4:46 AM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Questions About Spinal Analysis

The summary of the thoughts of a friend of mine (with a police and medical
background, but not in forensics and by no means an expert; she only worked
with the experts) and myself (with only curiosity) on Richard's spinal
condition is that to properly assess the severity of his scoliosis,
Leicester University might consider asking an orthopedic surgeon (at the
very least) and/or a forensic pathologist to take a look at Richard's
skeleton to further assess the severity of his scoliosis.

An orthopedic surgeon is the medical expert needed to assess the severity of
Richard's scoliosis. A forensic anthropologist is needed to properly analyze
the wounds inflicted on Richard's ancient skeleton.

Here is a video from Leicester University releasing scanned images of
Richard's spine as they laid it out on the gurney, and Leicester University
staff commenting on its condition:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfi6gOX0Nf4

Two people make statements about Richard's bones:

Dr Turi E. King - Cited as a Lecturer in Genetics and Archaeology. Her
professional CV is here:
http://www.le.ac.uk/users/tek2/tek2.html

Dr. Jo Appleby - Cited as a Lecturer in Bioarchaeology. Her background is
here:
http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/archaeology/people/jo-appleby/dr-jo-appleby

It appears neither one is an orthopedic surgeon or forensic anthropologist
qualified to assess the severity of scoliosis before death. From the
information Leicester has released, it does not appear that either an
orthopedic surgeon or a forensic anthropologist has been consulted.

At 3:03 in the video referenced above
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfi6gOX0Nf4)
is an image of Richard's scanned spine. Vertebrae - even those damaged on
their edges by scoliosis - line up like puzzle pieces. If you do not know
how to assess the damage to each edge, you can't line up the puzzle pieces
correctly. So depending on how you construct the puzzle, you'll get a less
curved or more curved spine.

Some of the spacing (wide gaps) and angling (top angles not matching bottom
angles of individual vertebrae) in the images released in the video (so far
the clearest and most detailed we can find) doesn't look correct. If the
angles and the spacing between the vertebrae is incorrect, then the entire
spine's angle of curvature will be incorrect. Depending on how you line up
those vertebrae, Richard's scoliosis can go from relatively mild to an
absolute nightmare in seconds.

This begs the question: who analyzed the damage to each vertebrae, and who
positioned them for the scan to ensure they were aligned properly for an
accurate analysis of the severity of his scoliosis?

At 3:19 in the video is yet another layout of Richard's spine. Again, the
spacing and angling between the vertebrae may not be accurate. If it is not,
then the conclusions regarding Richard's scoliosis will not be accurate.

As presented, the severity of his scoliosis would indicate that one of his
lungs would be severely compromised, which means his breathing would be
severely compromised. This, all by itself, means we have a contradiction
between what we know of his physical capability in life vs. the alleged
severity of his physical condition: if one cannot breathe well, one cannot
do as he did.

We would also suggest that such a severe misalignment (as presented) between
his left shoulder and his left hip would create excessive wear on his left
hip socket; something else an orthopedic surgeon could assess that the
current team may not have seen. One photo we could find indicates there may
be some wear. Another photo showed little wear, which seems a bit
unbelievable if Richard's condition was as severe as the current photos of
his spine indicate. The absence of excessive wear would also indicate his
scoliosis was not as severe as it's currently being presented.

Previously here, Carol Darling wrote:

> Re, spinal deformity: Since the grave hole was too small for Richards
body, and his body was laid in feet first and then folded a bit to fill the
grave cavity and lay there for over 500 years..well, might the extreme bend
of his spine be accentuated by his taller body folded into the smaller grave
hole? After 500 years of dirt pressure, how much unnatural curvature was
added to his spine, other than the normal distortion in his living body. Has
this been addressed. Is this idea valid. it seems the extreme curvature
would almost inhibit even a fit man, from wearing armor, fighting with heavy
weapons, and riding a horse for many miles many days. Any thoughts on this?

Wednesday writes:

The angling of Richard's torso in the grave could very well affect the
angling of his spine. The placement of his body in the grave and the
resulting placement of the bones 530 years later certainly doesn't reflect
the alignment of his body when he was on his feet during life.

Dr. Appleby states in the video that there was no movement in the bones
after death. But how can this be possible, given the decay of soft tissue
originally in between and surrounding the bones?

We already know his head was propped up, which means his neck and back were
not lying flush against the bottom of the grave; part of him was suspended
over empty space. That alone would suggest there had to be movement in the
bones after death, as at the very least the dissolution of his soft tissue
would cause the vertebrae to collapse. A forensic anthropologist would have
to be consulted for the definitive analysis on this, and he or she could
likely work from photos.

It should also be noted that the majority of the structural problem in adult
scoliosis is *not* the vertebrae; it is *soft tissue adaptation*, which is
gone in Richard's case. The soft tissue adaptation occurs in the muscle,
ligaments, and discs and is secondary to the scoliosis, not the cause of it.
The more soft tissue adaptation that takes place over time, the more rigid
the spinal column becomes.

We have lost that soft tissue, which might make it even more imperative that
the Leicester team consult an orthopedic surgeon who can assess from the
current condition of the individual vertebrae where, exactly, each vertebrae
was positioned during Richard's life rather than in his grave. He or she
might even tell us how rigid his spinal column was, as the surgeon can
analyze the wear on the vertebrae itself.

Since Richard's bones are still available for the next year or so, at the
very least might an orthopedic surgeon be asked to analyze the vertebrae so
a professional medical analysis of Richard's scoliosis and the condition of
his hip bones can be made? As it stands, it seems that current medical
expertise might be used to properly assess his condition. Additionally, a
forensic anthropologist might also find wounds or marks on the bones that
the current team may have missed.

~Weds

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
> wednesday wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone know who did the spinal analysis for Richard's skeleton? Was
it a forensic anthropologist (who is basically an orthopedic specialist
qualified to analyze bones of the dead), or is that analysis still pending?
> >[snip]
> > The more I look at the photo, the more I think the archaeologist who
found Richard positioned the bones to replicate how she found the skeleton,
and the placement is not true to life. Which is why I'm asking if there was
any mention made in the documentary of an analysis having been done by a
forensic anthropologist.
> [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Sorry to snip your excellent post. I tried to compromise between content
and conciseness.
>
> I don't know who did the spinal analysis, but it was Richard Taylor, not
Jo Appleby, who made the important distinction (reported in most of the
early reports on the dig) between scoliosis and kyphosis:
>
> http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/news/richard-iii-found.htm
>
> I don't know whether Richard Taylor appeared in the Channel 4 documentary,
but it seems that the distinction has been missing from much of the recent
discussion.
>
> Here's another article from September 12 that makes the distinction:
>
> http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/scoliosis.htm
>
> The author states:
>
> "Scoliosis is an abnormal sideways curvature of the spine, where the spine
curves either to the left or to the right of the body. As this is usually a
double curve, the neck and head remain in their usual central position. In a
living person, the signs of scoliosis vary depending on the severity. These
may include having one shoulder higher than the other, one shoulder blade
higher and more prominent than the other, one hip more prominent than the
other, or a slight lean to one side."
>
> We know that Richard exhibited only one of these symptoms, one shoulder
higher than the other, and it seems not to have been noticeable to most
people as it was not mentioned in the few descriptions written while he was
living.
>
> Possibly we should link to this article, which appeared in "Current
Archaeology," when we encounter people who mindlessly repeat the "hunchback"
slander. Maybe we can finally get it through a few people's heads that a
sideways curve does not cause a hunch/hump.
>
> Anyway, I'd like to see your ideas about the placement of the vertebrae
addressed. The article indicates that scoliosis is more apparent in a
skeleton than in a living person but she didn't mention its being more
apparent in a skeleton lying on its back than a standing skeleton or address
your other very interesting ideas.
>
> Carol
>

You know, when I look at the explosion of coverage in the wake of the announcement, I find myself thinking over and over, "Early days." And although we've been following the dig in detail since last spring (when Ms. Langley and Ms. Carson issued their appeal for funding to make up the shortfall), the rest of the world only heard about it four days ago.

It's as certain as sunrise that we're just at the beginning of the research into the life of the fallen king. Archeology doesn't often just blitzkrieg like this: that they found their million-to-one shot within hours of ripping up the first hunk of tarmac is unprecedented. (How long did Dr. Ballard spend looking for for "Titanic"? Fifteen years, actively, and years of research before that? Granted, it was sixty fathoms below giant squid territory, but still, I bet there are far more projects that run along "Titanic"'s timeline than this one.)

Dr. Appleby seemed quite certain that the arrangement of the skeleton in the grave was as the king would have been in life, and she's had a hell of a lot more experience with archeological excavations of ancient remains than I have. Having said that, though, the reason we have experts is so that they can argue with one another in a bid to reach consensus. Archeologists are still reinterpreting Schliemann's dig at Troy (and cussing him as a media-hungry slob who couldn't excavate a dried-out puddle without making hash of the job), and we're over 150 years out from his original excavations.

I am certain that, as time goes on, experts in various fields will be called on to examine the evidence and give their opinions. We haven't seen word one on the pieces of the Greyfriars structure that were collected (but to be honest, the finding of King Richard's remains did kind of suck all the air out of the room). However, in a technologically sophisticated era, most of the experts won't even need to consult the original evidence; every piece of the skeleton has been scanned in 3D and can be reassembled in replica, and I'm sure a number of experts are preparing to download some printable files to do that very thing, with conclusions and passionate discussions to follow.

For all the blather from the underinformed (I saw one guy on Yahoo pissin' n' moanin' about the waste of taxpayer dollars, and not only was he unaware that no public funding went into this, he's not even a Brit, so I don't see how it could have been HIS dollars, or even dollars at all, at risk), the dig was not conducted on their behalf, but as a service to the legions of scholars and interested amateurs who don't think the righting of injustice has a time limit. Although we're all self-conscious over Ms. Langley getting caught being emotional in front of the cameras (parenthetically, I wonder how much sleep they've gotten since August), her reaction has to be provoking a question in a lot of people: What is it about the discovery of this particular skeleton that could incite that kind of passion? A certain percentage of them will mock and fuss and react with outwardly-directed embarrassment at the show of emotion, but a certain percentage will want to find out why.

Way back in 2008, when Hilary Clinton grew misty-eyed talking about the women she'd met in her Presidential campaign who were born before American women could vote, she was roundly mocked. A few weeks ago, when she testified before Congress and grew misty-eyed when she spoke of the American embassy personnel in Libya who were killed in September, her reaction was noted, but nobody made fun of her for it.

Maybe the world is growing just a little bit tired of making fun of everything. Maybe we're ready for something meaningful. Maybe we're ready to find the truth about a historical mystery. Maybe we can. This is an excellent first step.

--- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> Weds, I agree with Carol! Lets find a way to get this to the people involved so we can get real answers. I feel I am try to pick up morsels here and there and is no close to The matter than I was a week ago.......
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 6, 2013, at 3:59 PM, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> > Wednesday wrote:
> > >
> > > The summary of the thoughts of a friend of mine (with a police and medical background, but not in forensics and by no means an expert; she only worked with the experts) and myself (with only curiosity) on Richard's spinal condition is that to properly assess the severity of his scoliosis, Leicester University might consider asking an orthopedic surgeon (at the very least) and/or a forensic pathologist to take a look at Richard's skeleton to further assess the severity of his scoliosis.
> > >
> > > An orthopedic surgeon is the medical expert needed to assess the severity of Richard's scoliosis. A forensic anthropologist is needed to properly analyze the wounds inflicted on Richard's ancient skeleton. [snip]
> > >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > This is a brilliant post, Weds. I suggest that you send these observations and suggestions to the team at Leicester University (without the links, which they won't need).
> >
> > Carol

That's brilliant Pamela, thanks so much.
Barbara

-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013 12:05 PM
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Questions About Spinal Analysis

Gosh, I went to Google and found probably eight different snippets, from the
first of the dig to the DNA testing.

On Feb 6, 2013, at 6:51 PM, "barbara"
<barbaragd@...<mailto:barbaragd@...>> wrote:



This is slightly off to the edge of this actual topic - but could anyone
please let me know if it is possible now to access a tape of the original
news conference held Monday morning?

A friend of mine who is deeply interested, was unable to hear it at the time
and is now really eager to hear what was said.

I personally heard the live broadcast and have no link to any way of hearing
it now.

Is there anything?

I'd be most grateful for a link, if one exists.

Thanks so much,

Barbara

From:
<mailto:%40yahoo
groups.com>
[mailto:<mailto:
%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013 4:46 AM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoo
groups.com>
Subject: Re: Questions About Spinal Analysis

The summary of the thoughts of a friend of mine (with a police and medical
background, but not in forensics and by no means an expert; she only worked
with the experts) and myself (with only curiosity) on Richard's spinal
condition is that to properly assess the severity of his scoliosis,
Leicester University might consider asking an orthopedic surgeon (at the
very least) and/or a forensic pathologist to take a look at Richard's
skeleton to further assess the severity of his scoliosis.

An orthopedic surgeon is the medical expert needed to assess the severity of
Richard's scoliosis. A forensic anthropologist is needed to properly analyze
the wounds inflicted on Richard's ancient skeleton.

Here is a video from Leicester University releasing scanned images of
Richard's spine as they laid it out on the gurney, and Leicester University
staff commenting on its condition:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfi6gOX0Nf4

Two people make statements about Richard's bones:

Dr Turi E. King - Cited as a Lecturer in Genetics and Archaeology. Her
professional CV is here:
http://www.le.ac.uk/users/tek2/tek2.html

Dr. Jo Appleby - Cited as a Lecturer in Bioarchaeology. Her background is
here:
http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/archaeology/people/jo-appleby/dr-jo-appleby

It appears neither one is an orthopedic surgeon or forensic anthropologist
qualified to assess the severity of scoliosis before death. From the
information Leicester has released, it does not appear that either an
orthopedic surgeon or a forensic anthropologist has been consulted.

At 3:03 in the video referenced above
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfi6gOX0Nf4)
is an image of Richard's scanned spine. Vertebrae - even those damaged on
their edges by scoliosis - line up like puzzle pieces. If you do not know
how to assess the damage to each edge, you can't line up the puzzle pieces
correctly. So depending on how you construct the puzzle, you'll get a less
curved or more curved spine.

Some of the spacing (wide gaps) and angling (top angles not matching bottom
angles of individual vertebrae) in the images released in the video (so far
the clearest and most detailed we can find) doesn't look correct. If the
angles and the spacing between the vertebrae is incorrect, then the entire
spine's angle of curvature will be incorrect. Depending on how you line up
those vertebrae, Richard's scoliosis can go from relatively mild to an
absolute nightmare in seconds.

This begs the question: who analyzed the damage to each vertebrae, and who
positioned them for the scan to ensure they were aligned properly for an
accurate analysis of the severity of his scoliosis?

At 3:19 in the video is yet another layout of Richard's spine. Again, the
spacing and angling between the vertebrae may not be accurate. If it is not,
then the conclusions regarding Richard's scoliosis will not be accurate.

As presented, the severity of his scoliosis would indicate that one of his
lungs would be severely compromised, which means his breathing would be
severely compromised. This, all by itself, means we have a contradiction
between what we know of his physical capability in life vs. the alleged
severity of his physical condition: if one cannot breathe well, one cannot
do as he did.

We would also suggest that such a severe misalignment (as presented) between
his left shoulder and his left hip would create excessive wear on his left
hip socket; something else an orthopedic surgeon could assess that the
current team may not have seen. One photo we could find indicates there may
be some wear. Another photo showed little wear, which seems a bit
unbelievable if Richard's condition was as severe as the current photos of
his spine indicate. The absence of excessive wear would also indicate his
scoliosis was not as severe as it's currently being presented.

Previously here, Carol Darling wrote:

> Re, spinal deformity: Since the grave hole was too small for Richards
body, and his body was laid in feet first and then folded a bit to fill the
grave cavity and lay there for over 500 years..well, might the extreme bend
of his spine be accentuated by his taller body folded into the smaller grave
hole? After 500 years of dirt pressure, how much unnatural curvature was
added to his spine, other than the normal distortion in his living body. Has
this been addressed. Is this idea valid. it seems the extreme curvature
would almost inhibit even a fit man, from wearing armor, fighting with heavy
weapons, and riding a horse for many miles many days. Any thoughts on this?

Wednesday writes:

The angling of Richard's torso in the grave could very well affect the
angling of his spine. The placement of his body in the grave and the
resulting placement of the bones 530 years later certainly doesn't reflect
the alignment of his body when he was on his feet during life.

Dr. Appleby states in the video that there was no movement in the bones
after death. But how can this be possible, given the decay of soft tissue
originally in between and surrounding the bones?

We already know his head was propped up, which means his neck and back were
not lying flush against the bottom of the grave; part of him was suspended
over empty space. That alone would suggest there had to be movement in the
bones after death, as at the very least the dissolution of his soft tissue
would cause the vertebrae to collapse. A forensic anthropologist would have
to be consulted for the definitive analysis on this, and he or she could
likely work from photos.

It should also be noted that the majority of the structural problem in adult
scoliosis is *not* the vertebrae; it is *soft tissue adaptation*, which is
gone in Richard's case. The soft tissue adaptation occurs in the muscle,
ligaments, and discs and is secondary to the scoliosis, not the cause of it.
The more soft tissue adaptation that takes place over time, the more rigid
the spinal column becomes.

We have lost that soft tissue, which might make it even more imperative that
the Leicester team consult an orthopedic surgeon who can assess from the
current condition of the individual vertebrae where, exactly, each vertebrae
was positioned during Richard's life rather than in his grave. He or she
might even tell us how rigid his spinal column was, as the surgeon can
analyze the wear on the vertebrae itself.

Since Richard's bones are still available for the next year or so, at the
very least might an orthopedic surgeon be asked to analyze the vertebrae so
a professional medical analysis of Richard's scoliosis and the condition of
his hip bones can be made? As it stands, it seems that current medical
expertise might be used to properly assess his condition. Additionally, a
forensic anthropologist might also find wounds or marks on the bones that
the current team may have missed.

~Weds

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoo
groups.com>
, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
> wednesday wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone know who did the spinal analysis for Richard's skeleton?
> > Was
it a forensic anthropologist (who is basically an orthopedic specialist
qualified to analyze bones of the dead), or is that analysis still pending?
> >[snip]
> > The more I look at the photo, the more I think the archaeologist who
found Richard positioned the bones to replicate how she found the skeleton,
and the placement is not true to life. Which is why I'm asking if there was
any mention made in the documentary of an analysis having been done by a
forensic anthropologist.
> [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Sorry to snip your excellent post. I tried to compromise between
> content
and conciseness.
>
> I don't know who did the spinal analysis, but it was Richard Taylor,
> not
Jo Appleby, who made the important distinction (reported in most of the
early reports on the dig) between scoliosis and kyphosis:
>
> http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/news/richard-iii-found.htm
>
> I don't know whether Richard Taylor appeared in the Channel 4
> documentary,
but it seems that the distinction has been missing from much of the recent
discussion.
>
> Here's another article from September 12 that makes the distinction:
>
> http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/scoliosis.htm
>
> The author states:
>
> "Scoliosis is an abnormal sideways curvature of the spine, where the
> spine
curves either to the left or to the right of the body. As this is usually a
double curve, the neck and head remain in their usual central position. In a
living person, the signs of scoliosis vary depending on the severity. These
may include having one shoulder higher than the other, one shoulder blade
higher and more prominent than the other, one hip more prominent than the
other, or a slight lean to one side."
>
> We know that Richard exhibited only one of these symptoms, one
> shoulder
higher than the other, and it seems not to have been noticeable to most
people as it was not mentioned in the few descriptions written while he was
living.
>
> Possibly we should link to this article, which appeared in "Current
Archaeology," when we encounter people who mindlessly repeat the "hunchback"
slander. Maybe we can finally get it through a few people's heads that a
sideways curve does not cause a hunch/hump.
>
> Anyway, I'd like to see your ideas about the placement of the
> vertebrae
addressed. The article indicates that scoliosis is more apparent in a
skeleton than in a living person but she didn't mention its being more
apparent in a skeleton lying on its back than a standing skeleton or address
your other very interesting ideas.
>
> Carol
>











------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

I'll talk to my friend and see what she says. In some ways it seems presumptuous to tell the experts, "You may want to consider pulling in different experts," but it is for Richard and there are huge holes in what's been presented so far.

I only wish the retired forensic anthropologist who analyzed the Romanov's grave-site was still alive. He did wonderful work on murder sites -- including those when the victim had been killed in one location and dumped in another because that's pretty standard for murders, and Richard's site might have been considered a medieval one with a little imagination.

His book, "Dead Men Do Tell Tales" pretty much lays out what could have been analyzed and discovered, had they had one of his ilk on hand before they had so much as breathed on the site.

~Weds

--- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> Weds, I agree with Carol! Lets find a way to get this to the people involved so we can get real answers. I feel I am try to pick up morsels here and there and is no close to The matter than I was a week ago.......
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 6, 2013, at 3:59 PM, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> > Wednesday wrote:
> > >
> > > The summary of the thoughts of a friend of mine (with a police and medical background, but not in forensics and by no means an expert; she only worked with the experts) and myself (with only curiosity) on Richard's spinal condition is that to properly assess the severity of his scoliosis, Leicester University might consider asking an orthopedic surgeon (at the very least) and/or a forensic pathologist to take a look at Richard's skeleton to further assess the severity of his scoliosis.
> > >
> > > An orthopedic surgeon is the medical expert needed to assess the severity of Richard's scoliosis. A forensic anthropologist is needed to properly analyze the wounds inflicted on Richard's ancient skeleton. [snip]
> > >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > This is a brilliant post, Weds. I suggest that you send these observations and suggestions to the team at Leicester University (without the links, which they won't need).
> >
> > Carol

McJohn, your posts always make me look at things from a different -- and welcome -- point of view. I wanted to comment on one of your observations.

<clipped to include only what I'm commenting on>

> Dr. Appleby seemed quite certain that the arrangement of the skeleton in the grave was as the king would have been in life, and she's had a hell of a lot more experience with archeological excavations of ancient remains than I have.

Weds writes:

WARNING: graphic descriptions that may offend are included below. Mea culpa if it upsets anyone.

I don't mean to question Dr. Appleby's ability to excavate ancient remains. I do mean to ask if she has any experience or knowledge as to:

1. How a dead body decomposed (or might have decomposed) in the probable temperature and humidity of Leceister, England in August 1485.

2. The condition -- likely including considerable swelling of the torso -- of the body when it was interred, which would affect the alignment of the spine.

3. How the head, shoulders, and back of said swollen body might have been propped up in the grave, or leaned against the back wall of the grave to make it fit, which angle would have affected: (a) the compression of the spine; and, (b) how the bones of the neck and back (et. al.) settled as the soft tissue decayed.

These are the types of questions a forensic anthropologist (FA) is trained to answer. The answers to these types of questions affect the condition of Richard's back -- as they found it, and as he lived with it.

FA's get their knowledge in part from something called a "body farm", which is a research facility where human decomposition can be studied in a variety of settings. The aim is to gain a better understanding of the decomposition process, permitting the development of techniques for extracting information (such as the timing and circumstances of death) from human remains. Body farm research is particularly important within forensic anthropology and related disciplines, and has applications in the fields of law enforcement and forensic science.

This kind of information and expertise is used to collect evidence in murder investigations. From a certain point of view, Richard was murdered. The treatment of his body, his burial, and his grave are all part of the murder. This sort of information is what I believe the experts at Leicester may have overlooked when it comes to gathering information on Richard and their assessment of his spinal condition.

A medical specialist rather than an anthropologist would also be needed to ascertain the severity of Richard's scoliosis. Since we have no evidence that such specialists have had the opportunity to examine Richard's spine (granted, they may be working on research or writing papers pertaining to the bones of the king even as we discuss), I question the blanket statement made in the documentary and in the media conference that Richard's scoliosis was *severe*.

If the "diagnosis" was made by an orthopedic surgeon qualified to make it, that's all to the good. If, on the other hand, it wasn't, then a faulty diagnosis may already have been dispersed worldwide...which would serve Richard not at all. From the graphics shared with us *so far*, the diagnosis does *not* make sense.

Let me take only one example: there should be no noticeable space between the vertebrae in *any* spine. Yet there is noticeable space between the vertebrae in every graphical representation I can find of Richard's, and that space contributes to the visual representation of his "severe" scoliosis. That space should not be there: if the spacing of the vertebrae is wrong, it in turn makes the angles wrong and the curvature wrong.

So color me confused...because I'd like to see a presentation from a current-day expert on scoliosis. And color me alarmed, because if the current experts have already announced to the world that Richard had severe scoliosis -- which supports the Tudor myth -- only to backtrack in a few months when an orthopedic surgeon analyzes those vertebrae and announces, "Hey, it's not so bad after all -- isn't that fantastic news?"...the damage will already have been done.

~Weds (who is done posting on this...I'm making myself ill)

No, you bring up a lot of excellent points. Have you seen the ULeic vids about the dig? They have an entire YouTube playlist with all the videos they made about the dig, and they go into some really decent detail about what they found.

The gent who actually spotted the top of the king's skull on the first day of the dig, Mathew Morris, is an expert on ruins, so we haven't really heard a lot from him yet (they're not going to talk about window frames and stained-glass leading while they have a skeleton to discuss). He made a comment on one of the vids about how, when you do a dig, you destroy the archeology itself, but the records are there and that's what you work from when you're trying to interpret. I think it's that way with the skeletal remains as well; they had to remove them from the spot in which they had lain undisturbed for half a millennium, but the records are good enough that now they can let people who aren't as handy with a trowel and a brush get a good long soak in the evidence. I think that's where we'll start to see experts in decomp, osteo, scoliosis, medieval weapons and battle technology, and so forth weigh in with their impressions. Hell, we ain't even had our first fistfight over this yet (although I have hopes).

Dr. Appleby (who, despite her competence and affability, has something that sets off my ugh meter something fierce) is listed as a "Lecturer", which I guess is something more than a teaching assistant and somewhat less than a department head. Her areas of expertise are bioarcheology (which I guess is now a thing), the Bronze Age, and slavery (which I would imagine is how you get good enough to identify that hands crossed at the wrists are probably an indication of binding--MAN, that specialty must have some days that are completely horrible). She also spoke with the confidence of knowledge about both DNA testing and the process/progress of scoliosis, although I suppose she could have gotten some of that from other team members and they just put her into the vids because she's easy on the eyes and has a charming smile.

Body farms are immensely useful in cases of recent decomp--we're learning all the time, and they've found some surprising stuff, like when David Pogue (noted U.S. sciencey-type explainer guy) visited a body farm with one of the staff and guessed that a group of bones was probably about a year and a half old. The researcher nodded and said, "That's what I would have said too, but the real answer is that the body was reduced to these scattered bones in six hours by vultures. We had no idea they were capable of that." So body farming is still a young branch of science, and whether its conclusions are applicable to a burial over five centuries old is a question that may have to wait until they know, like, what happens when the vultures show up.

Dr. Appleby was quite definite about the remains not having moved a quarter of a millimeter after the burial, and also about how the main determinant of the ability to extract DNA is soil condition; I can only conclude that she's backing that with expertise. For purposes of diagnosis of the extent of the king's scoliosis, the position of the vertebrae as they were in the gravesite is crucial, but not how they were arranged after exhumation, when all the bones were carefully laid out so that they wouldn't touch and possibly get damaged. There are enough detailed photographs and scans for any later examiner to reconstruct the spine as it was in situ and draw conclusions from that, but I'm not confident that it will be possible to draw any reasonable inferences from looking at the way the vertebrae were laid out on the scanning table, if that makes sense: we're talking about two entirely different purposes.

I mentioned that Dr. Appleby is a bit forbidding in aspect, but to be fair to her, I should explain where I got that initial impression: from the presser. For one thing, she was so much more evidently nervous than other team members that she stumbled over her words a lot. Well, maybe she just has trouble seeing her notes through the retina sear from all the flashbulbs. But there was this little note at the end of the presser that really got me wondering. When they concluded the press conference, Dr. Foxhall, the department head, turned to Dr. Schuerer, the genealogist, and gave him a big hug. Then she turned to Dr. Appleby to give her a hug, and that was the damnedest awkward hug I've seen two women get into since the era of girdles. I've probably condemned the poor woman's character just by picking and choosing my clues, but if I had to hazard a guess as to what the other folks a ULeic would say about her, I think the general opinion might be, "She knows her shit, all right, but she's not real warm." That isn't, and shouldn't be, a comment on her professional competence or lack thereof; maybe it's just that we look at her and think, "There is something a little off about this researcher." Maybe she's socially challenged. (She probably doesn't have a lot of opportunities for light conversation with her subjects.)

I think you're right that the researchers are just now starting to look at the evidence. It's gonna be very interesting once the back-and-forth begins.

--- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> McJohn, your posts always make me look at things from a different -- and welcome -- point of view. I wanted to comment on one of your observations.
>
>
>
> > Dr. Appleby seemed quite certain that the arrangement of the skeleton in the grave was as the king would have been in life, and she's had a hell of a lot more experience with archeological excavations of ancient remains than I have.
>
> Weds writes:
>
> WARNING: graphic descriptions that may offend are included below. Mea culpa if it upsets anyone.
>
> I don't mean to question Dr. Appleby's ability to excavate ancient remains. I do mean to ask if she has any experience or knowledge as to:
>
> 1. How a dead body decomposed (or might have decomposed) in the probable temperature and humidity of Leceister, England in August 1485.
>
> 2. The condition -- likely including considerable swelling of the torso -- of the body when it was interred, which would affect the alignment of the spine.
>
> 3. How the head, shoulders, and back of said swollen body might have been propped up in the grave, or leaned against the back wall of the grave to make it fit, which angle would have affected: (a) the compression of the spine; and, (b) how the bones of the neck and back (et. al.) settled as the soft tissue decayed.
>
> These are the types of questions a forensic anthropologist (FA) is trained to answer. The answers to these types of questions affect the condition of Richard's back -- as they found it, and as he lived with it.
>
> FA's get their knowledge in part from something called a "body farm", which is a research facility where human decomposition can be studied in a variety of settings. The aim is to gain a better understanding of the decomposition process, permitting the development of techniques for extracting information (such as the timing and circumstances of death) from human remains. Body farm research is particularly important within forensic anthropology and related disciplines, and has applications in the fields of law enforcement and forensic science.
>
> This kind of information and expertise is used to collect evidence in murder investigations. From a certain point of view, Richard was murdered. The treatment of his body, his burial, and his grave are all part of the murder. This sort of information is what I believe the experts at Leicester may have overlooked when it comes to gathering information on Richard and their assessment of his spinal condition.
>
> A medical specialist rather than an anthropologist would also be needed to ascertain the severity of Richard's scoliosis. Since we have no evidence that such specialists have had the opportunity to examine Richard's spine (granted, they may be working on research or writing papers pertaining to the bones of the king even as we discuss), I question the blanket statement made in the documentary and in the media conference that Richard's scoliosis was *severe*.
>
> If the "diagnosis" was made by an orthopedic surgeon qualified to make it, that's all to the good. If, on the other hand, it wasn't, then a faulty diagnosis may already have been dispersed worldwide...which would serve Richard not at all. From the graphics shared with us *so far*, the diagnosis does *not* make sense.
>
> Let me take only one example: there should be no noticeable space between the vertebrae in *any* spine. Yet there is noticeable space between the vertebrae in every graphical representation I can find of Richard's, and that space contributes to the visual representation of his "severe" scoliosis. That space should not be there: if the spacing of the vertebrae is wrong, it in turn makes the angles wrong and the curvature wrong.
>
> So color me confused...because I'd like to see a presentation from a current-day expert on scoliosis. And color me alarmed, because if the current experts have already announced to the world that Richard had severe scoliosis -- which supports the Tudor myth -- only to backtrack in a few months when an orthopedic surgeon analyzes those vertebrae and announces, "Hey, it's not so bad after all -- isn't that fantastic news?"...the damage will already have been done.
>
> ~Weds (who is done posting on this...I'm making myself ill)
>

McJohn wrote:
> > Dr. Appleby seemed quite certain that the arrangement of the skeleton in the grave was as the king would have been in life, and she's had a hell of a lot more experience with archeological excavations of ancient remains than I have.
>
> Weds responded:
>[snip]
> I don't mean to question Dr. Appleby's ability to excavate ancient remains. I do mean to ask if she has any experience or knowledge as to:
[snip]
>
> These are the types of questions a forensic anthropologist (FA) is trained to answer. The answers to these types of questions affect the condition of Richard's back -- as they found it, and as he lived with it.
[snip]

Carol responds:

I'm with you, Wednesday. Dr. Appleby has plenty of experience unearthing skeletons, but I imagine, especially from her gleeful pronouncement of the crooked spine as a "hunchback," that this is her first encounter with a skeleton with scoliosis or whatever the condition is (certainly not kyphosis, as the other experts on the team clearly established but Dr. Appleby didn't seem to understand. She is clearly not an expert on either forensics or orthopedics, and the editing of the program to keep in the word "hunchback" (as if it were a scientific term and as if she were an expert in those fields) was very misleading. The "hunchback king" was already all over the Internet, and now it will be nearly impossible to undo that myth, which seems to have been "proven" despite statements to the contrary in the earlier articles thanks to the unprofessional behavior of Dr. Appleby and to a lesser degree her male colleague whose name escapes me. You're very informed and articulate on this subject. I urge you again to write to the Leicester team--not Dr. Appleby but Lin Foxhall and Richard Buckley--asking whether such tests will be performed and giving the concerns you've so eloquently presented.

Carol

McJohn wrote:
> Dr. Appleby (who, despite her competence and affability, has something that sets off my ugh meter something fierce) is listed as a "Lecturer", which I guess is something more than a teaching assistant and somewhat less than a department head. [snip]

Carol responds:

A whole lot less than a department head if British terminology is anything like American. I speak as a former adjunct senior lecturer, which meant that I had my PhD but was hired as an extra teacher only when there weren't enough graduate assistants or graduate associates (people with Masters degrees) to fill all the available teaching positions. Since they didn't call her an adjunct lecturer, she probably has a permanent teaching position but does not yet have tenure. At any rate, she's fairly low on the totem pole as far as teaching positions are concerned--if Brits and Americans use the same terminology. And she's sadly in need of some lessons in tact and empathy as far as I'm concerned.

Carol

Carol

Maybe 'hunchback' hasn't come to have the same specific meaning to other
people as it has to Ricardians. They did use the word 'scoliosis', but it
wasn't expanded on. There might well have been a more complete discussion
that wasn't put to air.

I'm starting to get a little worried that the team who did so much work, and
without whose dedication and expertise, Richard would still be buried, are
coming for undeserved flak.

Karen

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 04:05:27 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Questions About Spinal Analysis






McJohn wrote:
> > Dr. Appleby seemed quite certain that the arrangement of the skeleton in the
grave was as the king would have been in life, and she's had a hell of a lot
more experience with archeological excavations of ancient remains than I have.
>
> Weds responded:
>[snip]
> I don't mean to question Dr. Appleby's ability to excavate ancient remains. I
do mean to ask if she has any experience or knowledge as to:
[snip]
>
> These are the types of questions a forensic anthropologist (FA) is trained to
answer. The answers to these types of questions affect the condition of
Richard's back -- as they found it, and as he lived with it.
[snip]

Carol responds:

I'm with you, Wednesday. Dr. Appleby has plenty of experience unearthing
skeletons, but I imagine, especially from her gleeful pronouncement of the
crooked spine as a "hunchback," that this is her first encounter with a
skeleton with scoliosis or whatever the condition is (certainly not
kyphosis, as the other experts on the team clearly established but Dr.
Appleby didn't seem to understand. She is clearly not an expert on either
forensics or orthopedics, and the editing of the program to keep in the word
"hunchback" (as if it were a scientific term and as if she were an expert in
those fields) was very misleading. The "hunchback king" was already all over
the Internet, and now it will be nearly impossible to undo that myth, which
seems to have been "proven" despite statements to the contrary in the
earlier articles thanks to the unprofessional behavior of Dr. Appleby and to
a lesser degree her male colleague whose name escapes me. You're very
informed and articulate on this subject. I urge you again to write to the
Leicester team--not Dr. Appleby but Lin Foxhall and Richard Buckley--asking
whether such tests will be performed and giving the concerns you've so
eloquently presented.

Carol

My job description here in Australia was also 'lecturer' and I certainly had
tenure and academic standing.

Langley and Appleby are two different women with two different ways of
engaging with things. To criticise one for being 'over-emotional' is wrong
and to criticise the other for being 'tactless' and not 'empathetic' is
wrong. I'm seriously quite shocked that any of us would even consider
criticising one of the Leicester team like this. So maybe she and Langley
didn't get on, and maybe she used a word (as did others) that has a less
loaded meaning for her than for us, but can we please remember that without
the Leicester team (and without Langley, Ashdown-Hill and others) we'd still
be arguing about where Richard's body is and whether or not he had a
'hunchback' or 'one shoulder higher than the other'.

Karen

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 04:24:43 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Questions About Spinal Analysis






McJohn wrote:
> Dr. Appleby (who, despite her competence and affability, has something that
sets off my ugh meter something fierce) is listed as a "Lecturer", which I guess
is something more than a teaching assistant and somewhat less than a department
head. [snip]

Carol responds:

A whole lot less than a department head if British terminology is anything
like American. I speak as a former adjunct senior lecturer, which meant that
I had my PhD but was hired as an extra teacher only when there weren't
enough graduate assistants or graduate associates (people with Masters
degrees) to fill all the available teaching positions. Since they didn't
call her an adjunct lecturer, she probably has a permanent teaching position
but does not yet have tenure. At any rate, she's fairly low on the totem
pole as far as teaching positions are concerned--if Brits and Americans use
the same terminology. And she's sadly in need of some lessons in tact and
empathy as far as I'm concerned.

Carol

Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> Maybe 'hunchback' hasn't come to have the same specific meaning to other people as it has to Ricardians. They did use the word 'scoliosis', but it wasn't expanded on. There might well have been a more complete discussion that wasn't put to air.
>
> I'm starting to get a little worried that the team who did so much work, and without whose dedication and expertise, Richard would still be buried, are coming for undeserved flak.

Carol responds:

Whereas I'm afraid that some of them, at least, have done unintended damage. Again, though, they're not responsible for the way the show was edited. As you say, the complete discussion may have been left out (with parts I consider important left on the editing room floor). I do, of course, appreciate their dedication and expertise (when it's limited to their own fields). Besides, unless others are reading these posts, as is certainly possible, no one is hearing the "flak" except fellow Ricardians.

I'm pretty sure that "hunchback" suggests either Disney's Quasimodo or Shakespeare's Richard III to most people. It reinforces the very image that the R III Society is trying to undo, and I for one find it very disturbing. Scoliosis isn't kyphosis. That message just isn't getting through. Pamela Tudor-Craig made a key statement that seems to have been overlooked so far in this discussion: "It's much easier to exaggerate than to invent." And that's exactly what's happening every time a crooked spine is referred to as a hunchback.

Carol

Karen Clark wrote:
[snip].
>
> Langley and Appleby are two different women with two different ways of engaging with things. To criticise one for being 'over-emotional' is wrong and to criticise the other for being 'tactless' and not 'empathetic' is wrong. I'm seriously quite shocked that any of us would even consider criticising one of the Leicester team like this.



Carol responds:

There you go again, Karen. I'm "wrong." End of discussion. I have not changed my mind, but I am not going to debate this with you. I'm seriously quite shocked that you want to suppress other people's opinions.

Carol

Carol

I thoroughly agree that 'hunchback' to most Ricardians means exactly what
you say and I also agree that we need to break any connection between that
sense of the word and 'scoliosis'. At the press conference, 'scoliosis' was
very much mentioned; 'hunchback' wasn't. If you haven't seen it yet, it's
well worth it! There's a degree of emotion from all participants that might
surprise you. I watched the BBC stream on Monday night and was very moved,
both by the way the team built the story and by their unabashed joy at their
findings.

Karen

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 04:57:27 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Questions About Spinal Analysis






Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> Maybe 'hunchback' hasn't come to have the same specific meaning to other
people as it has to Ricardians. They did use the word 'scoliosis', but it wasn't
expanded on. There might well have been a more complete discussion that wasn't
put to air.
>
> I'm starting to get a little worried that the team who did so much work, and
without whose dedication and expertise, Richard would still be buried, are
coming for undeserved flak.

Carol responds:

Whereas I'm afraid that some of them, at least, have done unintended damage.
Again, though, they're not responsible for the way the show was edited. As
you say, the complete discussion may have been left out (with parts I
consider important left on the editing room floor). I do, of course,
appreciate their dedication and expertise (when it's limited to their own
fields). Besides, unless others are reading these posts, as is certainly
possible, no one is hearing the "flak" except fellow Ricardians.

I'm pretty sure that "hunchback" suggests either Disney's Quasimodo or
Shakespeare's Richard III to most people. It reinforces the very image that
the R III Society is trying to undo, and I for one find it very disturbing.
Scoliosis isn't kyphosis. That message just isn't getting through. Pamela
Tudor-Craig made a key statement that seems to have been overlooked so far
in this discussion: "It's much easier to exaggerate than to invent." And
that's exactly what's happening every time a crooked spine is referred to as
a hunchback.

Carol

Carol, you are entitled to express your opinion and I'm entitled to respond
to it. And you are entitled to respond to that response. As you, in fact,
did. That really doesn't sound like an attempt to 'suppress' anyone's
opinion to me.

Karen


From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 05:01:57 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Questions About Spinal Analysis






Karen Clark wrote:
[snip].
>
> Langley and Appleby are two different women with two different ways of
engaging with things. To criticise one for being 'over-emotional' is wrong and
to criticise the other for being 'tactless' and not 'empathetic' is wrong. I'm
seriously quite shocked that any of us would even consider criticising one of
the Leicester team like this.

Carol responds:

There you go again, Karen. I'm "wrong." End of discussion. I have not
changed my mind, but I am not going to debate this with you. I'm seriously
quite shocked that you want to suppress other people's opinions.

Carol

Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol, you are entitled to express your opinion and I'm entitled to respond to it. And you are entitled to respond to that response. As you, in fact, did. That really doesn't sound like an attempt to 'suppress' anyone's opinion to me.

Carol responds:

You are entitled to disagree with others, but calling someone's opinion "wrong" and expressing shock at that person's views suppresses discussion. Thank you for your advice regarding the press conference, which I would watch if it weren't eleven at night (maybe tomorrow I can fit it in), but this particular discussion is at an end unless someone else chooses to continue it.

Carol

Carol

To be honest, I was quite shocked. I can't (and don't) resile from that.
After seeing Philippa Langley criticised (in other fora) for her emotional
response to what was going on, and after agreeing with everyone else here
that such criticism was unwarranted and unfair, I was surprised at the
criticism (not just from you) aimed at Jo Appleby. I think we owe Appleby
(and all involved) a debt of gratitude for her hard work and her expertise,
whether we find her offputting or not. If you exercise your right to
discontinue this discussion, I will respect that and not suggest it's an
attempt to 'suppress' my opinion, that's not the way my mind works. We have
both had our say.

I do hope you have time to watch the press conference tomorrow. I was
expecting to be excited (or perhaps disappointed) by the eventual
announcement but I didn't quite expect to be as deeply moved as I was. Not
that I'm not an emotional person, just that I'd thought, for me, this was
more an intellectual thing than emotional. I was wrong!

Karen


From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 06:02:30 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Questions About Spinal Analysis








Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol, you are entitled to express your opinion and I'm entitled to respond to
it. And you are entitled to respond to that response. As you, in fact, did. That
really doesn't sound like an attempt to 'suppress' anyone's opinion to me.

Carol responds:

You are entitled to disagree with others, but calling someone's opinion
"wrong" and expressing shock at that person's views suppresses discussion.
Thank you for your advice regarding the press conference, which I would
watch if it weren't eleven at night (maybe tomorrow I can fit it in), but
this particular discussion is at an end unless someone else chooses to
continue it.

Carol

I have to say I share Weds' concerns - puzzlement might be a better word. A piece in one of yesterdays papers online that I saw whilst browsing, by a journalist with only moderate scoliosis, about the amount of pain and spasm she suffered and the amount of time spent resting up with packets of frozen peas, made me think there is a mismatch between the severity of Richard's scoliosis as it has been presented and what he managed to do in life. It wasn't just the battles. When travelling he not infrequently rode over 40 miles in a day, then rode on again the next day. I do think we need more explanation of his condition and how it would have affected him. I wonder if they can eventually make a model of his spine, as with the recent neanderthal, etc, on the Alice Roberts programme, and put it together vertically as it would have been in life.
Marie



--- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> McJohn, your posts always make me look at things from a different -- and welcome -- point of view. I wanted to comment on one of your observations.
>
>
>
> > Dr. Appleby seemed quite certain that the arrangement of the skeleton in the grave was as the king would have been in life, and she's had a hell of a lot more experience with archeological excavations of ancient remains than I have.
>
> Weds writes:
>
> WARNING: graphic descriptions that may offend are included below. Mea culpa if it upsets anyone.
>
> I don't mean to question Dr. Appleby's ability to excavate ancient remains. I do mean to ask if she has any experience or knowledge as to:
>
> 1. How a dead body decomposed (or might have decomposed) in the probable temperature and humidity of Leceister, England in August 1485.
>
> 2. The condition -- likely including considerable swelling of the torso -- of the body when it was interred, which would affect the alignment of the spine.
>
> 3. How the head, shoulders, and back of said swollen body might have been propped up in the grave, or leaned against the back wall of the grave to make it fit, which angle would have affected: (a) the compression of the spine; and, (b) how the bones of the neck and back (et. al.) settled as the soft tissue decayed.
>
> These are the types of questions a forensic anthropologist (FA) is trained to answer. The answers to these types of questions affect the condition of Richard's back -- as they found it, and as he lived with it.
>
> FA's get their knowledge in part from something called a "body farm", which is a research facility where human decomposition can be studied in a variety of settings. The aim is to gain a better understanding of the decomposition process, permitting the development of techniques for extracting information (such as the timing and circumstances of death) from human remains. Body farm research is particularly important within forensic anthropology and related disciplines, and has applications in the fields of law enforcement and forensic science.
>
> This kind of information and expertise is used to collect evidence in murder investigations. From a certain point of view, Richard was murdered. The treatment of his body, his burial, and his grave are all part of the murder. This sort of information is what I believe the experts at Leicester may have overlooked when it comes to gathering information on Richard and their assessment of his spinal condition.
>
> A medical specialist rather than an anthropologist would also be needed to ascertain the severity of Richard's scoliosis. Since we have no evidence that such specialists have had the opportunity to examine Richard's spine (granted, they may be working on research or writing papers pertaining to the bones of the king even as we discuss), I question the blanket statement made in the documentary and in the media conference that Richard's scoliosis was *severe*.
>
> If the "diagnosis" was made by an orthopedic surgeon qualified to make it, that's all to the good. If, on the other hand, it wasn't, then a faulty diagnosis may already have been dispersed worldwide...which would serve Richard not at all. From the graphics shared with us *so far*, the diagnosis does *not* make sense.
>
> Let me take only one example: there should be no noticeable space between the vertebrae in *any* spine. Yet there is noticeable space between the vertebrae in every graphical representation I can find of Richard's, and that space contributes to the visual representation of his "severe" scoliosis. That space should not be there: if the spacing of the vertebrae is wrong, it in turn makes the angles wrong and the curvature wrong.
>
> So color me confused...because I'd like to see a presentation from a current-day expert on scoliosis. And color me alarmed, because if the current experts have already announced to the world that Richard had severe scoliosis -- which supports the Tudor myth -- only to backtrack in a few months when an orthopedic surgeon analyzes those vertebrae and announces, "Hey, it's not so bad after all -- isn't that fantastic news?"...the damage will already have been done.
>
> ~Weds (who is done posting on this...I'm making myself ill)
>

From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 4:33
Subject: Re: Re: Questions About Spinal Analysis


"I'm starting to get a little worried that the team who did so much work, and
without whose dedication and expertise, Richard would still be buried, are
coming for undeserved flak."

--------

Absolutely.  I think referring to Jo Appleby as "unprofessional" is as unwarranted as calling Philippa Langley "hysterical".  If faults lie anywhere, it's with the final edit of the programme - not brief snatches of conversation compiled over a period of five months.  And it's inevitable that Ricardians have a greater sensitivity to language than other people would in this specific context, but personalising the debate in this way makes us look like we have an agenda in the worst sense of the word.

Jonathan





________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 4:33
Subject: Re: Re: Questions About Spinal Analysis


 
Carol

Maybe 'hunchback' hasn't come to have the same specific meaning to other
people as it has to Ricardians. They did use the word 'scoliosis', but it
wasn't expanded on. There might well have been a more complete discussion
that wasn't put to air.

I'm starting to get a little worried that the team who did so much work, and
without whose dedication and expertise, Richard would still be buried, are
coming for undeserved flak.

Karen

From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: >
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 04:05:27 -0000
To: >
Subject: Re: Questions About Spinal Analysis

McJohn wrote:
> > Dr. Appleby seemed quite certain that the arrangement of the skeleton in the
grave was as the king would have been in life, and she's had a hell of a lot
more experience with archeological excavations of ancient remains than I have.
>
> Weds responded:
>[snip]
> I don't mean to question Dr. Appleby's ability to excavate ancient remains. I
do mean to ask if she has any experience or knowledge as to:
[snip]
>
> These are the types of questions a forensic anthropologist (FA) is trained to
answer. The answers to these types of questions affect the condition of
Richard's back -- as they found it, and as he lived with it.
[snip]

Carol responds:

I'm with you, Wednesday. Dr. Appleby has plenty of experience unearthing
skeletons, but I imagine, especially from her gleeful pronouncement of the
crooked spine as a "hunchback," that this is her first encounter with a
skeleton with scoliosis or whatever the condition is (certainly not
kyphosis, as the other experts on the team clearly established but Dr.
Appleby didn't seem to understand. She is clearly not an expert on either
forensics or orthopedics, and the editing of the program to keep in the word
"hunchback" (as if it were a scientific term and as if she were an expert in
those fields) was very misleading. The "hunchback king" was already all over
the Internet, and now it will be nearly impossible to undo that myth, which
seems to have been "proven" despite statements to the contrary in the
earlier articles thanks to the unprofessional behavior of Dr. Appleby and to
a lesser degree her male colleague whose name escapes me. You're very
informed and articulate on this subject. I urge you again to write to the
Leicester team--not Dr. Appleby but Lin Foxhall and Richard Buckley--asking
whether such tests will be performed and giving the concerns you've so
eloquently presented.

Carol

Well said, Jonathan.

Karen

From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 10:55:52 +0000 (GMT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Questions About Spinal
Analysis






From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 4:33
Subject: Re: Re: Questions About Spinal Analysis


"I'm starting to get a little worried that the team who did so much work,
and
without whose dedication and expertise, Richard would still be buried, are
coming for undeserved flak."

--------

Absolutely. I think referring to Jo Appleby as "unprofessional" is as
unwarranted as calling Philippa Langley "hysterical". If faults lie
anywhere, it's with the final edit of the programme - not brief snatches of
conversation compiled over a period of five months. And it's inevitable
that Ricardians have a greater sensitivity to language than other people
would in this specific context, but personalising the debate in this way
makes us look like we have an agenda in the worst sense of the word.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 4:33
Subject: Re: Re: Questions About Spinal Analysis



Carol

Maybe 'hunchback' hasn't come to have the same specific meaning to other
people as it has to Ricardians. They did use the word 'scoliosis', but it
wasn't expanded on. There might well have been a more complete discussion
that wasn't put to air.

I'm starting to get a little worried that the team who did so much work, and
without whose dedication and expertise, Richard would still be buried, are
coming for undeserved flak.

Karen

From: justcarol67 justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 04:05:27 -0000
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Questions About Spinal Analysis

McJohn wrote:
> > Dr. Appleby seemed quite certain that the arrangement of the skeleton in the
grave was as the king would have been in life, and she's had a hell of a lot
more experience with archeological excavations of ancient remains than I
have.
>
> Weds responded:
>[snip]
> I don't mean to question Dr. Appleby's ability to excavate ancient remains. I
do mean to ask if she has any experience or knowledge as to:
[snip]
>
> These are the types of questions a forensic anthropologist (FA) is trained to
answer. The answers to these types of questions affect the condition of
Richard's back -- as they found it, and as he lived with it.
[snip]

Carol responds:

I'm with you, Wednesday. Dr. Appleby has plenty of experience unearthing
skeletons, but I imagine, especially from her gleeful pronouncement of the
crooked spine as a "hunchback," that this is her first encounter with a
skeleton with scoliosis or whatever the condition is (certainly not
kyphosis, as the other experts on the team clearly established but Dr.
Appleby didn't seem to understand. She is clearly not an expert on either
forensics or orthopedics, and the editing of the program to keep in the word
"hunchback" (as if it were a scientific term and as if she were an expert in
those fields) was very misleading. The "hunchback king" was already all over
the Internet, and now it will be nearly impossible to undo that myth, which
seems to have been "proven" despite statements to the contrary in the
earlier articles thanks to the unprofessional behavior of Dr. Appleby and to
a lesser degree her male colleague whose name escapes me. You're very
informed and articulate on this subject. I urge you again to write to the
Leicester team--not Dr. Appleby but Lin Foxhall and Richard Buckley--asking
whether such tests will be performed and giving the concerns you've so
eloquently presented.

Carol

Wonderful post, Mcjohn!



Thanks for the great op-ed. It is really the early days. I guess we
"old-timers" have to be prepared to survive the avalanche of media coverage
and do what we can to set the record straight in loyal support of His
Grace's memory.



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 mcjohn_wt_net
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 9:09 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Questions About Spinal Analysis





You know, when I look at the explosion of coverage in the wake of the
announcement, I find myself thinking over and over, "Early days." And
although we've been following the dig in detail since last spring (when Ms.
Langley and Ms. Carson issued their appeal for funding to make up the
shortfall), the rest of the world only heard about it four days ago.

It's as certain as sunrise that we're just at the beginning of the research
into the life of the fallen king. Archeology doesn't often just blitzkrieg
like this: that they found their million-to-one shot within hours of ripping
up the first hunk of tarmac is unprecedented. (How long did Dr. Ballard
spend looking for for "Titanic"? Fifteen years, actively, and years of
research before that? Granted, it was sixty fathoms below giant squid
territory, but still, I bet there are far more projects that run along
"Titanic"'s timeline than this one.)

Dr. Appleby seemed quite certain that the arrangement of the skeleton in the
grave was as the king would have been in life, and she's had a hell of a lot
more experience with archeological excavations of ancient remains than I
have. Having said that, though, the reason we have experts is so that they
can argue with one another in a bid to reach consensus. Archeologists are
still reinterpreting Schliemann's dig at Troy (and cussing him as a
media-hungry slob who couldn't excavate a dried-out puddle without making
hash of the job), and we're over 150 years out from his original
excavations.

I am certain that, as time goes on, experts in various fields will be called
on to examine the evidence and give their opinions. We haven't seen word one
on the pieces of the Greyfriars structure that were collected (but to be
honest, the finding of King Richard's remains did kind of suck all the air
out of the room). However, in a technologically sophisticated era, most of
the experts won't even need to consult the original evidence; every piece of
the skeleton has been scanned in 3D and can be reassembled in replica, and
I'm sure a number of experts are preparing to download some printable files
to do that very thing, with conclusions and passionate discussions to
follow.

For all the blather from the underinformed (I saw one guy on Yahoo pissin'
n' moanin' about the waste of taxpayer dollars, and not only was he unaware
that no public funding went into this, he's not even a Brit, so I don't see
how it could have been HIS dollars, or even dollars at all, at risk), the
dig was not conducted on their behalf, but as a service to the legions of
scholars and interested amateurs who don't think the righting of injustice
has a time limit. Although we're all self-conscious over Ms. Langley getting
caught being emotional in front of the cameras (parenthetically, I wonder
how much sleep they've gotten since August), her reaction has to be
provoking a question in a lot of people: What is it about the discovery of
this particular skeleton that could incite that kind of passion? A certain
percentage of them will mock and fuss and react with outwardly-directed
embarrassment at the show of emotion, but a certain percentage will want to
find out why.

Way back in 2008, when Hilary Clinton grew misty-eyed talking about the
women she'd met in her Presidential campaign who were born before American
women could vote, she was roundly mocked. A few weeks ago, when she
testified before Congress and grew misty-eyed when she spoke of the American
embassy personnel in Libya who were killed in September, her reaction was
noted, but nobody made fun of her for it.

Maybe the world is growing just a little bit tired of making fun of
everything. Maybe we're ready for something meaningful. Maybe we're ready to
find the truth about a historical mystery. Maybe we can. This is an
excellent first step.

Hi, Carol, Karen, Weds, and Mcjohn -



I just want to thank you all again for this fascinating discussion! Please
continue to debate and argue the issues with intensity but ultimately with
friendliness. I think this is important - and, though ultimately the truth
may show "severe scoliosis," one cannot have too much scientific examination
and debate about these things, and if it seems that there's something
lacking in the area of scientific investigation, by all means pursue it!



Weds, I understand how you feel, because though I feel this is a profound
and wonderful experience, I still feel as if I have lost a dear member of my
family, a reaction that I did not expect. However, it is worth the effort
and sacrifice in the end - I have certainly appreciated what you have put
forth and am looking forward to more on point. In fact, if you want to draft
something and have me comment on it before sending, I would be happy to do
so! Even though I still have not written those papers that are due tomorrow
and Monday!



Hang in there, y'all!



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 justcarol67
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:57 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Questions About Spinal Analysis





Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> Maybe 'hunchback' hasn't come to have the same specific meaning to other
people as it has to Ricardians. They did use the word 'scoliosis', but it
wasn't expanded on. There might well have been a more complete discussion
that wasn't put to air.
>
> I'm starting to get a little worried that the team who did so much work,
and without whose dedication and expertise, Richard would still be buried,
are coming for undeserved flak.

Carol responds:

Whereas I'm afraid that some of them, at least, have done unintended damage.
Again, though, they're not responsible for the way the show was edited. As
you say, the complete discussion may have been left out (with parts I
consider important left on the editing room floor). I do, of course,
appreciate their dedication and expertise (when it's limited to their own
fields). Besides, unless others are reading these posts, as is certainly
possible, no one is hearing the "flak" except fellow Ricardians.

I'm pretty sure that "hunchback" suggests either Disney's Quasimodo or
Shakespeare's Richard III to most people. It reinforces the very image that
the R III Society is trying to undo, and I for one find it very disturbing.
Scoliosis isn't kyphosis. That message just isn't getting through. Pamela
Tudor-Craig made a key statement that seems to have been overlooked so far
in this discussion: "It's much easier to exaggerate than to invent." And
that's exactly what's happening every time a crooked spine is referred to as
a hunchback.

Carol

Surely there are people like that still. It would be the cherry on top of the whipped cream.

On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:56 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:



I'll talk to my friend and see what she says. In some ways it seems presumptuous to tell the experts, "You may want to consider pulling in different experts," but it is for Richard and there are huge holes in what's been presented so far.

I only wish the retired forensic anthropologist who analyzed the Romanov's grave-site was still alive. He did wonderful work on murder sites -- including those when the victim had been killed in one location and dumped in another because that's pretty standard for murders, and Richard's site might have been considered a medieval one with a little imagination.

His book, "Dead Men Do Tell Tales" pretty much lays out what could have been analyzed and discovered, had they had one of his ilk on hand before they had so much as breathed on the site.

~Weds

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> Weds, I agree with Carol! Lets find a way to get this to the people involved so we can get real answers. I feel I am try to pick up morsels here and there and is no close to The matter than I was a week ago.......
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 6, 2013, at 3:59 PM, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> > Wednesday wrote:
> > >
> > > The summary of the thoughts of a friend of mine (with a police and medical background, but not in forensics and by no means an expert; she only worked with the experts) and myself (with only curiosity) on Richard's spinal condition is that to properly assess the severity of his scoliosis, Leicester University might consider asking an orthopedic surgeon (at the very least) and/or a forensic pathologist to take a look at Richard's skeleton to further assess the severity of his scoliosis.
> > >
> > > An orthopedic surgeon is the medical expert needed to assess the severity of Richard's scoliosis. A forensic anthropologist is needed to properly analyze the wounds inflicted on Richard's ancient skeleton. [snip]
> > >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > This is a brilliant post, Weds. I suggest that you send these observations and suggestions to the team at Leicester University (without the links, which they won't need).
> >
> > Carol

Carol responds:

A whole lot less than a department head if British terminology is anything like American. I speak as a former adjunct senior lecturer, which meant that I had my PhD but was hired as an extra teacher only when there weren't enough graduate assistants or graduate associates (people with Masters degrees) to fill all the available teaching positions. Since they didn't call her an adjunct lecturer, she probably has a permanent teaching position but does not yet have tenure. At any rate, she's fairly low on the totem pole as far as teaching positions are concerned--if Brits and Americans use the same terminology. And she's sadly in need of some lessons in tact and empathy as far as I'm concerned.#

Liz said:

I wonder why she was chosen  for the job in that case.  It's a high profile dig, surely they'd want a senior person.  (Or is it because they didn't think they'd find anything?)

Her CV is readily available on the itnernet by the way, I just don't have time to read it all now as am at work.

I agree with you up to a point, Karen. "Hunchback" is such a loaded word for Ricardians with all it's connotations of the More/Shakespeare legend of unadulterated evil. I think that Dr Appleby probably used the term as a sort of shorthand to mean spinal abnormality.

OTOH, knowing that she was, possibly at the time, dealing with the skeleton of Richard III, she might have been a little more sensitive in her use of terminology.She must have known what was, potentially, riding on the discovery.


I have to say, and I could very easily be wrong, that I got the impression the word was deliberately used to get a "certain" reaction. Maybe for more televisual effect?


--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> Maybe 'hunchback' hasn't come to have the same specific meaning to other
> people as it has to Ricardians. They did use the word 'scoliosis', but it
> wasn't expanded on. There might well have been a more complete discussion
> that wasn't put to air.
>
> I'm starting to get a little worried that the team who did so much work, and
> without whose dedication and expertise, Richard would still be buried, are
> coming for undeserved flak.
>
> Karen
>
> From: justcarol67
> Reply-To:
> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 04:05:27 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Questions About Spinal Analysis
>
>
>
>
>
>
> McJohn wrote:
> > > Dr. Appleby seemed quite certain that the arrangement of the skeleton in the
> grave was as the king would have been in life, and she's had a hell of a lot
> more experience with archeological excavations of ancient remains than I have.
> >
> > Weds responded:
> >[snip]
> > I don't mean to question Dr. Appleby's ability to excavate ancient remains. I
> do mean to ask if she has any experience or knowledge as to:
> [snip]
> >
> > These are the types of questions a forensic anthropologist (FA) is trained to
> answer. The answers to these types of questions affect the condition of
> Richard's back -- as they found it, and as he lived with it.
> [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I'm with you, Wednesday. Dr. Appleby has plenty of experience unearthing
> skeletons, but I imagine, especially from her gleeful pronouncement of the
> crooked spine as a "hunchback," that this is her first encounter with a
> skeleton with scoliosis or whatever the condition is (certainly not
> kyphosis, as the other experts on the team clearly established but Dr.
> Appleby didn't seem to understand. She is clearly not an expert on either
> forensics or orthopedics, and the editing of the program to keep in the word
> "hunchback" (as if it were a scientific term and as if she were an expert in
> those fields) was very misleading. The "hunchback king" was already all over
> the Internet, and now it will be nearly impossible to undo that myth, which
> seems to have been "proven" despite statements to the contrary in the
> earlier articles thanks to the unprofessional behavior of Dr. Appleby and to
> a lesser degree her male colleague whose name escapes me. You're very
> informed and articulate on this subject. I urge you again to write to the
> Leicester team--not Dr. Appleby but Lin Foxhall and Richard Buckley--asking
> whether such tests will be performed and giving the concerns you've so
> eloquently presented.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Call me paranoid but I'm wodnering if she's a Tudor spy :-)
 
 
Seriously, I did think it was a bit weird the way she suddenly said "he's got a hunchback" and frankly I DO think it was unprofessional of her to say that. 

From: highland_katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:42
Subject: Re: Questions About Spinal Analysis

 

I agree with you up to a point, Karen. "Hunchback" is such a loaded word for Ricardians with all it's connotations of the More/Shakespeare legend of unadulterated evil. I think that Dr Appleby probably used the term as a sort of shorthand to mean spinal abnormality.

OTOH, knowing that she was, possibly at the time, dealing with the skeleton of Richard III, she might have been a little more sensitive in her use of terminology.She must have known what was, potentially, riding on the discovery.

I have to say, and I could very easily be wrong, that I got the impression the word was deliberately used to get a "certain" reaction. Maybe for more televisual effect?

>
>
>
>

Marie wrote:
>
> I have to say I share Weds' concerns - puzzlement might be a better word. A piece in one of yesterdays papers online that I saw whilst browsing, by a journalist with only moderate scoliosis, about the amount of pain and spasm she suffered and the amount of time spent resting up with packets of frozen peas, made me think there is a mismatch between the severity of Richard's scoliosis as it has been presented and what he managed to do in life. It wasn't just the battles. When travelling he not infrequently rode over 40 miles in a day, then rode on again the next day. I do think we need more explanation of his condition and how it would have affected him. I wonder if they can eventually make a model of his spine, as with the recent neanderthal, etc, on the Alice Roberts programme, and put it together vertically as it would have been in life.

Carol responds:

Yes! I agree absolutely with every word of this post. This may sound odd, I don't know, but I was thinking that the scientists could string together replicas of the vertebrae on a flexible but strong copper wire representing the spinal cord with rubber disks in between to see what it would look like in an upright position. He could not possibly have been as twisted as the layout of the bones on the table made him look or he could not have ridden long distances or fought in battle, and someone, particularly Rous or Commynes, would have commented on his obviously crooked back after this death. This new reinforcement of the "hunchback" myth needs to be questioned and examined by other experts. Someone was calling for a peer review of the DNA results, which I expect will happen. I'm much more concerned, as I'm sure everyone knows by now, about misrepresentations of the crooked spine.

Marie, you have credentials as a historian. Maybe they'll listen if you write to them.

Carol

Oh fiddle-de-di...... We are all grown ups here, with at least one shared interest, if not passion - Richard III. I think there are some incredibly well educated people on the forum, who have spent many years reading and studying. This is a gift for the novice, and less well educated and/or informed. If someone does not agree, OH MY GOD, is that a surprise, I think not. Let's just get on with it, and watch the show. For those who don't like the rambler (me), then delete my post and continue reading. Masculine, feminine, short, slender, curved spine, loose teeth, after 500 plus years, praise the Gods Richard's body has been found. Now, get over it!
I do have one beef....I am into the long version on UTube and keep getting knocked off at about 10 minutes in. I am trying to install the Expat Shield. I hope my firewall does not have a hissy fit, and I am able to watch it all.
Love to all my fellow ramblers, nutters, scholars, readers and pals!

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:03 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Questions About Spinal Analysis




Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol, you are entitled to express your opinion and I'm entitled to respond to it. And you are entitled to respond to that response. As you, in fact, did. That really doesn't sound like an attempt to 'suppress' anyone's opinion to me.

Carol responds:

You are entitled to disagree with others, but calling someone's opinion "wrong" and expressing shock at that person's views suppresses discussion. Thank you for your advice regarding the press conference, which I would watch if it weren't eleven at night (maybe tomorrow I can fit it in), but this particular discussion is at an end unless someone else chooses to continue it.

Carol

liz williams wrote:

"Call me paranoid but I'm wodnering if she's a Tudor spy."

in response to Carol's"
"Seriously, I did think it was a bit weird the way she suddenly said "he's
got a hunchback" and frankly I DO think it was unprofessional of her to say
that."

Doug (finally):
I haven't yet seen the documentary, but I do wonder if all this isn't due to
two separate things: the speed with which the documentary was edited to meet
the deadline and/or the editing itself?
In other words, because of the necessity to meet the deadline, the editor/s
rushed and left in a scene or two that, had they more time, they would have
replaced with other scenes that still would have included the same
information/drama/excitement?
The same applies to the overall editing. How many cameras were used? How
many options did the editors have? Were there other scenes available? I have
no idea about how one goes about "shooting" a documentary, but I do
seriously doubt this one had the same size expense account as one of, say,
Sir David Attenborough's!
There may very well be portions of the documentary that were cut that, had
they been included, would have satisfied all or most of our objections. Or
the editors could have simply been trying to get reactions for the "drama"
and to keep the level of general interest high.
If the latter, they've certainly succeeded here!
Doug

Pam, well said! I have learned SO much in the few months I have been here!
I did not have that problem with YouTube . Maybe it depends how fast your Internet speed is?
Sent from my iPad

On Feb 7, 2013, at 9:39 AM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> Oh fiddle-de-di...... We are all grown ups here, with at least one shared interest, if not passion - Richard III. I think there are some incredibly well educated people on the forum, who have spent many years reading and studying. This is a gift for the novice, and less well educated and/or informed. If someone does not agree, OH MY GOD, is that a surprise, I think not. Let's just get on with it, and watch the show. For those who don't like the rambler (me), then delete my post and continue reading. Masculine, feminine, short, slender, curved spine, loose teeth, after 500 plus years, praise the Gods Richard's body has been found. Now, get over it!
> I do have one beef....I am into the long version on UTube and keep getting knocked off at about 10 minutes in. I am trying to install the Expat Shield. I hope my firewall does not have a hissy fit, and I am able to watch it all.
> Love to all my fellow ramblers, nutters, scholars, readers and pals!
>
> ________________________________
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:03 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Questions About Spinal Analysis
>
> Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Carol, you are entitled to express your opinion and I'm entitled to respond to it. And you are entitled to respond to that response. As you, in fact, did. That really doesn't sound like an attempt to 'suppress' anyone's opinion to me.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> You are entitled to disagree with others, but calling someone's opinion "wrong" and expressing shock at that person's views suppresses discussion. Thank you for your advice regarding the press conference, which I would watch if it weren't eleven at night (maybe tomorrow I can fit it in), but this particular discussion is at an end unless someone else chooses to continue it.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>

Thanks so much, and I am 40 minutes into the video, and it is fascinating. I am liking all these folks a lot. Phillipa is absolutely delightful, as are the other scholars and our curly headed narrator!

On Feb 7, 2013, at 10:39 AM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:



Pam, well said! I have learned SO much in the few months I have been here!
I did not have that problem with YouTube . Maybe it depends how fast your Internet speed is?
Sent from my iPad

On Feb 7, 2013, at 9:39 AM, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:

> Oh fiddle-de-di...... We are all grown ups here, with at least one shared interest, if not passion - Richard III. I think there are some incredibly well educated people on the forum, who have spent many years reading and studying. This is a gift for the novice, and less well educated and/or informed. If someone does not agree, OH MY GOD, is that a surprise, I think not. Let's just get on with it, and watch the show. For those who don't like the rambler (me), then delete my post and continue reading. Masculine, feminine, short, slender, curved spine, loose teeth, after 500 plus years, praise the Gods Richard's body has been found. Now, get over it!
> I do have one beef....I am into the long version on UTube and keep getting knocked off at about 10 minutes in. I am trying to install the Expat Shield. I hope my firewall does not have a hissy fit, and I am able to watch it all.
> Love to all my fellow ramblers, nutters, scholars, readers and pals!
>
> ________________________________
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:03 AM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Questions About Spinal Analysis
>
> Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Carol, you are entitled to express your opinion and I'm entitled to respond to it. And you are entitled to respond to that response. As you, in fact, did. That really doesn't sound like an attempt to 'suppress' anyone's opinion to me.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> You are entitled to disagree with others, but calling someone's opinion "wrong" and expressing shock at that person's views suppresses discussion. Thank you for your advice regarding the press conference, which I would watch if it weren't eleven at night (maybe tomorrow I can fit it in), but this particular discussion is at an end unless someone else chooses to continue it.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>

Doug wrote:

> liz williams wrote:
>
> "Call me paranoid but I'm wodnering if she's a Tudor spy."
>
> in response to Carol's" "Seriously, I did think it was a bit weird the way she suddenly said "he's got a hunchback" and frankly I DO think it was unprofessional of her to say that."

Carol responds:

I'm not sure who said that, but it wasn't me. It was someone agreeing with my overall position (whether directly responding to me or not, I'm not sure), so I can understand why you'd attribute the words to me. But, nope. Those are someone else's words.

Carol

Carol, it was me who said both those things. My work computer was behaving very peculiarly today and sentences kept disappearing.  I think I was responding to something you had said about Jo Appleby
 
Liz


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 17:49
Subject: Re: Questions About Spinal Analysis

 


Doug wrote:

> liz williams wrote:
>
> "Call me paranoid but I'm wodnering if she's a Tudor spy."
>
> in response to Carol's" "Seriously, I did think it was a bit weird the way she suddenly said "he's got a hunchback" and frankly I DO think it was unprofessional of her to say that."

Carol responds:

I'm not sure who said that, but it wasn't me. It was someone agreeing with my overall position (whether directly responding to me or not, I'm not sure), so I can understand why you'd attribute the words to me. But, nope. Those are someone else's words.

Carol

At my old school they were readers not professors not grad assistants but something sort of between, they could be very good or a pain in the derrière.



George

( back in my day I lived in a cardboard box etc etc )



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 8:24 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Questions About Spinal Analysis







Carol responds:

A whole lot less than a department head if British terminology is anything like American. I speak as a former adjunct senior lecturer, which meant that I had my PhD but was hired as an extra teacher only when there weren't enough graduate assistants or graduate associates (people with Masters degrees) to fill all the available teaching positions. Since they didn't call her an adjunct lecturer, she probably has a permanent teaching position but does not yet have tenure. At any rate, she's fairly low on the totem pole as far as teaching positions are concerned--if Brits and Americans use the same terminology. And she's sadly in need of some lessons in tact and empathy as far as I'm concerned.#

Liz said:

I wonder why she was chosen for the job in that case. It's a high profile dig, surely they'd want a senior person. (Or is it because they didn't think they'd find anything?)

Her CV is readily available on the itnernet by the way, I just don't have time to read it all now as am at work.

Well said!

G



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 9:39 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Questions About Spinal Analysis





Oh fiddle-de-di...... We are all grown ups here, with at least one shared
interest, if not passion - Richard III. I think there are some incredibly
well educated people on the forum, who have spent many years reading and
studying. This is a gift for the novice, and less well educated and/or
informed. If someone does not agree, OH MY GOD, is that a surprise, I think
not. Let's just get on with it, and watch the show. For those who don't like
the rambler (me), then delete my post and continue reading. Masculine,
feminine, short, slender, curved spine, loose teeth, after 500 plus years,
praise the Gods Richard's body has been found. Now, get over it!
I do have one beef....I am into the long version on UTube and keep getting
knocked off at about 10 minutes in. I am trying to install the Expat Shield.
I hope my firewall does not have a hissy fit, and I am able to watch it all.
Love to all my fellow ramblers, nutters, scholars, readers and pals!

________________________________
From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:03 AM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Questions About Spinal Analysis

Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol, you are entitled to express your opinion and I'm entitled to
respond to it. And you are entitled to respond to that response. As you, in
fact, did. That really doesn't sound like an attempt to 'suppress' anyone's
opinion to me.

Carol responds:

You are entitled to disagree with others, but calling someone's opinion
"wrong" and expressing shock at that person's views suppresses discussion.
Thank you for your advice regarding the press conference, which I would
watch if it weren't eleven at night (maybe tomorrow I can fit it in), but
this particular discussion is at an end unless someone else chooses to
continue it.

Carol

I agree Marie. My daughter, whose spine is twisted near the bottom (from what I can remember of the xray) has very little pain. She has always kept quite fit. She was about 13 or 14 when it was discovered and then it was because she had bad posture. As you said in your post Richard was very active and probably hardly ever had time to be lounging around. My own back problem flares up when I have been inactive and when I attended the gym for several months it was a couple of years before I had any pain at all.

Your idea to make a model of his spine is a necessity in order to find the "real Richard.

Mary

--- In , mariewalsh003 wrote:
>
>
> I have to say I share Weds' concerns - puzzlement might be a better word. A piece in one of yesterdays papers online that I saw whilst browsing, by a journalist with only moderate scoliosis, about the amount of pain and spasm she suffered and the amount of time spent resting up with packets of frozen peas, made me think there is a mismatch between the severity of Richard's scoliosis as it has been presented and what he managed to do in life. It wasn't just the battles. When travelling he not infrequently rode over 40 miles in a day, then rode on again the next day. I do think we need more explanation of his condition and how it would have affected him. I wonder if they can eventually make a model of his spine, as with the recent neanderthal, etc, on the Alice Roberts programme, and put it together vertically as it would have been in life.
> Marie
>
>
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
> >
> > McJohn, your posts always make me look at things from a different -- and welcome -- point of view. I wanted to comment on one of your observations.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Dr. Appleby seemed quite certain that the arrangement of the skeleton in the grave was as the king would have been in life, and she's had a hell of a lot more experience with archeological excavations of ancient remains than I have.
> >
> > Weds writes:
> >
> > WARNING: graphic descriptions that may offend are included below. Mea culpa if it upsets anyone.
> >
> > I don't mean to question Dr. Appleby's ability to excavate ancient remains. I do mean to ask if she has any experience or knowledge as to:
> >
> > 1. How a dead body decomposed (or might have decomposed) in the probable temperature and humidity of Leceister, England in August 1485.
> >
> > 2. The condition -- likely including considerable swelling of the torso -- of the body when it was interred, which would affect the alignment of the spine.
> >
> > 3. How the head, shoulders, and back of said swollen body might have been propped up in the grave, or leaned against the back wall of the grave to make it fit, which angle would have affected: (a) the compression of the spine; and, (b) how the bones of the neck and back (et. al.) settled as the soft tissue decayed.
> >
> > These are the types of questions a forensic anthropologist (FA) is trained to answer. The answers to these types of questions affect the condition of Richard's back -- as they found it, and as he lived with it.
> >
> > FA's get their knowledge in part from something called a "body farm", which is a research facility where human decomposition can be studied in a variety of settings. The aim is to gain a better understanding of the decomposition process, permitting the development of techniques for extracting information (such as the timing and circumstances of death) from human remains. Body farm research is particularly important within forensic anthropology and related disciplines, and has applications in the fields of law enforcement and forensic science.
> >
> > This kind of information and expertise is used to collect evidence in murder investigations. From a certain point of view, Richard was murdered. The treatment of his body, his burial, and his grave are all part of the murder. This sort of information is what I believe the experts at Leicester may have overlooked when it comes to gathering information on Richard and their assessment of his spinal condition.
> >
> > A medical specialist rather than an anthropologist would also be needed to ascertain the severity of Richard's scoliosis. Since we have no evidence that such specialists have had the opportunity to examine Richard's spine (granted, they may be working on research or writing papers pertaining to the bones of the king even as we discuss), I question the blanket statement made in the documentary and in the media conference that Richard's scoliosis was *severe*.
> >
> > If the "diagnosis" was made by an orthopedic surgeon qualified to make it, that's all to the good. If, on the other hand, it wasn't, then a faulty diagnosis may already have been dispersed worldwide...which would serve Richard not at all. From the graphics shared with us *so far*, the diagnosis does *not* make sense.
> >
> > Let me take only one example: there should be no noticeable space between the vertebrae in *any* spine. Yet there is noticeable space between the vertebrae in every graphical representation I can find of Richard's, and that space contributes to the visual representation of his "severe" scoliosis. That space should not be there: if the spacing of the vertebrae is wrong, it in turn makes the angles wrong and the curvature wrong.
> >
> > So color me confused...because I'd like to see a presentation from a current-day expert on scoliosis. And color me alarmed, because if the current experts have already announced to the world that Richard had severe scoliosis -- which supports the Tudor myth -- only to backtrack in a few months when an orthopedic surgeon analyzes those vertebrae and announces, "Hey, it's not so bad after all -- isn't that fantastic news?"...the damage will already have been done.
> >
> > ~Weds (who is done posting on this...I'm making myself ill)
> >
>