So what can Cadaver and CSI dogs tell us?

[Mr Gray]

so what can the VRD dog tell us...according to Harrison...nothing...looks like I have been right all along

[stephen25000]

why would you need an electron microscope...obviously your knowledge of biology is not as good as you think. Bone cells can be viewed clearly at 300 * mag....an electron microscope can reach 500,000 mag..

what's the shroud got to do with anything

I gave an example dave.

The higher the restitution, the more information can be observed.

So when did you last use a scanning electron microscope ?

The Turin Shroud by the way gives an example of where limited information has no value unless backed up by more evidence.

[Mr Gray]

I gave an example dave.

The higher the restitution, the more information can be observed.

So when did you last use an electron microscope ?

The Turin Shroud by the way gives an example of where limited information has no value unless backed up by more evidence.

you dont need such magnification...bone structure including bone cells can be seen at 300...the structure of bone and wood is quite different at this resoulution....have a look at google if you have never viewed bone under a microscope....I actually view bone slides regularly...boring for some ...

[stephen25000]

you dont need such magnification...bone structure including bone cells can be seen at 300...the structure of bone and wood is quite different at this resoulution....have a look at google if you have never viewed bone under a microscope....I actually view bone slides regularly...boring for some ...

Yet the material in question remains undetermined.

So that would suggest the sample(s) were not tested thoroughly, wouldn't it ?

[Mr Gray]

Yet the material in question remains undetermined.

So that would suggest the sample(s) were not tested thoroughly, wouldn't it ?

no....bone was excluded...that was the important point. it was not necessary to analyse further

[stephen25000]

no....bone was excluded...that was the important point. it was not necessary to analyse further

The sample had been subjected to heat prior to the testing procedure, and it still remains an unknown material.

If wood or coconut shell, that would have been revealed under examination by microscopy.

Don't you agree ?

[Mr Gray]

The sample had been subjected to heat prior to the testing procedure, and it still remains an unknown material.

If wood or coconut shell, that would have been revealed under examination by microscopy.

Don't you agree ?

You will find it was me who first suggested microscopic examination but even that might not be necessary as the internal structure of bone and coconut are so different. I'm off to Asda and  soon and if they have one I will pick up a coconut and drill into it.
Chemical analysis alone can be misleading...graphite and diamond contain only carbon but are quite different

[Jean-Pierre]

The sample had been subjected to heat prior to the testing procedure, and it still remains an unknown material.

If wood or coconut shell, that would have been revealed under examination by microscopy.

Don't you agree ?

The following extracts provide the background and detail to that:

First of all, only a small part of the sample was heated as a way of extracting and measuring the nitrogen content.

5.6.19     The sample was logged into the ORAU system in the usual manner
and, as in all cases, a sample of bone powder was drilled from the
underside of the specimen using a tungsten carbide drill. The powder
weighed 440 mg. The technician performing this procedure noted that
the material did not behave as bone ordinarily would and did not have
the texture that normal bone exhibits. The technician has a great deal
of experience in the sampling of bone (almost 30 years). Because of
this uncertainty, and as a precaution, a small amount of the sample
was combusted to measure the % nitrogen remaining. % N is a good
correlate for protein, which is dominated in bone by collagen, and the
measurement of nitrogen offers a simple test concerning whether the
sample is dateable or not. Low % N means that the material is
essentially un-dateable using radiocarbon.

The analysis process seems to have been pretty comprehensive and came to the conclusion that is was wood.

5.6.4 Three days later, Forensic Services Manager X was contacted by X , also from the Oxford laboratory, confirming this uncertainty. X stated that X believed Exhibit JAR/6 to be coconut or wood ‘On 31st March' 08, I spoke to X in the laboratory and then made an examination of the exhibit immediately. I immediately recognised that the sample was NOT bone and stated that to X . I based my conclusions on the lightness of the material, the texture of the material and the porosity of the internal structure of the sample. I then consulted with a colleague, X of the British Museum, taking the sample with me for X to see. In X opinion, X, after examination, agreed with my conclusions that the sample was not bone, but another material, that is, wood. I made the
decision to consult with X and contact X to inform X as to my findings, that same day. I telephoned X that same day’. The sample was then returned to store at Haut de la Garenne on 4 April 2008.

____

You mentioned microscopy - I really cannot see how use of a scanning electron microscope would have helped as the difference between bone and wood is obvious at a cellular level, (optical micropscope) and does not need to be considered at a molecular level (Scanning electon microscope).

   

[stephen25000]

The following extracts provide the background and detail to that:

First of all, only a small part of the sample was heated as a way of extracting and measuring the nitrogen content.

5.6.19     The sample was logged into the ORAU system in the usual manner
and, as in all cases, a sample of bone powder was drilled from the
underside of the specimen using a tungsten carbide drill. The powder
weighed 440 mg. The technician performing this procedure noted that
the material did not behave as bone ordinarily would and did not have
the texture that normal bone exhibits. The technician has a great deal
of experience in the sampling of bone (almost 30 years). Because of
this uncertainty, and as a precaution, a small amount of the sample
was combusted to measure the % nitrogen remaining. % N is a good
correlate for protein, which is dominated in bone by collagen, and the
measurement of nitrogen offers a simple test concerning whether the
sample is dateable or not. Low % N means that the material is
essentially un-dateable using radiocarbon.

The analysis process seems to have been pretty comprehensive and came to the conclusion that is was wood.

5.6.4 Three days later, Forensic Services Manager X was contacted by X , also from the Oxford laboratory, confirming this uncertainty. X stated that X believed Exhibit JAR/6 to be coconut or wood ‘On 31st March' 08, I spoke to X in the laboratory and then made an examination of the exhibit immediately. I immediately recognised that the sample was NOT bone and stated that to X . I based my conclusions on the lightness of the material, the texture of the material and the porosity of the internal structure of the sample. I then consulted with a colleague, X of the British Museum, taking the sample with me for X to see. In X opinion, X, after examination, agreed with my conclusions that the sample was not bone, but another material, that is, wood. I made the
decision to consult with X and contact X to inform X as to my findings, that same day. I telephoned X that same day’. The sample was then returned to store at Haut de la Garenne on 4 April 2008.

____

You mentioned microscopy - I really cannot see how use of a scanning electron microscope would have helped as the difference between bone and wood is obvious at a cellular level, (optical micropscope) and does not need to be considered at a molecular level (Scanning electon microscope).

 

My point JP, is that the sample had already been exposed to heat prior to testing. This would alter it's structure and chemical composition.

I am not saying it wasn't wood by the way. I just prefer concise and irrefutable facts.

To davel, I am fully conversant with Carbon in it's various forms, and not just graphite and diamond.

It is no good you examining a piece of coconut shell, unless you has the sample form Jersey to compare it with.

[Mr Gray]

My point JP, is that the sample had already been exposed to heat prior to testing. This would alter it's structure and chemical composition.

I am not saying it wasn't wood by the way. I just prefer concise and irrefutable facts.

To davel, I am fully conversant with Carbon in it's various forms, and not just graphite and diamond.

It is no good you examining a piece of coconut shell, unless you has the sample form Jersey to compare it with.

I would be interested to see what it looks like in cross section and how  it compares   to bone

[stephen25000]

I would be interested to see what it looks like in cross section and how  it compares   to bone

You would need to examine the sample tested.

By the way dave, do you know how many samples in total were collected from HDLG in Jersey ?

[Eleanor]

At least give Davel credit for trying.

[Jean-Pierre]

My point JP, is that the sample had already been exposed to heat prior to testing. This would alter it's structure and chemical composition.

I am not saying it wasn't wood by the way. I just prefer concise and irrefutable facts.

To davel, I am fully conversant with Carbon in it's various forms, and not just graphite and diamond.

It is no good you examining a piece of coconut shell, unless you has the sample form Jersey to compare it with.

The sample number is JAR/6.  It was described as a "degraded sample". How did you reach the idea that it had been exposed to heat prior to testing?

[stephen25000]

The sample number is JAR/6.  It was described as a "degraded sample". How did you reach the idea that it had been exposed to heat prior to testing?

I have just been sent this link jp.

'So it changed in colour, texture and weight? How could  this happen? Which is a question I put the Former SIO Lenny Harper. I wanted to know if there was any chance that this piece of evidence could have been switched? And this is what he told me.'

"we sent it (JAR/6) to the carbon dating lab in oxford. Not only did they cock that process up, (as per the collagen e mails)  but they unlawfully and without authority sent the exhibit to at least two other people without even a proper tracking audit. This rendered the exhibit inadmissible and unusable in court as we could not prove it was the same item we found and sent to them."

http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/no-body-remains.html

[pathfinder73]

Cadaver dogs can alert to wood.

http://farmfreshforensics.com/csi_blog/view/355/cadaver_dogs

Each morning I walk the dogs in the pasture.  This morning I took the dogs into the back pasture.  The day was a little humid and breezy.  Kona threw his nose in the air and started casting around.  In a very short time he found a tree. He sat down and started barking at me.  I asked him what he had, so he started running around the tree, leaping on the base, looking back, and barking his fool head off.  Hmmmmm....  can it be? I called him off and continued the walk.  At a distance, I gave him the search command.  He raced off and found the tree again.  No doubt about it.  He had found a tree that I'd poured some Cadaver Soup (don't ask) on to prepare for getting shipped to Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina. The soup was probably 8-10 feet high in the tree and that was years ago.  Undoubtedly it seeped into the wood and the right weather conditions brought the smell out again.

Had I not known that I put training material in that tree, I might have thought the dog had lost his mind. Always follow the mantra, Trust Your Dog.