This blog is an archive of posts from 2013, as details of the dig in Leicester emerged.
The identification of the remains in Leicester as Richard III left many questions unanswered. The essays and articles on this page ask questions about the evidence and the conclusions. Please note that the burden of proof lies with those who assert that the skeleton is Richard III beyond reasonable doubt. To refute this claim it is only necessary to show that there is reasonable doubt.
How do we determine identity?
It is an old adage that fossils are dated by the rocks in which they are found and the rocks are dated by the fossils inside them. It is a flaw and difficult to overcome. Our preconceptions colour our conclusions and we are fools to think it is otherwise. The evidence from Leicester today raised one problem in my mind: did preconceived ideas contribute to the conclusions? If DNA is accurate enough to produce a reliable conclusion, then why were other factors so important? Why were the age of the bones, the height of the man and the presence of the curvature necessary to prove the identity of the remains as King Richard III. The answer of course is that the DNA tests are not sufficient.
Click to read more ...