Novice,
Certainly a wealth of information there,thanks for sharing it,I for one am obliged
quote
Just another note. I don't think Hrdlicka ever used the term pistol?
Garry[/quote]
No perhaps not, but Shot gun and rifle and gun(gun I would take to mean a pistol).surely there must be an awful lot of difference between the wounds each of those weapons would make. How easy would it be for a professional to be unsure and still retain his professional integrity ?
quote
Horses were hastily tied to anything handy while the whole party gathered around for closer examination. It was at once evident that the skull was “green” or relatively new. Bits of flesh were immediately noticeable at many points.
“Looks Like Ruth”
“Brownie and Richie Lewis, both of whom had known him, suddenly exclaimed:
“Why that looks like the skull of that old man, Ruth!”]
unquote
AM I the only one who finds Holmes and Lewis remark faintly ridicolous?I could almost imagine Holmes saying "Yes Sirree! Why...Id recognise Ruths skull anywhere!
Im not sure if that part wasnt "creative reporting" or whatever.
Again the "green issue"..not trying to nitpick here but theres 2 possibilities ,either the green story was creative reporting again,and newspaper article(s) were where it originated from and repeated thro the years......or it was in fact green....now if it was ,with all the problems that greeness creates for the official verdict and timing of Ruths death....then why wasnt more made of it? But of course there is another possibility I suppose....that being that the "greeness" wasnt necessarily indicative of Ruths death at a later time than the natural death theory/verdict implies. Its ok for "armchair detectives"
to pontificate and state without fear of contradiction that the "greenness" (that word again ) is proof positive that Ruth must have died 3 months later or whatever....but is it? Im not an expert in the decomposition of human flesh in certain atmospheric or associated conditions,and plainly dont know..Id imagine an experts opinion might be handy here.
Anyone have access to the official report on Ruths remains?
I note also that the "identification " of Ruths skull seems to have been decided on "similiarities" rather than much else,though even there it seems there wasnt total agreement .
quotes from Novices files....
"
Dr. James J. LaSalle agreed with the forehead indications, but pointed to an apparent difference in the length of the nose. Dr. Brown disagreed with this point of view to some extent and it was agreed that accurate measurement was not possible
Dr. Claude M. Moore, dental surgeon, said the upper jaw showed that the person whose skull it was had either worn false teeth or had been for many years without teeth. The upper jaw was worn smooth and gave no indication of tooth sockets.
He said it was impossible to determine which of the two instances had been the case
)
Dr. Orville Harry Brown pointed out that many characteristics of the skull agreed with characteristics evident in photographs of Dr. Ruth in the files of the Arizona Republic_k Odd S. Halseth, archeologist for the archeological commission of the city of Phoenix and for the expedition said he could not determine definitely whether the skull was that of a white man or Indian, but would begin minute measurements today with a view to checking them against anthropological tables for final decision.
"It gives many indications," he said, "of being a skull of comparatively recent date. I have seen and excavated skulls hundreds of years old, however bearing an eequivalent amount of skin andhoenix Pathologists yesterday continued their examination of the skull and comparisons with photographs of Ruth in Arizona Republic files, but last night had reached no more definite conclusions than those they offered after preliminary examination Saturday night.
The concensus was that the skull had enough determinable points of similarity to Ruth’s pictures to be his, yet conditions were such that it might be of considerably more age than could possibly be that of Ruth, who disappeared in May.
""
Some partially conflicting views there......I believe it was Hrdlicka who said the skull was that of a white man aged around 60 at the time of the examination....unfortunately Ruth was 77 ,but as that fact wasnt known in 31,I guess we can forgive Hrdlickas confusion on that issue.....maybe someone should of told him before he did the examination.
