DNA - Foolproof?

[Mad Cook]

In 2012 a body was found under a car park in Leicester. Car park had been built over the site of an old priory. The body was declared to be that of King Richard III who was killed at the battle of Bosworth Field in 1485. It's true.....the DNA proves it. Or as the article in the link says.... Does it?

Richard III: We’re burying the wrong body - Telegraph

Interesting. Could be embarrassing to a lot of people if a future study of the DNA shows it isn't him.

And a bit worrying if anyone's picked up for a crime on iffy DNA proof as this seems to be.

 

[PrincessFiona60]

I think it's Richard, but why does anyone care...he was a serial killer and butchered many people.

 

[Mad Cook]

I think it's Richard, but why does anyone care...he was a serial killer and butchered many people.

Even that is disputed by some historians.

 

[PrincessFiona60]

I'll get excited when they find Arthur and Excalibur.

 

[taxlady]

I really doubt that such questionable DNA results would be acceptable in a criminal trial.

 

[Addie]

I am always amazed at how far back you can go into your English history. We only go back to 1620. Or maybe a little earlier. We can't find the remains of the settlement at Jamestown. What a lot of Americans don't realize is that a lot of Indian tribes at that time were cannibals. How do I know? The tribe that my father came from was one of those tribes. My aunt told me some of the stories about them. But by the time my grandfather was born it had gone out of style. Thank goodness. But our history books make not one mention of that little bit of info. They love to tell us about the "savages" and how cruel they were. How they would torture their captured white folk.

What really gets me is because they didn't have a written language, all of the history is passed on by word of mouth. So the good American figure that the stories are exaggerated. Do keep us informed about Richard and what they decide if it is the real one or not.

 

[Mad Cook]

I am always amazed at how far back you can go into your English history. We only go back to 1620. Or maybe a little earlier. We can't find the remains of the settlement at Jamestown. What a lot of Americans don't realize is that a lot of Indian tribes at that time were cannibals. How do I know? The tribe that my father came from was one of those tribes. My aunt told me some of the stories about them. But by the time my grandfather was born it had gone out of style. Thank goodness. But our history books make not one mention of that little bit of info. They love to tell us about the "savages" and how cruel they were. How they would torture their captured white folk.

What really gets me is because they didn't have a written language, all of the history is passed on by word of mouth. So the good American figure that the stories are exaggerated. Do keep us informed about Richard and what they decide if it is the real one or not.

As George Orwell (among others) once said "History is written by the winners".

Well, the official line is that it is Richard III but the DNA evidence may be stretched to enable people to find what they want to find, according to the article in the Daily Telegraph.


If your family had kept up the cannibal tradition it would have made DC recipes very interesting ;-D

 

[jabbur]

I am always amazed at how far back you can go into your English history. We only go back to 1620. Or maybe a little earlier. We can't find the remains of the settlement at Jamestown. What a lot of Americans don't realize is that a lot of Indian tribes at that time were cannibals. How do I know? The tribe that my father came from was one of those tribes. My aunt told me some of the stories about them. But by the time my grandfather was born it had gone out of style. Thank goodness. But our history books make not one mention of that little bit of info. They love to tell us about the "savages" and how cruel they were. How they would torture their captured white folk.

What really gets me is because they didn't have a written language, all of the history is passed on by word of mouth. So the good American figure that the stories are exaggerated. Do keep us informed about Richard and what they decide if it is the real one or not.

They have found Jamestown! I live near there and they found remnants of the fort and other things including some human remains. Jamestown Unearthed: Archaeologists Look for Clues About Pit Outside Fort Walls | Williamsburg Yorktown Daily

As for whether that's Richard III or not, I think they were fairly convinced just from the skeletal deformities and the DNA from descendants helped to verify that. I'm sure because of the age of the remains the DNA would be somewhat degraded and they probably can't get as close as if he had died yesterday. While it may not hold up in court, it may be enough to be mostly sure.