Good Morning all!
(We need a cup of steaming coffee icon!)
Just to be clear, (Lion's post), the newest forensic anthropological work-up on PB was completed in March, 2007, not last Sept.
I believe I read that they re-opened the case in Sept. (Perhaps that's from where you pulled that date, Lion?) Which is why I was saying WAAAYY back somewhere that it is amazing to me sometimes all the coincidences in WS' interest in this case happening at the same time as the new for. anth. report, at the same time as the drawings coming out, at the same time as the public latching on to this, etc. This case was DEF. meant to be looked at. Makes you wonder what the deep story really is...? I truly hope we can find out one day!
Usually a skeleton's ancestral background is not determined by DNA, but rather by what the bones "have to say." Shapes, teeth structure, suture lines, measurements, as well as the "spaces" in the bones - the nasal aperture, eye orbits, foramen magnum, etc. The skull is THE place from which to determine ancestral background firstly, and secondly, the sex. Of course the pelvic bones are number one for determining sex, followed by the skull, then perhaps leg bones.
Thanks, rich, for starting another thread abut this story. We haven't seen you around here much...hope things are okay? Have you taken your big exam yet? Yikes!
More later when I have more time. Have a wonderful day sleuthers!:blowkiss: