Archaeologists vs. Johnnie Cochran

Archaeologists have it easy. Sure there is peer review, but c'mon! They don't have to prove anything to the extent of a criminal investigation.

The scientists use DNA, biological, and carbon evidence. You ever notice how often during these site excavations they are bare handed, hair exposed, and dropping trace evidence of themselves and who knows what else all over the scene? Locard anyone?

I watched a documentary on a skeleton discovered in a mass grave in Egypt. The body had a substantial and likely fatal head wound. None of the internal organs remained. There was no regrowth of the skull. This means the skeleton was not alive after the damage and only that.

A early weapons expert "duplicated" the wound using a rock and sling to hit a terracotta pot on a stick. The conclusion was the victim was a Coptic Christian killed by Roman soldiers.

Wow. Must be nice. There is no discussion that the damage to the skull could have likely been post mortem. For craps sake, the body was in a mass grave. We all know how careful bodies are handled in mass graves. Any exculpatory evidence reference internal injury or disease garnered from an autopsy with all available information (the entire body) is unavailable. Since it's not available it's okay to ignore it in the world of archaeology.

How about the wrongly accused Roman Soldier. Prove to me the soldier was the one who slung the rock. The likelihood that slings were widely available is pretty good. There could have been a second rocker. Not to mention friendly rocking.

It's not like you can do chemical analysis of the explosives used to blow the target to pieces. More simply, no ballistics on the rock supposedly used to kill this skeleton. Again, we don't know the skeleton was alive when he received the skull damage.

The best archaeologists likely couldn't get a Judge to agree there is even a crime, let alone probable cause to charge someone. Heaven help them with a jury. No chance when a defense attorney attacks their conclusions.

Like I said, it must be nice. I'd say the Roman Soldier has a good civil rights violation case.

I hate suspense and television has allowed me to avoid it.

The perfect example is Law and Order. Its a glorious thing. The beginning of the show is someone finding a body, some clues and at 15 minutes past the hour a suspect is developed. Half past the hour, bad guy is in custody and the legal wranglings start. There's 15 minutes of legal arguments about some take of criminal court rule 3.5 and 3.6. With 15 minutes left, maybe a new piece of evidence or strange twist to be battled by the Prosecutor. At the end of the hour, all is well.

Any deviation from the above itinerary means the arrestee is not the right guy. I don't have to worry about something terrible happening to the cast now, because, quite frankly, its 47 minutes after the hour. All will be well in 13 minutes.

Life, sadly, does not adhere to this.

Stupid reality. Maybe the archaeologists are finding the bodies at 47 minutes after the hour.