Appellant's Counsel: The apparent blood stains on the Shroud are real blood.
- A (Appellant's Counsel): Numerous scientists who have studied the Shroud, and/or sticky tape samples from the Shroud (including some who were not part of the original group), claim that there is real blood on the Shroud.
- P (Prosecution): These guys had an agenda, and just saw what they wanted to see.
- A: But, some of these guys were Jews; some were atheists; and, many were skeptics. No evidence that they all, or even most of them, started out wanting to prove that the Shroud was authentic -- they just gradually came around to that conclusion.
- A: Only one real scientist who had studied the Shroud, or the sticky tape -- Dr. Walter McCrone -- claimed that the ‘blood’ was actually paint.
- P: Other potential skeptics were not allowed to study the Shroud or sticky tapes.
- A: Again, a lot of those who did the studying were skeptics at first.
- A: According to the “owner” of the sticky tape, further access to the sticky tapes was not allowed as Walter McCrone had accidentally spoiled the data.
- A: Dr McCrone was a well-known and acclaimed expert in microscopy, but he had 4 strikes against him:
- A: Microscopy is somewhat outdated in modern science – it’s too subjective.
- A: He was devoted to microscopy.
- A: Much of his writing seemed illogical, emotional and unscientific.
- A: He was wealthy, with a lot of power, and a stilted reputation to which he couldn’t really live up.
- A: The other involved scientists (the ones claiming real blood) used all sorts of modern, objective, physical and chemical technology to evaluate the ‘blood’ stains.
- A: All the peer reviewed articles that have addressed the blood issue, except for one -- written by Dr. McCrone -- agreed that there was blood on the Shroud.
- P: The original group studying the Shroud drummed McCrone out of the group and used their influence to prevent skeptics, in general, from receiving peer acceptance.
- A: According to Barry Schwortz, the chief photographer of the original group, such a thing did not -- and could not -- happen.
- A: (1) 'Blood' stains on the Shroud show characteristic shapes of venous and arterial blood flows, and in the right places, and (2) 14th century artists probably wouldn't know the difference between the two -- and, if they did, they wouldn't know where to place them.
- P: Recognizing these differences is very subjective, and the researchers are just seeing what they want to see.
- A: In our research, we’ve found 5 instances of apparent blood stains that are said to bare appropriate shapes considering where they are located, but from the images we have available the characteristic shapes are, in fact, somewhat subjective…
- P: Some artists of the 14th century would know the difference and where to place them.
- A: Any examples?