Russell Edwards and team find human remains at Saddleworth Moor

[R. J. Palmer]

It gives some more details of the course of events, including another site nearby which he investigated last year (which perhaps accounts for the other "area of recently disturbed land" examined by the police according to the Manchester Evening News).

I find it strange that Edwards thinks he can just go randomly digging on what is presumably public land (?) Might he not get into some potential legal trouble for that alone?

In my neck of the woods, if an amateur made an archeological dig (let alone a supposed crime scene excavation) without some sort of approval (which almost certainly wouldn't be granted) they would, at the very least, receive a hefty fine from the Bureau of Land Management, etc. There are laws dealing with this sort of thing.

Depending how extensive the dig was, the charges could be quite severe. There was a 'gentleman' down in Arizona who was sent to prison for quite a long stretch, but he was stealing relics from native burial sites, etc.

This is not the same thing, of course, but I still find it strange that he's digging three-foot deep holes on the moors, and no one is objecting. But then, maybe no one cares?

[Edward Stow]

I didn't realise you were from down Mexico way. I will keep that in mind.

There are several references to RE getting permission from the landowner to dig.

[R. J. Palmer]

I didn't realise you were from down Mexico way. I will keep that in mind.

There are several references to RE getting permission from the landowner to dig.

Ah, thank you. That explains it. I hadn't seen any references to this, and I've read several articles.

On another matter, if there is nothing at this site, how will Russell be able to salvage his book, if indeed he hopes to publish one?

Doesn't his nonsense about the Swastika pattern and the bend in the road supposedly looking like the Leopold and Loeb crime scene depend on this site being correct?

If it is not correct, all his talking points are out the window.

It's like if Ivor Edwards suddenly lost his measuring stick and realized that there is no pentagram writ large on East London.

[R. J. Palmer]

As for Russell Edward's Leopold and Loeb theory, it doesn't make the least bit of sense. The infamous eyeglasses aren't a 'perfect match' for those worn by Keith Bennett, nor did the eyeglasses belong to the victim. There were worn by one of the murderers--Leopold, who accidently dropped them at the crime scene.

His theory is not only one heck of a stretch, it is also in poor taste.

[Edward Stow]

I couldn't possibly comment on his swazi theory as that would involve speculation.
Whether RE can salvage a book probably depends on the results the police sent for analysis.
At present it doesn't look like he will get a good return on what must have been a considerable investment.
And the prospects of me getting my Guidebooks back look infinitely worse.

[Chris Phillips]

Alan Bennett's post criticising Russell Edwards is reported in the Sunday papers.

The Sunday Mirror quotes a response:
A spokesman for Mr Edwards said he “totally understands” Mr Bennett’s frustration and anguish.
He added: “However, he remains convinced that he has found the true location of the grave and is commissioning further scientific analysis of his evidence.
“Until he has concluded his ongoing research, he feels it would not be productive to continue debating the issues in public.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...lasts-28188505

[R. J. Palmer]

A spokesman for Mr Edwards said he “totally understands” Mr Bennett’s frustration and anguish.
He added: “However, he remains convinced that he has found the true location of the grave and is commissioning further scientific analysis of his evidence.
“Until he has concluded his ongoing research, he feels it would not be productive to continue debating the issues in public.”

This 'spokesman' sounds rather lawyer-like, but I speculate.

[R. J. Palmer]

"The geochemist from Northumbria University, Lesley Dunlop, who extracted the soil from the site, confirmed today that the very high levels of calcium could only be derived from human bones, which after 58 years in peat have chemically been broken down.

Sheep must have grazed on the moors for decades if not centuries, but I suppose it is possible that a geochemist could differentiate between human and animal calcium in the soil

With the GMP doing their own analysis, we might end up with dueling scientific interpretations, a la the shawl and the diary.

[Chris Phillips]

Sheep must have grazed on the moors for decades if not centuries, but I suppose it is possible that a geochemist could differentiate between human and animal calcium in the soil

With the GMP doing their own analysis, we might end up with dueling scientific interpretations, a la the shawl and the diary.

The implication of the original "Skull found ..." article in the Daily Mail was that she couldn't distinguish between human and animal remains on the basis of calcium measurements:
Geologist Lesley Dunlop also carried out soil analysis at the scene which indicated human remains were present.
Chemical analysis revealed high levels of calcium and phosphorus which indicates bones were in the soil.
There was also nickel present which is usually found in zips and fastenings as well as the clothing dye cobalt, which would suggest that it is not animal remains.
The university lecturer* said: 'From my analysis and from my visual impression, I would say that this area has had human remains in it.
'I cannot think of another other explanation other than it being human remains.'
[my emphasis]

* Incidentally, she is not a university lecturer, but a technician.

In the same article, Russell Edwards's version of this appears:
'She said all of these chemical components strike gold. The calcium reading was a real peak which indicated the presence of bones.
'Lesley told me this is not animals, it is human bones, we are onto something here.
[emphasis]

He adds that he then checked with the landowner and was told no animals had ever been buried there.

I think in fairness to the people advising Russell Edwards (and speaking as someone who was taken in by him sufficiently to advise him myself in the past!) it shouldn't be assumed that his versions of what they have said are accurate. It is obvious even from what he published in the shawl book that sometimes they aren't.

If it did come to a duel between the people advising the police and the people advising Russell Edwards, the problem for him would be that his advisors aren't experienced in forensic science. There is no mention in Lesley Dunlop's university profile of anything connected with forensic science or human/animal remains. Based on a list of papers at ResearchGate, her published work has been on coastal erosion. The police statement on Friday did contain repeated references to their "accredited experts", and I'm sure they were implying a contrast with Russell Edwards's advisors.

[R. J. Palmer]

I'm sure they were implying a contrast with Russell Edwards's advisors.

Yes, the adjective "accredited" jumped out at me, too!

By the way, I wasn't attempting to imply that any 'duel' would be between two equal opponents. I was giving Edwards the benefit of the doubt that maybe somewhere along the lines someone did inform him it was human calcium, but I can see by your more careful reading of the two statements in the press that this might not have been the case.

I think we may have seen something along these lines in the shawl affair when what was first identified as 'epithelial cells' became a definite semen stain.

[Chris Phillips]

The Saddleworth Independent has some comments from Chris Crowther, the owner of the land that was investigated:
“I don’t think they will ever find Keith now which is a real shame. Initially, I thought we had from information I got from the police,” he said.
“I thought there would be a result and Keith could be taken back to his family which would have been great.
“Sadly, it has all come down to nothing. I can’t understand why they came back searching if they hadn’t got proper research and reconnaissance. But a pathologist* definitely thought a human jaw bone had been found.
“Russell had previously flown a drone over the site and thought he had seen a grave. But they dug and dug and found very little. It is very strange.”
https://saddind.co.uk/moors-farmer-f...latest-search/
[* Dawn Keen is actually a consultant archaeologist, not a pathologist.]

[Caroline Brown]

Alan Bennett's post criticising Russell Edwards is reported in the Sunday papers.

The Sunday Mirror quotes a response:
A spokesman for Mr Edwards said he “totally understands” Mr Bennett’s frustration and anguish.
He added: “However, he remains convinced that he has found the true location of the grave and is commissioning further scientific analysis of his evidence.
“Until he has concluded his ongoing research, he feels it would not be productive to continue debating the issues in public.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...lasts-28188505

Hi Chris,

It's a great pity this foul person can afford to commission 'further scientific analysis of his evidence', when morally he ought to be compensating the tax payer for the huge expense the authorities were obliged to go to, to investigate his claims. What if he doesn't decide to quit, and the whole circus has to begin again at another location on the moors?

In future, if anyone decides to do their own digging and thinks they may have found evidence of a serious crime, it should be a condition that they stop at once and inform the police before anyone else [and certainly not the Daily Mail - good God!], or face serious legal and financial consequences. This must never be allowed to happen again.

It's not as if some ordinary member of the public went out walking with their dog and unexpectedly happened upon something that looked 'wrong' [or looked like a tarpaulin ]. Edwards had been searching for years and was determined to find precisely what he was looking for - a needle in a haystack - a bit like Feldman and the blasted diary, except that at least Feldman sincerely believed that all the time, effort and costly research had paid off and proved him right. I'm not sure Edwards has shown himself to have an ounce of sincerity.

The additional heartbreak caused to Keith Bennett's brother and other surviving family members is unforgivable, but thank goodness Winnie was spared in this instance.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris Phillips]

The Forensic Archaeology Expert Panel of the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists has issued a statement on the claims and the investigation. It includes:
You may have seen reports in the press about the recent excavations at Saddleworth Moor in the search for murder victim Keith Bennett. Unfortunately, someone who is neither a CIfA-accredited professional archaeologist nor an accredited member of CIfA’s Forensic Archaeology Expert Panel (FAEP) interpreted the evidence incorrectly, albeit in good faith, contributing to the requirement for a large-scale excavation. During this latter search, a CIfA-accredited forensic archaeologist was instrumental in excluding the area from suspicion.

https://www.archaeologists.net/news/forensic-archaeology-expert-panel-faep-statement-recent-excavations-saddleworth-moor-1665649356

[R. J. Palmer]

I probably shouldn't give him the publicity, but Edwards has resurfaced in an American periodical, refuses to apologize for the Saddleworth Moor fiasco, and claims he will reveal more 'shortly.' I thought he had previously claimed that he was finished with the case.

Amateur Sleuth Said He Found Moors Murder Victim Keith Bennett—Then Police Got Involved (thedailybeast.com)

[Chris Phillips]

I probably shouldn't give him the publicity, but Edwards has resurfaced in an American periodical, refuses to apologize for the Saddleworth Moor fiasco, and claims he will reveal more 'shortly.' I thought he had previously claimed that he was finished with the case.

Amateur Sleuth Said He Found Moors Murder Victim Keith Bennett—Then Police Got Involved (thedailybeast.com)

A man who doesn't know when to stop digging, in any sense.