Jersey children's home - why no news?

[Paul Nutteing (valid email address in post script )]

Hi there!
Just wondering if anyone had any ideas why there have been no recent news
items about the "extensive" investigation into the Jersey children's home
scandal? Google news dates the last item as the 7th March, and I've read
nothing about it in the Sunday papers, let alone heard anything on the TV
news...
I know the disappearance and discovery of Shannon Matthews took up a lot

of

column inches, but surely the Jersey story is potentially equally big

news?

Something smells a bit fishy, if you ask me...
Just curious!
jay

a/ It is now the tourist season

b/ "The vast majority of those are animal bones, a few are outstanding, but
there is nothing that the anthropologist has identified as human" is
probably sonmething to do with it.
The human skull is now probably identified as say 17th century and the
original declared dog bones, found there years ago, have probably been
reconfirmed as dog bones.
The rest is just strict regime children's home of that era.

ps
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing.chat.ru/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine.

Valid email ***@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.

[S***@googlemail.com]

They might decide to have an 'internal enquiry' and an official
compensation scheme with a deadline for claiming, as a damage
limitation exercise and a means of controlling the debate.

It worked well for the Irish Christian Brothers.

[Les Invalides]

"Paul Nutteing (valid email address in post script )"

Post by Paul Nutteing (valid email address in post script )
a/ It is now the tourist season

Possibly there was an injunction, or a warning of contempt of court
proceedings. The reporting did stop *very* suddenly.

Post by Paul Nutteing (valid email address in post script )
b/ "The vast majority of those are animal bones, a few are
outstanding, but there is nothing that the anthropologist has
identified as human" is probably sonmething to do with it. The human
skull is now probably identified as say 17th century and the original
declared dog bones, found there years ago, have probably been
reconfirmed as dog bones. The rest is just strict regime children's
home of that era.

This is what I guessed, but I haven't seen anything admitted publicly
yet. I did notice they backtracked about the "torture shackles", which
were later admitted to be something to do with animals.

Last I heard the police were still digging. They're probably nearly at
Guernsey by now :)

[Paul Nutteing (valid email address in post script )]

So how do they use C14 dating with such confidence, for recent carbonaceious
material?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/25/njersey225.x
ml
"Stories of abuse - physical, sexual and psychological - as well as claims
of solitary confinement have continued to emerge since a child's skull was
discovered at the home in February.

Mr Harper said carbon dating was still being carried out on the skull, but
he added that it does not date back to earlier than the 1920s."

AFAIK C12/14 dating is very poor when you go outside of range 10 halflives
to 1/10 half life of 5,700 years or so.
So late mediaeval is about the most recent with any useful confidence,
perhaps pushed to 200 years (19C) with modern techniques/ calibration
curves.


ps
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing.chat.ru/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine.

Valid email ***@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.

[Cynic]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:08:36 -0000, "Paul Nutteing (valid email

Post by Paul Nutteing (valid email address in post script )
So how do they use C14 dating with such confidence, for recent carbonaceious
material?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/25/njersey225.x
ml
"Stories of abuse - physical, sexual and psychological - as well as claims
of solitary confinement have continued to emerge since a child's skull was
discovered at the home in February.
Mr Harper said carbon dating was still being carried out on the skull, but
he added that it does not date back to earlier than the 1920s."
AFAIK C12/14 dating is very poor when you go outside of range 10 halflives
to 1/10 half life of 5,700 years or so.
So late mediaeval is about the most recent with any useful confidence,
perhaps pushed to 200 years (19C) with modern techniques/ calibration
curves.

There may of course be significant inaccuracies in the media reports
as to exactly what is being done to what and how conclusions are
arrived at.

I should think it likely that the "no later than 1920s" conclusion was
reached by examining tooth fillings rather than carbon dating - which
as you have stated is not the correct tool to use for timescales of
that small magnitude.