[00:00:00] Hey, I'm Guy Powell, and welcome to the next episode of the Backstory on the Shroud of Turin. If you haven't already done so, please visit guy powell.com and sign up for more episodes. I am the author of the book, the Only Witness, which is a Christian historical fiction tracing a possible history of the shroud over the last two millennium.

Today I am speaking with, uh, William Red. He is a lawyer and shroud speaker and shroud researcher, and he's got some interesting perspectives, uh, using kind of a legal side of things as it relates to some of the. Unfortunate findings of the radiocarbon dating and otherwise. So, uh, definitely looking forward to hearing from them, uh, hearing from Will on that.

So, will, uh, tell us about your backstory on the [00:01:00] shroud of Turin and how you got involved in it? Well first, um, it's a, it's a long journey. I, I'm ex-Navy, so I've got electronics qualifications, so I'm interested in technical things. But, um, I prayed one day God can use my qualifications and then out of the blue I meta pedestrian crossing.

And this old guy was about my age, starts talking to me just for less than a minute about the shroud of Turin. And I thought, Hmm, that's interesting. So I, I was thinking it in terms of lawyers, 'cause I'd just written a booklet called Science Proofs God, I will, I'll show you that one. And, um. That based the evidence on how lawyers think on juridical science and statistical science.

[00:02:00] So I began looking at, um, various, um, podcast YouTubes, and I saw Barry Schwan and Teddy and Joan Reno, and my mind's saying, why, why haven't you said this? Why haven't you put a level of proof there? And then I got really deep ended and I said, well, nobody else is thinking about how law can bring the common sense, reasonable outcome and law, as everyone knows, is very meticulous when it comes to forensic science.

And we've got a whole collection of science, um, when associated with the shroud. So one of the things with law is you've got a sorting out technique. What's good evidence? What's bad evidence? How reliable is the evidence? And so, and we've got definitions of reasonableness. Nobody ever thinks about that, I'll use the [00:03:00] word.

And so I thought we need to get this out, out there. And some of the things, for instance, um, we use the term beyond reasonable doubt. People just throw it away, but they don't really know what even reasonable is in the court of law, it's very forensic. When, um, people use statistics and maths, everyone says, oh yeah, but we put those mathematics into.

And we use, um, levels of proof. There are actually three levels of proof here. You've got, um, a reasonable suspicion, so that means the police can investigate, but also is. On what basis can you form a hypothesis, I guess in science? In science? So that's the beginning. You've got a reasonable suspicion. Also got on the balance of probabilities.

There's a 51% chance [00:04:00] this is correct and um. That's not much of a chance, 1% more than 50, but on that basis alone, you can get hundreds of millions of dollars payout. So it is very, very serious. And then we come to Beyond Reasonable Doubts. Now, this is one we use and make sure that, to make sure that an innocent person doesn't go to jail, and that equates to what the Carbon 14 date said.

This is 95% reliable, far, far more reliable than on the balance of probabilities. And so I began thinking about this and I said, well, we need to communicate what reasonableness is out there, Hellas lawyers uses. And there there's been some funny reactions to that. They're saying, oh, that's not science. Uh, because I've recently been on a blog.

It's not [00:05:00] science that's inappropriate science. When in fact this, this is the science that will test the whole collection of evidence and documents to forensic evidence to DNA and all those kinds of things. So we have formula in law, um, for instance. Um, we talk about the reasonableness in beyond reasonable doubt.

So we've got a thing called the Wesbury principle, for instance. Something is so unreasonable that no reasonable person would come to that conclusion, and we're gonna find out that we've had that kind of thing all the way here in the, in the evidence. Another one that we use in Australia, the case of CommCare Review, where.

Um, something is unreasonable, if it's absurd or illogical. And then, um, we try [00:06:00] and find out what a fair-minded observer, we've got a firm mind, not nutty, um, who knows all the facts, what that decision is, so we don't just, uh, flippantly use the word reasonable anymore. So I'm looking at, um, the shroud sciences and the comments, and I'm thinking, oh my goodness.

Here we've got some very absurd rulings, uh, ruling, sorry for the legal analysis. So one of the things I looked at was very flawless who went in and said, this is a painting. But then when he looked at it, he said, this image isn't painted, and all the other methods, he said, there's no painting. So we've refuted that idea, but then along comes someone who says, oh, Leonardo DaVinci painted it.

So [00:07:00] using the test in law, that's Leonardo DaVinci idea is unreasonable because it's absurd. We looked with microscopes, photographic size, all kinds of measures, and there any paint there. So we've gotta get rid of some of this stuff that, uh, the saying is, oh, this is what it is, and you need to do that in quarter law to be fair to people.

You don't keep cluttering it with every kind of thing that a mine can come up with. And so when you place that here, the shroud science into that category, um, uh, taking a good forensic look at, at, um, all the science that's there, you can throw away a lot of this stuff that's being said and to demonstrate how important it is.

That legal science is applied to the shroud evidence very [00:08:00] timely. We have a forensic scientist in Colorado in the USA who looks like that she might be getting in trouble for not doing it properly. The, the coincidences in the same state that Barry Schwartz lived, we ha now have a forensic scientist.

Who's been investigated by the police for very sloppy work. Now, we don't know the outcome of it. I'm not saying she's guilty, but that shows the real necessity to get things right, especially if you're talking beyond reasonable doubt. And once again, in Queensland, Australia. We have somebody that's been suspended that's um, uh, um, the boss of A-A-D-N-A organization, and I'm giving those examples to emphasize how important it is to get the protocols right.

And I remember looking at [00:09:00] the early, um, podcasts of, and they're talking about all these protocols weren't followed. Well, hold on. You could go to jail, then we might have someone going to jail in Colorado for not following protocols, but they were so dismissive when they did the Carbon 14 Dating test.

And then I read Joe Marino's book and my first reaction was, wow. Because here we've got it fully documented of all. The protocols that were breached and some so serious. You are wondering why we were using the Carbon 14 dating to say beyond reasonable doubt that it's the answer and. When you look at the P value test, because they didn't use the term beyond reasonable doubt, they used the term [00:10:00] 95% reliable.

So if you look on Wikipedia, the P value test, it says in there, um. 95% is significant. The other 5% of evidence is useless. It's irrelevant. And I'm thinking you need an exceptionally high meticulous obedience to the protocols for that. So I said, well, something pretty wrong here with this Carbon 14 dating, isn't it?

So, um, to have that many protocols. To be dismissive of all the other evidence. You wouldn't do that in court of law. Um, we do have a method here in many countries where if we're going to court, we have a pre-trial session where we have a look at all the evidence to see if it's relevant. It's important.

It's, it's no good. And once I've looked at the C [00:11:00] 14. Dating, I believe it would not be admitted in court. It was that flawed. But here we've got so many people relying on it and I'm saying that's not right. And I guess most of it is because most people don't know that TE's for reasonableness that a lawyer or court nor would use.

So, but you should, you should have. Being able to get all the leaders, the scientist scientists, to say, okay, what's reasonable? And so as I look at the Carbon 14 dating, the very first thing before they even got to look at the shroud, they were told, don't smoke because it'll affect the data. And what was unusual was the carbon porting dating.

Dismissed the fact that the shroud had been through two fires had [00:12:00] been burned. So much smoke on it, but you can't smoke around it. They've said on the one hand, cigarette smoke will affect it, and let's ignore the smoke in those fires. We don't even know what chemicals were being burnt in those fires too.

To make the data wrong. So in terms of unreasonableness, straight way, we can say Carbon 14 dating is the wrong test. For many reasons. We don't know how much all this fire smoke settled. We don't know if one area has a bigger patch of smoke being smoked and another one hasn't got any smoke. We can't tell that.

And on that basis alone, you've gotta say, this is inadmissible evidence. Because imagine the consequences is. You are using evidence to put someone in jail for the rest of their life. You can't just be dismissive. [00:13:00] So straight away, the carbon 14 dating is unreliable and inadmissible in court. So I'm thinking to myself, let's get this message across.

We don't just dismiss everything. It's significant. And then they took one sample. Now, the principle of that sample is stating the whole of the cloth is exactly the same as this one sample. Well, we know straight away through the smoking, well, that can't be right. And then we looked at this sample. Finally, we find out that there's a gradient in there, an anomaly some people call it.

And I call it a pattern. So from one end of that tiny little sample, um, there's 130 years difference to the other. So by calculations, that pattern, and this is what the Carbon 14 data are saying, that pattern [00:14:00] goes through the whole of that rou. I have to say that because they connected the date to the whole of the shroud.

So if you follow that pattern through one end of the shroud is 16,000 years different from the other. So when they're saying their dates in the middle Ages is 95% reliable, you've gotta say plus or minus 16,000 years. This as we go back to our principles in Comcare and, and you, it says something is unreasonable if it's absurd or illogical.

Now, if they said this sample is 95% reliable for the sample, we might be a little bit more, um, in favor of them, but they haven't. That's a very worrying thing. Why on earth would they say it's 95% reliable? Mm-hmm. [00:15:00] And they had the opportunity to take seven samples from all around that shroud, and that could give you a much more reasonable outcome.

So when I first heard about that, I thought, hold on. How can you get reliable? How can you be reasonable when you've got one that's supposed to fit the whole shroud? Um, so that, once again, the single sample method is too unreasonable. I mean, it's done. Sampling is done throughout the world, throughout sciences.

If you want to investigate human beings psychology around the world, you need between 120,000 and bought 210,000 samples in. If you want to check out a, um, an area for mining it to see if there's gold in there, you just don't pick up a nugget and say the whole of this place is, um, full of gold. You need to get the [00:16:00] samples.

So when they decided not to take the seven samples, the decision had to be so unreasonable to say it's beyond a reasonable doubt. This was absurd. It's illogical. I don't know what the real reason was for not having the seven samples. Um, but in, in the science of law, this is unacceptable. So to answer the question of the date, we can't use a single sample at all and say it's beyond reasonable doubts.

It could move forwards and then. We hear about Ray Rogers coming up and finding that there's a 2000 year old piece of thread and a Middle Ages thread, and I'm looking at that and I'm asking myself, well, they didn't know that at the time of the Carbon 14 dating. Otherwise they would've raised it, and we've now don't know how [00:17:00] diluted that sample is.

Did it? Was it 50%? I mean, in my mind, just for an example, if you mix a 20, uh, 20th century thread with a, uh, um, a first century thread, are you gonna get a 12th century outcome? How much. Thread, do you need, what was it, 50 50? Was it just one piece of thread? We don't know. And therefore, once again, it's unreasonable to make a date from the Carbon 14 dating.

Well, until you're. And to your point about the fair-minded person, a fair-minded person would, uh, see that as potentially just that. I mean, there's so many other things, so many of the flaws in the carbon dating, but just those two things alone, um, you know, should be seen by a fair-minded person that is, understands something about [00:18:00] sampling and techniques and.

The technical side of statistics, they would, they should at least be able to say, no. That just doesn't sound right. And to your point, are you, as the, as a jurist, you know, are you actually gonna convict somebody and put somebody to death based on that? Based on that evidence? And that would be very hard.

That's exactly right, and that's why this theoretical science is a very good way of analyzing what's right. And so when you put on one side the evidence for a middle aged date, and on the other side the evidence for a non middle aged date, you've got to look at the carbon 1480, and if you're putting that into a court for discussion.

One of the things that they use in, in getting rid of evidence saying it's not admissible is because it would be unfair to jurors to have to deal with something that is so unreliable [00:19:00] that they, they'd be, um, confused. And I've gi I think I've given a link for you to put down there, um, which discusses evidence and how it's.

Given different weights, and I think we use the term weight in law because I may go back centuries to when they've decided to put, um, a figure with a blindfold holding some scales. So mm-hmm. It was evidence on both sides because we've removed the carbon 14 dating under the principles we use in law. All of a sudden the scale drops the other way.

You've got. Bishop Darkes is their discussion about forgery and what I say to that. Well, there was an original and there was a. Painting perhaps, and that might be, um, why we get a few dots of the million on it. Somebody who paint has gone very close to have a look and his flicks [00:20:00] and stuff on it, but we've got the original because there's no paint on the image.

We've dismissed that beyond reasonable doubt. So Bishop Dark's evidence in that link that I've given you, it says. Some of this stuff, secondary documents are given less weight, they're less reliable. So for the bishop to say, oh, there's a forgery. This is a forgery. Well, hold on a second. It's not talking about, we caught the forger in the act.

He's just saying it's this. So that weight of what Bishop Darkes was saying is not very strong at all. And we even go, it's so close that it may be hearsay, which means, oh, someone told me this, that and the other. And when you're going into a, um, a criminal case beyond reasonable doubt, we dismiss hearsay straight away.

We don't need that in there. [00:21:00] There are some very minor exceptions where you can get that. Um, so there might be a confession that someone's made before they've died, um, and you've listened to it, that kind of stuff. But they give, there's a reason the, there's a reasonable suspicion there's a forgery. But once we've investigated it and found out, no, this isn't the one that was painted, this isn't the one.

Um, we've actually got the original in this shroud document we've got here. So when you now find that the weight for a middle aged state is gone, you look at the other side of the evidence and the newest technology, non-destructive wide angle x-ray says it's 2000 years old. And that refutes those people who want to say, oh no, it's Middle Ages.

'cause they've got no weighty evidence. They've not got any strong evidence at all. And then we add to that this [00:22:00] the thing about extinct pollen from the fourth century. There's pollen on it from way before the middle Ages. Then we go to the Jerusalem dust, it ain't there. And then we look at the, the head covering.

We've got it documented back to third or fourth century, and the correlation between the blood stains on that head covering and on the um, on the shroud itself. This is very strong evidence. Apparently there are more aligning places mm-hmm. On that cloth and the shroud than they are in fingerprinting. I, I believe it's about, um, fingerprinting is around 16 alignments and we've got around 50 plus alignments in the shroud, so everything's pointing to the earlier date.

So when you compare the evidence of the Carbon [00:23:00] 14 dating, which will be thrown out. Um, on, on reliability grounds because. What we're finding out with the current DNA cases coming along, the evidence has to be that strong, reliable, and we don't have that in Carbon 14 dating. We have some very odd occurrences.

If you look through Joe Marino's records, I won't go into them, but they're very unusual in how. Um, the Carbon 14 data are looking at things. I mean, um, they had available stir teams, um, results and, and sciences and where they took the sample from. I think I was discussing this in emails with Barry Schwartz, was in a very distinctively dark area on the shroud when they could have come back and said, what's the major?

[00:24:00] Color of this shroud will get it from that area, but they've taken it from an area that is not quite the same as the the MA majority of it. Yep. So that's reducing the reliability again. It's absurd to say, oh, this is what, um, the whole shroud is made of that area when you know, when you should have seen that.

It's darker than the rest, but they stonewalled the steam team. So when you are applying the test of reasonableness, we're saying this Carbon 14 dating test is not gonna be admitted to get a conviction for anyone. And so this is how geo science. To the core of the matter, you know? Well, how do you, um, how do you bring that across though to a juror and, uh, you know, and, uh, who is not necessarily educated, let's say, in all of these different sciences, and you have, um, you know, on [00:25:00] one side of the scale you've got this carbon 14.

Um, dating. You've got them potentially. Potentially. And I've got some arguments for against the Bishop Darcy's, um, memorandum. You've got those two things. And then on the other side, you've got, and, and let's leave aside for the moment, the wide, the wide angle, uh, x-ray scattering the waxes. But you've got the pollen, you know, that you talked about.

You've got the, uh, alignment of the dates with the, uh, the head cloth, the cerium, you've got the Jerusalem soil, you've got the blood serum that you know no, uh, you know, there's a whole bunch of different things. The blood serum that's around the halo, around all of the bloodstains. You've got, um, you know, the Ray Rogers threads, potentially.

You've got the 3D. Qualities of the image, you've got the black and white negative, positive kind of, uh, qualities. How though do you bring those pieces to a juror that is [00:26:00] trying to be independent? You know, they, 'cause they know there's, there's a, there's a, you know, I have to make a ruling on somebody, you know, beyond reasonable doubt that this man is, uh, gonna be convicted to a death sentence.

And, uh, so how do you bring those, uh, how do you bring those across? Well, um, as I've been trying to do through this podcast, defining the, what's reasonable to them. We have a sorting out process in the jury, for instance, before it's, uh, put together. Um, some people will be honest and say they're biased. We might have someone that's demented, um, that comes along and the both the lawyers agree and say, no, you can't be here.

So we'll sort all of that mess out. But here in juridical science, in in the science of the shroud, we have got a great discussion going here and what we need to do is blot out. The stuff that's unreasonable. No more talking about [00:27:00] Leonardo da Vinci. Don't need that. That's if you want to go to Disneyland and make up a cartoon, well, that's Leonardo da Vinci.

That's so poor when we've proven beyond reasonable doubt, it wasn't painted. Um, so we sought that evidence. And what have you got left? Because why I'm particularly focused on carbon 14 dating is. You talk to the jurors about that and you say, would you do it that way? Does it make sense to you that smokes from cigarettes not allowed?

And um, but smoke the whole shroud? Oh, don't ignore that. This is a common sense thing, a reasonableness. Mm. So, um, very few people would say that's reasonable to say, oh, we ignore the smoke on the shroud. So in, we wouldn't even get that. Into court, but let's say it did. Let's say we didn't have this sorting out period, [00:28:00] but it makes common sense.

So are you gonna hang someone because you ignore the, the smoke on the shrouds, that kind of thing? Well, I don't think there's many people who'd let that through because they'll put themselves in that position and say, hold on. If it was me, I wouldn't want that to come through and they'd something better.

And then to find out, basically being told this one little thing. Proves all the other science wrong common sense, and this is what we're taught, why we've got rules and reasonableness. We define it and say, here it is. Think this way. Because I can remember doing the criminal law subject of decades ago.

Well, I'm lucky I can remember it, but all of a sudden, out of the blue, we talk about the reasonable person tests. I said Wow [00:29:00] to myself. Here it is. This is a thing that we call discernment. This is a way that I can figure out throughout life what's it mean. Most of us just use the word and say, oh, that's unreasonable.

It's reasonable. But no. Let's think in terms of not what I think, but think in terms of what really comprises. A reasonable thought in a reasonable way. Am I coming up with a conclusion that everyone else would think is unreasonable? And it makes a big difference in the personal lives. It gives an element called discernment, and I think everyone wants that.

They don't want to be reckless. They want to say, I need to figure this out. And that's part of this podcast here to say you want to look at the evidence. Don't pick it like you're picking your favorite football team. I mean, um, that's one thing because there are no real [00:30:00] consequences for picking a favorite football team.

And whereas there is in a court of law, you're putting somebody to death as you put it the most serious. You can't add that, 'cause I wouldn't want it applying to me. Um, and this actually worked during a persecution period for Christians when, um. So many were killed. One section of the community got out of, um, the death penalty for it because they basically argued to the judge, what if it was you in, in my position?

Will they do it to you too? And the judges registered, I better do the right thing. So here we are. Well, that is, yeah, that is an awesome argument. I, and I could just see, you know, I've been on the jury, uh, I was a juror a couple of times and. And, uh, you know, you're right. Put yourself into, you know, would you want to have that as your judge and your [00:31:00] reasoning to, uh, you know, to put you to death on something And, uh, and all of a sudden, and that definitely changes the way that I would consider that the, these different presented evidences.

Yeah, it makes a difference. We don't want to wreck the system to put ourselves in trouble. We want to say, hold on, if it comes to me, I want this. Mm-hmm. And, um, so then we're doing that now with the shroud. Now what? Yeah, no, I was gonna say now I, I really like your argumentation and the, the juridical kind of process and how you would look at the carbon 14.

Um, I did wanna bring up something, um, uh, a couple of things related to the Darcy, uh, and I'm gonna call it the Darcy memorandum and, um. So I was just at the Shroud Conference here in St. Louis, uh, about two weeks ago, and there was a presenter on the on that's presented strictly on the, on the Darcy's memorandum.

Um, what that is for [00:32:00] the listeners. What the Darcy's memorandum is is that in the, um, I guess it was the 14th century, this Bishop Darcy of, uh, trois, he put together, he was writing a memo. And writing a letter to the, the, the Pope. And he wanted to say that the shroud that was being presented and exhibited in Lere France is a forgery.

And I know who the, uh, the forger is. And, um, uh, so that, that's one thing. Now the other thing that's, that came out of the, out of the conference was, was that memorandum ever sent? And there's some interesting, uh, uh, elements of, of that. Now, the actual memorandum that was written, uh, uh, by Darcy or by as Scribe, is actually, you can find it in the French National Archives.

And, uh, so then the, the presenter that was [00:33:00] presenting on it, he actually looked at it and saw it and actually, you know, saw the details of it. There's two things about that that are missing on it, and that's why it's called a memorandum and not a letter. The first thing that you have to have to have a letter is it has to be dated.

It has to be signed, and neither of those two facts, uh, are present on that memorandum. That's in the fresh French National Archive. And so then the, the result of that is that it's most likely never been sent. It was most likely written, but never actually sent. Because if you were gonna send it, especially to the Pope, you gotta put the date on it.

That's critic. Critically important, and you have to sign it. You're not gonna send a a note to the Pope without your signature on it. The second thing, or the third thing that's interesting is that there is no proof, at least yet found. There is no proof that there's a copy of that letter. In the Vatican archives, [00:34:00] if a letter was sent, you typically keep a copy, uh, and you keep, you send the original, and so you have two pieces.

You have one that would be in the Vatican archives and one that would now be in the French National Archives. Well, the only one that can be found is the one in the French National Archives, so most likely the, the letter was never sent. And, uh, which also then kind of says that the proof or that use of an evidence is now can also be dismissed.

Uh, similar to the how the carbon 14 dating was done. Now you can kind of dismiss the validity or the value of that in your argumentation that this is, uh, you know, a medieval cloth based on a forgery, and here's this letter that proves it. You can't use that. Uh, for those, for the reasons that I mentioned.

Yeah, I'm trying to put my legal mind to it, and in the link it says, um, that describes how evidence is sorted and the weight of evidence that bishop's [00:35:00] letter or memorandum hasn't even gone past the reasonable suspicion level, so then it wouldn't be put into the court to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Here, the Bishop has said there's a forgery out there. Even if it's in the memorandum that says something. What sort of evidence have you got? We don't even know if he was talking about the shrouded you're in, we've got, or someone actually painted one. It's just too vague. So, and as you say, you don't have the corroborative evidence, the supporting evidence of the letter.

But that's not too big a hurdle, but it's in the discussion, but it's nowhere near even on the balance of probabilities, you've got it down as okay, there's a suspicion, but we can't go any further with it. Um, so it carries no weight. And then when you add the contra argument of the, the pollen being extinct [00:36:00] in the the fourth, fifth century.

Hello. This ain't that forged one. How, how do you get that there? And again, he's not talking about, um, um, the forged one. He's, he's not talking about the real shroud. He's talking about there's a possibility of a forgery out there. Well, all the other evidence we've got overwhelms that to say, no, this ain't that forgery that the bishop were talking about.

So we left with. A very vague argument. We know that happens. I mean, imagine if all the evidence for the shroud disappeared except for the Leonardo da Vinci painting one, and for some reason we got no contra evidence. Everyone will start believing that. Whereas, but we don't, we have a wonderful pile of evidence.

I mean, 120 different sciences. We had a wonderful team of Stu Scientists 17 all pointing out the basics. Now it's not a [00:37:00] painting, it's not a for, not a forgery. Because they didn't even know how to make those, um, that image on there. So it can't be 14th century. So the bishop's talking about something else.

If at very best he's talking that somebody made Yeah. The replica of, of the shroud. And there is a little bit of evidence for that because we're finding forged relics. We can't deny that they're making it up. Um, well one day maybe we'll find this forgery, but it isn't the shroud. Because part of the test was, was this painted then?

Yeah. And we've obliterated that. It's inadmissible in court and it needs to be retracted. If you're a scientist, it needs to come out of the equation. They need to say hello, what have we been doing by endorsing that? Um, we have some suspicions because they wouldn't release all the data. For the, um, carbon 14 dating and then even the [00:38:00] data, we've got all kinds of reasons to say it was unreliable.

'cause they've got so many missing elements. So this Carbon 14 dating the biggest problems. They didn't get seven samples, so therefore it's. Inadmissible, they didn't give the full data. I mean, this equates very much with the current things, with these forensic scientists that are in trouble being investigated.

Mm-hmm. We didn't put it all in there, so we can't use the Carbon 14 dating, um, at, at all. It's just, um. Out of this. Yeah. So unreasonable. Let, let's keep using those words. It's absurd to say. That's it. So, um, no, the, the case is too strong against it. So what have we got left? All the older stuff that says it's way, way back, and, um, so from my, to put a verdict into place, it's beyond reasonable doubt that this [00:39:00] shroud that we've got.

Belongs to the time of Christ 2000 years of age. It's not, and that's one of the things I'd like to, for shrouds to enter into discussions. For instance, very early on the carbon dating data said this is 95% reliable. We've now found it isn't. I would like to see, um, those that approached rou as saying, our evidence is beyond reasonable doubt.

Yeah, and when we understand the terms reasonable and how it's used in law, well then it makes complete sense that we've got the shroud. You can talk in CU terms, what would humans do, and I think Barry Schwartz commented once about his mum who. Oh, no doubt. It's absolutely genuine. And Barry said, why? And she said, well, they wouldn't have taken it with all the [00:40:00] blood and all that on there, because that'd be very, very serious consequences.

Of course, they, it's, and this is in the world of common sense, what do humans normally do? Mm-hmm. In, in that kind of things. And if it's abnormal, well, you need strong evidence. I mean, all the healing miracles of Jesus, they had so many witnesses, um, to these things, and we're getting crowns of thousands because of the very miracles that he's doing.

And so we have the witnesses. It's not some obscure thing that, um, maybe it's just one person. So, um, yeah. Yeah. So let me, uh, uh, push just, um, so for each of the evidences, so we've got, um, you know, we have the wax access, the, the most recent one. Um, and then you have the pollen, uh, the extinct pollen. You have the Jerusalem dust on the feet and the nose and the, uh.[00:41:00]

Um, and the knees and, um, uh, what is the process to, uh, allow those in as evidence? As opposed to, now we've talked about how to exclude evidence, but what is the process now to allow them in to say yes beyond reasonable doubt? Uh, you know, we trust the scientists that have found these extinct pollen on the, on the cloth.

We trust the scientists. How do you, how do you, you know, now positively allow those in. Yeah, well, for the same reason they began with the Carbon 14 dating, it's relevant. Well, we prove carbon 14 dating is irrelevant. We have a question, is this a middle age date? So it's no dispute that the pollen there is of a date that's many, many years earlier than that, a thousand years earlier.

So here's the relevance. It says that poem could not have reasonably [00:42:00] got on there unless it was at the time, a thousand years earlier than the Middle Ages. So if you read the link, it talks about relevance of evidence and then the fabrication. 'cause it doesn't make much sense except for that the cloth was in Jerusalem itself, the fabrication that it was.

Um, painted somewhere in France or there when we've got Jerusalem dust on it. It's absurd to say maintain. Oh, this is in France. It wasn't anything to do with Jerusalem. And there it answers the question. No, it's in Jerusalem. The relevance is the location of the dust fits in. With the history that you find in the, the gospels that Jesus fell down and that it wasn't all over.

Like the smoking, the patches are in the right places. So that's the relevance. This is corroborative evidence, not fully, a hundred [00:43:00] percent. Um. A hundred percent beyond reasonable doubt, but it's cor because it's corroborative of the earlier dates. It's acceptable. How does it get there? What reasonable way would've appeared there?

So we've got this fanciful idea that a forger put it all there to such a detail. It doesn't make sense. Mm. So we asked the question in the Comcare and UK it says, is that absurd to say, uh, forger would've done all that? Of course. So what's the most reasonable way that this came about? So it's, it's illogical too to think that a fortune would go to that extent, and even then not well then have the knowledge.

Right. And have the knowledge to know, to go to the that extent. And, um, and then, you know, then you have all of the, how would he have known how, what happens when [00:44:00] you crucify someone and how the blood flows are, I mean, there's so many, so many different pieces and, uh, of, of, you know, just evidence that's on there that, that a forger just absolutely could not make up.

You would have to have, you would have to have a prototype. That you could look at to say, okay, well now I can maybe copy it, but I even then, you know, how do you get the blood on there first and the image second? How do you get the serum halos on there if you've never known about them, you never even heard about them.

How do you get the dust on there? How do you get the pollen on there? And I mean, there's just so many little things that after a while, the, uh, the absurdity becomes absurd in and of itself. Yeah, and this is where we talk in legal terms about the preponderance of evidence. How much is there? How did they, you connect all the dots, and we've got that many that you've just listed through and more.

Um, the only way they can all be connected together, [00:45:00] reasonable beyond reasonable doubt is if there was a 2000 year date. And that this was Jesus, the crucified guy, all this other stuff, it doesn't make sense. And that's why since we've got rid of the Carbon 14 dating as a reliable, there's really no contra evidence, the sheer quantity of the pile of evidence.

You can only come up with one reasonable answer. And that is so much, um, that it's beyond a reasonable doubt that the shroud. And the person on the shroud was Jesus of Nazareth. Mm-hmm. Yeah. And we're now even getting better signs. We've got Bob Rucker, he's trying to explain the differences there. Instead of just having the, um, invisible weaving theory of Ray Rogers.

Perhaps there was another way while we've got a 2000 year thread and that, and this will be very [00:46:00] interesting because as technology grows, we don't need any Carbon 14 dating stuff. We've got wide angle x-ray, which doesn't destroy it, which is corroborated by all the other evidence. It's so unreasonable to say a middle age date when everything else.

And to put in legal terms, the weight of the evidence doesn't show a middle age study. Yeah. Yeah. And so, so it's wonderful to see those sciences. Yeah. Yeah, it is. And I really like the, uh, the logic and, you know, I, I've been a juror and, um. Uh, you know, it was, if it's a civil trial, it's like the preponderance of the evidence and then whereas if it's a criminal trial, I've never been on a criminal trial.

But, you know, beyond reasonable doubt and certainly the way that you explained how all of that evidence comes in and putting yourself. In the indicted man's position and saying, well, what if I was being indicted and now being tribe? Uh, you know, [00:47:00] would I want to include that evidence in there or not? Very interesting.

Is there anything, uh, before we close, is there anything, uh, anything else that you'd like to, uh, spend mention? Um, there is so much more that I've, I've got out of this, um, examining it. There's so many other questions that a lawyer would naturally ask and. Um, but I, I can't disclose it publicly, but there's so much there and that, um, and it'll probably be too overwhelming in, in this to bring even another couple of hours of discussion.

Well, we'll get you back on the next time in a couple of months and do that again. Yeah. One of the exciting things, um, the connections that I've made, um. Recently, um, I've gone to a Shroud Con, uh, conference, which was encouraged by a fellow named Gino Iri and another [00:48:00] guy named John gha. And out of that I, um, met in person.

Andrew Dalton, so mm-hmm. I've established a connection there, and hopefully between Andrew and myself, we can get another pathway opened. Um, but you've got to thank all the people that, um, open the doors and, uh, and you, uh, is, uh, are another person where I can share this. But if we can get people using common sense again, reader declutter.

Uh, I mean one of my, uh, um, experiences about 15 years ago with the government departments, and we're lucky, we had a senator who was a lawyer who sent them back. Um, they come across and said, oh, there's absolutely no evidence for what's happening. And then. He being a barrister, which, um, I dunno if you use that term in the USA, um, but that's a specialist lawyer who [00:49:00] argues in court.

He said, you go back and give us it all. So what they re, instead of giving a nice, simple reply, they camouflaged it instead of having one issue there. Significant, which was asked about, they made a huge list, 20, 30 different things of ho Hold on. And we've got a camouflage. So you've gotta sort through all these other superfluous information to get to the facts.

And that's what has happened here. It's been camouflaged. Yeah. Um, what does an ordinary person do when someone says it's a painting and you've got the media all around the world? Yeah. Saying I don't paint it. Yeah. Yeah. No, I know. And uh, and to your point about the obfuscation of, uh, of the obvious, it, uh.

That's, that's definitely also part of the press and also part of the naysayers. And, and unfortunately there are, uh, you know, [00:50:00] the court of public opinion, I don't know if you could call it that, because there's clearly some that are so biased. They're only gonna, you know, present an article or a, or a, a, uh, proofs on this side and they're not gonna present the proofs on the other side.

And, um, you know, and unfortunately the, uh, you know, to get both sides, even if they presented both sides in a reasonable way, I think that would be a, a, a huge plus for, uh, for the rou atheists as opposed to the shroud medievals. Yeah, I, I think you're right. And that's what I'm trying to do with putting it Yeah.

Yeah. In the sense, in the report of science, how do you look at this evidence? Um, we don't want to be indu land having all these fantasy, um, things and fun that way, but we want to come through the truth and it's so important because, um, we've got 2.4 billion Christians loving Jesus. Yeah. 2 billion [00:51:00] Muslims loving Jesus as a prophet, and we've got a billion Hindus loving Jesus as a God.

So this is so important to the world and to the theological science that's out there. And just to quote Thomas acquiring Aquinas. Theology is the queen of the sciences. Um, although you are gonna get a lot of people saying that's not scientific, it is. Um, and um, because with that sort of following, we know it's a fact that there is a Jesus who has something to do with God.

And um, yeah. So it's important. Yeah. Yep. It really is important and it, uh, and you know, the Shroud conference that you had in Australia a couple of a month or so ago, and then the one that we just had in the us, um, that dissemination, there's kind of three things that are kind of dimensions of value going on.

One of them is that really energizes [00:52:00] all of us shroud people, shroud friendly people, and shroud believers to go out and evangelize. And tell people about this shroud, this wonderful, uh, this wonderful cloth that, that Jesus and God left for us. And then, um, you know, then it also energizes us to go off and, and, and try and get more testing, you know, to make the shroud available, hopefully through the new Pope, to make the shroud available to provide more testing, to refute some of the.

The negative things that were in the Carbon 14 and develop new tests that can hopefully continue to add to the preponderance of the evidence. Yeah, it's, it's very important, although, um, the shroud itself isn't essential for my faith. There is a point where people use their brains and it could be removing a barrier for someone else who said, oh, there is evidence to counter [00:53:00] all these people who are saying Jesus is a myth, and um, God is a sky fairy to counter the mockers.

You have some people who are, yeah, highly intelligent, highly academic, and all of a sudden I've question, I've got a shroud here to say, hold on. It isn't all. Um, what the accusers say. It isn't all that have a good look. Yeah. And yes, there is no myth that Jesus exists. This actually proves that he did. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. So it's an important part, uh, for especially for many people to convert on it. But bear in mind when you've got two point, uh, such a monstrous amount of in, in Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam. That all recognize Jesus is there. The shroud isn't essential for that, but for the technically minded, hold on.

There's something that my mind can grasp on. Yeah. Like down, you know [00:54:00] what I mean? He needed to put his hands in the wounds. Some people need to get their hands on this and say, aha, this is my moment. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. You know, it's funny, um, I had, um, it was, uh, not Nora Cree, it was, uh, uh, Nan Belfor. I interviewed her.

And, um, you know, for people that say, I have my faith, it's strong enough. And she came back with, well, you know, Peter had strong faith. He, you know, and Jesus asked him, do you love me? Do you love me? Do you love me? And every time he said, yes, yes, yes, I love you. And, and even then, during the trial, and you know, the passion of Christ and the crucifix in Peter denied him three times.

And so even if we have a super strong faith, even Peter had a super strong faith, and yet he denied Jesus three times. The [00:55:00] shroud is just one way for me to help to continue to strengthen my faith and strengthen the love that I have for, you know, for Jesus and what he did for us. It, it actually needs less faith.

When you have a whole heap of knowledge. Everyone accepts the world is a globe and it's someone coming along and saying, no, it's flat. Um, we all know reasonably we don't have faith. We've got excellent knowledge. You'd only need a tiny bit of that. Yeah. Yeah. So when we've got a knowledge, a connection, like a shroud.

You don't need that much more faith if you don't have some of these tangible things and you are only by yourself, um, you can still get faith. Um, but it seems to me a little bit easier with this corroborative evidence going up. Yeah. Interesting. Yeah. Yeah. Interesting way to put that. I really appreciate, really appreciate that.

Will, this has been awesome. Um, [00:56:00] I am looking forward to, uh, another round with you and, uh, understanding some more stuff. Uh, you know, that this tical perspective really puts things, you know, especially related to the carbon dating and especially related to the Darcy's memorandum. It really puts things into perspective.

Um. Is there, uh, anywhere that people can reach you, uh, if they had questions or wanted to, uh, talk with you further? Not at this stage because I'm thinking of moving. And not only that, um, I've got to get through the other stuff, which is highly confidential. I've sort of hinted at, um, that with you. Yeah.

And if we go through there, end. If Andrew Dalton and I can work as a team together on this and um, I have support in Teddy Pappas as well. Yeah, that's one thing I'm very, very, um, surprised that we've got lawyers [00:57:00] from the very beginning. We had, um, und there. Who actually got it, a lawyer. And one of the huge turning points was when Tristan, um, sent in the freedom of information application and we got all this stuff.

Finally, after 27 years, so now I'm hoping we've reached another turning point. By introducing common sense through theoretical science, we sought out this big pile of evidence and the only evidence. That is reliable is that it came from the time, the much earlier than the Middle Ages. So we're getting there and now we've got a means to find out what reasonableness is.

So US lawyers are doing our bit there. There's quite a few, um, mark Antonucci, um, and Teddy Pappas and I don't know [00:58:00] how many lawyers are involved. Yeah, mark An Mark Antonacci. So, uh, yeah, there's quite a few. Well, thank you, uh, again, uh, will really appreciate it. And for the audience, definitely please stay tuned for many other videos and podcasts in this series on the, uh, backstory of the shroud of Turrin.

Will again, thank you so much. Thank you too. Thank you very much.