Thursday, Dec. 10, 1998

Plaintiffs report on skeleton inventory

Plaintiffs submit the following report to advise the Court of events relating to the skeleton's transfer to the Burke Museum.

A. Inventory of the Collection.

Summarized below are some of the salient features of Dr. Owsley's Report. Page references are to pages in the Report.

1. Contents of Collection. The complete collection contains approximately 350 separate bones and pieces of bones. Page 4. Despite its fragmented condition, the skeleton will be approximately 70-80 percent complete when reconstructed. Page 3. All major elements important for scientific study are present except parts of the femurs. Page 3. Numerous fragments previously listed as unidentifiable have now been identified, and animal bones have been separated from the human collection. Pages 4, 5-6. Some fragments remain to be assigned to specific elements of the skeleton. Page 6.

2. Only One Individual Present. The collection represents one individual, a male. Page 6. No evidence was found of a second individual. Page 6. The reported fragment of a third pubis has been identified as part of the innominate of the Kennewick Man skeleton. Page 6.

4. Missing Femur Segments. Reports of the loss of portions of both femurs are correct. Page 6. Only the proximal end of one femur and the distal end of the other are now present in the collection. Pages 6-7. The missing portions represent a significant loss as femurs can provide valuable information including information on population affiliation. Page 6.

5. Agreed Inventory. The inventory forms signed by Drs. Owsley and Trimble identify all anatomical elements (i.e., skeletal parts) that are present or absent in the collection. Page 5. These forms include the items collected by Dr. Chatters and those collected later by other parties. Page 5. Dr. Chatters was not present when these forms were signed. Page 5. He should be allowed to re-inspect the collection to determine if he concurs with the identifications made by Drs. Owsley and Trimble. Page 5.

7. Arbitrary Time and Tool Restrictions. More time should have been allowed for the inventory and condition evaluation. Page 14. To meet the schedule imposed by the government, the parties had to work around the clock from 7 a.m. on October 28 until 4:12 a.m. on the 29. Page 1. In addition, the government unilaterally banned the use of all computers and other recording devices (except for the audio recorder expressly authorized by the Court). Pages 7-8. These restrictions had many unfortunate consequences. They made it impossible to complete all needed inventory tasks. They also prevented use of a back-up system (such as the computer originally proposed by Dr. Owsley) to ensure that data would not be lost if there was a mishap affecting the primary system (as did occur). Page 8. As discussed in more detail below, these restrictions also impacted the conservators' condition review.

9. Recording Mishap. During the course of the inventory, one of Dr. Owsley's tapes was inadvertently reused, thereby erasing all of the information previously recorded on it. Page 9. This mishap represents the loss of observations made over approximately 2 1/2 hours of work. Page 9. Dr. Owsley has attempted to reconstruct from memory some of the lost information (see Appendix C), but most of what was lost will have to be gathered again by reexamination of part of the collection. Page 9.

B. Chatters' Condition Report.

Pursuant to the Court's order of October 20, 1998, Dr. James Chatters inspected the skeleton on October 28-29, 1998 to determine if any changes had taken place in the collection since he last saw it on August 30, 1996. A copy of his Report is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

Summarized below are some of the salient features of Dr. Chatters' Report. Page references are to pages in the Report.

2. New Additions to Collection. No new bones have been added to the main Kennewick Man collection. Page 3. Collections A and B which contain items collected by other parties do contain bones and fragments that can be identified as part of the Kennewick Man skeleton. Page 3. These include a cervical vertebra, a piece of another vertebra, four rib fragments, a segment of a foot bone and four hand and foot bones. Page 3.

3. Missing Bones. The femurs were originally almost fully intact. Page 3. Each consisted of three segments; a proximal portion; a midshaft piece; and a distal segment. Page 3. Only one segment is now present for each femur. Pages 3-4. After the skull, the femur is the most important element of a skeleton for assessing population affinities. Page 4. It is also important for determining stature. Page 4. Also absent from the collections were the rib fragment Dr. Chatters discovered in December 1997, and the fragments the Army Corps reportedly collected in 1998 just before the site was buried. Page 4.

C. Entrance Inventory at the Burke Museum.

Ms. Walton was unable to confirm the contents or condition of the collection that was delivered to the Burke Museum on October 29, 1998. Paragraph 11, page 2; Paragraph 18, page 4. She was not given a copy of the collection inventory, and her assigned seat location was not close enough to permit her to observe the items being inventoried. Paragraph 11, page 2. Although she can confirm that catalog numbers were read off and reported to be present, she cannot confirm whether all elements of the collection were present. Paragraph 13, page 3; Paragraph 18C, page 4.

D. Defendants' Violation of the Parties' Understanding.

As previously noted, the government banned the use of all computers and other recording devices during the October 28-29 inventory and condition review. See Subsection A7 above. The only exception to this ban was the audio recorder expressly authorized by the Court's order of October 20, 1998. Plaintiffs consider this unilateral restriction to be a flagrant violation of the parties' understanding with respect to Dr. Owsley's inventory.

When the parties' Memorandum of Agreement and Revised Memorandum of Agreement were executed, defendants were aware that Dr. Owsley intended to have his observations recorded on a computer.

Plaintiffs' counsel made no secret of Dr. Owsley's plans in this regard during their discussions with defendants' counsel. At no time, did defendants raise any objections to his use of a computer or indicate that there was any reason for concern in this regard. To unilaterally thwart these expectations at the last minute as defendants' did serves no legitimate purpose. It does not contribute to a speedy resolution of this case or promote a more open dialogue between the parties.

Plaintiffs hope that the recent change in defendants' attorneys will bring an end to these sharp practices that have been so characteristic of the government's behavior to date.

Dated this 10th day of December, 1998.