The evil that men do lives after them…

…the good is oft interred with their bones. (Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene II)

On 16 November 1955, eight-year-old Janice May was found, raped and beaten, on a railway line in her hometown of Canton, Illinois. She died an hour later. After two days a taxi driver, Lloyd Miller, was arrested and subsequently tried, found guilty and sentenced to death. Execution was delayed several times, until on 13 February 1967 his conviction was overturned, and he was released a few weeks later. Part of the evidence against Miller was a pair of undershorts, heavily stained with blood, which on forensic examination, turned out to be paint. The microscopist who identified it was James Martin, of McCrone Associates, very recently established by Walter Cox McCrone, Jr.

McCrone had worked for the Armour Research Foundation before setting up McCrone Associates, and later founded the McCrone Research Institute, from which thousands of students have graduated in light microscopy. Among the more celebrated investigations he was involved in were the authenticating of Leonardo da Vinci’s ‘Christ among the Doctors’ and Eduard Manet’s ‘Infante Marguerite,’ analysing the hair of Beethoven and Napoleon to help determine their causes of death, characterising the mineralogy of lunar granules, and assisting in the identifying of Wayne Williams as the notorious Atlanta Child Murderer. His abiding legacy, apart from his students, was the ‘Particle Atlas,’ an index of thousands of micrographs to assist in the identification of microscopical traces, although he also founded the leading international journal on microscopy (The Microscope) and published hundreds of monographs on subjects as current as asbestos pollution and radioactive smog.

He was, to say the least, an unusual man. He was renowned for working fifteen hours a day, starting at 3:30am, every day of the year, for his energetic running up the twenty-one storeys of stairs to his flat, for his enormous collection of bow-ties, for his feeding of squirrels on his way to work, and for his pet cockatiel, which perched on his shoulder while he was working. His achievements earned him honours and awards from Microscopical Societies; the Association of Analytical Chemists, the Forensic Science Foundation, the National Asbestos Council, the California Association of Criminalists, and the American Chemical Society, and his reputation as analyst and educator earned him the sobriquet “Father of Modern Microscopy.” Articles published since his death continue to honour him, the most recent being in 2022, ‘Walter McCrone (1916–2002): A Life Lived Fully’, in Microscopy Today. “He is remembered by those he taught for always making himself available and sharing his knowledge. There are not many whose devotion to teaching extends to meeting with students before an 8:00 a.m. class and on weekends and holidays.” “Dr McCrone is not only a microscopy pioneer, but also an example of how to live fully and give generously.”

… Brutus is an honourable man…

What then, are we to make of the remarks of Dale Glover, in an interview with Stephanie Thomason, which has appeared on YouTube (youtube.com/watch?v=3qw7ZyqtMM0 and youtube.com/watch?v=tpLjPcDyjXg&t=2614s)?

“This result was more the product of McCrone’s incompetence and flawed methodology, as he made the amateurish mistake of analysing these particles while still stuck to the Mylar backing tape.” “McCrone was just a bumbler and an amateur scientist on this front.”

Incompetent, flawed and amateurish and a bumbler, eh? These are very strong words, and unless justified, may reflect more accurately the accuser than the accused. Before going on to discuss whether McCrone might have been mistaken, it may be worth pointing out, again, that this kind of abuse is exactly the sort of thing that brings all Shroud studies into disrepute among serious scholars, and ironically serves more to enhance McCrone’s reputation than to diminish it.

In 1972, a world map drawn on parchment which appeared to date from the 15th century was sent to McCrone for analysis. It shows a land mass south west of Greenland labelled Vinlandia, and a caption claiming Vinlandia’s discovery in the 11th century. From the map’s first coming to light in 1957 it had been the subject of considerable academic debate, and in spite of strong support for its authenticity by Robert Skelton of the British Museum, in 1966, microscopic observation by some of his colleagues suggested that the ink with which it was drawn had been laid down in two layers, black on yellow, rather than as a mixture which had separated with time. McCrone found that the yellow layer contained particles of a form of titanium dioxide which was only produced from the 1920s, and although this was seriously disputed in the 1980s by Thomas Cahill, it was confirmed in 2002 by researchers from University College London, since when successive discoveries have conclusively shown the map to be a 20th century fake.

It seems a little strange, then, that Glover refers to McCrone’s work on the Vinland map in less than complimentary terms: “it’s important to note that he’s been discredited, and totally falsified […] Scholars mock his conclusions regarding the so-called Vinland Map […] He’s been very shoddy in his work and scientific conclusions.” This is transparently untrue, and again, the accusation serves more to discredit his detractors than it does him.

Again and again, in the interview referenced, McCrone’s incompetence is contrasted with the professional skills of John Heller and Alan Adler, his sindonological nemesis, in spite of their knowing nothing about the forensics of art or the study of microscopical particles, or even old bloodstains. Heller was an expert in white blood cells particularly, and Adler in porphyrins, simple organic compounds that are the foundations of more complex molecules such as chlorophyll and haemoglobin, but his published researches, at least, did not specifically include blood.

So how did these parties come to be rivals, given that they began with the same raw material, and how come the findings of the later have been found so convincing by authenticists that by contrast Walter McCrone can be described as a bumbling amateur?

It all comes down to some orangy-reddish sub-micron particles, which McCrone found in some abundance, and particularly on the image and bloodstain areas of the Shroud. Here are some photos of the sticky tape slides, taken from his book, Judgement Day for the Turin Shroud.

Even at this low magnification, we can see that the slides are covered with particles, and note that there are clumps of orange particles separate from the fibres, and that the fibres themselves appear ‘bitty’ as if covered in granules themselves.

There are other things to notice. Firstly, Heller and Adler did not examine the same range of tapes as McCrone. They received 22 tapes to his 32. The six photos in the left half of the picture above were from the heel area of the dorsal image, the back of the neck, and a waterstain on the ventral thighs, which they did not receive or examine.

We also notice failings in both parties’ records, which may be simple errors, but do not make life easier for the impartial reviewer. The image in the bottom right hand corner, for instance, appears twice in Judgment Day, at slightly different magnifications, and labelled both 3CB and 3FB, either the lance blood area immediately below the adjacent patch, or the middle of the back. Heller and Adler also mischaracterised one of the slides, 4CB, as from the middle of the back, when it was actually from a scorch. A further comment is that although the formation of the image was the principal objective of the STuRP investigation and remains the principle bone of contention between sindonologists even today, neither Ray Rogers, who took the sticky tape samples, nor McCrone nor Heller & Adler, actually concentrated on the image, uncontaminated by other material, being continuously distracted by the bloodstains. In fact I can only find a single good image of the encrustations on image fibres (from slide 2-F, x70), from McCrone’s first published paper, ‘Light Microscopical Study of the Turin Shroud I’ (McCrone and Skirius, The Microscope, 1980). On the left, as published; on the right, slightly manipulated to emphasise the particulate coating.

If the image colour on the Shroud is related to the application of uniformly coloured red ochre particles, then the varying intensity of the image will be related to the varying density of the application, which seems to contradict one of Glover’s Minimal Relevant Features.

There are five of these Minimal Relevant Features described in the interview, labelled Negativity, Uniformity, Typographical Info (3D), Vertically Collimated, and Superficiality. The first to be discussed is “Uniformity,” which is defined: “Each fibril is coloured individually and uniformly (uniform intensity of colour).” Unless discoloured by blood, water stains, or scorch marks, every fibre of the Shroud is either “non-image” and “image,” and there is no distinction between any two of each kind. Glover says that “it is physically impossible” for an artist to achieve this. But is there evidence for this? The short answer is that we’re not given any, the long answer is no. Mark Evans’s micrographs show that there is variation in tone along the lengths of fibrils and between one fibril and the next, in irregular patches, just as one might expect of some kind of colouring agent. The variation is small, but can be clearly seen in enhanced contrast:

Mark Evans’s micrograph of image areas. Left: nose, x64, right: heel, x50

Glover says that “an artist will inevitably apply varying degrees of paint or pressure, and this will result in varying degrees of colour intensity.” That’s exactly what we see above.

Even at their densest, McCrone found that not many of the fibres on any slide were associated with particles, so by simple observation it is difficult to say whether particles are associated with image or not. Maybe they are randomly distributed? According to McCrone, he examined all the slides, without knowing where each came from, and, in separating those with iron oxide from those with little or none, managed to divide them accurately into ‘image’ (including blood) and ‘non-image,’ with only a few false negatives, which turned out to be from very faint image areas anyway. ¹

Assuming that the particles are a form of iron oxide, then the density of iron at any particular spot should be related to the darkness of the image, and indeed, as I have shown previously, it does. See my examination of Morris, Schwalbe and London’s paper (‘X-Ray Fluorescence Investigation of the Shroud of Turin,’ X-Ray Spectrometry, 1980) in ‘STuRP Revisited’ on this website. Morris’s data directly contradict Glover’s statement: “most importantly, with the spectral tests, is this X-ray fluorescence testing. […] It should have been finding [iron] all over the place, and we didn’t find it, in the body images or the blood stain images.” This is spectacularly untrue, and fortunately Glover instantly contradicts himself, although he is still almost entirely incorrect in his description. “Using the X-ray fluorescence test they did find [iron], but in their findings it was found uniformly in non-image areas and image areas combined.” And a minute or so later, “In terms of the iron on the Shroud […] X-ray fluorescence has proven it’s in uniform amounts, plus or minus a couple of degrees or something like that, all over the entire Shroud.” This too, is completely untrue. Morris specifically says, in his paper, “Our measurements do reveal a nonuniformity in the background distribution of iron.” In comparison with the calcium and strontium, which really do appear more or less uniformly in the areas sampled, the iron is widely different from area to area, and, as I have demonstrated, matches the varying density of the image along the test line, from the ridge of the nose outward past the tress of hair on the right side of the face.

Heller and Adler recognised that iron was found in varying proportions, and made several attempts to account for it. One of their findings contrasts with a similar finding by McCrone, and excites Glover’s most vehement accusation of incompetence on his part. Here is Heller and Adler (‘A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin,’ Journal of the Canadian Society of Forensic Scientists, 1981):

“Most of the red particulates ranged from submicron to about 3 µm, and the birefringent red particulates from 0.7 µm to about 1 µm diameter. These particulates were therefore too small for accurate quantitive determination of the optical parameters by the standard methods. Highly variable results were obtained even for refractive index measurements by immersion methods. However, when a red non-birefringent coated fibril and a birefringent red particulate coated fibril were compared side-by-side immersed in benzene (index of refraction = 1.50), the Becke line movements were in opposite directions. Therefore, the refractive index of the non-birefringent particles is less than 1.5, while it is greater than 1.5 for the birefringent red particles, indicating that they are quite different materials.”

And here is McCrone (‘The Shroud of Turin: Blood or Artist’s Pigment,’ Accounts of Chemical Research, 1990):

“Microscopically, the submicron, ultrahigh refractive index red particles are opaque by transmitted light. Such particles are differentiated from truly opaque particles only by reflected light and/or high magnification. These red particles are found on the fibres of all image tapes and have varying degrees of hydration, colour, and refractive index (from about 2.5 to 3.01). These properties are characteristic of the artist’s earth pigment, red ochre.”

At its simplest, it appears that Heller and Adler found two different types of particle by refractive index, while McCrone found one, the former giving 1.5 as a distinctive boundary between the two, the latter giving 2.5 as a minimum. However, I think the observations are probably better thought of as descriptions of a continuum, with variable refringence and refractive index. Although McCrone focussed entirely on red ochre as his preferred pigment, the chemistry of ochre ranges from yellow to black, with refractive index of about 2.0 to about 3.0.

Thibault Heimburger wrote a detailed comparison of Heller and Adler and McCrone’s findings (‘A Detailed Critical Review of the Chemical Studies on the Turin Shroud: Facts and Interpretations,’ 2008), and implied that McCrone had failed to notice the optically complicated nature of the Mylar sticky tape, and consequently mismeasured the refractive index, taking as his source the following passage from McCrone’s first paper in The Microscope:

“This material, when examined on the tapes with higher magnification and transmitted polarised light, is identical in appearance and properties (colour, pleochroism, shape, size, crystallinity, refractive indices, and birefringence) to the particles of hydrous and anhydrous iron oxide particles [sic], collectively known as iron earth pigment used since the days of the caveman.”

After quoting this and a similar remark from a later article, Heimburger says: “Heller noticed that the Mylar tape was optically active so that any red particle looks birefringent when the light has to pass through the tape and particle. Certainly, the tape also changes the measured refractive indices of the particles.” While this is no doubt true, McCrone was also well aware of it, and noted it in his paper. His determination of the refractive indices of the particles is described: “… the Becke line test for refractive index. Blood in any form, or any organic derivative of blood has refractive indices less than 1.60. Red ochre and vermilion have indices nearly double that of blood, or nearly 3.0. Observing such particles with magnifications of at least 500 times differentiates instantly between these two possibilities, blood or red pigments, simply by focusing up and down. […] On examining thousands of red image particles on the Shroud tapes, I saw no low refractive red particles except rose matter particles and a few red silk fibres.”

Glover gets rather confused here, in saying: “McCrone claimed these refractive indices only on the basis of a single Shroud sample, 3CB. He looked at this under the microscope while it was still attached to the Mylar backing tape, so obviously that’s going to affect the refractive indices.” There are two mistakes here. Firstly, as I have said, he was well aware of the properties of the Mylar tape, and secondly, he had already studied fibres from many more slides than one before they were all taken back, except 3CB, in June 1980.

Incidentally, Heimburger should not be confused with Heller and Adler. Glover quotes: “In their own words, “There are clearly two very different kinds of red ‘objects,’ (particles, ‘globs’ or agglomerates, shards, incrustations and red coated fibrils) on the Shroud… [a fact] that McCrone [completely] failed to recognize.” This quote is certainly not in Heller and Adler’s “own words,” and to compound the error, the words in square brackets are not even Heimburger’s.

Given the above, it is difficult to reconcile Heller and Adler’s inability to appreciate the extent of the iron particles, and McCrone’s inability to recognise any organic particles at all. Neither party was ignorant, amateur, incompetent or bumbling, and to dismiss them as such speaks more of the persuasion of the commenter than the character of the scientists, so the discrepancy remains a bit of a mystery. The only contribution I can suggest is the different ways they extracted the fragments they wanted to investigate further from the sticky tape.

Heller and Adler:
“That thrice-damned adhesive was incredibly sticky. If one pulled a fiber off the surface with a forceps, the stickum would stretch out about a centimetre (half an inch) before it would snap in two – one half ricocheting back to the tape, and the other half going with the fiber, forming an instant ball of adhesive around it. Trying to pull the fiber out of the goop and away from the forceps was like trying to throw flypaper away with bare hands. It didn’t work. The stickum had to be dissolved in a solvent. […] When Adler finally received a fiber plus the adhesive blob, he would try to hold the fibre down with a needle, and flush the saline past it.” (John Heller, Report on the Shroud of Turin). The peer-reviewed paper on these studies says, “To prepare a specimen for testing, the portion of tape containing it was excised by scalpel from the sample, It was then washed free of the tweezer-held tape with toluene into a spot plate well. The adhesive was then removed by repeated washings with toluene. The wash toluene was removed by micropipette or by sorption into pointed strips of filter paper while the specimen was held in place with a glass needle. Final removal of the adhesive could be tested with short wave UV irradiation, under which the adhesive gives a bluish-white fluorescence.”

McCrone (‘Light Microscopical Study of the Turin Shroud II’):
“On locating fibres and/or particles requiring removal for further study, the coverslip was marked with a tiny ink dot and inverted so that the same area could be quickly located after inversion. A fine tungsten needle was then used to cut around and remove that portion of a tape. After removal, the bit of tape (0.1 – 1.0 mm² in area) was placed on a clean slide in a drop of particle free xylene. This dissolves the adhesive and permitted removal of the insoluble and clean Mylar tape. The particles and fibres in the xylene drop were kept in one area by holding the tungsten needle in the drop as it evaporated. When nearly dry, the needle was removed and the particles and fibres remained together in a limited area. The adhesive residue was then a thin film with particles and fibres in the centre. They were circumscribed with the needle and all out-lying adhesive was removed with the help of the drop of water. The residual portion of adhesive was then washed away from the fibres and particles by successively placing small xylene drops adjacent to, and drawing them across the residue with the needle. Each application dissolves and washes away some of the adhesive. After about 10 such washing steps (with complete drying between applications) the fibres and particles are left clean, free and clear on the clean slide. They can then be individually, or collectively, remounted or tested in situ.”

The “washing” of Heller and Adler, compared to the “evaporating” of McCrone, may well have contributed to their finding different types and quantities of particles to measure. Since the entire Shroud is fluorescent under UV light, one wonders how Heller and Adler knew that they had washed away all the toluene, unless they had also washed away whatever made the cloth fluorescent, and no doubt much of the adherent materials besides. It is also not clear what exactly each investigator received. McCrone speaks of 32 tapes, each 18 x 37 mm (666mm²) in size, which he cut in two to make two more or less identical sets (of about 330mm² each). Heller and Adler speak of 36 tapes, each of about 500mm², of which they received 22. They do not suggest that they received ‘half-tapes,’ but they do say that what they received had been “fixed to microscope cover glasses by a prior investigator.” However, some of their slides had not been examined by McCrone – only 20 of them actually coincide. McCrone says vermilion was found on slide 3CB, by which time it was the only slide he had, so he couldn’t check any others, while Heller and Adler found it on 6BF. Both areas are associated with the lance wound. Giulio Fanti (‘Blood reinforced by pigments in the reddish stains of the Turin Shroud,’ Journal of Cultural Heritage, 2017) later found it on blood fibres from the foot and the wrist.

In his third paper for The Microscope, McCrone analyses eleven particle clumps from 3CB in much greater detail. He calls them PMAs – Particle/Medium Agglomerates – and distinguishes four colours, from yellow to red, with one uncoloured. He prints the EDXRA spectra for them all, and helpfully collates all the elements he distinguishes in a single Table. Here are its data, divided into colours:

The numbers are “Peak heights, in units above background.”

In spite of a determined attempt to identify ochre and vermilion, in my opinion this is rather agenda-driven. Here are the data again, displayed graphically so that we can try to spot similarities within particles of different colours.

To be honest, there is little consistency to be found here at all. The two least coloured samples are unusually high in calcium, but if this is supposed to reflect some kind of pre-treatment of the cloth, it is strange that it is so variable on the other samples. Iron seems to increase in quantity as the colour darkens from orange to red-orange, but then is much reduced in the red. The Mercury/Sulphur values vary without obvious reason, and the only element that shows any consistency is silicon, perhaps as quartz powder.

One reason for this variability may be that slide 3CB was a particularly unfortunate one from which to extract samples. It is immediately under a patch, and seems to be a blend of image, blood, water and scorch in irregular proportions. This is the area, on the left side of the back of the body:

The clearest photographs of the red particles found on the cloth are in Giulio Fanti’s paper, where some certainly appear similar both to McCrone’s photographs, and also to particles observed on a copy of the Shroud in Palma de Montichiaro.

Fanti analysed particles from four STuRP tapes, a non-image tape supplied by Riggi di Numana, and from the copy at Palma di Montechiaro. On 1HB (heel: blood) and 3EF (wrist: blood), he found blood, iron oxide, and mercuric sulphide (vermilion), but no organic binder nor “pigments on image fibres.” On 1EB (back of calf: image) and the ‘non-image’ sample he found none of these, and on 3AF (finger: image), he found blood and iron oxide, but no vermilion. The copy had iron oxide and vermilion. On a Shroud sample which did contain vermilion, he quantified the components as 90% blood, 9.5% iron oxide, and only 5% vermilion. However, the photo Fanti gives of this sample looks like this. Note the scale bars.

This lump looks nothing like the red-orange particles: perhaps it is blood, but it does not represent the majority of the particles observed on the Shroud, even in ‘blood’ areas.

Walter McCrone received the slides from Rogers some time after the STuRP team’s return from Turin in October 1978, and, according to his book “Judgment Day for the Turin Shroud,” began to study them on Christmas Day. His “Shroud research notebook” entry for that day says: “December 25, 1978. This seems to be an appropriate date to start study of the tapes. My objective is to find out what the image is. It is visible therefore it has atoms and we should be able to analyse those atoms. This will tell us what makes up the image and perhaps how it got there. Most likely it will turn out to be body fluids yellowed by age.”

That last sentence will come as a surprise to those who claim that McCrone was biased against the authenticity of the Shroud from the start. Few authenticists, I’m afraid, have read his book, Judgment Day for the Turin Shroud, and even fewer his paper in Accounts of Chemical Research. Unlike most of the observations of the other chemists, his micrographs are copiously reproduced in these publications, demonstrating his conclusions. To suggest that he was “a liar or incompetent,” as a leading publicist for authenticity recently did, does far more harm to the authenticist case than it does to McCrone’s.

That’s not to say that MCrone’s conclusions are indisputable. The micrography of the Shroud is confusing, and consistent with several interpretations. McCrone himself changed his mind about the primary colourant of the image, and did not distinguish between ochre and vermilion until his staff pointed it out. However, this is clearly due to the inadequacy of the data rather than professional incompetence. The sticky tape was applied with the lightest of touches, and almost everything it collected was adventitious surface debris rather than truly representative of the cloth itself. It would be very interesting to study Max Frei’s tapes, which were considerably more firmly applied.

McCrone died in 2002, his reputation and achievements recognised across the scientific world, so those – exclusively Shroud authenticists – who denigrate him had better have good cause, or not only their judgment of him will be called into question, but by extension their judgement in general, not least their judgement regarding the authenticity of the Shroud.

Partly, I think, he acted as a scapegoat for the tensions that wracked the STuRP team itself. Five years after the Turin event, when surely some understanding could have been achieved, John Heller could write: “I could not believe it. No researcher ever gives out all his material. I had written emphatically to Rogers on the subject before the team left for Turin. […] Rogers should have cut each tape sample in half, and let McCrone have some half samples.” It seems that even then, Heller did not know that McCrone himself had cut the samples in half and returned one set to Rogers. In the STuRP newsletter of 1 June 1979, which apparently Heller did not read, we find: “Ray Rogers reported he plans to begin an elaborate set of experiments with his set of Shroud tapes (of which Walter McCrone has a subset).” It appears that Heller knew nothing of this. Incidentally there is no record of Rogers carrying out any such experiments, elaborate or otherwise.

After a very fanciful description of his first examination of four slides, Heller recounts that he had ended up with “seven microfibres with garnet-red colour on them, and a piece of biltong.” At no point does the word ‘particle’ appear here, and although it is said that micrographs were made of his observations, none have been published. At the x1000 magnification he claims to have used, the particles are clearly and easily visible.

On 25 March 1979, STuRP met for a preliminary conference at Santa Barbera, and battle lines that have lasted till today were drawn then. Some legitimate queries of McCrone’s discovery were swamped by general incredulity, misrepresentation of the spectral results already discovered, and a determination on the part of a handful of the team that the Shroud must be authentic. McCrone became defensive, then evasive, and eventually refused to co-operate. Rogers withdrew from almost all further practical investigation, and John Heller and Alan Adler dominated the field for many years. Anything tending to support McCrone was dismissed or ignored, and anything tending to support authenticity exaggerated way beyond factual accuracy. Here is Heller’s description of his discovery of the ‘Soret peak’ in the spectrum of his speck of biltong (‘Report on the Shroud of Turin’), which should be compared with the spectrum from a fibril as published in his ‘Chemical Investigation.’

“We began our readings of the biltong spot at 700 nanometres. […] After each reading we moved down 10 nanometres on the scale. […] When we reached 450 nanometres, my pulse rate began to go up. Very unscientific. At 430 nanometres, we shortened the gap between readings to 5 nanometres. At 425, the peak was still climbing. At 420 and 415, it was still rising. The crucial reading was 410. If the graph peaked here and began to fall away, we were on to something big. If, however, it continued to rise, the experiment had fallen through, and was useless. At 405, there seemed to be a flattening out. My pulse was racing. […] When we hit 400, the peak began to fall. At 395 – more so. At 390, it was sharply down.”

A – transmission spectrum obtained by microspectrophotometry of a brownish red stained fibril from one of the blood areas of the Shroud.

The description and the graph are completely different. Heller’s cursory: “Again the Soret band appeared,” regarding the fibril is seriously misleading. The biltong, perhaps, showed a Soret peak, but the fibril definitely did not. Undeterred, and perhaps not even noticing, Heller showed the spectrum to Adler.

” ‘John,’ he said, ‘this is hemoglobin. It’s the acid methemoglobin form, and it’s denatured and very old.’ ” This was, according to Heller, confirmed by Bruce Cameron, “whose double-doctorate is dedicated to hemoglobin in all its many forms.”

Well, here’s Bruce Cameron’s spectrum of acid methemoglobin, taken from his 1968 paper, ‘Spectrophotometry of Hemoglobin: A Criticism’ (Translational Research, Vol. 72, Issue 4):

Can he really have recognised acid methemoglobin in Heller and Adler’s spectrum? Here, for reasons which will become apparent, is another spectrum of methemoglobin, from Tomonori Kawano, ‘Monoamine-dependent Production of Reactive Oxygen Species Catalyzed by Pseudoperoxidase Activity of Human Hemoglobin,’ Bioscience Biotechnology and Biochemistry, 2002:

Finally, here they all are combined for comparison.

To claim that the Shroud’s brownish red stained fibril could possibly be methemoglobin on the basis of these is stretching credulity, but surprisingly, Heller’s breathless description of his biltong spectrum fits the Kawano spectrum quite well – dull till 450nm, plateauing at 405, and dropping away at 400 to 390. This gives added support to the idea that the red-orange dots and the meaty lumps are indeed composed of different material.

Fortunately for science, McCrone’s reputation for diligence, persistence, and accurate observation has remained unsullied by the peevish attacks of the sindonological resistance. The last of Dale Glover’s comments was, “despite his death in 2002, you’ll still hear Shroud skeptics on the internet quoting his findings as proof that the Shroud is a painting.” Despite his death? Does dying disqualify a scientist’s discoveries? In fact it seems that Mark Anthony’s observations fell far short of the truth. In McCrone’s case, I’m happy to say, the good that he did has lived after him, the erroneous is interred with his bones. The final word goes to a former pupil, now a Professor of Forensic Science himself, John Reffner, who described him as “Walter C. McCrone, scientist, mentor, leader, and friend – a very special person.”

=============================================================

1. McCrone’s findings were published in five different ways, three papers for his own journal The Microscope (1980, Vol 28, Nos. 3 and 4, and 1981, Vol 29, No. 1), one for the peer-reviewed Accounts of Chemical Research (1990), and in his book Judgment Day for the Turin Shroud (1996). His opinions changed over the years, and are sometimes inconsistent, and even his data varies. In his first paper there were three false negatives, slides, 3AB, 3BB and 6DF, from around the lance wound area, but in Judgment Day there were four, 1BB, 1EB, 3FB and 4EB, two from the heel area, and one each from the back and neck. Thibault Heimburger sardonically lists McCrone’s identification of vermilion, both “distinctively different from the submicron red ochre,” being “larger, elongated in shape, and about 1-2 x 5 microns [in size],” and also “identical” in shape and size to iron oxide particles. Also the ‘blood’ particles are both “identical” in colour to iron oxide and also “different in shape and color from red ochre […] but characteristic of the artist’s pigment, vermilion,” and also “Both red iron earth pigments and vermilion are deep orange to red […] and [have] no obvious shape differences.