The Detective’s DeskPEN & PAPER · CASE FILE
Pen & Paper · A fictional museum and gravel excavation
A celebrated “single ancient individual” is assembled from a skull, jaw and tooth. Reopen the file years later. Question the finder, preparator, sponsor and scientific staff; compare source collections, treatment records and site photographs; distinguish the forger from people who trusted the presentation.
Read the case file below, or open the interactive desk to examine records, keep notes and submit your reasoning. These are the case materials, without the solution.
Every scientific inference used in grading is stated in the supplied laboratory reports. The museum retains three numbered specimens, untreated comparison pieces and the finder’s original envelopes. Two reported find sites appear to corroborate one another, but shared preparation traces may connect them.
Amateur finder
I found all pieces naturally in the two ancient gravel beds.
Their uniform brown colour shows the same long burial.
Recognition by the museum would transform my standing.
Sponsor
I funded excavation because the museum initially accepted the find.
My payments name transport and recording, not altering specimens.
I wanted a discovery, but my letters insist the tests be independent.
Anatomy examiner
The jaw and skull do not belong to the same species.
The supplied tooth-wear comparison distinguishes use from filing.
I questioned the original interpretation and was criticised.
Collection registrar
The jaw’s underside matches a specimen loaned to Dorian before the first claimed find.
Our untreated comparison piece retains the same old collection marks.
A false discovery would expose weaknesses in our loan tracking.
Museum preparator
I assembled the pieces after receiving them already coloured.
I recorded the first condition before using museum glue.
I hoped to finish a neat reconstruction, not determine age.
Site photographer
My famous trench photograph was a later reconstruction.
Dorian supplied a crop that removed my slate and date.
I sold approved photographs, not fossils or scientific conclusions.
Read each record on its own terms. A claim made by a person is different from a fact established by an independent record.
Case record · Laboratory
The supplied validated tests date skull and jaw to different, much more recent histories than the claimed ancient layer. Each test includes its stated limits; neither establishes a particular forger.
Case record · Laboratory
The supplied diagnostic findings identify the skull as human and jaw as ape. They cannot be parts of a single individual. The tooth belongs with the jaw, not the skull.
Case record · Sponsor’s office
Esme pays only documented excavation, transport and recording costs and repeatedly requests independent tests. No instruction or agreement to prepare false remains appears.
Case record · Finder’s desk
Dorian’s signed notebook records J12, tooth abrasion and matching brown finish before the first find announcement. The notebook’s numbered pages continue through independently dated loan receipts.
Case record · Collection office
Noor’s retained underside image and comparison pieces predate the claim. Dorian alone has J12 outside the collection before the stained intake; Mina receives it only after the first public find announcement.
Case record · Site archive
Cal’s full image contains a later “reconstruction after lifting” slate. Dorian’s submitted crop omits it. No supplied photograph records natural exposure of J12.
Case record · Collection office
Dorian borrows jaw J12 before the first reported find. A distinctive underside chip and old collection numeral match the claimed discovery exactly.
Case record · Laboratory
The brown colour sits in a modern surface treatment; a protected interior stays unstained. Untreated ancient gravel specimens in the comparison have a different distribution. Matching brown colour cannot establish matching burial.
Case record · Laboratory
Parallel abrasive scratches cross the tooth wear surface, including a protected corner that natural chewing would not reach. The supplied comparison establishes deliberate filing, not natural wear.
Case record · Laboratory
Specimens from the second alleged site contain the same unusual old brown filler and matching cut fragments from J12’s broken underside. This links preparation of the two sets, rather than supplying independent natural corroboration.
Case record · Preparation room
Mina photographs the jaw already stained and the teeth already filed before any museum glue or reconstruction. Her new glue is clear; an older brown filler is already present.
Case record · Finder’s desk
Before the final claim, Rui sends Dorian the mixed-species concern and Cal sends the uncropped reconstruction frame. Dorian acknowledges both and instructs that neither qualification be published.
Use the interactive case desk to select your finding and cite the records that support it. The answer is checked there, and your progress stays in your browser.
Compare the records with each account. Work out what the evidence establishes, then separate that finding from anything it does not prove.