Wouldn't there still be more weight towards Dr. Hoodless's original assessment due to the fact that he had actually had the "bones in-hand" whereas the anthropologist are basing their findings on his notes which may or may not be accurate depending on how much time and due diligence he took his in his note taking?
Dr Hoodless was the founding Tutor and later principal of the Central Medical School, and to my knowledge, not a forensic anthropologist. The fact that he handled the bones and made notes should not make his findings weigh significantly more than the finding of Dr. Burns, a modern day forensic anthropologist who in using the measurements made by Hoodless arrives at a different conclusion. The modern day methods used by Dr Burns constitutes new evidence and would be admissible.
In a letter to Sir Harry, Hoodless states that “the obvious course would be to submit these bones to the Anthropological Department of the Sidney University where Professor Elkin would be pleased to make a further report.” The inference here is that Hoodless is not completely sure of his findings and recommends further review.
Discussing this with a friend over beers, who believes the crashed in the ocean theory, he made the statement that his perception was that TIGHAR was making the evidence "fit" the theory.
I see no evidence that TIGHAR is “making the evidence fit the theory”. All of the evidence presented appears to be the result of research and fact finding expeditions. The evidence submitted thus far is
circumstantial and while I disagree with the relevance attached to some exhibits, the inferences strongly support the TIGHAR theory. This process does not constitute “making evidence” As new evidence is discovered, the theory will evolve.
His thoughts were that if this was evidence in a court case it might warrant a re-trial but he was doubtful it would change the origianl outcome of guilt or innocence.
I disagree. Put Dr. Burns on the stand with her credentials and expert testimony and I would wager that the court would find her very creditable and a judgment in favor of her finding would be more likely than not. The fact that Hoodless is not here to testify is of no relevance as his creditability is not an issue.