Stolen Artifacts- Jury Member Decision
If I was in the jury of the case of the prosecution of Pete Anderson, considering all the
evidence and expert opinion presented, I would have said that Mr. Anderson was guilty.
Although it is impossible to distinguish between the different species of daisies based on
their visual appearance, a few reliable scientific factors were used to evaluate and determine the
specific species of daisies, and showed both a great likelihood of Mr. Anderson collecting the
daisies from archeological site, while ruling out the option that Mr. Anderson had collected them
from around the shed, as he claims to have done.
To examine the species of daisies that Mr. Anderson collected, a protein analysis test was
used and it became evident that these daisies had the proteins that are present in each of the two
other species of daisies that grow in that area. This, as the expert mentioned, can only be due to
Mr. Anderson’s daisies being of the X. cronquistii species, as it is known as the hybrid species of
the other two species. Due to genetics, a hybrid species will include both forms of proteins of its
parents’ species, as was seen in this case. This species is very rare and grows in a gray shale soil,
which is the type of soil closest to the archeological site. This species cannot grow on a different
type of soil, including brown clay, which is the type that grows around the shed at Johnson mine
company.
This leaves no doubt that Mr. Anderson had to have been at the site in order to collect
these flowers. The same site from which the pot that Mr. Anderson placed these flowers into had
disappeared.