The Kennewick Man Case | Court Documents | Briefs

Affidavit of Cleone H. Hawkinson

I, Cleone H. Hawkinson, being first duly sworn, do depose and state as follows:

1. My professional qualifications are described in an earlier affidavit that was filed with the Court as an attachment to Plaintiffs' October 1, 1999 Status Report.

2. I was one of three plaintiff representatives who inspected the image record of the Kennewick Man skeleton at the Burke Museum, Seattle, Washington, on April 2-3, 2001. The other two plaintiff representatives were Dr. Douglas Owsley and Mr. Roy Clark. Also present during our inspection of the image record were Dr. Michael Trimble (Army Corps of Engineers), Ms. Rhonda Lueck (Army Corps), and Mr. Chris Pulliam (Army Corps). Ms. Laura Phillips (Burke Museum) was available to assist as needed.

3. Our ability to properly assess the collection's image record was limited by a lack of information about its contents. In situations of this kind, it is customary for a collection manager to provide visiting scientists with an index to the collection or an oral briefing on its contents and organization. We received neither as part of this inspection visit. During our inspection, we were shown only what we specifically asked to see. With only limited knowledge of the collection's contents, we were not always able to ask the right questions. As a result, our inspection visit was less productive than it could, and should, have been. Among other things, we were not shown the x-rays, CT scans and photographs that defendants obtained from the Benton County Coroner. Access to these images would have been useful in assessing the original condition of the hip fragment containing the projectile point. The Coroner's CT scans of the skull might also provide helpful information for assessing the original deposition of the sediments inside the cranium before any were removed during defendants' first phase studies of the skeleton. Since we were not aware that the collection archives contained these images, we did not know to ask for them. However, on the afternoon of the second day, we did ask Dr. Trimble and his team several times whether we had been shown everything in the image record. Each time we were assured that we had. After I returned to Portland, I learned that defendants had recently filed a supplemental administrative record with the Court disclosing their possession of the Coroner's x-rays, CT scans and photographs and specifically stating these images would be available for our inspection.

4. The Army Corps' supplemental administrative record indicates that photographs were taken of bone fragments found at the discovery site in March 1998. See page two (COE S-290) of Attachment 1 to this affidavit. Such photographs were not included in the photographs that we were shown during our inspection of defendant's image record.

5. When we asked other questions, they were not always answered. For example, when we asked how many boxes are used to hold the collection so we could assess the completeness of the image record, we were told by Dr. Trimble's team that they "wouldn't know". Likewise, we were unable to obtain a clear answer to our questions about whether Series 14 does, or does not, contain any conservators' photographs. Although Dr. Trimble told us the conservators had taken pictures to document changes in condition, he and his team would not confirm whether these pictures are part of the collection archives when we requested to see them. We also could not obtain a clear answer to whether Series 15 is the last existing Series of documents in the collection archives, or if there are other photographs that have not been placed in the archives.

6. The productivity of our inspection was also affected by our inability to communicate in private. Dr. Trimble sat at the table where we were working and took notes during our discussions. It was not necessary for him to be so close. He could have sat elsewhere.

7. Another factor limiting the productivity of our inspection was a lack of information needed to identify various bone fragments shown in x-rays or photographs. For example, the fragments x-rayed by defendants are not labeled in the x-rays and no log was provided to identify them. When we requested the Master Catalog numbers of these fragments, we were told to ask Dr. Powell or Dr. Rose (who were not present during our visit). In another case, a bone fragment identified in a Series 7 photograph as 97.I12d(10) appears to be a fragment identified in a Series 6 photograph as 97.I12d(5). Dr. Trimble's team made no effort to clarify this discrepancy in its identity. The issue here is not trivial as it involves a fragment whose condition is reported to have significantly deteriorated from its original assessment.

8. According to Dr. Trimble and Ms. Lueck, a duplicate of the image record is archived in St. Louis, Missouri. This duplicate archive was referred to as the "safety collection." It includes both photographs and x-rays.

9. During our inspection visit, we asked to have photocopies of some of the color photographs in defendants' image record. Dr. Trimble refused to provide us with photocopies. He stated that photocopying can damage color photographic prints, and that if we wished to have copies of these photographs we would have to purchase duplicate prints at a cost of $.65 per print. Accordingly, we ordered two sets of prints, and gave Dr. Trimble a check for $85.60. Attachment 2 to this affidavit is a copy of the receipt for our payment.

10. Dr. Owsley, Mr. Clark, and I are not residents of Seattle, Washington and the only reason we were there was to examine the Kennewick Man image record. Dr. Owsley and Mr. Clark traveled to Seattle at private expense from Washington, D.C. I traveled from Portland, Oregon, also at private expense.

DATED this 23rd day of May, 2001.
Cleone H. Hawkinson

Return to Summary

Return to Briefs