You just used a magnifying glass and light. Yes. And it took you five hours plus for each item, is that right? Well, I would identify, write up notes, and re-identify just to be absolutely sure. What were you looking for, then? I was looking for the presence or absence of Haversian canals. Perhaps you'd explain that to the court. Haversian canals are canals or pits that are apparent if this specimen is in fact bone. But you need a magnifying glass to see that? You do. So, my client, if he picked up an object wouldn't be able to see that, would he? No, he would be able to see it. You've just told us it takes five or six hours to analyse each item. Yes, but I was doing other work. My client's liberty is at stake here. Yes, I understand. And I think that you are biased in this, that you looked for what you wanted to see. Er, no. My task and my area of expertise is to identify between ivory and bone. And that's the end of the story as far as you're concerned, is it? It is sufficient and, it is sufficient in my estimation, yeah. Sounds rather incredible, doesn't it? It does, we're very good at what we do.


你只用了放大镜和灯 -对 -每件证物花费了五个多小时，对吗？ 我需要鉴定，做记录。 再次鉴定以确定你要找的是什么？ 我要鉴定出是否有哈弗斯管 能否为法庭解释一下如果样品有哈弗斯管或哈弗斯凹点，那就能确定是骨头，但需要用放大镜才能看到 -对 这么说，我的当事人是没有办法拿起来凭肉眼就能分辨出的，是吗？ 他应该能分辨出，但你刚刚说每一件证物你都需要花费五六个小时来鉴定？ 是的，但我同时还在做其他工作... 现在事关我当事人的自由 我明白，我认为在这一点上你有所偏颇，你只看到了你想看到的一面。 不是这样的 我的工作和我的专业，就是区分象牙和骨头，而你所关心的就只有这一点 ，对吗？ 这一点 这一点足够我做出判断了 听起来不太可信，不是吗？ 的确，但我们很专业。