came inside to have their tickets checked by security staff before
proceeding down the aisle to the public gallery, which soon filled to capacity. The hall had
been converted and equipped to resemble a courtroom, with a public gallery
for two thousand paying attendees. On the floor of the auditorium below,
the front row of seats was reserved for representatives of religious
groups in order from right to left: Catholics—dressed in
traditional black attire; Evangelicals—in traditional formal attire; Ultra-
Orthodox Jews—all in black, wearing “kippot”; and beside them sat a
Muslim mufti and two clerics in traditional “thobes” and “kufis.” Suspended high
on standards behind the judge’s bench, clearly visible to everyone, were
life-size holographic images—front and back—of the Shroud
of Turin, shown both as seen with the naked eye and as photographic
negatives.
Their interest had been sparked by the publicity that preceded this rare
event. Most attendees had read or heard about STURP—the
Shroud of Turin Research Project—or were present for particular religious reasons. The
majority of the selected group of STURP scientists had asserted that
the shroud is a genuine burial cloth of a crucified man (consistent
with the Gospel accounts). Further research over the years had
affirmed that authenticity.
Careful radiocarbon dating of samples from the linen cloth, however,
suggested that it was a medieval imitation. If a 14th-century origin
were correct, and if the STURP team were right in concluding that the shroud
had been used to wrap a crucified and tortured body, that would point
to murder—a victim would have been killed to produce the image on the shroud.
The prime suspect would have to be the knight who displayed the shroud:
Geoffroi de Charny. Even if he did not make the shroud (or have it
made), the question remains how he came into possession of the relic. Did
he acquire it fraudulently, without proof of a lawful transfer of
title?
These allegations were very serious, and the failure to resolve them
definitively left de Charny with a tarnished reputation. Further evidence could
readily be produced, except that testing the shroud
will always cause damage to the delicate material—something the Catholic Church,
as owner, is unwilling to contemplate. Serious delays in resolving the
unanswered questions have led to a loss of public interest in the case, as the community
grows weary of hearing conflicting theories. With the
unresolved case against the accused knight, justice in either instance has not