What three experienced, old medical doctors had to say about the teeth found with the skeletal remains dug-up by Judge William T. Little in Algonquin Park’s Mowat Cemetery in 1956 is a particularly troubling example of the inconsistency and difficulty of understanding historical records, which makes doing research so interesting. The condition of the teeth found might be a clue to identifying the skeletal remains if they matched up with an old photograph or someone’s recorded recollection of the person to whom they might belong. In this case, the question is whether the teeth are those of Tom Thomson or someone else. If we could question Dr. Noble Sharpe, M.D., Dr. J. C. Borleen Grant, M.D., or Dr. Harry Ebbs, M.D., today about what they were recorded as having observed about the teeth, we could certainly resolve the apparent differences between them but they are all dead. In 1956, Dr. Sharpe was the ranking medical officer in the crime detection laboratory of the attorney general’s office of Ontario provincial government. Dr. Grant was a former anatomy professor of the University of Toronto who was on the staff of the Archaeological Department of the Royal Ontario Museum and Dr. Ebbs was medical director of the Taylor Statten camps at Canoe Lake. In his recent book, Northern Light: The Enduring Mystery of Tom Thomson and the Woman Who Loved Him, Roy MacGregor tells what Dr. Ebbs had to say about the teeth in an interview made for the Algonquin Park archives on November 26, 1975. What Dr. Ebbs had to say may deserve added weight because he was one of the first person’s to see the skull. “He knew that when he’d cleared off the face of the mud-coated skull, he saw the upper right incisor (the eye tooth) was missing but that all the other teeth were in excellent shape,” MacGregor wrote from his review of the interview given by Dr. Ebbs for the Park’s oral history project. (Emphasis added.) First, either MacGregor or Dr. Ebbs has confused standard dental terminology. Only four teeth in each of the upper and lower jaws are referred to as incisors. The eye tooth is one of the two teeth in the upper jaw called canines. MacGregor verified for me that it was Dr. Ebbs himself who wrongly described the incisor as "an eye tooth.” A three-quarter full frontal photograph of the skull before it was washed is reproduced in MacGregor’s book in black and white made from a full color slide MacGregor has used in presentations about his book. All of the teeth appear intact including both upper right incisors. The right canine is not visible due to the angle of the skull. A later full frontal photograph of the well-scrubbed skull taken in Dr. Sharpe’s crime lab is reproduced in Judge Little’s book, The Tom Thomson Mystery. It is missing both upper right incisors as well as most of the lower incisors and canines but the upper right eye tooth is intact. Obviously, some of the teeth had become detached since the gravesite photograph in MacGregor’s book was taken and it's apparent that Dr. Ebbs 1975 recollection of what he saw in 1956 is faulty. Dr. Sharpe had several things to say about the teeth. “The absence of caries in the teeth (all present except one lower molar which was broken off) all suggest an age less than 30. It was not possible to determine if the man was a pipe smoker,” said Dr. Sharpe’s report dated October 30, 1956. (Emphasis added.) “The skeleton had exceptionally good teeth with a characteristic irregularity in the lower jaw. Pictures were given to Inspector McDermott to see if the relatives recognized this.” (Emphasis added.) Note the first big inconsistency between Dr. Ebbs and Dr. Sharpe arising, perhaps, from the failed or mixed-up nineteen year old recollection of Dr. Ebbs, who had since the day he was present when the skull was found concocted a far-fetched theory of Thomson’s death in which a bullet fired from the boathouse of Martin Blecher, Jr., had entered the skull precisely dislodging an upper right incisor before emerging from its left temple. Later, in a 1970 article published for Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal, Dr. Sharpe said: “The teeth were in excellent condition. They were the typical shovel-type usually associated with Mongolians. Photographs of the jaws were shown to the artist’s family but they were not able to help. Dental charts were not kept in 1917 to the same extent as they are today.” Dr. Sharpe's vague description of a "characteristic irregularity" is frustrating. Personally, I don’t recognize anything irregular about the teeth remaining in the lower jaw of the skull in the photographs available today and I am doubtful anyone without years of experience examining teeth could even try to offer a persuasive explanation for what Dr. Sharpe had to say about them. Before commenting further, this brings us to the report of Dr. Grant, a summary of which is reproduced by Judge Little in his book. Judge Little is completely unreliable as pointed out in several essays here but Dr. Grant’s original report is not readily available today from the Ontario government and may have been routinely destroyed years ago. Dr. Grant said: “The upper incisors though worn, show that they had the shovel shape of the N. American Indian tooth. Upper teeth were all present. Lower teeth were present, except for the two front teeth (a canine and a bicuspid) which were lost lately. The 2nd right lower molar was decayed, the others were not.” (Emphasis added.) Dr. Grant’s reference to the two front teeth being “lost lately” explains the differences between the teeth which can be seen in the earlier skull photo at the gravesite that are missing from the later photograph from the crime lab. I have reached several useful conclusions from this detailed comparison of what Dr. Sharpe, Dr. Grant and Dr. Ebbs had to say about the teeth found in the skull dug-up by Judge Little in 1956: The reports prepared by Dr. Sharpe and Dr. Grant taken together with the photograph taken of the skull at the gravesite in 1956 demonstrate that Dr. Ebbs was wrong when he said in 1975 that an upper right incisor was missing. That casts at least some doubt on everything else Dr. Ebbs had to say about what he saw in 1917. Dr. Grant’s statement that the two front teeth were “lost lately” indicates, at least, that they were missing from the skull he examined and that he inquired about them. His report began by saying that “on a Friday afternoon in October, 1956, Dr. Noble Sharpe brought me some bones in a large cardboard box. . . .The bones were a skull with lower jaw, the first three cervical vertebrae, the sacrum and hip bones, the right and left femora and tibia, the right and left humerus and radius and the left ulna.” That listing is incomplete because elsewhere in his report Dr. Grant says that “from the appearance and dimensions of the heads of the femora, the pubic bones, and the sacrum, there can be no question that the sex was male.” (Emphasis added.) Consequently, it is difficult to decide if Did Dr. Sharpe’s crime lab actually lost the skull's two front teeth between the time the skeletal remains were put into what Dr. Ebbs described as a “Sunkist Orange box” for transport in the trunk of Provincial Police Corporal A.E. Rodger’s car back from the Portage Store to Toronto and the time they were delivered to Dr. Grant. Another essay on this website illustrates the gravesite recklessness of Judge Little and both Dr. Ebbs and Dr. Sharpe. That essay explains that Judge Little’s crew of three diggers and others stole some of the casket hardware, and, perhaps, a foot bone covered by part of an old blue woolen sock before Dr. Ebbs and Dr. Sharpe was called to the scene. Both Dr. Ebbs and Dr. Sharpe said they worked carefully, screening the soil for all evidence and filled-in the hole before they departed. Dr. Sharpe said in his 1970 journal article: “I must add I remember looking back as we departed the scene on that October day in 1956 and I was impressed with the tidiness of the surface. We left very little evidence of the operation in the sandy soil; nothing in fact that one shower and a slight breeze could not rectify.” If what Judge Little and Graham Matthews said about what they did and didn’t do at the gravesite is true, both of these respected medical doctors were lying about having carefully screening the dirt and filling in the gravesite. Judge Little said he and his friends had covered the skeletal remains with tarpaper and refilled the gravesite before taking a leg bone to Dr. Ebbs with news of his discovery. It was probably October 1. Dr. Ebbs contacted the provincial officials who ordered an investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police. Matthews told me he jumped into a 3-4 foot deep hole still there emphasizing that he did not do so until after Dr. Ebbs and Dr. Sharpe had been there and gone on October 5. In the bottom of the hole, he said, he found the casket handle end cap and a blue woolen sock. I guess that I believe the two old doctors but wonder who lost at least the two upper right incisors mentioned by Dr. Grant. Dr. Sharpe’s 1970 journal article suggests that Inspector McDermott showed photographs of the skull to relatives of Tom Thomson in 1956 and that whatever they had to say was not helpful to identifying the skeletal remains. Evidently, whatever characteristic irregularity he saw elicited nothing useful from whoever they were shown to by Inspector McDermott. MacGregor’s book tries to discredit Dr. Grant’s reliance on the shovel-shaped incisors as strongly indicative of a North American Indian tooth. While the usefulness of such evidence appears beyond doubt, it’s certainly not conclusive. In other words, in summary, although we can reconcile what was said about the teeth by Dr. Ebbs, Dr. Sharpe and Dr. Grant, we can only conclude that Thomson’s relatives who knew him personally and were still alive in 1956 recognized nothing familiar about them. That may be something worth keeping in mind when considering other evidence that the skeletal remains found in 1956 belonged to Antoine Chouinard as suggested in another essay on this website.