2. Tampering with the Evidence
Chapter Two
TAMPERING WITH THE EVIDENCE
Who Is Responsible?
Helen knew something was wrong when her daughter Carrie failed to answer the door. It was a bright summer afternoon. Carrie said she’d be home, and her car was indeed parked in the driveway. Helen tried to peek in through the living room window, but the curtains were unusually drawn.
Carrie never locked the back door, but when Helen walked into the backyard of the old home, she found the door locked and all the windows closed. This wasn’t like Carrie; she usually left one badly worn rear window slightly ajar.
Helen began to panic. She knew Todd and Carrie had a tumultuous marriage, one that included physical violence. Todd had moved out, but Helen still feared for her daughter’s safety. The couple had a child named Lexi, but the violence had only intensified since her birth. A week ago, Todd had threatened to kill Carrie—and just last night, Carrie confided there had been yet another fight.
When Helen couldn’t get Carrie to answer the door on this afternoon, she decided to call the police. Our officers responded and met Helen on Carrie’s front porch. After getting approval from their sergeant, they forced entry into the home. Approaching the rear of the house, the officers began to smell gas. It was strongest at the base of the stairwell leading to the second-floor bedrooms.
The officers decided to back out of the house and call the Fire Department Hazmat Team. Fire personnel spent nearly two hours closing the gas line, airing the house, and rendering it safe for entry. Then, inside the house, the officers discovered the bodies. Carrie and her infant daughter were lying in Carrie’s bed in the upstairs master bedroom. Autopsies would later reveal they asphyxiated as the gas level in the home rose above the oxygen level. When the officers discovered the death scene, they called our homicide team. What did we have? Accidental death or murder?
I noticed the unusual nature of the stairwell. The stair entry began in the family room rather than the living room or entry hall, and there was a pocket door at the bottom of the stairwell. This door was closed when officers first arrived at the home, and it was difficult to open. The old door had come off its rail, and responding fire personnel struggled to get it to slide. The second-floor hallway was littered with dirty clothing, and the laundry basket at the top of the stairwell was empty. The responding officers had found the door to the master bedroom closed, and a pile of laundry lay against the bottom of the door.
Inside the bedroom, I discovered the source of the gas. Many years prior, the old house had been retrofitted with a gas heater that was mounted to the wall separating the bedroom from the upstairs hallway. The pilot light was out, but the gas valve was in the open position. The vents on the bedroom side of the heater were also open, while the hallway vents were closed. The bottom panel on the faulty heater was sitting askew in the hallway. There were smudge marks on the panel resembling the shape of a hand, but no visible fingerprints.
As I walked through the scene with Helen many hours later, she shared several important observations. She was a frequent visitor to her daughter’s house, and in all her years, she’d never seen the pocket door closed at the bottom of the stairwell. Helen also told me she was surprised to find clothes on the floor in the hall. Carrie was tidy and organized; she typically kept the laundry in the basket until she was ready to wash. Finally, Helen was certain Carrie never used the old heater on the second floor. In fact, Carrie often complained about how hot the upstairs bedrooms were in the summer.
As part of the follow-up investigation, we discovered the gas company had turned off the gas service for lack of payment. Two days prior to the time of death, Todd had paid to restart the service. We decided to investigate this as a homicide.
WHAT MADE IT INEVITABLE?
Cold-Case Approach:
Both Carrie and Lexi were in perfect health on the night they died. Was their death inevitable? Could it have been avoided? Were the circumstances such that nothing could have been done to change the outcome? Clearly, if circumstances had been just slightly different, neither would have died that night. If the pilot had been lit, or the gas turned off, or there hadn’t been clothing blocking the airway at the bottom of the bedroom door, or the pocket door had been open, or the windows had been ajar, the outcome might have been different. In a sense, the regional circumstances related to the conditions of the house and the locational circumstances related to the bedroom and the heater seemed contrived, especially given the foundational circumstances surrounding Carrie’s relationship with Todd. There were simply too many coincidences. The more we examined the layers of foundational, regional, and locational evidence, the more it appeared to be a crime scene. The only occupants of the house, Carrie and Lexi, did not appear to be responsible for the conditions we found inside. The weathered windows were shut, the derailed pocket door was closed, the laundry was blocking the door from the hallway, and the heater valve was open. According to Helen, Carrie would never have allowed—not to mention caused—these conditions. There was good reason to believe someone outside the house rigged the conditions inside the house to cause the outcome.
When I examine the circumstantial evidence surrounding a crime scene, I begin broadly by uncovering layers. I start with the foundational issues, and then narrow my examination from the regional to locational evidence:
Layer 1: Foundational Conditions and Evidence. Every crime has a backstory: some set of foundational conditions guiding, directing, and influencing how we examine every other piece of evidence at the scene. It was important for us to consider Carrie and Todd’s relationship history and his effort to restart the gas service. These foundational conditions had the potential to explain much of what we found in the house.
Layer 2: Regional Conditions and Evidence. Helen’s suspicion was warranted even before she entered Carrie’s house. The car in the driveway, the drawn curtains, the locked door, and the closed windows were unusual, inconsistent, and unexpected. Given what Helen knew about the foundational nature of Carrie and Todd’s relationship, the conditions she observed in the region surrounding the house became all the more suspicious.
Layer 3: Locational Conditions and Evidence. Once investigators entered the house, another set of specific, local evidences became important. The closed pocket door, the clothing piled against the bedroom door, the unlit heater pilot, and the appearance of recent activity on the heater panel all served to amplify our suspicion.
It was certainly possible Carrie and Lexi had died accidentally as the result of a series of events she had caused (either intentionally or unintentionally) while inside the house. But when the layers of circumstantial evidence (from foundational, regional, and locational perspectives) indicated external tampering, we were obligated to follow the evidence back to Todd. While any one piece of evidence in a particular category might not have been all that condemning, the totality and interconnected nature of the unique backstory, rare circumstances, and unlikely conditions was powerful.
The Evidence “In the Room”:
THE FOUNDATIONAL, REGIONAL, AND LOCATIONAL CONDITIONS OF THE UNIVERSE
We were compelled to examine the evidence of tampering because of one important fact: there were dead bodies in our crime scene. In a similar way, when we look at the nature of our universe, the existence of living bodies ought to provoke an investigation.11
Like our murder scene, there are foundational, regional, and locational conditions demanding explanation. The foundational laws of physics, the regional properties of our solar system, and the locational conditions of our planet resulted in our existence. But did this have to be the case? If circumstances had been just slightly different in Carrie’s house, no one would have died that night. The conditions had to be just so for the outcome to be death. In a similar way, if circumstances had been just slightly different in our universe, no one would be alive today. The conditions had to be just so for the outcome to be life.
The just-so appearance of “fine-tuning” in our universe is rather uncontroversial among scientists and cosmologists. Even Paul Davies (who is agnostic when it comes to the notion of a Divine Designer) readily stipulated, “Everyone agrees that the universe looks as if it was designed for life.”2
A Tool for the Call-Out Bag:
The foundational, regional, and locational conditions of our universe, solar system, and planet are delicately balanced and finely calibrated. The slightest modification of these conditions would be disastrous for life. The delicate requirements for the existence of galaxies, star systems, and planets capable of supporting “intelligent observers” are incredibly fragile.
While scientists may stipulate to the appearance of fine-tuning “in the room,” this does not mean they agree on the existence of an external “Fine-Tuner.” The features of our murder scene, by comparison, might simply have been the result of a series of accidents, coincidences, or inevitabilities. Before we could determine if someone external to our murder scene had “fine-tuned” the conditions to cause the deaths of Carrie and her baby, we had to collect the evidence so we could assess the data and eliminate the unreasonable alternatives. The evidential conditions of the universe can be similarly collected and evaluated:3
LAYER 1: FOUNDATIONAL CONDITIONS AND EVIDENCE
Just as every crime has a backstory, the universe also possesses a set of foundational conditions guiding, directing, and influencing the formation of life. The laws of nature are amazingly fine-tuned; there is very little room for alteration. The smallest modifications of these laws would completely destroy the possibility of life in the universe.4 The universe appears fine-tuned in three specific ways:
FORCES GOVERNING THE ATOM ARE FAVORABLE TO LIFE
The constants and proportions of the strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, electromagnetic force, and the force of gravity must exist within very narrow ranges in order for life to exist in the universe. The ratio of electrons to protons (both in their numbers and mass) must be precariously balanced.5 If the value of this ratio deviated more than 1 in 1037, the universe, as we know it, would not exist today. If the ratio between the electromagnetic force and gravity was altered more than 1 in 1040, the universe would suffer a similar fate. The nature of the universe (at the atomic level) could have been different, but even remarkably small differences would have been catastrophic to our existence.
FORCES GOVERNING THE MATTER OF THE UNIVERSE ARE FAVORABLE TO LIFE
On the macro-level, the size of the universe, its rate of growth, and the nature and existence of galaxies, stars, and planets depend largely on the force of gravity. While we sometimes take gravity for granted, the precisely calibrated gravity in the universe is puzzling; it has been described as an “unexplained miracle.”6 If the expansion rate of the universe deviated by more than 1 in 1037, or the mass density of the universe varied more than 1 in 1059, there wouldn’t be a single habitable galaxy or planet in the universe.7
FORCES GOVERNING THE CREATION OF CHEMICALS ARE FAVORABLE TO LIFE
The earliest elements in the universe, hydrogen and helium, are insufficient for the existence of carbon-based life-forms unless joined by carbon, oxygen, and the other necessary elements. These secondary elements were formed in stars, but the process by which these stars converted hydrogen and helium to carbon was an incredibly fine-tuned process. Even small alterations in the laws of physics would have prevented the formation of elements critical to the existence of life.8
Before we move on, I want to take a minute to help you understand the absurd degree to which the foundational conditions of the universe are fine-tuned. When we use exponential numbers such as 1 in 1037, it’s easy to underestimate the precision they represent. Let me give you a few illustrations to help you grasp the exactitude of these universal constants:
Starting to appreciate the level of fine-tuning in the foundational particles and forces in the universe? A small change in the value of any one particle or force would have a major impact on the larger systems and outcomes. These fine-tuned relationships (sometimes jokingly referred to as “happy cosmic accidents”) are critically important to life in the cosmos. If just one of these parameters were altered, critical difficulties would result at every level of the universe. According to theoretical physicist Michio Kaku, “It’s shocking to find how many of the familiar constants of the universe lie within a very narrow band that makes life possible. If a single one of these accidents were altered, stars would never form, the universe would fly apart, DNA would not exist, life as we know it would be impossible, Earth would flip over or freeze, and so on.”13
Expert Witness Profile:
LAYER 2: REGIONAL CONDITIONS AND EVIDENCE
The “life scene” of the universe only gets more statistically unlikely as we examine the next layer of evidence. Beyond the foundational properties of physics related to atoms, matter in the universe, and chemical creation—all of which apply to the universe as a whole—the conditions in our regional galaxy are also highly unlikely and incredibly unique in their capability of sustaining life. Galaxies and star systems require specific, improbable conditions for life to be possible, and our Milky Way happens to possess the necessary requirements.
THE SHAPE OF THE MILKY WAY IS FAVORABLE TO LIFE
The Milky Way galaxy is an elegant spiral, while the vast majority of galaxies (approximately 95 percent of them) are elliptical or irregular. This spiral shape makes a difference. If our galaxy were larger and irregular (rather than spiral), its nucleus would release destructive radiation (and matter) harmful to the existence of life. On the other hand, dwarf elliptical galaxies are metal-poor (metals are heavy elements), so they are unlikely candidates for life. As it is, the spiral shape encourages the early formation of stars before this formation can be threatened by the presence of heavy elements in the interstellar environment.14
THE POSITION OF THE MILKY WAY IS FAVORABLE TO LIFE
In addition, the Milky Way is separated by just enough distance from other large galaxies and dense galactic clusters to guard against gravitational interference.
Expert Witness Profile:
THE SIZE OF THE MILKY WAY IS FAVORABLE TO LIFE
The Milky Way is also within the proper size range to permit life; it is large and sparse enough to prevent gravitational disruption from (and collisions with) other star systems, yet small and dense enough to allow star formation from gas infusion.
Each of these categories has an extremely narrow range of life-permitting characteristics, just as is true for the foundational forces in the universe. The Milky Way galaxy happens to fall within these improbable ranges. But there’s still another layer of rare life-permitting characteristics in our solar system.
THE POSITION OF OUR SUN IS FAVORABLE TO LIFE
Our position within the Milky Way is of critical importance. Our proximity to the spiral arm of the galaxy protects us from the core radiation at the center of the Milky Way. In fact, our distance from this center is critical for a number of reasons. If we were farther from the core, there wouldn’t be enough heavy elements to make terrestrial planets; if we were closer, the radiation would be too severe and the gravitational influence of the numerous stars would be too strong.
THE COMPOSITION OF OUR SUN IS FAVORABLE TO LIFE
Our star produces triatomic hydrogen at just the right quantity to create the essential molecules necessary to form planets. It also has a sufficiently high metallic composition to provide the heavy metals necessary for our planet without over-radiating or poisoning our planet. In addition, the color of our sun (not too red and not too blue) allows for photosynthesis. The sun is also bright and warm enough to allow carbon-based life-forms to exist. Unlike most other systems, our solar system has a single star. Multiple star arrangements cause a number of problems related to gravitational forces, tide cycles, and overheating.
THE AGE AND MASS OF OUR SUN ARE FAVORABLE TO LIFE
The age of our sun is perfectly suited for the existence of life on Earth. If the sun were older or younger, its luminosity would be far too unstable to support life. Our sun is in the middle of its life cycle. It burns without extreme fluctuations and contains just the right amount of heavy elements. Its mass and gravitational attraction are also within narrow, life-permitting ranges. If our sun were any more massive, it would burn too rapidly and too erratically; any less massive, and a number of gravitational problems would result. Earth would have to be much closer to remain in orbit, and the impact on our climate, tides, and rotation would be devastating.
THE RELATIONSHIP OF PLANETS TO OUR SUN IS FAVORABLE TO LIFE
Our multi-planet solar system makes life possible here on Earth. The large gas giants orbiting the sun protect the Earth from hazardous cosmic materials. Jupiter, for example, helps “clean out” the solar system. Its incredible gravitational field redirects asteroids and cosmic debris, making the entire system more habitable.15
LAYER 3: LOCATIONAL CONDITIONS AND EVIDENCE
Our tiny planet also exhibits locational properties of fine-tuning necessary for life. Earth’s local conditions exhibit an array of equally unlikely characteristics that give us reason to be “suspicious.”
THE EARTH’S RELATIONSHIP TO THE SUN IS FAVORABLE TO LIFE
Earth orbits the sun within a tight habitable zone where, statistically speaking, it is highly unlikely for a planet to happen to exist. If Earth were very slightly more distant from—or slightly closer to—the sun, a stable water cycle would be impossible. Also, small changes in the orbital tilt of our planet, or minor variations in the tilt of Earth’s axis, would disallow our climate. The length of rotation matters too. If Earth rotated slower, our days would be too hot and our nights too cool to support life; shorter, and the wind speeds would be too extreme.
THE EARTH’S ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS ARE FAVORABLE TO LIFE
A Tool for the Call-Out Bag:
The surface gravity of Earth is critical to its ability to retain an atmosphere friendly to life. If Earth’s gravity were stronger, our atmosphere would contain too much methane and ammonia. If our planet’s gravity were weaker, Earth wouldn’t be able to retain enough water. As it is, Earth’s atmosphere has a finely calibrated ratio of oxygen to nitrogen—just enough carbon dioxide and adequate water vapor levels to promote advanced life, allow photosynthesis (without an excessive greenhouse effect), and provide sufficient rainfall.
THE EARTH’S TERRESTRIAL NATURE IS FAVORABLE TO LIFE
Earth’s crust thickness must lie within a particular range in order to support life. A thicker crust would negatively impact the quantity of oxygen in our atmosphere; a thinner crust would result in excessive volcanic activity and unstable tectonic plates. In fact, Earth’s crust allows limited seismic activity, resulting in nutrient recycling and carbon dioxide release without destroying all life on the planet. The nutrient and mineral concentrations of Earth’s crust also fall within life-permitting ranges.
THE EARTH’S RELATIONSHIP TO THE MOON IS FAVORABLE TO LIFE
While other planets have an orbiting moon, ours is critical to our existence. Our large moon is just the right size to stabilize Earth’s orbit and rotation, limiting the variations in our climate and temperature. Without a large moon, the axis of our planet would likely have wobbled dramatically—perhaps by as much as 90 degrees.16 The role of the moon cannot be underestimated. Paleontologist Peter Ward and astronomer Donald Brownlee wrote, “Without the Moon there would be no moonbeams, no month, no lunacy, no Apollo program, less poetry, and a world where every night was dark and gloomy. Without the Moon it is also likely that no birds, redwoods, whales, trilobites, or other advanced life would ever have graced the earth.”17
Like Carrie’s death scene, the layers of foundational, regional, and locational evidence in the universe show signs of tampering. The forces governing atomic structure, the matter of the universe, and the creation of chemicals are conveniently aligned to allow life’s existence. Even tiny changes in these forces have disastrous consequences for life. Similarly narrow ranges exist related to our galaxy and planet. While the appearance of fine-tuning in any one of these cosmic parameters might not be all that compelling, the cumulative nature of these conditions obligates us to seek an explanation. As in Carrie’s death scene, the totality and interconnected nature of our galaxy’s unique backstory, along with its rare circumstances and unlikely conditions, overwhelmingly indicate tampering.
Staying “Inside the Room” for an Explanation:
WHAT CAUSED THIS APPEARANCE OF FINE-TUNING?
Once our team of detectives finished collecting the evidence, we had to account for signs of fine-tuning at the death scene. Physicists and cosmologists, after reviewing the evidence in the universe, have to account for signs of fine-tuning at our life scene.
Carrie’s death was not inevitable; a rare set of circumstances had to occur in an improbable manner for this death to take place. Paul Davies observed something similar in our universe: “You might be tempted to suppose that any old rag-bag of laws would produce a complex universe of some sort, with attendant inhabitants convinced of their own specialness. Not so. It turns out that randomly selected laws lead almost inevitably either to unrelieved chaos or boring and uneventful simplicity. Our own universe is poised exquisitely between these unpalatable alternatives, offering a potent mix of freedom and discipline, a sort of restrained creativity.”18
Once we noted the evidence related to Carrie’s death, we sought the most reasonable inference and eventually concluded someone external to the crime scene (Todd) had tampered with the environment. Is tampering also the most reasonable inference when examining the appearance of fine-tuning in the universe? Are there other more reasonable explanations?
As in the last chapter, we must be wary of explanations that are unsupported by the evidence and errantly redefine critical aspects of the data or suffer from logical contradictions. In an effort to explain the evidence we’ve described from “inside the room” of the natural, material universe, physicists and cosmologists have imagined a number of possible explanations:
IS FINE-TUNING UNREQUIRED?
A Tool for the Call-Out Bag:
In order to convince others of the irrelevance of the universal constants, some physicists have simply denied the importance of fine-tuning by claiming life could have emerged from broader, less fine-tuned parameters. However, they typically redefine the nature of life to something other than an organism’s ability to ingest food, metabolize energy, adapt to the environment, and reproduce (standard attributes most of us would accept as a minimal description of living organisms). The kind of “life” described by those who hold this position is decidedly inferior to life as we know it by definition.
IS FINE-TUNING THE RESULT OF CHANCE?
Some have argued the apparent fine-tuning of the universe is simply a fortuitous accident. But this explanation is logically inconsistent with the purpose of any scientific investigation (to push beyond the appearance of “coincidence” to find an explanation) and completely ignores the evidence we’ve described related to the high improbabilities of fine-tuning.
IS FINE-TUNING THE RESULT OF PHYSICAL NECESSITY?
Some cosmologists believe the universe is the way it is because the laws of physics do not allow any alternative. According to this view, if the laws of nature are fixed and inflexible, and no other versions of these laws are possible, our universe is the only kind of universe that could ever emerge. If this is true, our life-permitting universe is a physical necessity. But this explanation also fails to be supported by evidence. There is no reason to believe the laws of nature (and/or their values) could not have been different, and even if the foundational laws of the universe were fixed, this would fail to explain the regional and locational evidence we’ve described. Certainly these secondary conditions were not inevitable according to the laws of physics or chemistry.
IS FINE-TUNING AN OBSERVATIONAL PHENOMENON?
Some scientists believe we observe fine-tuning because, if not for such fine-tuning, we wouldn’t be here to observe the universe in the first place. According to this explanation, any humanly observable universe would display the conditions necessary for human life, so we shouldn’t be surprised to observe such conditions. But while an observer in our universe will most certainly find it highly probable to observe fine-tuned conditions, this does not mean it was highly probable such a universe would exist in the first place. This explanation makes yet another logical error (confusing an observation with an explanation) while ignoring the inferences of such fine-tuning.
Searching “Outside the Room” for an Explanation:
WHAT EXTERNAL CAUSES COULD ACCOUNT FOR FINE-TUNING?
By denying the importance of fine-tuning—appealing instead to chance, necessity, or observational phenomena—cosmologists have attempted to explain the appearance of precision calibration in our universe without acknowledging an external cause. But as these explanations repeatedly display fatal shortcomings, many scientists have started looking for an explanation “outside the room” of our universe:
IS FINE-TUNING A CONSEQUENCE OF THE MULTIVERSE?
For many theorists, the multiverse has the best chance of explaining the appearance of fine-tuning in our universe. Multiverse explanations point to an external causal agent: a mechanism capable of creating an incredibly large number of universes, each with its own set of physical laws.
According to this theory, most of these universes in the larger multiverse collection are incapable of permitting life. Our universe, however, through “a series of cosmic accidents,” does happen to support our existence.19 Multiverse theories overcome the incredible odds against life, and explain the appearance of fine-tuning, by increasing the chances of such a life-permitting universe.20
But once again, this explanation lacks evidential support. Scientists can’t access other universes in the multiverse to corroborate their claims. Worse yet, such explanations fail to logically eliminate the need for fine-tuning. If there were a multiverse-generating mechanism, it would certainly have to be calibrated in such a way to make the generation of a life-permitting universe possible (indeed, inevitable, if this mechanism generated an infinite number of universes). Those who propose a multiverse scenario are still saddled with the problem of explaining fine-tuning—they’re just one level removed from where the problem is now.
IS FINE-TUNING A CONSEQUENCE OF DESIGN?
If the fine-tuning we observe in the universe is not the result of chance, necessity, observational phenomena, or multiverse theories, what is left to consider? In many ways, the remaining explanation is the most intuitive and reasonable: perhaps fine-tuning is the result of a purposeful Fine-Tuner.
This seems even more reasonable when we remember what the universe appears to be fine-tuned for: life, carbon-based life, capable of observing and interacting with the universe around us. The inference toward purpose is palpable. Could any impersonal set of physical laws be said to operate with such a goal? Or is the more likely alternative of an intentional, creative Designer the better inference?
Arno Penzias recognized the implications of purpose revealed in cosmological fine-tuning: “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”21
“Inside the Room” or “Outside the Room”? EXTERNAL TAMPERING AND COSMIC FINE-TUNING
The best inference from the evidence at Carrie’s house pointed to an external cause as the source of the fine-tuning we observed in her home. Someone outside the house tampered with the gas heater—and produced all the other conditions we observed inside the house. Once we recognized the highly unlikely nature of the circumstances surrounding her death, we moved quickly to identify and investigate the activity of our external suspect: Todd. Our suspicions were ultimately confirmed when Todd reluctantly confessed to rigging the house to cause Carrie’s and Lexi’s deaths. He was later convicted of premeditated murder.
We’ve now investigated the universe in a manner similar to the investigation of Carrie’s and Lexi’s deaths. We accepted a stipulation to the appearance of fine-tuning, patiently and thoroughly collected the layered evidence, and then examined these evidences in an effort to separate reasonable explanations from imaginative speculations. Scientists, trying to account for the appearance of fine-tuning in the universe, have offered theories from “inside the room,” citing varying forms of chance or necessity, and “outside the room,” citing multiverse theories. But as we have seen, these theories are either unsupported by the evidence, errantly redefine critical aspects of the data, or suffer from logical contradictions.
Our Emerging “Suspect” Profile:
If the fine-tuning we observe in the universe is not the product of chance, necessity, or observational phenomena, we must remain open to the reasonable inference of design. What kind of “suspect” could create the universe from nothing yet act purposefully enough to design a universe fine-tuned for life? Our “suspect” profile is starting to take shape, but there is still much more to consider. The fine-tuning of the universe implies intentionality and purpose, but we won’t know if this implication is truly reasonable until we examine a new category of evidences in the next two chapters. As we move from cosmology to biology, our profile will become even clearer in our search for the most reasonable suspect in our cosmic crime scene.