GREATWAR-L Archives

Archiver > GREATWAR > 2002-08 > 1029271127


From: bobatcove <>
Subject: Re: [WW1] Evidence existing and missing
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 21:38:47 +0100
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020813110011.009fce40@home.it.net.au>


Haven't you got anything better to do?
The fact that evidence is lost has nothing to do with conspiracy theories, but the problems with retaining it and the perceived need to retain it.
Then, who's going to provide the archive, and the means of retrieval.
It would help my Smith Family Tree no end if this information was so freely, and easily available.



Bob Smith
Farnborough

patrick holland wrote:

> The debate on this, " WW1 executions thing " to quote Tom, has neatly
> exposed 2 alternative points of view on the issue. Tom and his followers
> adopt the unbending authoritarian approach while Janice and others, myself
> included, adopt a more compassionate approach. As Tom says, " never the
> twain shall meet " so let 's waste no more time on the matter of attitude,
> which is emotive and move on to the matter of evidence which is based more
> factually based.
>
> What interests me about the matter of evidence are some comments Tom makes.
>
> He says :
>
> " The basic problem with this WW1 executions thing is that it's an
> emotive issue which cannot and will not ever be resolved on the basis of the
> available extant "evidence" of the individual cases - the necessary evidence
> simply doesnt exist "
>
> and :
>
> " and no one doing the arguing will ever change their minds - why should
> they - no new "evidence" is going to come to light. "
>
> As a military historian, Tom would know that each court martial would have
> been fully documented at the time of the court proceedings so if, as he
> claims, " the necessary evidence simply doesnt exist " How does he explain
> the fact that the evidence is missing
>
> What happened to it ? If it was deliberately destroyed , who destroyed it
> and why ? Any suggestion, by the authorities involved that the evidence
> was accidently destroyed or lost , would sound suspicious.
>
> Also, he says, " no new "evidence" is going to come to light. " How does he
> know that ?
>
> Evidence that goes missing is usually construed as being part of a cover
> up. A cover up is only used by those who feel guilty. In this case, guilty
> of a miscarriage of justice. If the evidence has been deliberately
> destroyed then it is reasonable to conclude that it was done so because it
> was considered by the authorities involved that a review of it in the
> future would show that the convictions were unsafe.
>
> The normal consequences of such a conclusion in a court of law would be to
> strike out the original conviction and grant the appellant a pardon. If the
> idea of a " a blanket pardon " is so unacceptable to the authoritarians in
> this debate, then the only alternative is a review of each of the over 300
> convictions.
>
> The comment from John about the consequence of a pardon is interesting :
>
> " It is tantamount to convicting in absentia all the officers
> and men who took part in the trials and executions of murder without
> giving them the chance to defend or explain themselves - what about
> their families? "
>
> Sorry, John a pardon, by definition, does ' nt convict anybody. All it
> does is to put right a miscarriage of justice.
>
> and Tom adds, if a pardon is forthcoming :
>
> " At that moment they will condemn more innocents than they pardon. "
>
> That 's impossible.
>
> It seems that even Tom accepts the probability that one day a pardon will
> be forthcoming. The sooner it happens the better.
>
> Regards.
>
> Patrick.
> Perth, Western Australia.
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
> "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a
> man's character, give him power."
>
> —
> Abraham Lincoln
>
> ==== GREATWAR Mailing List ====
> World War Two also has a list. To join send the word 'subscribe' to NOTE: when joining a list always read instructions carefully re sending messages and especially unsubscribing.
>
> ==============================
> To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to:
> http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

This thread: