Hello Seamus.No, Mike I wasn't there at the inquiry. You are for once right about that.
However it is deeply, deeply irresponsible of you to continually waste peoples time with all these utterly absurd allegations of plots and cover ups based not upon the slightest scrap of evidence but purely on "what I think happened".
It doesn't matter a jot what you or I or anyone else *thinks happened*, that is completely irrelevant. It's what the evidence tells us what happened that counts. Is it really that hard to understand ? My history teacher in first year was able to explain this easily to me years ago, it's not that complicated.
Charles Pellegrino and the late Robin Gardiner both wrote books based in part on *what they think happened* and look at their reputation. Junk history.
So your latest theory (based on zero evidence at all) is that the survivors weren't healthy enough to give evidence ? Wrong. If the survivors were called to testify and were not in a fit physical condition to do so then their trade unions, the newspapers and sympathetic politicians would have raised a fuss. They didn't. The men were ready to testify and didn't complain.
Researchers have repeatedly went clean through the archives in England, Northern Ireland, the USA and Canada over the decades. They never found any evidence for all this tripe about bribes, threats and intimidation you keep insisting must have taken place.
She struck me as being a god awful hack author with high opinion of herself and was desperate for fame.
I absolutely cannot stand people like that at all.
Sam you make a valid point are questioned as soon as possible following a tragic effect. But by whom?You might think it crazy, but there are very good reasons why eyewitnesses are questioned as soon as possible following a tragic effect. It was bad enough that in some cases, it was weeks later rather than just days.
O what a great shame. There must be more great story out there as like yours! You will lets us known when your next lecture takes place preference the south east of England for me! I can think of one place in Southampton April time for 2021.That's your lot I'm afraid. There were four episodes
Attitudes towards personal firearms were quite liberal in those days. It's nothing controversial.Thanks for the reply.
Was there any reason why an officer or any crew member should have one? Or was the job that dangerous it necessary to carry one? Come to think about it where passengers allowed guns on board to?