Trial

In 1985, The Trial of Richard III was shown on Channel 4, and
lasted four hours. I am afraid I did not see this and would like
to know whether anyone else remembers this programme, or whether
there are any videos or DVD's that one can buy. I understand that
it was fascinating and was done by prominent historians.

I've the book of the trial. It was good. Richard was found not
guilty on hard evidence. There aren't not surprisingly any signed
letters ordering the death of the princes or videos showing
him doing it or the murders. We haven't got records of mobile
contacts between him & Tyrell.

But circumstancially there was a weight of evidence against him or
Buckingham his unsavoury one time pal. Some trials might convinct
Richard on circumstancial evidence alone!

The law is far from perfect. There have been many cases where the
evidence has been found to be 'unsafe' after conviction of innocent
individuals.

.--- In , clytumnestra2000
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
>
> In 1985, The Trial of Richard III was shown on Channel 4, and
> lasted four hours. I am afraid I did not see this and would like
> to know whether anyone else remembers this programme, or whether
> there are any videos or DVD's that one can buy. I understand that
> it was fascinating and was done by prominent historians.

At 11:28 AM 3/1/03 -0000, you wrote:

>But circumstancially there was a weight of evidence against him or
>Buckingham his unsavoury one time pal. Some trials might convinct
>Richard on circumstancial evidence alone!
>
Over here three of our Supreme Court justices heard the case of Richard III
on the "more likely than not" standard of guilt and still acquitted him.
See http://www.r3.org/trial/

--
Laura Blanchard
lblanchard@... - 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://www.rblanchard.com/ -see also http://www.pacscl.org/
(any opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily reflect
those of any organization of which I am an employee or volunteer)

Hi Laura,
I'll check out the website.

That said, there have been many blatant miscarriages of justice
whether in finding people guilty or exonerated. Christie was used as
a prosecution witness to get Evans hanged in this country, but
Christien was later found to definitely be the murderer & Evans wqas a
gullible innocent.

There's still an ongoing legal argument in the USA over who killed
Kennedy in 1963.

For me, Richard had motive, opportunity & track record. Of course
we're not going to find a smoking gun after all this time & I think
Richard was too clever for that. What may've triggered him to kill
the princes was the rebellion in Edward V's name in 1483. Richard's
personality did seem to be on an air trigger as with the way he
pounced on Rivers, Grey... with very little evidence that they were
doing anything more than doing what the Council had instructed them to
do: convey their rightful King to London for his coronation. It was
Dorset who had been shouting his arrogant mouth off about being more
important than Gloucester, but Rivers... apparently quite innocent
paid the price for it. What 'trial' did Rivers, Hastings get?
Richard's shocking childhood: his Father & teen brother Edmund
brutally murdered, then Clarence executed later & the countless other
atrocities he must've witnessed in battles, may've made him trigger
happy.

David


--- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> At 11:28 AM 3/1/03 -0000, you wrote:
>
> >But circumstancially there was a weight of evidence against him or
> >Buckingham his unsavoury one time pal. Some trials might convinct
> >Richard on circumstancial evidence alone!
> >
> Over here three of our Supreme Court justices heard the case of
Richard III
> on the "more likely than not" standard of guilt and still acquitted
him.
> See http://www.r3.org/trial/
>
> --
> Laura Blanchard
> lblanchard@r... - 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
> http://www.rblanchard.com/ -see also http://www.pacscl.org/
> (any opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily
reflect
> those of any organization of which I am an employee or volunteer)

The video tape and the transcript/book of the programme can both be
borrowed from the UK R3 Society Library. I don't know if the US R3
Society has copies - I expect they'll have the book, if not the tape.

It's absolutely required viewing in places. Tony Pollard is an
absolute hoot, politely answering questions about someone who the
barrister has wrongly identified. It's anyone's guess who either of
them thought they were talking about in the finish <g>> Starkey is
at his absolute pompous best, getting well rattled by his
interrogator.

However, I was particularly taken with the medical experts - one
female expert on teeth was particularly interesting, as I recall, and
I believe it was she who demolishes a lot of the Tanner/Wright stuff,
by the by.

Regards - Lorraine

In 1985, The Trial of Richard III was shown on Channel 4, and
> lasted four hours. I am afraid I did not see this and would like
> to know whether anyone else remembers this programme, or whether
> there are any videos or DVD's that one can buy. I understand
that
> it was fascinating and was done by prominent historians.

< We haven't got records of mobile
> contacts between him & Tyrell.>

Erm - we've got a contract in the Harley MS
concerning Tyrrell's mysterious journey
across the 'See to Flaunders', which
sounds fairly mobile to me! <vbg>.

Lorraine

With all due respect Lorraine it may seem mysterious to you, but it
may've been banal in reality. Perhaps, Tyrell was taking a
birthday card to the Duke of Burgundy?

Of course it fits in with your theory that Richard was a kindly
buffer who wanted only to treat his bastard princes nicely, perhaps
with a holiday, deck cahirs, free pop, with NO concern that this
'fat chicken' of a Richard was breeding vipers to sting him later.

We could do with an intelligent fly on the wall able to communicate
all of the goings on with the princes, but, alas, we are stuck with
common sense: Richard had motive, means & track record to kill 2
bastards, as he did to Lancastrians, agreed to for Henry 6,
Clarence ( there's no evidence that he objected to these,) the
usual suspects: Rivers, Grey, Hastings, Buckingham, Collingbourne &
the myriad he either killed or wanted killed at Bosworth.

We are expected to believe that Richard had a sudden attack of
Uncley compassion for his two flaxen haired angelic nephews?

Sorry I must stop, I've another attack of pure displeasure &
melancholy coming over me.

--- In , "lpickering2
<lpickering2@y...>" <lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> < We haven't got records of mobile
> > contacts between him & Tyrell.>
>
> Erm - we've got a contract in the Harley MS
> concerning Tyrrell's mysterious journey
> across the 'See to Flaunders', which
> sounds fairly mobile to me! <vbg>.
>
> Lorraine