Re: Legal problems
- From: "Roman Werpachowski" <roman.werpachowski@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:45:47 -0500
Haydn wrote:
"Andrew Clark" <aclark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is not accurate. Bellomo and some guards took two POWs who had been
recaptured outside the perimeter of the camp from which they had escaped
on evening, by his own account to ask them to show him where they had
escaped. The two POWs were subsequently shot at close range in a manner
which the Court felt was wholly inconsistent with Bellomo's claim that
they had been trying to escape.
I'm glad to see you are so thoroughly adept at this episode in Italian
history. I heard a different story about it however.
Only one POW (Capt. George Playne) was killed. The other (Lt. Roy R. Cooke)
was wounded and survived, and interestingly enough, he testified against
Bellomo during the trial - but *for* him during an Italian investigation
conducted prior to the trial. We can reasonably suppose Cooke was, let's
say, convincingly budged to change his mind in the meantime.
Assuming this sequence of events really took place, one could equally
reasonably suppose that this Cooke was budged by Italians and later
took the opportunity to speak the truth.
Some key (Italian) witnesses for the prosecution sounded as false as tin
coins
Ah, nothing like an argument based on fact. Can you cite some tin coin
smell experts to back up your claim?
, and the whole affair was reeking of forgery a mile off.
Another piece of rhetoric in place of solid evidence.
Either they
were bribed, or they expected big and fat favors of the British military
government for their dirty business. Possibly the only genuine thing in that
trial was the very British wig worn by a lawyer, one Stirling.
Possibly, pigs fly.
Note that Bellomo never shook off, and always accepted his responsibility
for the fact. As the highest officer in charge, he was responsible for what
happened at the POW camp and never refused to acknowledge it. Granted the
opportunity to ask for pardon and have death penalty commuted to life
imprisonment, he consistently and honorably refused as well, since he
declared himself guiltless and his military honor spotless.
First you say that he "accepted his responsibility" but then that he
"declared himself guiltless and his military honor spotless". Don't you
see any contradiction?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Legal problems
- From: Haydn
- Re: Legal problems
- References:
- Re: Fw: Fw: Irish Neutrality in WW2 / Legal problems
- From: Michele Armellini
- Re: Fw: Fw: Irish Neutrality in WW2 / Legal problems
- From: Jukka Raustia
- Legal problems
- From: Andrew Clark
- Re: Legal problems
- From: Haydn
- Re: Legal problems
- From: Andrew Clark
- Re: Legal problems
- From: Haydn
- Re: Legal problems
- From: Andrew Clark
- Re: Legal problems
- From: Haydn
- Re: Fw: Fw: Irish Neutrality in WW2 / Legal problems
- Prev by Date: Re: Germans Allowed to Overfly Fake Army Coming up to D-Day.
- Next by Date: Re: Unusual Japanese Air Force direction finders
- Previous by thread: Re: Legal problems
- Next by thread: Re: Legal problems
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|