If a B o I is set in motion over the actions of a person, as opposed to the more generalised version seeking to establish facts, like the Hood technical boards, then it means the authorities believe that individual's actions merit investigation. This implies that with the knowledge they have, the authority believes the individual's actions are not approved. It is therefore entirely different to a Court Martial where a body of evidence already exists, which needs to be answered under full legal process.Is a Board of Inquiry a signal of full approval of the conduct of an officer
It is clear that a Board of Inquiry can only establish the facts about the supposed shortcomings of a single individual, so there would need to be seperate proceedings for Wake-Walker and Leach.
As Mr Gollin observes quite rightly, the idea that Tovey muddled up two entirely procedures in his 31st letter is just impossible. In 1941 he wrote Board of Inquiry and that is what he meant. Nothing about what he remembered many years after is "inconvenient" for me. Were Roskill to have shown him his own letter in his own handwriting in 1961, and asked him where it said Court Martial for Wake-Walker and Leach, it might have been inconvenient and a little embarrassing for him. It would be interesting to know why it says nothing at all about the famous phone call either. Roskill apparently kept on asking him about "Shores of France", Tovey's exposed evidential anomaly, seemingly receiving no adequate explanation, but of course that must be addressed elsewhere when the correspondence is made available.
Antonio has provided a lengthy, but not verbose of course, description of the modern procedure in an entirely different service, which only shows how much bureaucratic procedure is necessary for any action in any military service, which I am sure you will agree with from your own experience. It is surely not entered into lightly with so little preparation and forethought that it can be stopped by a single obstinate "No"! We know from Somerville's experience that it required approval of both Pound and Alexander to order his Board of Inquiry and they proceeded against their specialist advice.
Antonio's evidence of sugar coating, is that different to lying under oath etc, remains a miasma of irrelevancies, guessing at distances, fuzzy memories written thirty years after the event etc etc. It was concocted specifically as an unwarranted attack on the veracity of the Royal Navy and its personnel, provoked entirely by the apocryphal CMDS threat mentioned by Kennedy with considerable caveats. There is now overwhelming contemporary evidence there never was a Court Martial threat as shown in this letter of 31st May, itself never referred to by either Roskill or Kennedy, likely because they never saw it. Therefore the shaky foundations of the Ziggurat of Supposition have been demolished, leaving the structure to crumble to dust as it deserves.
All the best
All the best