The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
can Mr.Wadinga post different Articles of War for "misconduct in the presence of the enemy" in force in 1941 ?

No, he can't, because they were these (Part I of the NDA): http://www.pdavis.nl/NDA1866.htm, unchanged until 1957 as per:

http://www.pdavis.nl/NDA.htm (" the 1866 Naval Discipline Act was to remain in force for nearly 100 years, being replaced by the 1957 Naval Discipline Act.")
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... de=ywar20&
072924791791202369.fp.png_v03.png
072924791791202369.fp.png_v03.png (102.59 KiB) Viewed 997 times

Another pitiable attempt to deny the facts (pretending that the Parliament changed something WITHOUT being able to show WHAT), instead of admitting them or, at least, shutting up..... :kaput:


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

Hello Alberto,

Even the page you have used finishes with "In 1884 changes were made...……"

I've told you there were changes. Many changes. Your William Loney listing doesn't list any changes after 1884 but there many right up to the mid 1950's when it was accepted they were completely outdated. Like Murphy's hammer if you change the head and the handle is it Murphy's hammer anymore? It's not the 1866 version any longer.

I can't find any changes relating to Article 3 so it may still have been in force in 1941.

This is what the debate on the adoption of the new version said in 1957:.
Some hon. Members, particularly hon. and gallant Members, will regret the disappearance of some of the ancient phraseology of the old Act. We are particularly sad to repeal Section 44, which contains these time-honoured words: … punished according to the laws and customs in such cases used at sea. These words refer back to the Rules of Oleron, the most important of all medieval embodiments of maritime law and custom. They were based on the sea-laws of the Romans who, in their turn, had taken them from Rhodian law, itself derived, in remote antiquity, from the Phoenicians of Tyre and Sidon.
These rules, adopted by many seafaring countries, laid down rough, ready and, in the modern context, somewhat brutal punishments to fit various crimes. Death by drowning or burial alive, tarring and feathering, hands to be cut off, keelhauling, and flogging at the capstan, were the principal punishments. These rules governed the conduct of British sailors at sea until 1653, when the Articles of War defined specific punishments for certain crimes; for the rest, the Rules of Oleron held sway, enshrined in the instruction that other crimes should be dealt with according to the laws and customs of the sea".
451
The Acts of 1661, 1749, 1847 and 1866, to which this Bill is the direct successor, followed the same lines. They specified more punishments to fit more crimes, but always that sentence remained to cover the residue.
Since Article 44 was still on the statute in 1957 let alone 1941 Wake-Walker and Leach could have been charged and punished under Article 44 not Article 3. The articles of the Act were in many cases ignored because they were out of date.

Since W-W and Leach were never charged with anything because CMDS is a myth, it is irrelevant which piece ancient phraseology might have been used.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

I cannot avoid to comment and laugh about what I am reading.

It is obvious and well known that RearAdm W.F. Wake-Walker and Capt Leach NEVER went under a Board or Court of Inquiry for their conduct while in action and consequently NEVER faced the consequent obvious Court Martial ( ref. the above 703 article explanation of this discipline process ).

It is not a new discovery and no one ever thought or wrote that they have been processed in that way.

But it is now well proven that the First Sea Lord Adm Sir D. Pound REQUESTED the C in C Home Fleet Adm J. Tovey to proceed in that direction by writing him a letter on May 28th, 1941 ( missed letter so far :think: ) and we have the Adm Tovey May 31st, 1941 response to that REQUEST in writing.

This is the KEY POINT to be taken in consideration as a fact and it is both irrefutable and well proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

Maybe somebody will start realizing what we are discussing here in, ... they are facts, ... real occurred events we can realize because we still have available the Official evidence about it ( ADM 178/322 ).

I hope it is not too complicated to be understood ... and by the way, ... I hope nobody will think that the above discipline process was requested by Pound to select with Tovey the type of decoration to be proposed for the 2 involved Officers ... :wink: ... because despite that discipline action REQUEST of May 28th, 1941, ... the same 2 Officers have been rewarded by the King on October 1941 ... :shock:

This is the shame of this story, ... the " regrettable aftermath " ( Stephen Roskill ), ... or the " Denmark Strait Saga " ( Sir Henry Leach ) and this is what we are deeply analyzing here in, ... how did they go from the initial Official REQUEST for a Board on Inquiry -> Court Martial, ... to a final rewarding only 4 months later.

This is what I called the " Cover Up " occurred.

http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6799

Bye Antonio
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

Hello Antonio,

Your very terminology betrays that you are still pretending a Court Martial and a Board of Inquiry are degrees of the same thing.
I hope nobody will think that the above discipline process was requested by Pound to select with Tovey the type of decoration to be proposed for the 2 involved Officers ... ... because despite that discipline action REQUEST of May 28th, 1941,
There is no criticism of the officers' action implicit in having a Board of Inquiry. You make unwarranted assumptions about Pound's motives without having the text of his 28th May letter to know what they actually were. We know from several examples that Pound would appear initially to allow for the PM's more extreme opinions whilst quietly arranging for them to be ignored.

These are not matters of discipline. You have recently become familiar with the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions as suggested by P Gollin some years ago. You will realise from it that even when no misdeed is even suspected a Court Martial will take place with a Captain as the named party. A Board of Inquiry implies even less as a disciplinary measure.

Only because of your own personal opinion (incomprehensible bias against) that Wake-Walker and Leach were "cowards" and "incompetents" do you find their rewarding with awards incongruous. You blind yourself to Pound's confidence in them as demonstrated by instantaneously dropping the Inquest Request and more importantly by keeping them in immensely responsible roles or indeed promoting them. You ignore Tovey's additional unwavering support by inventing an outlandish theory that Pound, Tovey, Wake-Walker, Ellis, Churchill and every other British person in the operation are "liars" and perjurers in a colossal Conspiracy for propaganda purposes over a matter which is subject to the Official Secrets Act and may not receive public scrutiny for a hundred years.

You have compounded matters by stating
the consequent obvious Court Martial ( ref. the above 703 article explanation of this discipline process )
As you are well aware 703 refers solely to a Court(Board) of Enquiry and not to a Court Martial at all which is handled in a completely different section of the Regs, 663. Section 705 specifically says the proceedings of a court of inquiry should not be produced before a Court martial. In other words such evidence gathered would be inadmissable in any consequent Court Martial and must be reacquired anew. The intervening sections make it clear that it is not a judiciary body, cannot award punishments and so therefore is not part of the discipline process.


If you going to interpret material before presenting it for examination you must ensure it is material like the "Silver Bullet" to which only you have access and which you intend to withhold (effectively permanently) from all others.

The King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions (1913) are available at archive.org/details/kingsregulations01greaiala

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "I've told you there were changes. Many changes"
But NOT A SINGLE ONE to the relevant "Articles of War" for dereliction of duty, and the charges against Troubridge (article 3 posted by the same Mr.Wadinga ( :lol: ) suffice to prove it (despite a pathetic attempt to say that many changes were done but not to article 3, that is anyway enough to accuse Wake-Walker for his refusal to re-engage... :lol: ).

If Mr.Wadinga wants to oppose this version of the "Articles of War" (the only part of the NDA we are interested into for the "misconduct in the presence of the enemy" = articles 2,3,4 and 5 ONLY), he MUST FIND IT and post the amendments, else the one from 1866 is in force in 1941 as stated by William Loney and Jason Sears.... We cannot care less of article 44.... :lol:

The obstinacy of Mr.Wadinga, even when things are crystal clear, is a clear sign of his denial attitude "a priori".... :kaput:


Wadinga wrote (+ my bold): "There is no criticism of the officers' action implicit in having a Board of Inquiry" INTO THE CONDUCT
I don't think it's worth to comment on such an enormity.....
Obviously Somerville was very happy to find Lord Cork waiting for him on the dock, when he was back from Spartivento.



Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

Hello Alberto,

Well at least you've toned down your level of insults. :D


I have already provided additional information showing the ancient phraseology of Article 3 of the NDA had not been changed by 1941. The archaic and outmoded Article 44 was also on the statute so:
44. Any Person subject to this Act committing any Offence against this Act, such Offence not being punishable with Death or Penal Servitude, shall, save where this Act expressly otherwise provides, be proceeded against and punished according to the Laws and Customs in such Cases used at Sea.

Ahh! Jim ,lad How do you feel about a spot of
Death by drowning or burial alive, tarring and feathering, hands to be cut off, keelhauling, and flogging at the capstan,

They're not so much rules, more guidelines. Attrib. Captain Barbossa

You're still imagining something that never happened. Nobody apart from an ill-informed and ludicrously premature judgement from WSC, accused Wake-Walker and Leach of anything, there was no Court of Inquiry using the procedure laid down in King's regs 703, there is no suggestion there was a request for a circumstantial letter as laid down in Article 663, (at least Antonio understands the process now and is not quoting ancient phraseology).

It is splendid that you choose to cite Lord Cork's enquiry as a model. Since I have the collected papers of Sir James Somerville I am very well aware of his personal feelings as expressed to his wife over the matter. Just because there is a precedence for an ill-informed, ludicrously premature Board of Inquiry, it does not mean that there were any actual indications of misdeeds in that case or any other. There were not in Sir James' case, there are none in those of Wake-Walker and Leach. No smoke and therefore no fire.

I can't be bothered to type out the Cork letter to embarrass you with the actuality of the Spartivento case, you can just read your copy of Churchill's Anchor p174. Nobody* in the Admiralty, apparently including Pound thought there was the slightest justification for the Board of Inquiry. It was accepted by him just to make Churchill look foolish, forestall more stupid actions, and try to stop him interfering in Admiralty business.


*Alexander, who was just a politician, signed for the Spartivento Board of Enquiry because Churchill told him to. Conversely, Churchill signed for Troubridge's because Battenberg told him to. Somerville was exonerated and Troubridge "fully and honourably acquitted".

Yes I accept:
is a clear sign of his denial attitude "a priori"

The presumption of innocence is how it should be. Yours and Antonio's "intuitions" are far less justified, since you have fabricated this case solely to out-Cernuschi Cernuschi and Antonio Bragadin with some possible commercial upside.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

I am lucky because the forum threads are all still here available.

Anybody in fairness can go back on the Articles of War thread and the other subsequent ones and realize easily that I have started this re-construction work part from a very defined need, … the need to realize the reason why some data into the official documents have been altered even if on previous realesed documents or reports the data were correctly written ( ref 06:13 retreat time and Y turret jamming for example for PoW )
Same story for the 20.000 vs 30.000 yards of the Norfolk distance declaration between Hood board 1 vs 2.
The Suffolk incorrect report emerged when I plotted her track and realized that it was impossible for her to have been at 15 sea miles from the enemy before the circle back turn, and in fact when we found Capt Ellis autobiography the truth surfaced : 9 sea miles. I was right once again.

It has been by digging on the documents and making the data correlation that one can realize as we did, that those events had a unique logic flow connecting one to the other until the final King recognition.

It has not been an intuition, ... it has been a logic discovery backwards, … from the bottom to the top, ... from the evidence to the reasons for them to ave been written in that way.

When we found Stephen Roskill and the ADM 205/10 reference, and lately the May 31st, 1941 letter from Tovey to Pound, ... we had another very important confirmation that we ( me and Alberto ) were right since the very beginning of it.

I intentionally do not refer to the so called " Silver bullet " because that is just for me an aside confirmation of the fact that everybody knew about this story and Adm Tovey was fully reliable by writing it to Stephen Roskill, … but in this case the May 31st, 1941 letter written by Adm Tovey himslef to Pound is more than enough to prove the same thing, … closing the matter once forever.


Bye Antonio
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "I have already provided additional information showing the ancient phraseology of Article 3 of the NDA had not been changed by 1941. The archaic and outmoded Article 44 was also on the statute"
As well as the whole part related to "misconduct in the presence of the enemy" (articles 2,3,4 and 5) ancient phraseology was still in force in1941 and would have been the charges against Leach (article 2) and Wake-Walker (article 2 in the morning, article 3 in the afternoon), had a serious inquiry (and a consequent Court Martial) been held, instead of deciding to just sugar-coat the story of which the deniers are still fond.

Article 44 is totally irrelevant in our case, as it is related to "miscellaneous offences" not to "misconduct" in action.... :negative:



Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

Hello A & A,

You have said:
I intentionally do not refer to the so called " Silver bullet " because that is just for me an aside confirmation of the fact that everybody knew about this story

No, as Bill Jurens and others have pointed out, were it to exist, it might be the corroboration that Stephen Roskill searched for and never found, and the lack of which was the reason he sat on the story of CMDS from the mid 1950s until c.1973 when he decided to have a surrogate present the myth, so as to distance himself from blame, were it proven to be untrue. He knew most other things Tovey had told him were incorrect, the ROOF story and the bearings complaint, but he really wanted CMDS to be true so as to pillory Pound and Churchill further. He wouldn't risk his own reputation over it, but "good soldier" Kennedy broke the story and Roskill climbed on the bandwagon. As have many others who also have also never produced any corroboration at all.

I can't be bothered to quote your previous announcements of its supreme importance and yet now you call it an "aside confirmation". Are you really trying to put us off looking for it before you monetize it? :cool:

Of course, if it exists, it presumably just relates to CMDS, not your wholly imaginary Ziggurat of Supposition. Are you really claiming it exposes the collusion and conspiracy you have alleged? The list of trivial and irrelevant "evidences" you developed after your "intuitions" created "those events had a unique logic flow connecting one to the other" have been dismissed by numerous posters here. Only yourselves have kept this jihad going, because only you believe your "evidence".

You keep going on about 205/10 which does not confirm either CMDS or your conspiracy. It makes no mention of disciplinary action or Court Martial or Board of Enquiry. The only deception involved is that Pound suggests "we say" to Churchill, an investigation was carried out when there is not the slightest suggestion one ever was. Of course the 31st May letter is the final confirmation there never was a CMDS because only a Board of Enquiry is requested and instantaneously rejected and abandoned.


I have offered to catch the "Silver Bullet" in my teeth, why not give it a shot? :D

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

it is simply a waste of time to discuss with " hooligan/deniers " in this forum.

No matter what type of document or evidence you show them it will be never enough to have the to accept what the document clearly state.

It is just incredible the way they refuse and reject to take in consideration those documents.

I realize that now the truth is hard to be digested, ... after more than 70 years of Sir Kennedy novel, ... especially when you had put also your face on it sustaining something different than the truth surfacing, ... but loosing an historical discussion ( as they already did since long time now ) is nothing compared on loosing your dignity, ... and we are now way below that level, ... unfortunately for them.

When you read statement like this one :
The list of trivial and irrelevant "evidences" you developed after your "intuitions" ....
Written in the useless intent to avoid readers to realize what the Official documents show with their logic shameful flow the way they have been written on the summer of 1941, ... one remains astonished.

Either the person is so ignorant and incompetent to be unable to understand, ... or it is so arrogantly full of himself on his crazy intent to counter what cannot be countered anymore, ... to try it anyhow and no matter what, ... and I think that the second option here do apply.

The documents are all there, ... for readers to be read and understood.

I go back to my modeling job and my Tirpitz number 5 book, ... and after a couple of weeks vacation in Sardinia, ... here in I am only wasting time now.

Bye Antonio
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

Hello Antonio,
I go back to my modeling job and my Tirpitz number 5 book
I hope you're not making up stories of RN cowardice and lying about the PQ 17 campaign, you know what happened last time someone did. :cool:

Enjoy Sardinia, we did.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro »

Antonio Bonomi wrote: Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:14 am
The Suffolk incorrect report emerged when I plotted her track and realized that it was impossible for her to have been at 15 sea miles from the enemy before the circle back turn, and in fact when we found Capt Ellis autobiography the truth surfaced : 9 sea miles. I was right once again.

It has been by digging on the documents and making the data correlation that one can realize as we did, that those events had a unique logic flow connecting one to the other until the final King recognition.


Bye Antonio
Now you've resorted to outright lying. I have corrected A/A on this enough times that any further restatement of it by A/A is just a lie. Ellis in his memoirs states that "...when fire was opened Suffolk was roughly 18000 yards astern of the enemy..." = Suffolk at 18k yds at ~0552:30 (according to PoW's salvo chart timing). Working back this places Suffolk at ~3000 yds from Bismarck prior to her turn at ~0542 which is obviously not possible.

Unfortunately, as I've stated many times, you simply pretend that the documentary evidence supports your theory even when it demonstrably doesn't support it. In the case of Ellis, his memoirs reveal, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they're worthless. How you can continue this shameless charade is beyond understanding.

The most probable reason you don't show the "silver bullet" now is because you know that we'll know that it doesn't say what you want it to say, but you're hoping that you can hoodwink later those who are not familiar with the subject material.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,


bla, bla, bla, bla, .... lots of talking and never a map to show what useless words keeps on stating.

There is a dedicated thread were you can show ( or realize if you are able to ) where Suffolk was that morning.

Probably you better realize that despite those useless statements ... everything is more than ready to be published one day.

I know very well that this is not good for you as from that moment onward your useless " hooligan/deniers " stubborn campaign of writing here in will have no more reason for it to be.

But until that moment you can keep on writing your statements unsupported by any document or map, ... and hope that it has onechance to prevent the truth to surface.

I am curious to see what are you going to do after ... :think:


The PQ 17 ... my Tirpitz book number 4 and Operation Rosselsprung ... :think:

http://bismarck-tirpitz.com/?lang=en

you can see here in what caused that disaster.

Sorry I forgot, ... you are not able to read a warship positions on a map, ... so you cannot realize it ... because there are very precise map in that book, ... :wink:

Bye Antonio
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro »

Antonio Bonomi wrote: Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:10 pm Hello everybody,


bla, bla, bla, bla, .... lots of talking and never a map to show what useless words keeps on stating.

There is a dedicated thread were you can show ( or realize if you are able to ) where Suffolk was that morning.

Probably you better realize that despite those useless statements ... everything is more than ready to be published one day.

I know very well that this is not good for you as from that moment onward your useless " hooligan/deniers " stubborn campaign of writing here in will have no more reason for it to be.

But until that moment you can keep on writing your statements unsupported by any document or map, ... and hope that it has onechance to prevent the truth to surface.

I am curious to see what are you going to do after ... :think:


The PQ 17 ... my Tirpitz book number 4 and Operation Rosselsprung ... :think:

http://bismarck-tirpitz.com/?lang=en

you can see here in what caused that disaster.

Sorry I forgot, ... you are not able to read a warship positions on a map, ... so you cannot realize it ... because there are very precise map in that book, ... :wink:

Bye Antonio
A reasonable person would simply admit that Ellis's statements in his memoirs don't support the contention that Suffolk was at ~18k yds at ~0542, and would leave it at that. Instead you continue to claim that Ellis supports your thesis even though it is blatantly obvious that he doesn't. This kind of irrationality seems to present itself whenever a contradiction arises between your theory and the documentary evidence.

Again, I find your reasoning here and your unshakable commitment to it as unfathomable. I hope that it doesn't indicate some underlying pathology.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

if only someone would take the disturb ( assuming he is able to ) and will draw a map with the original information contained into the radio messages and the strategical map of Suffolk ( bearings radio + visual ), … one will easily realize the truth, … again I assume one is capable on doing it.

I wrote radio messages and official bearings from the strategical plot, ... not the 1941 report, ... because Capt Ellis was a liar and he lied intentionally on 1941, ... and only partially declared the truth on his autobiography, ... at least recovering some of his dignity.

The drawing of the real data on an easy map will reveal the truth for the one interested.

Keep on a blatant, ... bla, bla, bla, … only shows someone is not capable on do an easy work, ... and keeps on denying something in line of principle, .. and this way it shows clearly his " pathology ".

It is only some months that we are asking this work to be done and agreed, ... on the proper Norfolk + Suffolk track thread.

So go and do the job, … show us your opinion about her position from 04:47 until 06:20 that morning, … you have almost everything already done and published by me on many threads about it, ... and stop this useless ... bla, bla, bla, bla, ... :wink:

Bye Antonio
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )
Locked