The Dungavel Handicap: Scotland, Churchill And
The Dungavel Handicap Scotland, Churchill and Rudolf Hess, 1941 Simon Matthews The writing of history is quite properly treated as a discipline. Many reputable historians, therefore, tend to be conservative, requiring multiple archival sources, an abundance of documentation and testimony from respectable eye- witnesses before reaching their conclusions. This often means that a very high level of proof is required before they engage in analysis of problematic events in the recent past. This is curious on two counts. Firstly, when studying ancient history, for instance, academics often base significant theories and make findings on very slender evidence: a few bones, one map, a single account. Secondly, an approach that is overly reliant on documents, ignores the possibility that those engaged in unpleasant, disloyal or illegal activity will deliberately avoid leaving a trail of incriminating evidence behind them. How should we approach such situations? Perhaps we should follow the example of criminal law, which allows the consideration of circumstantial evidence. Indeed, the argument is often made that circumstantial evidence can be as compelling, or even more compelling, than traditional proof such as documents, forensic evidence, photographic evidence and so on. There are cases where convictions were obtained relying mainly on circumstantial evidence, and the convictions have been shown to be sound. The law allows, too, for an absence of evidence itself to be treated as a type of proof, provided other tests are met and those required to make a decision (such as a jury, or an enquiry) are properly briefed or instructed. It is odd, therefore, that many of those writing about political events choose to avoid this criminological approach when dealing with controversial subjects in areas where evidence is either missing or withheld.
[Show full text]