Quote:
Originally Posted by Victoria
 No way! Only if the court was in a tv drama. You could drive a truck through the holes in Grant’s arguments. It’s true Grant used them cleverly. But real courts have rules about what constitutes acceptable evidence. At least in Canada 
For example, there has to be consistency in the evidence you are presenting / story you are telling. As you note, Grant attacks the motive against Richard. He says that Richard would not benefit from the killing the Princes, because they were illegitimate, and therefore not eligible for the throne.
However, he then abandons that reasoning, and reinstates the motive. He tells Carradine that the Princes were “the vital ones” for Henry to eliminate, because they stood between Henry and the throne. And maybe because I may have ocd, I have pages of notes with similar contradictions by Grant.
Edited to add an example |
Apparently there was a trial some years ago, and Richard was found Not Guilty. Of course it could have been run by a group of ardent supporters - I can’t remember where I read about it and haven’t tried a search.
The princes were the vital ones for Henry because he destroyed Titulus Regius, which declared all the children of Edward IV illegitimate, in order to shore up his shaky claim to the throne. This shoring up was marrying Elizabeth, the boys’ sister. He wanted her to be legitimate, but if the boys were alive, their claim to the throne was before hers as they of course were made legitimate also by the removal of Titulus Regius - which means the right to rule.