The Princes of in the Tower By Philippa Langley
Preface |
はじめに |
|
This work represents the first five-year report of The Missing Princes Project (2016-21). The project is a cold-case investigation into the disappearance of Edward Ⅴ and Richard, Duke of York, in 1483, employing the same principles and practices as a modern police inquiry. The project’s remit, assisted by members of the police and investigative agencies, is to follow the basic tenet of any modern investigation, ABC: Accept nothing-Believe Nobody-Challenge Everything This work, therefore, makes no apologies for upsetting any long-established apple carts, including those of famed and famous writer. Our only objective is the truth. Philippa Langley MBE |
したがって、本書は有名作家を含む長年の定説を覆すことに対して一切の弁解をするものではありません。 我々の唯一の目的は真実を追求することです。
|
P.000 |
Introduction |
序文 |
|
| On 25 August 2012, the mortal remains of Richard III of England (1452?85) were discovered beneath a car park in Leicester. News of the discovery and the king’s eventual reburial went viral, reaching an estimated global audience of over 366 million. The return of the king captured the world’s imagination, but how had this come about? | 2012年8月25日、イングランドのリチャード3世（1452?85）の遺骸がライチェスターの駐車場の下で発見されました。この発見と国王の最終的な再埋葬のニュースは、推定3億6600万人以上の世界規模の視聴者に伝わりました。王の帰還は世界の想像力を捉えましたが、これがどのようにして起こったのでしょうか？ | |
| The search for Richard III had been instigated and led not by an academic or archaeologist, but by a writer. | リチャード3世の捜索は、学者や考古学者ではなく、作家によって引き起こされ、主導されました。 | |
The Looking For Richard Project was a research initiative which questioned received wisdom and dogma. It proved the ‘bones in the river’ story to be false. For centuries, it had been believed that at the time of the Dissolution of the Monasteries (in the late 1530s), Richard III’s remains were exhumed from their resting place, carried through the streets of Leicester by a jeering mob and reburied near the River Soar.
|
チャードを探求するプロジェクトは、従来からある知恵や教義を疑問視する研究イニシアチブでした。これは「川の中の骨」の物語が偽りであることを証明しました。数世紀にわたって、修道院解散（1530年代後半）の時に、リチャード3世の遺骸が埋葬された場所から掘り起こされ、嘲笑する群衆によってライチェスターの通りを運ばれ、ソア川の近くに再埋葬されたと信じられていました。
|
|
| Later, it was claimed they were exhumed again and thrown into the river. Without any supporting evidence, the story had been repeated as truth and fact by leading historians. We also disproved the local projection that the lost Greyfriars Church was probably inaccessible, being under the buildings and road of Grey Friars (street). This was suggested in 1986, with a plaque erected four years later to mark the location. It would be further supported in 2002. | 後に、遺骸が再び掘り起こされ、川に投げ込まれたと主張されました。しかし、裏付ける証拠が全くないまま、その話は有力な歴史家たちによって真実として繰り返されてきました。私たちはまた、失われたグレーフライアーズ教会の建物はグレーフライアーズ通りの道路の下になってしまいアクセスできないだろうという地元の推測を否定しました。これは1986年に提案され、4年後にその場所を示す銘板が設置されました。さらに、2002年にはその推測が支持されました。 | |
| The Looking For Richard Project also examined Richard III’s character by commissioning the first-ever psychological analysis by two of the UK’s leading experts, Dr Julian Boon and Professor Mark Lansdale. Their eighteen-month study, based on the known details of Richard’s life, revealed that he was not psychopathic, narcissistic or Machiavellian -three of the traits long employed by traditional writers to describe the king. | リチャード3世の性格も、イギリスの2人の主要な専門家、ジュリアン・ブーン博士とマーク・ランズデール教授による初の心理学的分析を委託することで調査されました。彼らの18ヶ月に及ぶ研究は、リチャードの生涯の知られている詳細に基づいて、今まで過去の作者によって描かれていたRichardの特徴である精神病質、ナルシシズム、またはマキャヴェリストではなかったことを明らかにしました。 | |
| In physical terms, analysis of Richard’s remains by scientists at the University of Leicester revealed that the king was not, as Shakespeare depicted, a ‘hunchback’ afflicted by kyphosis (a forward bend of the spine). Richard suffered from a scoliosis (a sideways bend), which resulted in uneven shoulders. As there is no record in the king’s lifetime of any disparity in shoulder height, the condition was not readily apparent.4 Analysis also discovered that Richard, contrary to Shakespeare, did not walk with a limp. His hips were straight and his legs normal. He was not lame and was not described in such terms during his lifetime. Similarly, he did not suffer from a withered arm as alleged by the Tudor writer Thomas More. Both arms were of equal length and size. In addition, the story that the king’s head had struck Bow Bridge when his body was brought to Leicester over the back of a horse following the Battle of Bosworth was also proved false. There were no marks on the king’s skull to suggest that it had come into contact with anything resembling a stone or bridge. | 物理的な側面では、リチャード//9の遺骸をレスター大学の科学者が分析した結果、王がシェイクスピアの描写したような、脊柱前彎（背骨の前方屈曲）に苦しむ「こぶ」ではありませんでした。リチャードは側彎症（側方屈曲）に苦しんでおり、肩が不均衡になっていました。王の生涯において肩の高さに差異が記録されていないため、その状態はすぐには明らかではありませんでした。 分析によると、リチャードはシェイクスピアの描写とは異なり、歩行に支障はありませんでした。彼の腰は真っ直ぐで、足は普通でした。彼は不自由ではなく、生前にそのような言葉で説明されたことはありませんでした。同様に、テューダー朝の作家トマス・モアによって主張されたように、リチャードは片方の腕が萎縮しているわけではありませんでした。両腕は同じ長さで同じ大きさでした。さらに、リチャードの体がボズワースの戦いの後、馬の背中に乗せられてレスターに運ばれた際に、王の頭がボウ橋にぶつかったという話も偽りであることが証明されました。王の頭蓋骨には、石や橋に似たものと接触したことを示す痕跡はありませんでした。 | |
| The Looking For Richard Project heralded a new era of evidence-based Richard III research and analysis. It was a major opportunity for the academic community and leading historians to employ this new knowledge as the basis for further discoveries. We didn’t have to wait long. As we headed towards the king’s reburial, two key members of the team were undertaking their own evidence-based investigations. Dr John Ashdown-Hill was investigating the king’s dental record, revealing that Richard’s teeth showed no consanguinity (blood relationship) with the ‘bones in the urn’ in Westminster Abbey, said to be those of the Princes in the Tower. The story promulgated by historians for centuries was now open to question.5 Richard III had no congenitally missing teeth, a condition known as hypodontia. This was in direct contrast to the bones in Westminster Abbey, where both skulls presented this genetic anomaly. Previously, it had been argued that this inherited dental characteristic had proved the royal identity of the remains. | チャード研究プロジェクトは、証拠に基づいたリチャード3世の研究と分析の新時代を告げるものでした。これは学術界や主要な歴史家がこの新しい知識をさらなる発見の基礎として活用する大きな機会でした。我々は長く待つ必要はありませんでした。王の再埋葬に向けて進む中、チームの2人の重要なメンバーが独自の証拠に基づいた調査を行っていました。ジョン・アシュダウン＝ヒル博士は、リチャードの歯科記録を調査し、リチャードの歯にはウェストミンスター寺院の「壺の中の骨」との血縁関係がないことを明らかにしました。世紀を超えて歴史家によって広まってきた物語は今や疑問の余地がありました。リチャード3世は、先天的に歯が欠損していなかった、いわゆる歯乏しい状態ではありませんでした。これは、ウェストミンスター寺院の骨の両方がこの遺伝的異常を示したこととは対照的でした。以前は、この遺伝的特徴が遺骨の王族の身元を証明したと主張されていました。 | |
| So, was this story yet another myth; as great a historical red herring as the ‘bones in the river’ story? Another key member of the Looking For Richard Project was undertaking her own enquiries. Annette Carson, a leading biographer of Richard III, published an important constitutional examination of Richard’s legal authority in 1483. Richard, Duke of Gloucester as Lord Protector and High Constable of England (2015) revealed that Richard’s actions during the protectorate were fully compliant with his official position as Protector and Constable of England. This included the execution of William, Lord Hastings, where Richard is traditionally accused of overstepping his rightful authority. So, it seemed that the Looking For Richard Project had been the catalyst for a new era of evidence-based research that would lead to significant discoveries concerning the debate around Richard III. | では、この物語はまた別の神話であり、『川の中の骨』の物語と同様に歴史的な赤いハーリングなのでしょうか？ チャード研究プロジェクトのもう一人の重要なメンバーも独自の調査を行っていました。リチャード3世の主要な伝記作家であるアネット・カーソンは、1483年のリチャードの法的権威に関する重要な憲法的調査を公表しました。リチャード、グロスター公は、イングランドの摂政および高官（2015）では、リチャードの摂政とイングランドの高官としての公式の地位に完全に適合して行動したことが明らかになりました。これには、ウィリアム・ヘイスティングズ卿の処刑も含まれ、リチャードは伝統的に正当な権限を越えていると非難されていました。したがって、リチャード研究プロジェクトが、リチャード3世に関する議論に関する重要な発見につながる証拠に基づいた新しい時代の触媒であったようです。 | |
| It would be important for traditional historians to raise their own questions. In May 2014, a year after the announcement of the identification of the king, Professor Michael Hicks, Emeritus Professor of Medieval History at the University of Winchester, was the first.7 Despite the overwhelming evidence supporting a positive identification, Hicks contested that the remains could belong to ‘a victim of any of the battles fought during the Wars of the Roses’. He questioned the DNA evidence and singled out the carbon-14 dating analysis, which covered a period of eighty years, as ‘imprecise’. | 伝統的な歴史家が自分自身の疑問を提起することが重要であることが明らかになるでしょう。2014年5月、王の識別が発表されてから1年後、ウィンチェスター大学の中世史名誉教授であるマイケル・ヒックス教授が最初にそれを行いました。 恐らく、肯定的な同定を支持する圧倒的な証拠にもかかわらず、ヒックスは遺骨が「バラ戦争中に戦われたいずれかの戦いの犠牲者」に属する可能性があると主張しました。彼はDNA証拠を疑問視し、80年間にわたる炭素14年代測定分析を「不正確」と指摘しました。 | |
| University of Leicester scientists responded firmly, explaining how the identification had been made by ‘combining different lines of evidence’. They would ‘challenge and counter’ Professor Hicks’ views in follow-up papers, ‘demonstrating that many of his assumptions are incorrect’. In December 2014, the university published a paper on the DNA investigation, explaining that ‘analysis of all the available evidence confirms identity of King Richard III to the point of 99.999% (at its most conservative)’. | レスター大学の科学者たちは、異なる証拠を組み合わせて識別が行われたことを説明し、ヒックス教授の意見に対処し、彼の前提の多くが誤っていることを示す追加論文で彼の見解に挑戦するでしょう。 2014年12月、大学はDNA調査に関する論文を発表し、「すべての利用可能な証拠の分析が、リチャード3世王の身元を99.999％（最も保守的な場合）まで確認している」と説明しました。 | |
| 8 Genealogist Ashdown-Hill examined Hicks’ suggestion and established that no other individual satisfied the criteria as an alternative candidate.9 Hicks felt that the remains were those of an illegitimate family member whose name is now lost to us. On Tuesday, 24 March 2015, during reburial week, a headline in the Daily Mail proclaimed, ‘It’s mad to make this child killer a national hero: Richard III was one of the most evil, detestable tyrants ever to walk this earth.’ | 系譜学者のアシュダウン＝ヒルは、ヒックスの提案を検討し、他の候補者としての基準を満たす人物は存在しないことを確認しました。ヒックスは、遺骨が私たちには失われている名前の庶民の家族のものだと感じました。 2015年3月24日の火曜日、再埋葬週の間、デイリー・メールの見出しは、「この子殺しを国民的英雄にするのは狂気だ：リチャード3世は地球上を歩いた中で最も邪悪で嫌われる暴君の一人でした。」と宣言しました。 | |
| The writer, Michael Thornton, presented no verification or proof. His piece drew online comments from around the world, best summed up by Catherine from Chicago, United States, ‘This article shows a complete disregard for what counts as historical evidence’. Thornton’s article had been prompted by a TV programme screened a few days earlier. On Saturday, 21 March 2015, the day before the king’s coffin made its historic journey to Leicester Cathedral, Channel 4 broadcast The Princes in the Tower by Oxford Film & Television,promoted as ‘a new drama-documentary … in which key figures … debate one of English history’s darkest murder mysteries’. | ライターのマイケル・ソーンは、検証や証拠を示しませんでした。彼の記事は、シカゴのキャサリンからのオンラインコメントによって最もよく要約されました。「この記事は、歴史的証拠として何がカウントされるかに対する完全な無視を示しています。」 ソーンの記事は、数日前に放映されたテレビ番組に触発されました。2015年3月21日の土曜日、王の棺が歴史的な旅路をレスター大聖堂に向けて進む前日、チャンネル4はオックスフォード映画テレビの『プリンセス・イン・ザ・タワー』を放映しました。これは、「イングランド史の最も暗い殺人のミステリーの一つを議論する」新しいドキュメンタリードラマとして宣伝されました。 | |
| An extended release from Oxford Film & Television stated: More than 500 years after the Princes disappeared the arguments about their fate rage as fiercely as ever. No bodies were produced, no funeral was performed. This is the ultimate medieval whodunit: there are villainous tyrants, scheming rivals, and two young boys in the Tower who meet a grisly end. Was the dastardly Richard to blame as Shakespeare says? Or was Richard framed by a powerful enemy? | オックスフォード映画テレビの拡大リリースには次のように述べられています。 500年以上が経過した今でも、プリンセスが消えたことについての議論は以前と同じぐらい激しく続いています。遺体は提供されず、葬儀は行われませんでした。これは究極の中世のミステリーです：悪の暴君、陰謀を企てるライバル、そして塔にいる2人の少年が悲惨な末路に合う。シェイクスピアが言うように、悪辣なリチャードがそれに責任があったのでしょうか？それともリチャードは強力な敵によって陰謀されたのでしょうか？ | |
| By unpicking the events that led to the boys’ disappearance, and exploring the murderous power struggle at court, this film cuts through centuries of propaganda to examine the real evidence …11 The programme was a strange mish-mash. Despite an apparent intention to engage in meaningful debate, the broadcast failed to live up to its billing. | 少年たちの失踪に至る出来事を解明し、宮廷での殺人の権力闘争を探求することで、この映画は何世紀にもわたる宣伝を切り捨て、実際の証拠を検討します... 番組は奇妙な混合物でした。意味のある議論に参加する意図があったにもかかわらず、放送はその期待に応えることができませんでした。 | |
| Most historians and writers gave pertinent and important material insights, particularly Janina Ramirez, who was at pains to offer fact over reported fiction. But sadly, instead of following the known facts, the programme took the road most travelled: evil schemers in dark corners leading the viewer to the requisite conclusion ? the boys were murdered, and by their uncle Richard. Indeed, the finale claimed that the mystery of the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower had been solved, a conclusion erroneously reached by a Tudor historian misrepresenting a later Tudor source. | ほとんどの歴史家や作家は重要な洞察を提供しましたが、彼らの知識が真実よりも報告されたフィクションに優先されることはありませんでした。しかし、残念ながら、知られている事実に従う代わりに、番組は最も一般的な道を選択しました：暗い隅の邪悪な陰謀家が視聴者を必要とする結論へと導く。少年たちは殺され、その犯人は彼らの叔父のリチャードだったとされています。実際には、フィナーレは、塔の中のプリンセスの失踪の謎が解けたと主張しましたが、これは後のテューダー朝の歴史家による誤った情報源を誤って理解したものでした。 | |
| The Daily Telegraph reviewed it as a ‘flimsy documentary drama which served as hype … with little reference to any evidence’.12 I nevertheless held out hope that the traditional community might embrace a new era of evidence-based history. However, what happened next would act as a catalyst for an entirely new research initiative. On Monday, 22 March 2015, as Richard’s coffin was received by Leicester Cathedral in preparation for reburial, Channel 4 TV presenter Jon Snow asked a Tudor historian for the evidence of Richard’s murder of the Princes in the Tower. | デイリー・テレグラフはこれを「証拠へのほとんどの言及がないハイプの薄いドキュメンタリードラマ」とレビューしました。 しかし、私は伝統的なコミュニティが証拠に基づく歴史の新しい時代を受け入れる可能性があることを期待しました。しかし、次に起こったことは、まったく新しい研究イニシアチブの触媒として機能するでしょう。 2015年3月22日の月曜日、リチャードの棺が再埋葬の準備のためにレスター大聖堂に受け入れられた際、チャンネル4のテレビ司会者ジョン・スノーは、リチャードがプリンセスを殺した証拠についてテューダー朝の歴史家に尋ねました。 | |
| ‘The evidence’, the historian replied, ‘is that he would have been a fool not to do it.’ In another of Snow’s television interviews on 26 March, the evening of King Richard’s reburial, I was asked, ‘What next?’ ‘There’s a big question to answer now’, I replied. ‘What happened to the sons of Edward IV?’ I had seen how asking questions changes what we know and is a key to greater understanding and important new discoveries. This was how the king had been found. Historical enquiry is littered with the unpicking of received wisdom. | 「証拠」と歴史家は答えました、「彼がそれをしない愚か者であると言える」と。 スノーのテレビインタビューのもう1つの中で、2015年3月26日のリチャード王の再埋葬の夕方、私は、「次は何ですか？」と尋ねられました。「今、大きな質問があります」と私は答えました。「エドワード4世の息子たちは何が起こったのか？」私は、質問をすることが私たちの知識を変え、重要な新発見の鍵であることを見てきました。これが王が見つかった方法です。 歴史的探求は、受け入れられた知恵を解明することで溢れています。 | |
| Antonia Fraser helped to debunk the myth that Marie Antoinette said ‘Let them eat cake’; Virginia Rounding refuted the claim that Catherine the Great had been killed by having sexual relations with a horse; William Driver Howarth disproved that the right of ‘prima nocta’ (Droit de seigneur) existed in medieval Scotland (as depicted in the film Braveheart); and Guilhem Pepin established that the brutal massacre of 3,000 men, women and children at Limoges in 1370, believed for centuries to have been carried out by England’s Black Prince, was in fact perpetrated by French forces on their own people. | アントニア・フレーザーは、マリー・アントワネットが「彼らにケーキを食べさせよ」と言ったという神話を暴露するのに役立ちました。ヴァージニア・ラウンディングは、キャサリン大帝が馬と性交したために殺されたという主張を反論しました。ウィリアム・ドライバー・ハワースは、『ブレイブハート』に描かれているように、中世のスコットランドに『プリマ・ノクタ』（領主の権利）の権利が存在したという主張を否定しました。そして、ギレム・ペパンは、何世紀にもわたってイングランドの黒い王子によって実行されたと信じられてきたリモージュでの3,000人の男性、女性、子供の残虐な虐殺が実際にはフランス軍によってその自国の人々に対して行われたことを確立しました。 | |
| All had asked searching questions, thrown out old mythology and started with a clean sheet. It was exactly as my Looking For Richard Project had proceeded, irrevocably changing what we know. Could this approach apply to the mystery surrounding the Princes in the Tower? | 彼ら全員が深い質問をし、古い神話を捨て、白紙から始めました。それはまさに私ｎのリチャード研究プロジェクトが進行していた方法であり、私たちが知っているものを不可逆的に変えていました。このアプローチは、塔のプリンセスを取り巻く謎を解明するためにも適用できるのでしょうか？ | |
| While I considered my next steps, I watched with interest The Imitation Game (2014), starring Benedict Cumberbatch, the actor who had read the evocative poem ‘Richard’ at the reburial in 2015. Loosely based on Andrew Hodges’ biography of Alan Turing, this highly acclaimed award-winning feature film retells the breaking of the Enigma code during the Second World War. | 次の手順を考えながら、2014年の映画『イミテーション・ゲーム』を興味深く見ました。この映画は、ベネディクト・カンバーバッチが主演し、彼は2015年の再埋葬で感動的な詩「リチャード」を読んだ俳優です。アラン・チューリングの伝記に基づくこの高く評価された受賞歴のある映画は、第二次世界大戦中のエニグマ暗号の解読を再現しています。 | |
| When you ask the right questions, the smallest detail can form the key to a major discovery. For Turing and his team, it was the realisation that his new ‘computer’ machine (named Christopher) and two words of German (‘Heil Hitler’) were all that was required to break the unbreakable code. It gave hope to my new search to uncover the truth about the disappearance of the sons of Edward IV. Could a small and perhaps seemingly insignificant discovery be the key to solving this most enduring of mysteries? | 正しい質問をすると、最も小さな詳細でも重大な発見の鍵となることがあります。チューリングと彼のチームにとって、それは彼の新しい「コンピュータ」マシン（クリストファーと名付けられた）とドイツ語の2つの単語（「ハイル・ヒットラー」）が、解読不可能なコードを解読するために必要なすべてであることを認識したことでした。これは、エドワード4世の息子たちの失踪についての真実を明らかにする私の新しい探求に希望を与えました。小さな、そしておそらくささいな発見が、この最も持続的なミステリーの鍵になる可能性がありますか？ | |
| Part1_1 The Missing Princes Project A Cold-Case Investigation | Ⅰ「失踪王子プロジェクト：未解決捜査」 | |
| Before we investigate the traditional story of the murder of the sons of King Edward IV, it is important to introduce The Missing Princes Project and to explain its methodology. | エドワード4世の息子たちの殺害の伝統的な話を調査する前に、失踪王子プロジェクトを紹介し、その方法論を説明することが重要です。 | |
| Some of those involved in the project have written papers for this work, presenting archival discoveries and evidence. As a result, this publication represents the project’s first five-year report (2016?21). It is also important, as the project’s lead, to clarify my position and role. I have studied the life and times of Richard III for nearly thirty years. It is a fascinating period of history, inspiring George R.R. Martin’s Game of Thrones fantasy series, and, of course, William Shakespeare’s famous play. And therein, it seems, lies the dichotomy of the two representations of Richard III: the loyal lord of the north (one interpretation),1 and the murdering psychopath. Two extremes certainly, but as we may all attest, life is many shades of grey. As a result, it was important to begin this investigation with a clean sheet. Yes, I am a Ricardian and revisionist. I hold this position on the basis of years of analysis of the contemporary source materials created during Richard’s lifetime. While much of that evidence has survived, a great deal more has been lost or destroyed since his death at the Battle of Bosworth. However, I was clear from the outset that I had to be prepared for whatever might be uncovered. The Looking For Richard Project had sought to lay the king to rest. It was now time to investigate the final question surrounding Richard III ? in the hope of making peace with the past, on both sides of the debate. My role was that of the investigation’s operations room ? its hub ? part of which involved launching a new website designed to attract volunteer members, the project’s boots on the ground. Intelligence gathering would be paramount if the project was to succeed in its primary aim of unravelling the mystery surrounding the boys’ disappearance. There is considerable archival material in America and Europe, particularly France, Germany and the Low Countries. I would need help if the project was to have any hope of uncovering new and neglected evidence. I also had to prepare for the possibility that many searches would probably prove fruitless. The ravages of time and the effects of two world wars were clearly a concern. It was also possible that after years of searching nothing new might be found. However, it was important that we were looking for the very first time. In the summer of 1483, two children disappeared: a boy of 12 and his brother, aged 9. The enquiry into their disappearance would, therefore, fall into the category of a cold-case missing person investigation, employing the same principles and practices as a modern police enquiry. Although it was not an academic study or exercise, it would naturally involve examination of all contemporary and near contemporary material. Intelligence gathering would be key. Cold-case procedure would introduce modern police investigative techniques to facilitate forensic analysis of existing material. This would inform the production of detailed timelines and new lines of investigation. It would also involve the application of ‘means, motive, opportunity and proclivity’ analysis to create a ‘person of interest’ enquiry and employ criminal search methodology and profiling systems. Significantly, the investigation would search for new and neglected archival material outside the main search locations and engage leading experts including police and Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) specialists. The term ‘missing’ would be central because this was all we knew for certain based on the available evidence. The project could be nothing other than a missing person investigation, albeit one that was over 500 years old. It was not, by any stretch of the imagination, an easy task. Initial analysis revealed a Gordian knot of information that would have to be unravelled and scrutinised so that nothing was missed. Apparent red herrings seemed to litter the stories surrounding the disappearance and each would have to be analysed and investigated. The project could not afford to miss anything, no matter how seemingly insignificant. Everything was on the radar. So, how could a cold-case investigation help move our knowledge forward? Hadn’t the events that led to the disappearance taken place too long ago for any meaningful modern analysis? I had come to Richard’s story as a screenwriter. Screenwriters are not in the business of writing about saints but about the human condition ? the complex, conflicted, flawed ? the real, or the ‘as real’ as the source material might allow. As I learnt more, I discovered that the working practices of modern screenwriters are not dissimilar to those of the police and investigative agencies. Specialists confirmed that the human element is critical to understanding and progressing an enquiry. This is achieved by first employing facts which are corroborated by the available contemporary material extracted at the location. There are three key elements: facts, as opposed to rumour, hearsay and gossip; location, proximity to the place under investigation; and contemporary, proximity to the time under investigation. Second, we extrapolate that key information in terms of what is known about the actions of those involved. People do not act one-dimensionally. For screenwriters and investigative specialists alike, actions speak louder than words. We must study what people do in order to understand what they know or believe. After specialist consultation, I discovered that successful cold-case enquiries are based on what I termed the HRH system of investigative analysis. That is, the removal of Hindsight; Recreating the past as accurately and realistically as possible by drilling down into that moment; and the introduction of the Human element in order to more properly understand the intelligence gathered. In short, this is the analysis of who was doing what, where, when, why, with whom and with what consequences. Such a strategy provides modern police specialists and investigative agencies with the means of unlocking a historical enquiry, particularly a cold-case missing person investigation. The advice of police investigators suggested the use of well-regarded methods such as TIE and ABC. TIE is the police acronym for ‘Trace, Investigate, Eliminate’. As witnesses to the disappearance are clearly unavailable for interview, timelines and an extensive database would reference and cross-check movements and begin to trace and eliminate individuals from the investigation. The second police acronym, ABC (Accept nothing. Believe nobody. Challenge everything), would ensure that evidence was properly corroborated. The project would also employ Occam’s Razor: a problem-solving device in which the simplest explanation is generally correct. For many years, a key member of my local branch of the Richard III Society was prize-winning novelist David Fiddimore. Before Dave sadly passed away in June 2015, he had been the head of Customs and Excise Intelligence in Scotland, investigating crimes of piracy, smuggling (usually drug related), fraud and money laundering. At many of our meetings Dave would arrive with black eyes and on one occasion fractured ribs. He would not, he said, send his team into a situation that he himself would not face. It had been one of the reasons he was interested in Richard III; a leader who also led from the front. His years of experience also taught him one important investigative lesson ? not to over-complicate a situation ? Occam’s Razor worked. I had employed the problem-solving device in my search for the king. Eighteenth- and nineteenth-century accounts of the location of the lost Greyfriars Priory in Leicester had described it as being ‘opposite St Martin’s Church’ (Leicester Cathedral). ‘Priory’ had been taken to mean the extensive precinct quarter encompassing an area equivalent today to five international football fields. I had challenged this view, believing it to mean the Priory church itself, its most important building. As a result, my mantra for the search for the king and at the 2012 dig was ‘church-road-church’. It proved accurate. At the Battle of Bosworth commemorations in Leicestershire on Saturday, 22 August 2015, the new research initiative was announced. I was asked for my initial thoughts. Having consulted a wide range of specialist police investigators, particularly those involved in cold-case missing person enquiries, my view was simple: could the application of Occam’s Razor shed new light on the mystery? This raised an important question: a former King Edward and a former Prince Richard disappeared during the reign of Richard III, and a ‘King Edward’ and a ‘Prince Richard’ reappeared during the reign of Richard’s successor, Henry VII. This simple narrative now formed a key line of enquiry. The Missing Princes Project set out in the summer of 2015 with three lines of investigation. This quickly developed into 111 lines of enquiry ? some of which you will read about in this work. In July 2016, at the Middleham Festival, The Missing Princes Project was formally launched. Previously, on 15 December 2015, the website went live. Within a few short hours the project secured its first eight members. In the weeks and months that followed over 300 volunteers from around the world would join. Ordinary people were prepared to investigate archives, many with specialist knowledge of palaeography (ancient writing) and Latin, others with European language skills. Members of police forces and Ministry of Defence specialists also joined, as did medieval historians and specialists across a number of fields, including input from a number of the world’s leading forensic anthropologists. It was exciting and daunting in equal measure. The search for the truth had begun. |
|
|
| Part1-2 The Missing princes Edward Ⅴ and Richard | 1-2 失踪した王子 エドワード5世とリチャード | |
兄 Edward Ⅳ-----------――――――――――弟Richard Ⅲ 二人の息子(2 Princes) Edward Ⅴ and Richard
|
||
| We begin our investigation | ||