![]() ![]() The burden of proof is not narrow but broad. It is the clinical judgement of a panel of impartial professionals.Ĩ. It’s not about your opinion, my opinion or even Ed Coss’ opinion. It is merely trying to determine a framework through which Napoleon had to operate.ħ. Having a Personality Disorder is not a criticism or an attack in any way. It was only suggested as a result of the evidence as it emerged.Ħ. The initial enquiry centred on PTSD or head injury. The team DID NOT go looking for narcissism. ![]() Removing one or two sources does not therefore necessarily invalidate the result.ĥ. The evidence was drawn from a wide range of sources, so that any conclusions were not unduly influenced or invalidated if one voice was discounted. Most were corroborated by more than one source.Ĥ. Those that conflicted with others or materially with the facts were removed. The statement used as data points were either from Napoleon’s own pen or taken directly from 1st person testimony from someone in the room. There are no biases or prejudices to attack.ģ. Unlike historical enquiry, no one is forming opinions or arguments based on the writing of this or that source. ![]() It’s a multi-disciplinary approach that cannot be gainsaid by the usual ‘source sniping’ so beloved by historians.Ģ. This was NOT an exercise in historical enquiry in the traditional sense, but forensic analysis. I’m typing this real slow so I can be clear.ġ. Kiley I’m fast coming to the conclusion that you just don’t get it. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |