The crucial question therefore is whose evidence can we rely upon?
Is it Dr Gardiner's, who has compiled a private critique on my hypothesis? A man who did not ask me to accompany him around the site on his half day visit in April last year, and as a result of this made a number of glaring errors in his report. He assumed that Mrs Blackford, the tenant farmer's wife, knew where the evidence in my manuscript was located. An error of judgement that led him to access the wrong mound. He assumed that the earthen bank in Monkham inlet was built to keep water out of the inlet, but failed in his short visit to notice that the stream that went into the area would produce the opposite result. Yet another error of judgement which does not stand the test of scrutiny. He assumed that my boat parts were in waterlogged clay - when they were not. He assumed that the ridge and furrow in Kiln Field, an ancient field name, was a hop garden, when Wessex archaeology clearly recognise this as an ancient feature (Wessex report para 7.3.3.), as I have done.
Dr Gardiner has consistently claimed that the earthworks on the top of Wilting Hill is a lynchet, providing detailed drawings of how a lynchet was probably formed. What we find when the archaeology is done, is that there is no evidence for a lynchet, but clear evidence of parallel ditches which could be a defence or earthworks.
Should we believe Dr Gardiner's view of whether Wilting is the Norman Invasion site or not, when as an expert in these matters he has gone on record to criticise my resistivity work. Work which took many months to complete and check. At the Inquiry it was stated that he could see no evidence of ditches in the Lower Norman fort.(Day 58 page 38 of the unchecked record). Yet again when the archaeology has been completed ditches are identified, nearly 2 meters wide, exactly where I said that the Iron Age and Norman fort ditches would be found. At the Inquiry Dr Gardiner claimed that his form of resistivity survey, using mesh data was the correct format (Day 58 page 38 of the unchecked record), and I stated that composite data would produce the results necessary. Surely we can now conclude absolutely who is right in these matters.
The issue is clear because there are two opposing points of view. At every turn Dr Gardiner has sought to undermine the credibility of my evidence, by the suggestion of this possible alternative, or that possible alternative to my thesis, based upon his own personal opinions. However at almost every turn his judgement has not delivered the promise when put to the test.
Should we entrust the faith of the nation in determining the fate of the Norman Invasion site to the judgement of a solitary expert, when his track record on this site has not lived up to expectations. An expert who only under cross-examination admits that he has not read all the documents that an expert on the subject would be expected to read.
Alternatively should you listen to me. Someone who is not paid to do this work and has worked away in libraries and in the fields for a number of years in the sole interest of historical truth. A man with no academic qualifications at all, but who has thoroughly researched every document, and has authored a manuscript that is now published around the world. A manuscript that has been accepted by the historical establishment as a valid and thorough work - where no stone has been left unturned.
This is the issue that stands to be resolved. I believe that faced with that decision and the issue of which version of events is reliable, there is only one, and that lies within the pages of my manuscript sir.
The best that the Highways Agency can muster in their case is the adoption of an out of date philosophy called Occam's Razor, which has no place in the serious study of history or science. A debunking philosophy where everything is reduced to the known, as a method of understanding. Indeed if we were to accept this philosophy in every day life, the earth would still be flat and America would never exist. Occam's razor served its day when Bertrand Russell ruled the roost of an academic fraternity, based around the power of the pen, in the hands of the few. Those days are long gone, where now public access to all information, including all the correspondence from this Inquiry, can be seen anywhere in the world using the World Wide Web of the Internet. As custodian of the 1066 Archive, all the major documents which I have written, and which have been produced in evidence, either to support my case, or against it, are open to scrutiny anywhere in the world. In the days when Bertrand Russell used the power of Occam's razor to eliminate academic opposition, it was possible to suppress comment that you did not agree with using selective critique. At the same time consigning the less fortunate manuscript into the bottom draw of one's desk, never to see the light of day again.
Well, like Occam's philosophy those days are now long gone, with the Internet acting as a truly democratic levelling ground, where all academic study is valid regardless of background, creed or academic standing. In consequence what was written in secret by Dr Gardiner, is now open for all to read, together with my assessment of the validity of his critique, and that of the Wessex work. This Inquiry may therefore be the first public Inquiry in the world, where the democratic process is not only being carried out here in St Leonards, but because of the media attention is being scrutinised around the globe, by those who are interested in the history of our country. Anyone connected to the Internet can use what is called a search engine to locate information. Should you decide to type in "Norman Invasion" or "1066" anywhere in the world you will find everything concerned with my evidence at this Inquiry, together with the main documents provided by the Highways Agency, together with other correspondence from Houts, Chibnall, Jennings and Smyth, Gardiner and all.
Unlike previous public Inquiries, this one is therefore different, because this one is dealing with a subject that has touched every single Englishman in the land, and is open far beyond these walls. Every child has been told the story of the Norman Invasion, and every single person has been told a lie for the last two hundred years. That is why this Inquiry is so important. Not because of where the road goes, but because the truth, that truth we call historical truth, will always come out in the end. The issue here is whether the truth that we have heard here will materialise immediately, in a decision to divert the road around this site, as a result of the scrutiny which my manuscript and the evidence has been put through, or whether the truth will materialise later , when the road is built, and these events are held up as an example of the failures of the system to protect our national heritage.
If that were to happen it would prove to everyone, politicians, housewives, the media and children across the land, that the system which is there to protect sites such as this, does not work. It would prove that the Public Inquiry process is weighted towards government agencies, and it would undermine the faith of the public in the democratic process. Most importantly at this Inquiry the evidence can be read by anyone anywhere connected to a computer. That is what makes this inquiry different.
What is the point of publishing Public Inquiry Policy Statements, if these documents do not have teeth, and mean what they say. Why make statements from government proposing that new trunk routes should "not go through open countryside", if this is blatantly ignored as in this case,(Trunk Roads in England 1994 Review Section 4 Public Inquiry Policy Statement para 6.) where the road is turned through 90 degrees from its previous route straight through a possible national heritage treasure. Why direct us to "make every pound count" (Trunk Roads in England 1994 Review Section 4 Public Inquiry Policy Statement para 4.2) if at the same time a cheaper more environmentally friendly scheme could have been adopted, but was not. All of these government papers are made a mockery, if this road proceeds along the published route.
What is the point of spending months in public debate, if the sole object of the exercise is to rubber stamp Dr Webbe's decision, not to look into the southerly route, because in his view it was "inappropriate" to go further south.(Page 41. Day 55 of the unchecked record). Surely in circumstances where the national interest, both at a heritage and environmental level, is at stake, it is the Public Inquiry process which is there to protect the public from such apparent blunders, as to not even consider the cheapest route.
The Norman Invasion is an issue that touches every living Englishman in some way or another. A site which concerns the foundations of England as we know it. I have taken the trouble to ensure that my voice is not drowned by Occam's razor, the Highways Agency's bottom drawer, or any other outdated philosophy. My voice has been heard all over the world, and I state with absolute confidence that my case is solid. In consequence I am totally confident that justice will be done, and also justice will be seen to be done.
It is a very hard decision to stop a road, but sometimes this must be done. But remember that this is not my case to stop this road. It is about choosing a better route. The route that should have been adopted in the first place.
Dr Gardiner made one valid point in his proof, which he rightly detailed as a Determining Issue. He stated (Para 5.2 page15 of his Proof) that "Absolute proof is rarely possible in historical and archaeological studies. Historians and archaeologists are used to balancing probabilities, to assessing the strength of one argument against another." This is the ultimate test of my manuscript ,and the test which confirms my thesis that the Normans landed at Wilting as correct. A form of proof - the proof of the Normans, which I stated at the beginning of my evidence in person, which I intended to show. This proof of the Normans, is proof of probability - the very probability which the historians have already accepted, and to which Dr Gardiner refers.
This issue has not been covered by the Highways Agency in any detail, and I guess that this is because it highlights the greatest weakness in their position. This is that having taken forty points of reference from eight different sources of the era, thirty five of them could be applied to Upper Wilting farm where Redgeland is located.
The other five had not been found at the time of writing the thesis. However this does not alter the odds - the very probability which Dr Gardiner addresses in his proof of evidence because it is this probability which has to be addressed. It is not satisfactory for the Highways Agency to claim prior to hearing my spoken evidence that "absolute proof is rarely possible", and then to seek to rely upon absolute proof as their only comfort, when faced with the inevitable conclusion that if this case is judged upon probability alone, they will lose the argument.
It is now clear that having failed to prove conclusively that this is not the Norman landing site, something the quick fix Wessex investigation was probably intended to do, there is now sufficient uncertainty about the site for it to appear to be necessary for the Highways Agency to adopt the fall back position. That is to ignore their own expert's words, and seek to justify proof as only being acceptable if absolute. A distinct shift in the playing field.
In this case it clearly cannot be absolute, and so the balance of success or failure lies solely with probability. Is it probable after all we have heard and written that the Normans landed at Hastings, at Upper Wilting Farm in 1066 or not?
Let us look in detail at the fundamental basis of my claim again, in order to assess this issue and put it to the test.
I said in my manuscript that 40 elements have been found from eight historical sources, which allow us to identify the site in question. The Highways Agency do not claim that any of these sources are invalid or unreliable, and therefore these sources must be acknowledged to be valid witnesses, whom I shall call to support my case.
Eight works of varying degrees of complexity and background. In consequence the issue of whether one source has more weight than another is lessened by the lack of need to rely upon any one source - all have equal value in seeking to establish the validity of my site.
Let us now look at the forty issues involved, because these are the forty points that need to be eliminated from the search if the Highways Agency case is to be believed, because I state in my manuscript that I believe at least 35 are valid for this one site. How many of these relevant points have been discredited by cross examination and how many still stand? That is the crucial issue that needs to be addressed, because only then can you establish the probability that my case is correct. Probability is based upon judgement and ultimately mathematical odds. Odds that can be calculated and therefore relied upon.
I shall deal with the forty issues in the same order as presented in my manuscript. However unlike my manuscript I shall take an extremely tough line on what has or has not been proven or disproved.
Item 1. The landing was unopposed. This issue is not disputed by the Highways Agency in their evidence.
Item 2. The landing was at the place known as Hastings. It has been explained at the Inquiry that the town of Hastings was adjacent to the landing site. The Highways Agency have sought to persuade us that this is not the case. I would argue that the weight of circumstantial evidence together with the discovery of archaeological remains on the top of Chapel Field does not eliminate this possibility. However Dr Gardiner was adamant in his evidence that this whole area would have been known as Hastings. It would therefore appear from Dr Gardiner's own evidence that Wilting Manor is acceptable to mean Hastings. The point therefore remains a valid issue concerning this site.
Item 3. The camp was by or near the sea. The camp has been shown to fulfil this requirement and is not disputed by the Highways Agency.
Item 4. The Camp was at a Port. It is my contention that the camp was at the port of Hastings. I have produced place name evidence that appears to support this and whilst the issue of whether this was the port of Hastings is disputed by the Highways Agency, I do not believe that they have made a good enough case to confirm that no port is located in the Combe Haven. The evidence by Dr Gardiner confirmed that the Combe Haven probably did contain a port. I do not need to prove that this port was the port of Hastings, all I need do is prove that the port was in the Combe Haven valley and it was in the area of Hastings. I believe I have done this satisfactorily, and therefore this point continues to support the Upper Wilting site.
Item 5. A port capable of holding at least 696 ships. The Highways Agency have disputed the issue of the port but have not disputed the issue of whether the Combe Haven bay was capable of holding 696 ships. Clearly the geography of the bay supports this point and in the absence of its challenge the point stands in favour of the Upper Wilting site.
Item 6. Camp site in a calm bay. This issue has not been disputed by the Highways Agency and therefore stands unchallenged.
Item 7. Camp adjacent to a large shore. The camp at Wilting was adjacent to a large shore. This issue is not disputed by the Highways Agency in their evidence and therefore stands unchallenged.
Item 8. The ships were side by side. This evidence has not been examined by the Highways Agency. It cannot yet be confirmed by archaeology until more work is done. It therefore remains untested.
Item 9. They built a wooden fort. This issue is not disputed by the Highways Agency and the structure in the Lower Norman Fort and Upper Norman Fort is claimed to be wooden. I contend that the post holes confirm the wooden origin and therefore this point still supports the Upper Wilting site.
Item 10. The fort had a ditch. The Lower Norman Fort has a ditch where I indicated. The Highways Agency cannot dispute that the ditch is where I indicated it would be found. This point supports Upper Wilting site as the Norman Invasion camp, even after excavation by Wessex.
Item 11. There were previous forts at the site. This is of course one of the most contentious issues discussed at the Inquiry, and one that occupied a large amount of time. It is my claim that the earthworks on the top of Chapel Field, and the parallel ditches confirm a defence on the top of the hill. It is also apparent that activity has taken place in the Lower Norman fort area but at this time the archaeology has not produced definitive proof of previous sites. The issue is therefore not as yet proven one way or the other.
Item 12. The fort was on a hill. The Highways Agency have disputed whether a fort is located there (a separate issue) but not disputed that this site is on a hill. Therefore it remains as a legitimate point in favour of the Upper Wilting site.
Item 13. The ships were earthed up. The Highways Agency have sought to prove that the earthen bank across Monkham Inlet was built for reasons other than earthing up Norman boats. No evidence has been provided to show that this bank was built at a later date. However the fact that an earthen bank is located across the inlet means that regardless of any opinion to the contrary the site still qualifies.
Item 14. The ships were dismantled - not proven yet.
Item 15. The ships were burnt - not proven yet.
Item 16. The ships were small - not proven yet.
Item 17. William's ship had a figurine - not proven.
Item 18. The ships had Viking type prows - not proven yet.
Item 19. The prows had removable heads - not proven yet.
Item 20. The camp was next to or at a manor held by the king. The Highways Agency provided evidence where they put forward an opinion that such a manor was not the understanding of the word Lord. This however is only an opinion and the evidence is that this camp site is in a manor next to one held by the king. Therefore according to my thesis, the object of investigating these issues, the point must remain a valid observation to support Wilting. The Highways Agency may dispute the observation but cannot deny that it is correct.
Item 21.The initial landing site was small. Confirmed by the site at Monkham Inlet. This issue has not been denied by the Highways Agency.
Item 22. There was a plain near by the landing site. This issue has not been denied by the Highways Agency.
Item 23. The neighbourhood was laid to waste. Whilst the issue of waste on the London to Pevensey road was disputed the Highways Agency do not dispute the fact that the neighbourhood of Wilting was laid waste.
Item 24. The ground was uneven and waterlogged. Dr Gardiner disputed the meaning of my observation from Poitiers. However this ground is uneven and waterlogged and qualifies as "rough ground," even if my interpretation as waterlogged is not accepted. The site of the Lower Norman Fort and the landing site is too wet to use between November and February and qualifies for this observation.
Item 25. The camp was at the bottom of an agricultural field. This issue has not been challenged by the Highways Agency and since Wilting was a known manor site it must qualify.
Item 26.The other camp was at the top of the same hill. This is denied by the highways Agency but remains unproven.
Item 27.The bottom camp was to the right of the bottom of the hill. This is not challenged by the Highways Agency and remains a valid point. Let me say that to dispute the issue of whether the Bayeux Tapestry is a pictorial account of the Invasion or not, is not a valid challenge to a straight forward observation. The Bayeux Tapestry shows this event and therefore either this site can accommodate the picture or not. The fact that it does confirms it as a valid observation.
Item 28. The fort at the bottom of the hill had two towers. This evidence has not yet been investigated.
Item 29. There was a mound between the two towers. - Not proven.
Item 30. The towers and fort walls had a terraced bottom. This evidence has not yet been investigated.
Item 31. There is a circular dining room. This evidence has not yet been investigated.
Item 32.The exit was to the right of the fort looking from the sea. This evidence has not yet been investigated.
Item 33. The Duke's quarters were elevated at the site. This evidence has not yet been investigated.
Item 34.The camp at the top of the hill had two towers and a connecting palisade. This evidence has not yet been investigated although the ditches might be the first evidence of the palisade. At present the matter requires more investigation.
Item 35. The camp had chapels in adjacent fields upon departure. Chapel Field is located where I indicate the top Norman camp to be located. However until more work is undertaken the point remains unproven.
Item 36. The landing site was low down below three houses. This matter has not been challenged by the Highways Agency and therefore remains a valid point.
Item 37. There is a grave at the site. One mound has been examined and one remains to be investigated. The point is therefore currently unproven.
Item 38. The Grave has a marker stone. The stone has not yet been found - point unproven.
Item 39. The camp is in the manor of Crowhurst or Wilting. It is fact that the claimed camp is in the manor of Wilting.
Item 40. The site is called Hedgeland. This final point has been explained in detail at the Inquiry, and I believe provides a close enough link between the two names, in their phonetic format, to qualify as confirmation of the camp site.
We have now looked at the forty item again, now that the Inquiry has examined the evidence, in order to test the veracity of my claims. What do we find? What we find is that eleven of the items have not been disputed by the Highways Agency at all. A further ten of the points have been proven as valid points, making a total of twenty one correct items. Eighteen have not yet been proven, one way or the other, and one point - the issue of the mound in the Lower Norman Fort, appears to have been disproved, unless further excavation reveals something else in that area.
I am not unhappy to concede one point out of forty. If we look in detail at that concession, what has been given away. In my manuscript, page 70, item 29 states "There is a mound between two towers. The Bayeux Tapestry shows a mound between two towers at the bottom fort. This could possibly be a grave site".
If we look at this observation it was never of great consequence. It was always only a possible grave site or maybe just a mound. So let's just put that point in perspective. Unlike many of the other observations it was in many respects a speculative observation. It was proven wrong, and one observation out of forty leaves enough detail to establish the validity of a site.
Now that we know where we stand on those forty point, we can calculate the comparable probability of this site being the Norman Invasion site against any other site.
We know that in the National Lottery the statistical odds of picking 6 balls from 49 is approximately 14 million to one.
If we put 21 coins in a bag, where one side is heads - as a correct observation, and the other side tails - as an incorrect observation, on each coin, and pulled them out one after the other blindfold, we would need to do this one over two to the power of 21 times to guarantee all with the same correct face. This is a number just in excess of 1,000,000. Times. However unlike the bag of coins, when we are in the right place, the 21 coins come out the same way every time we conduct this exercise.
These sorts of statistics work on the simple principal that either the observation is right or wrong. Where the correct side keeps appearing, the more often it appears the more likely the site is to be the one you are looking for. In other words the higher the number the more likely the site is to be correct. This principal can be applied to any site you like.
Where 21 such observations are proven, the odds of achieving this in the wrong site is almost non existent. The fact that a further eighteen issues can still be investigated, does not reduce these odds, because the statistics of the existing elements remain true to this site.
It might be argued that this approach is not a realistic approach to statistics, because the different elements could apply to any site. However this is where such a large number of variables can put the matter in perspective.
If we conduct the same exercise at the only other eligible site, Pevensey, we can provide a true comparative test. The comparison is upon equal terms and therefore valid. In such an exercise only five items survive the test. These are 1) the landing was unopposed , 2)The camp was near the sea - although to be fair no camp site has ever been identified, 3) The camp was at a port - again no confirmation of this 4) The camp was adjacent to a large shore - an assumption and 5) there was a plain near the landing site - another assumption.
Only five matters correct, representing comparative odds of two to the power of five - 32 compared to over 1million as a straight statistical comparison.
All the matters from the manuscripts which apply to the Wilting site fall away in the case of Pevensey - the place upon which the Highways Agency seek to hang their hat for the site of the Norman Invasion.
Logic dictates that it cannot stack up any other way than Wilting being the correct site. The evidence is compelling, and it is clear from those who have read my manuscript, with open minds, that this statistical point just emphasises the comparative weight of the Wilting site against any other. The element of doubt, if it ever was ever there, is removed, since it is probable on these statistics alone that Dr Gardiner is almost certainly wrong in his assertion that the Norman camp and landing site might be somewhere else. This is because it is impossible to find any other site which can pass the statistics test, with a higher number, the figures prove the point!
This is not negative evidence. This is evidence that carries weight. Weight which cannot be ignored. The weight comes from the eight most respected historical documents ever written about the Norman Invasion. To remind those present these are: The Domesday Book, The Bayeux Tapestry, William of Jumieges, William of Poitiers, Wace, The Saxon Chronicles and the Carmen. Witnesses long since departed, but none the less written by recognised authorities, as to what was located at the landing and camp site.
Only through examination of this information has a truth materialised, where not one single inconsistency exists. A truth where each writer is shown to provide an accurate account. A truth where the evidence in one manuscript is no longer seen to conflict with another.
It is the removal of the inconsistencies that makes this evidence so compelling to historians and those interested in historic truth. The Highways Agency have not even sought to address the issues involved, because they cannot. A total flaw in their presentation. They have sought to rely upon a status quo, which carries forward errors which could not be explained. Now a truth is there for all to see, and it is the truth about the removal of the inconsistencies, that shines through the fog of doubt sown by the Highways Agency experts.
It is a fundamental issue regarding the landing and camp site, raised in my manuscript, as to how to explain the difference in the inconsistencies of the different documents. I cannot accept that it is legitimate to simply ignore the issue. To ignore this matter is to admit that there is no legitimate response. It is an unstated admission that the proposals made at this Inquiry by the Highways Agency experts are simply wrong in assumptions which cannot be supported by the historical documents.
The Highways Agency cannot conceivably claim that they know that the Norman camp and landing site is not at Upper Wilting farm. The sole basis for their case, is that if Dr Gardiner is right, then it might be somewhere else.
Even if the odds were only one in ten, that I am right about this site, how could anyone justify that risk as being acceptable, when an alternative route is available that is cheaper and does not damage the site. Where does the buck stop - is it two in ten or three in ten? How can we dismiss the concept of odds of certainty in the order of one in two to the power of 21? That is a statistic which cannot be argued with. I say that given the wealth of evidence, some of which may be contentious, but certainly most of which is not, any risk imposed upon this site is morally wrong, where an alternative less damaging route exists.
I have heard the other side and I cannot deny that they are within their right to argue that alternative explanations may exist to some elements of my thesis. However they cannot claim under any circumstances that there is no possibility that my case is right and they cannot explain the inconsistencies shown by any other site.
I must therefore turn their case upon its head, and argue that if there is that possibility of being wrong - that possibility is a totally unacceptable risk, where an alternative cheaper route exists. That is the flaw in their rebuttal. They do not provide a satisfactory answer to the issue of why the published route should proceed, when a cheaper and less damaging one exists.
Lastly those words that I have used before, I shall use again, because I have not heard any satisfactory response from the Highways Agency, to attempt to counter them. Mr Jeapes, if I am wrong, there will be no loss to the nation, either in cultural heritage or in terms of nature conservation. However, if the Highways Agency is wrong, and its experts have shown a consistent ability to be wrong in this case, the nation will lose forever the chance to preserve, in its entirety, its most important historical asset. There is only one safe decision that can be made regarding this site. It is a great responsibility that you bear and I am certain that having heard and read all the evidence, you will make the right decision, to save Upper Wilting farm, a site I believe that I have shown is probably the site of the first camp of William the Conqueror, and almost certainly, the site of the Norman Invasion.
Thank you.
Back to Correspondence Index