The 50lber – Let’s see the doubters’ ‘proof’!

[Cliff Hatton]

I have spent close to 5 hours (over several days) re-reading threads on this topic both on here and on the old Fishingwharehouse site and to be perfectly honest, and looking from a legal standpoint, I see absolutely no concrete evidence to support the propositions from, either side.

Personally, I am not convinced but would not, and do not,
suggest that either party are not being anything short of honest as they view the situation.

There is a lot of circumstantial evidence but little or
no demonstrable evidence, the type of which one would
rely upon in Court. This being due to the fact that it is
a deduction based on the facts, but in this case those facts are simply not demonstrable.

There is a lot of character evidence, from both sides,
which while that attempts to prove a person's actions has
no weight unless supported by phyical evidence which in
this case appears to have been lost.

In addition there seems to be a host of anecdotal evidence which goes to explain an action, but on its own cannot be given guaranteed credence, as it can be "cherry picked" to support a proposition.

It seems that this is the classic case of "he said, she said" and while it is laudible that friends have continued to fight what they see, or deem to be, an injustice until and unless evidence of a legal standard is offered there can be no solution.

Given that one party are not regular contributors to FM, and therefore do not see these threads, then maybe the best way forward it to just let this prickly topic rest?

Hi, Peter.

From a 'legal standpoint' as you put it, there is copious, GLARING, 'concrete evidence' to support our contention and I'm rather disappointed that you haven't picked this up. What's not 'concrete', Peter, about the Moor Hall Angling Club's minutes which prove that Martin was in Hornchurch, Essex when Selman and the Carp Society say he was in Canada catching giant carp?

What's not 'concrete' about the unanimous testimony of an entire club committee stating that the original photos showed only typical English lake surroundings and positively NO mountains or power stations?

And - perhaps above all - what's not 'concrete' about the fact that dare not speak its name apparently? That of Selman's unwavering, 25 year, 'one million per cent' contention that the fish were caught from a lake in British Columbia which, overnight, was astonishingly changed to 'one million per cent' Lennox power station?

From a 'legal standpoint', Peter, these 3 points alone would have Selman and the Carp Society eating very humble pie.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

As I stated Cliff, neither side appear to have concrete physical physical evidence that would stand up to the detailed scrutiny in a court of law.

For example, have the Minutes from that Meeting been published, and acredited by sworn witness statements?

Using dint of repetition, or emphasis by emboldening text does not make "factual evidence"

Statements by (un-named) committee members are also pointless unless supported by the actual photos that they allegedly have seen . . . . you see, the only key to a final ending to this sorry saga is to publish the actual photographs.

The same burden of proof is applicable to both sides of this dispute and had the other side been party to this thread then I'd have been asking them the same questions.

Just a thought regarding so called "expert witness" statements a provided in Eddie's post above . . . . comments such as, "Tough to say" or "it may be" or later on, "I'm pretty sure" actually raise far more questions than they provide answers for . . . .

 

[Cliff Hatton]

Thanks, Peter.

Official verdicts are routinely reached in our legal system on the basis of evidence; physical proof is not needed. Indeed, people have been jailed for murder without a body being found. Like I said, the evidence against the Carp Society is damning.

Yes, the minutes (which Eddie published here) will have been approved and signed. Please accept that each and every one of the committee and others who made statements here on FM are honest people.

Any comment, Peter, on the 25 Year Miracle? What do you have to say about this?

 

[stevejay]

.Well I think I can answer that - They have NO PROOF that the fish were caught in Canada.

This is what makes this whole saga so laughable, they may well have no proof, but those Gay supporters mentioned DO have proof, yet choose to keep it to themselves rather than publish it and clear the guys tarnished reputation.....thats just weird in my humble opinion.

 

[Cliff Hatton]

This is what makes this whole saga so laughable, they may well have no proof, but those Gay supporters mentioned DO have proof, yet choose to keep it to themselves rather than publish it and clear the guys tarnished reputation.....thats just weird in my humble opinion.

Cheers, Steve.

None of us 'Gay supporters' have claimed to have proof of where the fish were caught; we do, however, have proof that they weren't caught in Canada and that the Carp Society stitched-up a fine and honest angler.

 

[eddiebenham]

This is what makes this whole saga so laughable, they may well have no proof, but those Gay supporters mentioned DO have proof, yet choose to keep it to themselves rather than publish it and clear the guys tarnished reputation.....thats just weird in my humble opinion.

Hi Steve...............What an odd thing to say. What makes you think that "those Gay supporters mentioned DO have proof"
I can assure you 100% (no such thing as 1 million per cent) that if Cliff or I had PROOF we would have provided it years ago in order to restore Martins good name and reputation. What we have provided is good evidence to show that the fish were not caught in Canada. We DO NOT have PROOF that they were caught in the UK even though we know they were.

 

[eddiebenham]

Personally, I am not convinced but would not, and do not,
suggest that either party are not being anything short of honest as they view the situation.

Hi Peter...................Interesting post. I wonder if you can give me your 'legal' opinion on which of the following options might be accepted as good evidence (not proof) in a Court of Law. This is with regard to the photo shown to 13 people including Robin Monday.

1. It is my understanding that the part of the picture blocked out did indeed show a Canadian Mountain Landscape. 1 million per cent.

2. Bits of the Power Station are missed off so as not to reveal the location. 1 million per cent.

3. There was a fence in the background with a notice on it.

4. All three versions are true.

Numbers 1 & 2 are from Selman but 25 years apart.
Number 3 Is from myself, Cliff Hatton, Robin Monday and the Moor Hall Committee members on a Tuesday evening following which Martin showed the photo to Robin Monday prior to fishing with him the following weekend.
Again, which option. Also from Selman.

1.It is fact that when Martin caught those fish he was on holiday in British Columbia. There is fantastic big carp fishing in BC.

2.The fish were caught from a warm water outlet from Lennox Power Station. Ontario is a noted carp area, British Columbia isn't.

3. Both are untrue as all those who saw the photo, including Robin Monday never saw either of those options only a fence with a sign on it.

 

[eddiebenham]

Just a thought regarding so called "expert witness" statements a provided in Eddie's post above . . . . comments such as, "Tough to say" or "it may be" or later on, "I'm pretty sure" actually raise far more questions than they provide answers for .

Hi Peter................Selman had stated that Martin should have blocked out the grass/plants in the photo as they did not grow in the UK. I was not trying to specifically identify them but trying to establish that he was not correct and that they did grow in the UK. The considered opinion, tough to say or not, of the Biologist at Queens University was that both the weed and the grass were common across the UK.

 

[eddiebenham]

Statements by (un-named) committee members

Hi Peter................Just to put the record straight ALL the Committee members were named by me after seeking their approval, apart from John Amos who had since passed away.

Here's their names again; Eddie Benham, Mac McCarthy, Mike Tilbrook, Gynne Davis, Alan Blackford, Frank Payne, John Reed, John Amos., and of course Martin Gay.
These men were all asked what they saw in the photos and their testimonies were subsequently posted by me on a previous thread.
No Mountains, No Power Station, just a fence with a notice board. Apart that is from Martin and a bloody great Carp.

 

[Philip]

Phil: Eddie and I are dragging the good name of Martin Gay OUT of the mud...the mud so scurrilously created and stirred by the Carp Society for nearly 30 years.

Your consistently dredging up a story his wife wants to go away on a public forum for which you are the editor & therefore providing the platform for the doubters to drag his name through the mud.

I note you side stepped the important bit again.

is Yvonne aware this is happening ?

just a fence with a notice board. Apart that is from Martin and a bloody great Carp.

And a stack of multicoloured Kayaks. How can you possibly continue to omit this rather major item on such a consistent basis.

 

[Molehill]

Comments noted, but our viewing statistics would suggest interest 10 x that for other topics.

I would suggest most of us are bored stiff by the whole story - which is almost a troll for the sake of viewing statistics.
Equally sort of fascinated and following it to see when someone eventually throws their toys out the pram and threatens to whack someone.
But your site, so there we go, but please don't take the viewing figures as genuine interest.

 

[Cliff Hatton]

Your consistently dredging up a story his wife wants to go away on a public forum for which you are the editor & therefore providing the platform for the doubters to drag his name through the mud.

I note you side stepped the important bit again.

is Yvonne aware this is happening ?





And a stack of multicoloured Kayaks. How can you possibly continue to omit this rather major item on such a consistent basis.

1) I don't think so, Phil.

2) Probably just to keep it simple, Phil...nothing else; and we're not sure they were kayaks...could have been though.

 

[fishface1]

Just remind me for the avoidance of any doubt in this story....

1) Did MG visit Canada?
2) Did he catch any carp when he was there?
3) When was the photo actually taken?

Thanks

 

[eddiebenham]

And a stack of multicoloured Kayaks. How can you possibly continue to omit this rather major item on such a consistent basis.

Hi Philip.................................No one has ever said that there was a stack of multicoloured Kayaks in the photo. Not everyone who saw the photos remembered any objects, too focused on the massive English Common that Martin was holding I guess. What I said, and I can't remember my exact words, was that there were some objects which I could not identify stacked up against the fence. This led to speculation as to what they were and someone came up with the Kayak theory.
I contacted Terry Brady the Environmental Advisor at Lennox and he told me "I can't imagine that Kayaks have ever been leaning against our fence at the outfall channel. In the 18 years I've been working here I have never seen anyone kayaking here. The water is just too big, and usually rough. I see the lake all day because my office overlooks it". This information was published in my article - The Martin Gay Commons - Time to decide.
Some time after Terry told me that he had received a phone call from someone (a male) asking about Kayaks stacked up the fence. He thought that it was most odd that anyone would phone him and ask that.
I'm not sure if he gave me the mans name but he did give the phone number which I have on record.
I will check my records to see and let you know, although I don't think it will add anything regarding the 'objects' stacked against the fence.
I suppose we could conclude that if they were indeed Kayaks then it was not Lennox warm water outfall.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Eddie,

I have given you my opinion based on the "facts" as you presented them . . . . and would ask the same question of the Carp Society's "evidence"

As I said earlier, I spent altogether far too long, for a casual observer, reading a multitude of threads on here and on the Fishingwharehouse sites and nothing so far had convinced me of the veracity of either side's case.

Whenever faced with conflicting sets of "evidence" the final ruling is based on a logical test of a reasonable man, or as the law defines it, "the man on the Clapham omnibus" . . . . it is therefore entirely up to that test, as applied by the logical minds here on FM.

In the final analysis I am left contemplating two very apt quotes from one of my favourite tomes, Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote:

“Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them.”

Secondly:

“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”

 

[103841]

Every time just recently when I click onto my favourite forum this thread is at the top of the page, I don’t wish to offend anyone involved but isn’t this a terrible advert for angling? A group of guys squabbling over the proof of a single fish and just going on and on and on.......

 

[Cliff Hatton]

Just remind me for the avoidance of any doubt in this story....

1) Did MG visit Canada?
2) Did he catch any carp when he was there?
3) When was the photo actually taken?

Thanks

I only know for sure, fishface, that Martin and his wife visited Banff National Park at least once. Other than that I don't actually know. Perhaps Eddie can add something.

I can tell you that Martin didn't fish in Canada. It is inconceivable that he wouldn't have mentioned it to Eddie or myself during one of our many, many get-togethers if he had fished there: a very important point.

The shot of the big one was taken July 1989.

 

[eddiebenham]

I have given you my opinion based on the "facts" as you presented them . . . . and would ask the same question of the Carp Society's "evidence

Hi Peter........................I asked you to make simple choice and you have not done so.

 

[bennygesserit]

I only know for sure, fishface, that Martin and his wife visited Banff National Park at least once. Other than that I don't actually know. Perhaps Eddie can add something.

I can tell you that Martin didn't fish in Canada. It is inconceivable that he wouldn't have mentioned it to Eddie or myself during one of our many, many get-togethers if he had fished there: a very important point.

The shot of the big one was taken July 1989.

Away you avoided the question It is well documented that Martin visited Canada
You opinion is that he did not fish in Canada
There is a lot of convincing opinion on various fora that he did

 

[sam vimes]

As, other than metaphorically, completely disappearing up ones own rectum isn't actually possible, I'm sad to say there is only one way that this will ever really end. I reckon that it might all be all done and dusted in no more than thirty years.