Filed with Odyssey's 'response to Spain's "Motion to Dismiss"' yesterday were affidavits by various maritime historians, an archaeologist, a lawyer, and a statistician.
FLAYHART AFFIDAVIThttp://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/IMtwSV0irEqBGtSO8_bZU2qXQQHVwPIaU6h7SOfT_HXszi3h6PVTtpkmBOdGXzR8H3RXWJFMzEMuvMIAj0uW2LSOXQnexpEC/BS%20-%20FLAYHART%20AFFIDAVIT%20and%20REPORT.pdf
GONI AFFIDAVIThttp://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/IMtwSXj826yBGtSOZUOMKSJC1jpicc4pb_0VLGkKJt0LimW3zlmNrVJVshhLlt8Wwlha_jvY2AIZrSyB5ZMKxcDEmWVUmTbP/BS%20-%20GONI%20AFFIDAVIT.pdf
KINGSLEY AFFIDAVIThttp://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/IMtwSZueBNqBGtSON7HQQjfGmP3O0HSlCZCAd9NYbH2NPbGeYesRXHutuq9BmtlLeAYa91CiBoG1jQuH1VPgW9Db_VyGfvP0/BS%20-%20KINGSLEY%20AFFIDAVIT%20and%20REPORT.pdf
From the Kingsley Affidavit we learn the complete list of artifacts from the Black Swan:
i. A wide scatter of 286 copper ingots
ii. 481 4-handled ingots, possibly tin
iii. Hundreds of concreted coins clumps and clusters
iv. 5 bronze cannon
v. 13 probable and 3 possible iron cannon
vi. 1 ceramic olive jar (and 1 base of a probable olive jar)
vii. Hundreds of large amorphous iron concretions on top of corrosion pedestals
viii. 1 concentration of high-value domestic table ware (8 pewter/silver plates, 2 tray
handles, 4 spoons, 4 probable silver/pewter candlesticks, 1 gold candlestick)
ix. 1 bronze rudder pintle
x. 1 miscellaneous bronze reinforcement unit
xi. 1 bronze rope pulley
xii. 1 certain, 1 probable and 2 possible copper hull bolts
xiii. 1 strip of copper tubing or copper hull sheathing crumpled into the form of a tube
xiv. Miscellaneous copper artifacts
xv. 2 crumpled lead tubes
xvi. Several sections of lead sheet
xvii. 6 areas of dense iron concretions, probably rigging
xviii. 3 sections of rope, plus 3 possible sections of rope
xix. 2 possible fragmentary wooden planks
xx. Several brick fragments
Kingsley, an archaeologist, is particularly harsh as he "responds predominantly to James Delgado’s testimony, but also corrects factual inaccuracies presented in the Kingdom of Spain’s Motion to Dismiss and by Teodoro de Leste Contreras and Hugo O’Donnell Y Duque de Estrada."
" I will demonstrate that the above-referenced declarations are not merely alarmingly inaccurate about their major points, but appear to be deliberately deceptive in places. It is my opinion that it would be impossible for a professional archaeologist to arrive at many of the conclusions without having submitted to a pre-conceived political agenda."
To sum up the arguments, this conclusion from Carlisle:
"19. In the light of all of the evidence cited here, it is clearly incorrect to hold that the cargo of the ship is subject to the doctrine of sovereign immunity as a warship on a war mission in time of war. Rather, the facts demonstrate that the ship was a naval ship on Correos Maritimos assignment. The ship was only defensively armed in compliance with British demands regarding Spanish neutrality. The ship was only partially manned. The ship carried commercial and governmental cargo, but the vast majority of that cargo was owned and claimed by private individuals. The ship was devoted to cargo and passenger carriage and it was clearly on a peaceful mission, in time of peace. The maritime incident of the destruction of the ship during a period of peace and neutrality recognized by both Spain and Britain was a major cause of the later decision by the Spanish Crown to declare that Britain had initiated a state of war."