Assuming this case were to go to law... Who would try it out of interest? Thinking on the current state of the law re. 90+ year olds and the departed etc. this is not a case as such. Back in WW2 though would the British have actually taken this one through a whole process? Assuming sufficient evidence that a case might be made etc. Or entertained German requests to do such? Was there German insignia on the smock, did he speak German, carry false papers etc. As I said, I think the Germans might have shot him either way but did legally we "have to"? I wonder. I just think a V.C. well deserved there, and if there was ever a "case", the law should have been busier elsewhere. They shouldn't just cherry pick the "easiest" and "closest" cases to pursue. In terms of what he was alleged to have done what was the actual punishment that the "law says now" or "then" should have fit the crime. Apologies for my blank stares The whole things still a bit of a mystery to me, but I'd love to know more about what people think was the ultimate point there (in the gist of the argument of the writers of the original comments mentioned in post#1) All the best, Rm.