Interpretations are the key to history, and they change with each individual. When you read historical documents you bring with you personal sets of biases and cultural context, as well as background knowledge. Some of the information from this last challenge wasn't knew to me because I've taken BC history classes, and have lived in the region for the last five years, so I brought with me a certain set of expectations. I read things differently than my other team members, including those with less historical context and more regional knowledge.

I did find it very interesting that there were very few places all teams focused on, the exception of the trial and murder itself. We all seemed to go in different directions, whether getting into the social or political history of the time, or talking in broad (and often generalized) ways. I am a little disheartened that we weren't required to provide sources for our arguments, as I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around some of the accusations made... but that could just be my inner historian. Even though we all used the same pool of resources, it'd be interesting to make note of how each team focused their search, and whether or not it was a definite or objective study of the material at hand. I know I was the big champion for objectivity in our study sessions, because it's easy to make snap decisions and have them colour the information accordingly. For the longest time, we had absolutely no idea who could have committed the crime, and in fact, aren't firm in our decisions because there is a distinct lack of concrete evidence. Without concrete evidence, we refused to just point fingers at whomever seemed likely, which could have backfired on us in the judging round. Luckily, y'all didn't see that as a cop out, because it wasn't intended that way.

We figure that there is no answer that can be found within the resources available to us, or else someone would have figured it out already.

---

Allison represents Britain in the League of Notions