Marky B

I was a strong advocate of the death penalty,but I have softened over the years. However,if a person has maliciously killed another,then they deserve life imprisonment:walk into jail,and come out in a wooden box.
Adele Eastman's written tribute,as read out by the prosecution,to her murdered fiance Tom ap Rhys Pryce,was not only powerfully moving,but one of the most devastating passages ever read out in court,a la to Atticus Finch's defence speech in To Kill A Mockingbird.
Going back to 10 Rillington Place,I work with a girl who has never watched Richard Attenborough in a film since his portrayal as Christie - a testament to good acting .
Ta Ta
Marky B

I am special. The heavens always open for me.

Steve Crook

It depends on the country but most countries need the jury to be in full agreement for capital cases.

As for other films. They've been doing them for a while. Who Shall Take My Life? (1917) is probably one of the earliest to query things.

Let Him Have It (1991) is a great film, telling the story of Chris Craig & Derek Bentley. They tried a robbery but bungled it. The police chased them up onto the roof and they had Bentley in custody when Craig shot & killed a policeman.
Craig was too young to hang so they tried Bentley as an accomplice even though he was in custody when the shot was fired and is shown to be very slow witted and easily led. It wasn't proven that he even knew Craig had a gun. But Bentley was found guilty and hung whereas Craig remained alive.
Bentley was eventually pardoned in 1998.


The James Hanratty case was known as the "A6 murder". There is still a some doubt about his guilt.

Steve

smiffy

Thanks steve,got my wires crossed there I appreciate the correct info.
The film title who shall take my life? rings a bell,I will do some research into the miscarriage/doubt topic as there is bound to be something of real interest.
Any help much appreciated TTFN

I May be getting older ,but I refuse to grow up

smiffy

Education is the key to many things in life(I believe it has a role to play within the criminal justice system)and we all know that violence solves nothing.If you treat someone in an agressive and unjust manner the chances are that is why they went to prison in the first place ,they are unlikely to learn from the experience.
I don't advocate holiday camps for offenders,but prison is the place for them to gain the structure that they may have been lacking in the outside world.
There are certain classes within the criminal fraternity, some of which you will never educate because crime is their business, so lets not be naive we will never stamp out crime but lets look at things differently .
The prisons are full of petty,habitual criminals if you stop these people reoffending ,there will be more time and resources available to look at the hard core,violent,sex offending,major drug dealing criminals that should be there.
I agree with you mark that the victim gets a raw deal in many cases,this needs redress also.I personally spent two years as a supervisor for the community service programme,this was some of the most rewarding work I have ever done.The programme is fine but it actually needs more people working within it that can empathise with the offenders.
I personally brought all my projects in on time or early,with 100% customer satisfaction and 50% offender satisfaction(that might not seem much but again you have to be realistic you can't win them all )
My method was different to most of the other supervisors,I treated my clients as equals and I assisted with projects rather than standing and supervising.There is a great british institution the "TEA BREAK",we were allowed 30 mins per day,I gauged the work and found myself a willing tea boy who upon receiving the nod would get the kettle on,4 maybe 5 times a day.
These periods taught me more about the men (and the society they came from)due to the informal atmosphere,It's amazing how people open up when they believe they are being listened to and not judged,so much so that our tea breaks were almost confessionals,very uplifting.
I only did this work at weekends and had to stop only because I had a growing family who needed my time more.I stayed in contact with some of my clients after their hours were worked and to my knowledge the ones who reacted positively have never reoffended.My opinion is if you treat somebody like a criminal they will behave like a criminal,if you treat somebody like a human being,you can guess the rest.
Sorry if this is a rambling post, but it is not always correct to make sweeping statements without having access to all the facts,and I only know about my own small experience which is enough to influence my opinion (and it is only an opinion) I still oppose the death penalty and I still think the criminal justice system needs a major overhaul,unfortunately I don't have the answers ,but "fighting fire with fire" doesn't always work.

Getting back to the thread CHRISTIE ,the death penalty, punishment does anybody have a workable solution, TTFN, SMIFFY

I May be getting older ,but I refuse to grow up

smiffy

Hi Mark,10 rillington place,true story,murder,injustice,discussion starts on forum,people air their views on the film discussion sways toward punishment fitting the crime and how we should deal with offenders.

Mark I am sorry for your loss and experiences,and believe me I know exactly how you feel,I don't think you are wrong for feeling that way either.It is a natural instinct to feel angry (even hate) towards those that have hurt us by hurting the ones we love,It Is how we react after the dust has settled that sets us apart from those that have wronged us! "If you seek revenge remember to dig two graves"

Society has so many problems I don't know where to start,and the point I was trying to make was that not only do we need to educate the people who offend ,but the people responsible for them after they do.
The experience I have is limited to your "common or garden" criminal,and that is why I asked for others opinions,because when it comes to dealing with the so called "dregs of society" that's another matter altogether,but these people must be treated as innocent until proven guilty otherwise, ANARCHY.

The law needs shaking up with victims rights being the priority,and punishment being JUST.

Remember act in haste repent at leisure,A good example is the Henry Fonda film Twelve angry men (I know it's not a british film but hopefully somebody can give us a british equivalent) A cut and dried case of murder?

Mark I wouldn't say you were wrong but would you consider there must be another way ? I must go now i've reached my cliche limit.
all the best from smiffy

I May be getting older ,but I refuse to grow up

Jim

The Bently/Craig case was a terrible miscarrage of justice - the coppers and the law wanted a hanging and they got it at whatever cost. You have to wonder just how many innocent men and women over the centuries who have been legally murdered - take Judge Jeffries at 'The Bloody Assizes'; the b*****d sent many to their deaths just because of him (guilty of not).

They say that judges are 'out of touch' with reality - well Jeffries was plainly out of his tree!!

Good morning boys.

IanH0369

Well to try answering the original question - contrary to an earlier reply, I think Rillington Place was actually pulled down and not merely renamed.

True Rillington Place was initially renamed (“Ruston Close”, if I recall correctly), but Rillington Place itself was a short Cul de Sac with 10 houses on each side (3 storey, flat fronted mid Victorian, c.1880), and I believe the whole street was eventually demolished. At the end of the street, where number 10 was (it was the last house on left hand side as you go down), the area was completely leveled and made into a small low-rise housing estate.

Regarding the film – entirely agree the acting was brilliant all round, not just Attenborough, but also Hurt was excellent as Evans (but I always love John Hurt’s acting), also the woman who played Christies wife was very convincing. Really the lighting of the film should have been much better imho. Also the film stopped at the point where Christie was “caught”, although in fact a lot of very interesting detail was discovered after that point ie during the trial, and also in pre-trial & post-trial interviews with Christie just prior to his execution.

Regarding miscarried justice – the Christie case is probably unique in the fact that a completely innocent man was hanged (ie Evans) ... also unique for being perhaps the most complex and amazing murder case in criminal history. True there are lots of other cases where people have been imprisoned and later had their cases “quashed on appeal”, however, those cases all involved technical failures of trial evidence (eg the erroneous “Skews test”).

Cases like Derek Bentley and Ruth Ellis were not really miscarriages of justice, although the justice may have seemed very harsh. Bentley for example did undoubtedly participate in a criminal act which ended with a policeman being shot dead (by Christopher Craig), and at the time the law was that Bentley was equally guilty …yes, I know all the details of the case & I agree it was very rough justice (especially as Bentley, like Evans, had a measured IQ around 65), but that’s really not the point…the fact is that in 1950’s the law did specify that someone in Bentley’s position would be considered guilty of murder.

The Ruth Ellis case was very clear. It was premeditated & planed murder. And afaik there were no arguments about that. Ellis herself openly admitted that right from the start. Again I’m sorry she faced hanging, and I wish the law were different, but it was not, and she was definitely guilty.

Finally, the Hanratty case is quite amazing if only for the fact that people ever seriously tried to argue his innocence. Even before the DNA evidence, the case against Hanratty was totally overwhelming, and in fact at his trial Hanratty’s own explanations & claims of innocence were shown to be thoroughly false throughout. The recent DNA evidence was of course the final & very compelling straw … true, anything can be “contaminated” …but that sort argument is one which says “nobody can ever say or do anything, because there can always be doubt”…which is quite true but the courts are not science labs, and they have to deal with probability beyond reasonable doubt as judged by 12 ordinary men & women…they don’t try to ascertain literal facts such as solutions to mathematical problems.

OK, here’s a crazy suggestion - if anyone here is interested in producing a small local play about cases such as these, perhaps they’d like to email me and talk about?

Apologies for the very long opening post lol.

Ian.

isbright

Going back to the original question... here's some helpful info (I hope)!

Rillington Place was renamed Ruston Close (as already stated by previous posters) because of the obvious notoriety. It was finally demolished in 1971 before a new estate was built in its place.

After careful study of OS maps, Google Earth, and other reference material and resources it would seem that the planners deliberately left the ground occupied by 10 Rillington Place unbuilt upon. It now forms part of an open space, a distinct break between 3 blocks of flats that is almost the complete footprint of the old house. Spooky, eh?

If you go to the British pathe website and enter the searchterm 'Rillington Place' you get one result. Click on the link and you get actual stills (and the option of footage without sound) of an unshown news report/documentary of the demolition with the accompanying text:

'Demolition Workers - Kensington, London.

Low angle shot of windows of a terraced street, pan down. Man speaks to camera (no sound). Zoom in on front door of a derelict house. Various views of same house. Long shot of terraced street with derelict Victorian houses. Man throws board through the windows of a burning house. Rubble all around outside the house. Two men break walls of house with picks. Chairs and sofas thrown on the street amongst rubble. Fire burns in front room of half demolished house. Men knock walls down. Street sign: "Ruston Close WII." Views of the general rubble. Demolition workers break walls with a picks.

Note: according to paperwork, houses demolished include 10 Rillington Place, home of the infamous murderer Christie.'

Very interesting to see that the properties were demolished by hand (at least according to this report) and not with a wrecking ball...

I am currently researching locations for the film, so if anyone can help I will be very grateful.

Regards,

Regards, Ian.

* * * * *

Coming soon - 'Cult Films Then & Now: #1 - Blowup (1966)'

Bilmo

http://www.youhaventlived.com/bartle/wynn.htm

It turns out I used to work within about a quarter of a mile from where 10 Rillington Place used to be. I never knew it! It is hardly to be described as a "run-down" area now; within walking distance of Ladbroke Grove, it is a leafy area, with large houses, flats and even a catholic convent.

http://www.youhaventlived.com/bartle/menarry.gif

DocRobertPepper

I used to work round there myself and always thought the House of Horrors was down Rushden Mews it turns out the road where the house was runs the other way near to where Bartle Road now stands
the map on the link you posted is very surprising

Bilmo

Indeed, it is. I did quite a bit of investigation and it is interesting what can be found out. I also downloaded the videos, as detailed by another member. They don't give out a lot, to be honest. All they show is some derelict, grotty-looking houses, being demolished. It doesn't actually state that they are of Rillington Place.

I keep meaning to go back there, to reminisce over what was a great time in my life, working in a quiet backstreet of West London. I used to have lunch in a nearby park, which was really very pretty and I also worked in the Catholic convent/housing association, which was extremely peaceful.

isbright

You would immediately recognise Rillington Place if you'd seen the film and any pics of the building(s) which can be found when searching the internet.

Can anyone tell me where Timothy Evans used to work? Was it a furniture delivery or delivery company nearby? There is a scene in the film where Beryl meets him at the factory gates and they leave to get on a bus to go out for the evening. I think the bus was route 15 (red, single-decker*) which plied its trade in the east end of London.

* For what it's worth (and to prove I'm a sad old g*t) this actual bus (reg no. escapes me, but I have it at home in my research papers) went on to work in Wales, fell apart through neglect and was being refurbished the last I heard (1990s). I'm on its trail for a photo for my colection.

Regards, Ian.

* * * * *

Coming soon - 'Cult Films Then & Now: #1 - Blowup (1966)'

christoph404

Actually, back to 10 Rillington Place, and Im talking about the movie now, I remember getting ready to watch it on TV one evening many years ago only to be told by the TV announcer that the screening had been cancelled due to " family reasons? or personnal reasons? or legal reasons? can't quite remember what the reason but it was something unusual along those lines and not a technical glitch, does anyone else recall this? I cant recall it having been on TV since then, it must have been the eighties.

Jim Morris

Hi

Christies residence at 10 Rillington Place will long go down as a macabre address but I wonder if Cromwell Street in Gloucester will take over.

Ruth Ellis was guilty of the murder of David Blakely and was hanged as was the law at the time. One cannot argue the soundness of her conviction just the obscenity of her execution. Not only is hanging wrong but so is mandatory sentancing.

There is no known deterrant to most crime but just a dark-aged barbarianism towards punishment. When the law was amended and good old GB tried to have degrees of murder in the post war period, it created an unworkable mish-mash of murder convictions whereby if you shot someone in the process of robbing them you were hanged but if you stabbed them to death whilst raping them you didn't.

In the twentieth century there were four people who were hanged and were either later pardoned or had their convictions quashed. There are over twenty* more whose conviction and subsequent execution is highly questionable. And the sad fact is that the Police have on numerous occasions either manufactured evidence or tried to distort it. And your conviction may depend on the colour of your skin. So with all of this we have to make sure we have the right person who committed the crime and the Rillington Place case adequately illustrates this.

I'm told education is the biggest chance anyone has in life to get on. The argument can therefore be developed that anyone who has a sound education is less likely to offend - of course this is a generalisation - but the point is this, if someone is educated later in life, perhaps in the wake of a murder, that might be a far more effective detterent (?spelling) from commiting further crimes than if they were 'punished'.

I do not excuse the evil that some people have within them, and if it was a member of my family then the unrational within me would want vengeance. But the rational side of me would say that the justice system is far better placed to decide on a convicts fate in a more useful manner for the future of society.

JM (* The twenty more convictions are during the time when hanging was the punishment for murder and does not include the Birmingham Six, The Guildford Four, The Bridgewater Three which were all cases where there was identifyable Police interference of evidence.)

tvden

the current justice system favors the criminal I hope you dont mind to much if someone tries to murder you