User talk:Charlton1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Charlton1Nabakov has commented "the bishop's comments cannot be true." This is neither here nor there.Is Nabakov insinuating that the Church of England Bishop of Stepney was lying about the construction of scaffolding being built for Ruth Ellis? Perhaps Nabakov could explain why the question about the scaffolding was also raised in parliament. Furthermore, details about the noise surrounding the construction work were well documented in the newspapers at the time. Children passing by even heard the noise.

Charlton1It would appear Nabakov's text about the scaffolding is opinion not fact, so have edited it out

The Bishop of Stepney was either mistaken or misquoted. I was certainly not insinuating that he was lying. It is simply that his comments cannot be true. The question about the construction of scaffolding was raised in Parliament because, until the 1970s, any details regarding British executions were a closely guarded secret and not many people knew anything of the execution process - and certainly not Parliament. This official secrecy was a deliberate policy by the prison service: executioners even had to sign the official secrets act. The policy of closely guarded secrecy is faithfully depicted in the movie "Pierrepoint" (2005) and also in Albert Pierrepoint's own autobiography of 1974 entitled "Executioner" which I've got in my bookcase. I recommend that you see the movie, which faithfully depicts the process used for British executions as described in the book, and also read Pierrepoint's book - which mentions Ruth Ellis' execution. You will quickly realise that no scaffolds were ever erected because, quite simply, they were already an integral part of the prison ie physically built into the fabric of the building.

Moreover, Pierrepoint makes it very clear in his autobiography that great pains were taken to deceive the condemned prisoner re. just how close the condemned cell was to the gallows trapdoor. Typically, a prisoner in the condemned cell was sitting just 15 feet away from gallows. Final steps such as adjusting the length of the noose and testing the trapdoor were only ever done when the prisoner was in the exercise yard ie well out of earshot. On the morning of an execution, it was even policy to put down copra mats were put down outside the cell to deaden people's footstops in the corridor outside. If you had read Pierrepoint's book, you would know all this.

Starting from Victorian times, there were permanent execution gallows located in British prisons. At first, these were housed in "execution sheds" in a corner of the prison yard. Later, these were located in specially converted cells adjoining the condemned cell. At no point was any assembly, construction or hammering required because a British gallows always stood ready for use. I actually included a hyperlink to a detailed diagram of the Holloway condemned cell (from one of the foremost websites re. the British execution protocol) showing its relation to the gallows in my text, which illustrates how it is an integral part of the building.

The idea that young children standing outside Holloway prison would hear the noise of a scaffold being erected inside a prison building simply isn't worth commenting on.

Having deleted my additions twice, it's clear that you feel very strongly that you are right. Perhaps you will feel differently after you have read Pierrepoint's book. Meanwhile, rest assured that I won't spend any time editing the Ruth Ellis page again.

Nabokov 21:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Charlton1In your opinion, Nabakov, the Bishop of Stepney was either 'mistaken' or 'misquoted' and his 'comments cannot be true.' Questions about Christofi's hanging were also raised in the late 1950s, and also regarding Edith Thompson's execution. These details, of which I have copies, were not regarded as secret. I am quite happy to share them with you. Published details, over the last 50 years, in connection with Ruth Ellis's hanging have not been accurate, for one reason or another - I have this on good authority.You probably know as well as I do, that autobiographies, including that of 'Pierrepoint', which I have read, do not spell out every detail - editing makes sure of that. You use the word 'typically' in connection with prisoners - I am interested only in specifics regarding Ruth Ellis. Many things in connection with Ruth Ellis have been quoted over the years, giving the impression that they have been taken from first hand evidence.As one example, you only have to consider the story of the brandy which was apparently given to Ruth Ellis before she was hanged. It was totally untrue. Nor will I be wasting time editing this page in the future. The information included in it is out of date in the light of the latest findings, and in my opinion, misleading.

[edit] Ruth Ellis

Thanks for the note on my talk page concerning the article Ruth Ellis. I didn't actually make the edits you suppose I made, see this diff. -- BpEps - t@lk 20:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it not always easy to tell who has made what edit if there has been quite a few in a short space of time. kind regards -- BpEps - t@lk 13:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have politely reinstated the section about Maureen Gleeson which had been removed without any explanation, which I trust is OK.Moreen Gleeson's statement appeared in RUTH ELLIS MY SISTER'S SECRET LIFE by Muriel Jakubait and Monica WellerCharlton1 (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have rchanged the phrase minister of parliament to read member of parliamentCharlton1 (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC) ______________________________________________________________________________________________

CHRISTMAS HUMPHREYS Have added a new section of Humphreys' quotes in connection with Ruth Ellis trial. Source: Ruth Ellis My Sister's Secret LifeCharlton1 (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)