MovieChat Forums > The Winslow Boy (1950) Discussion > Who is Guilty?

Who is Guilty?

posted 16 years ago by Igenlode Wordsmith
6 replies | jump to latest

If Ronnie is indeed innocent -- something of which I was never quite certain until the end of the film, where it is more or less taken for granted -- then who did steal the money, how, and when?

The film/play is evidently chiefly interested in questions of ideas and ideals, rather than being a forensic drama, which is fair enough, but I couldn't help being confused as to how exactly Ronnie was acquitted: a matter which is mentioned in I think one throw-away line during the maid's effusion. Something about a female witness, presumably the post-mistress who identified him as cashing the postal order, being proved a liar?

I can't help wondering... if Ronnie was indeed smoking during the disputed 'missing' half-hour, and if he was doing so in the locker-room (suggested by his disposing of the butt on top of a locker, if I recall correctly), then surely he couldn't have helped but witness the theft, whoever did commit it?

Yet if he had -- surely he would have used that fact to defend himself at some stage?

The only explanation that seems to make sense, really, is that Ronnie knows the true culprit but has been shielding him -- at enormous cost and expense to a great many people -- all along...

~~Igenlode, altogether too fond of detective stories

Gather round, lads and lasses, gather round...

[–] The_Romantic 16 years ago

Hello Igenlode,

I was fortunate enough to finally procure a copy of this movie and I found the time to watch it this afternoon. I was also quite curious to know the identity of the thief, and, to have all the loose ends tied up.

If we are to believe Ronnie Winslow's story, then although it would seem that somebody else stole the postal order it may, in fact, not have been stolen at all, but simply have been mislaid. Even if somebody had stolen the postal order, I don't believe it can be automatically assumed that the theft took place during the thirty minutes that Winslow spent in the locker room.

Although we can only guess at the truth, I rather suspect that somebody else did steal the postal order and managed to cash it without being noticed by the Post Mistress, who, during her appearance in court, stated that Ronnie Winslow had cashed the postal order. An even more groundless theory might be that she told this story to cover up her own theft of five shillings!

In reality, the Admiralty decided to avoid any further embarrassment, once Sir Edward Carson (portrayed in the movie as Sir Robert Morton) had begun to discredit several of the witnesses appearing for the prosecution, and released a statement proclaiming Winslow's innocence. I agree that this was not made as clear, in the movie, as it might have been, but there was another mention you missed after we heard from the maid, and once Arthur Winslow had left the room with his son...

Sir Robert Morton: "Once the witness had been discredited, the attorney-general threw out the case."

The movie does record, quite accurately, the story of George Archer-Shee, the person upon whom the character of Ronnie Winslow is based, at least from all legal aspects. As far as I am aware, the truth behind the missing postal order was never discovered.

Martin

[–] Igenlode Wordsmith 16 years ago

Although we can only guess at the truth, I rather suspect that somebody else did steal the postal order and managed to cash it without being noticed by the Post Mistress, who, during her appearance in court, stated that Ronnie Winslow had cashed the postal order.

...presumably because, as he had been in the post office that afternoon, he was the first person who came to mind when she had to produce a name in a hurry... that would make sense...

The movie does record, quite accurately, the story of George Archer-Shee, the person upon whom the character of Ronnie Winslow is based, at least from all legal aspects. As far as I am aware, the truth behind the missing postal order was never discovered.

Thanks for the clarification -- and the speculation!

~~Igenlode

Gather round, lads and lasses, gather round...

[–] myndchanger 15 years ago

I think the implication is that the person that stole the postal order was protected. Parents in high places. Or that Back cashed his postal order then claimed it stolen. My money is on an upper classman with conections.

[–] pocomarc 12 years ago

Excellent question, Igenlode.

[–] brand78 11 years ago

Well the Archer-Shee case dates from October 1908, not 1912 as stated in this movie. All the protagonists are long since dead and I think we must accept that we are never going to get a definitive answer to the question of who the guilty party really was. Incidentally it is surprising to find, in this movie, that Ronnie was still allowed to wear his naval uniform despite having been expelled from the College.

[–] bazt-93964 7 years ago

If they never found the truth what exactly was the point of the movie?