Tragic Gaffe with DVD


The marketing team at Lions Gate Films clearly need to take greater care in the preparation of future DVD box covers, if PIERREPOINT (aka THE LAST HANGMAN) is anything to go by.

The synopsis for the newly-released DVD states that the titular executioner "hanged some of Britain's most notorious murderers, INCLUDING DEREK BENTLEY..." Lions Gate would do well to note not only that Bentley was posthumously pardoned eight years ago, but that the entire general public in 1953 knew he was innocent, and there is considerable evidence to suggest that the police and judiciary deliberately made him a scapegoat for the police-killing committed by his friend Christopher Craig. The first point alone should legally empower the Bentley family to sue Lions Gate, and I wish them the best of luck if they do!

reply

Sorry to burst your bubble Salieri-3, but even as I type, Derek Bentley STILL hasn't been posthumously pardoned..despite his sisters long campaign. An absolute travesty, he should be pardoned!!!!

reply

He was pardoned on the 30th July 1998.

reply

I stand corrected, I didn't realise that.......another post that has come back and bit me in the arse

reply

lol - it happens to me too (alot). Anyway, with reagrds to the original post, I suppose it could be argued that the cover could be construed as libelous, but, in my opinion only, the film was about Albert's time as a hangman. At the time he hung Derek Bentley he was a convicted killer, tried and convicted by judge and jury, no matter how flawed. So therefore, he did hang him as a notorious murderer of the time, so the cover is in fact accurate.

reply

Yes, obviously he was legally a murderer, and I have to admit I'm not sure about the legal technicalities of defamation when the person in question is dead - but to say NOTORIOUS murderer is nonsense given the fact that 99% of the general public knew he was innocent.

reply

Yes, but, I think perhaps his notoriety was down to the fact the most people thought/knew him to be innocent.

no·to·ri·ous (nō-tôr'ē-əs, -tōr'-)
adj.
Known widely and usually unfavorably; infamous: a notorious gangster; a district notorious for vice.

He WAS known widely, but the definition states USUALLY unfavourably - not ALWAYS unfavourable.

I think if his family were ever to sue over the wording on the DVD cover, a couple of lawyers would slug it out in a court room and no-one would win except the lawyers bank accounts.

reply

As a matter of law it is not possible to defame someone who is dead.

reply

Thabk You for pointing out something which should have been obvious to the contributors (?) here. The dead can't be defamed because they are, of course, dead rather than alive.

reply

I would say the hanging of Bentley and the contreversey surronding it is what is referred too.
Pieerpoints really only famous, due to hanging Ruth Ellis, Derek Bentley and Tim Evans.
2 of them for obvious reasons, and 1 (Ellis) becausse of the furore surronding her crime.
She didn't deserve to die, and was probably suffering from severe depression brought on by her miscarriage, and the appalling way in which her boyfriend treated her.
It is the vieww of many now, that the givernment actually wanted to do away with execution but wanted to wait for political reasons, hence Ellie and Bentley went to the gallows.
Only an opinion I read on the Richard Clark site, but........

reply

This post has the most typos I have ever seen.

reply

Then try reading more carefully!

Derek Bentley and Ruth Ellis were hanged during the Conservative governments of the early 1950s. The Prime Minister at the time of Bentley's hanging was none other than Sir Winston Churchill, whom I don't think was noted for having any qualms whatever about capital punishment, and his successor, Sir Anthony Eden, had only been in the job 3 months when Ellis was hanged. I'm old enough to remember those times, and the Conservative Party was always known for the "hang 'em and flog 'em" mentality towards punishment of criminals, so to say that the government of that time wanted to end capital punishement is arrant nonsense.

Ruth Ellis's case polarised opinion, but hers was one of the clearest cases of guilt. She shot the victim in the street and confessed to it. Moreover she seemed eager to die. I very clearly recall a newspaper headline of the era quoting her as saying "I wanted to hang so I killed a man". Whether this quote was accurate or not is another matter, but regardless of that, having very recently had a miscarriage, there should have been every reason for commuting her sentence for reason for the balance of her mind being disturbed at the time. She was young and pretty, and attracted a lot of public interest, totally by contrast with the previous female to be hanged, only 7 months before Ruth, who was 53 and gained little press and no sympathy, and another woman of 44 had been hanged the year before. But because of the furore surrounding her execution and the general growth of abolitionist sentiments (but still very clearly a minority opinion) it seemed that there was little appetite for further execution of women, and so Ruth has the distinction of being the last.

Even after Eden, the successive Conservative prime ministers Macmillan and Home still routinely denied reprieves to murderers, and it was only the advent of Harold Wilson's Labour government in 1964 which brought abolition. It took some time for the law to be changed by Parliament, so judges were still obliged to pass sentence of death on most categories of murderers, but under Wilson these were automatically commuted to life imprisonment.

reply

Timothy Evans was another who was hung wrongly not that I agree with execution per se.

John Christie was responsible for the death of Timothy's wife and daughter.

You can read more on this here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8556721.stm

"Has anyone seen my wife?" - Columbo

reply

He was notorious, but because he didn't actually fire the shot- he was only convicted on a technicality (and he was mentally challenged). To learn more, do GCSE Drama and you can perform a really boring play about him called 'Example'

reply

The cover is inaccurate.At the time of the release of this film,Bentley had been pardoned.This should have been mentioned,out of respect for his family.
Anything else is nitpicking.

reply

Wow! Someone on the internet admitting they were wrong...shocking and impressive! 


I got girls up here do more tricks than a god damn monkey on a hundred yards of grape vine.

reply

[deleted]

Yerrrr let's sue, that'll help matters.

reply