Remembered With Honour?
At Brookwood Military Cemetery stands a memorial to those Army personnel “..whom the fortune of war denied a known and honoured grave.” On the monument is the inscription “Their Name Liveth For Evermore”. Well, not exactly in all cases, perhaps.
This memorial has the names of eighteen convicted and executed murderers (including one double child killer) and the name of one executed spy who may well have been responsible for very many British deaths. They have “no known or honoured grave” because they are buried in British prisons and the Army seemingly forgot or failed to give them a dishonourable discharge the day before execution as was the way with RAF or RN murderers. Thus, Gnr Ernest Kemp, RA, is perhaps one of the very first Army casualties of D-Day. He died on the gallows at Wandsworth at dawn on 6 June 1944 for the brutal murder of WAAF Miriam Deeley.
The MOD refuse to have the names removed. One of their arguments is that: “this would cause distress to the families of the executed felons.” Oh, really? So it doesn’t matter about the feelings of the families of the victims, then?
I have pending an HM Government e-petition to campaign to have these names struck off, but this comes against the background of an announcement that another Army murderer who was executed is having his name ADDED because it had been left off in error. To me, that is somehow worse than a failure to remove the other names.
In this, the CWGC are blameless and beyond reproach. It is MOD policy, not the policy of the CWGC.
I hope there will be interest here in signing an e-petition if is approved. I believe that one of the first signatories is likely to be a family member of WAAF Miriam Deeley.
By: J Boyle - 9th December 2011 at 16:38
Again, you’re assuming all the cases had the same (lack) of evidence.
Conversely, I’ve read cases where the service members cofessed their crimes and were put to death.
I’m sure there were many/most cases where they had the guy “dead to rights” or “Bang to Rights” in the UK.
By: tornado64 - 9th December 2011 at 16:38
With respect, there is a considerable difference between the category of felon remembered at Brookwood, the nature of their demise and the deaths in service of other less than savoury types who, nonetheless, may have later died in rather more honourable circumstances.
i realy don’t understand the difrence they both would have served and both would be crimminals or do your morals conveniently seperate things for your convenience !!
either they are crimminals or not !!
therefore you would find you would have to remove a lot more names than those stated !!
By: tornado64 - 9th December 2011 at 16:32
Tornado…I do hope you’re really not suggesting that just because Evans seems to be innocent, that everyone who received the death penalty is innocent.
As far as bad guys being honored. Here’s something to consider…
In WWII, the sheer numbers of men in service (in all countries lest you think I’m having a dig at the commonwealth) meant that there were more than a few murders, rapists etc*. who later served and were killed while in the service.
They’re buried and remembered along with the good.* not to mention lesser crimes..thieves, thugs, wife beaters, bigamists, and various sins…drunks, adulterers, liars, cheats…
what we have to remember is the crime rate rose tremendously during war time ( including murder ) therefore it is logical to conclude an over streatched less than perfect system could wrongly convict someone
looting and murder became rife ( compared to normal ) because who could prove any difrent that a body dragged out of a bombed out building was anything other than a bomb victim
there was one case of a black service man that was convicted and beaten for rape and murder that was later pardoned by eisenhower as it was found out he was actualy in a relationship with her and innocent !!
By: Arabella-Cox - 9th December 2011 at 16:01
With respect, there is a considerable difference between the category of felon remembered at Brookwood, the nature of their demise and the deaths in service of other less than savoury types who, nonetheless, may have later died in rather more honourable circumstances.
By: J Boyle - 9th December 2011 at 15:51
Tornado…I do hope you’re really not suggesting that just because Evans seems to be innocent, that everyone who received the death penalty is innocent.
As far as bad guys being honored. Here’s something to consider…
In WWII, the sheer numbers of men in service (in all countries lest you think I’m having a dig at the commonwealth) meant that there were more than a few murders, rapists etc*. who later served and were killed while in the service.
They’re buried and remembered along with the good.
* not to mention lesser crimes..thieves, thugs, wife beaters, bigamists, and various sins…drunks, adulterers, liars, cheats…
By: Arabella-Cox - 9th December 2011 at 15:30
Yes. In some cases.
The answer is quite predictable and generally pretty robust.
By: Orion - 9th December 2011 at 14:44
Have the families of the victims expressed a view?
By: Arabella-Cox - 9th December 2011 at 14:29
your last sentence is fair , but we have to have a system that can be trusted first , whilst yes it can be said it is the fairest , there is the other side of the coin that says it is often wrong
files of paperwork mean zilch to me i dare say there were reams of paperwork on all the others they hung innocently saying they were evil b*stards !!
If my last sentence is fair then I am pleased that you clearly agree with what went before; ie remove the names.
Other than that, it is not an issue worth debating with you, frankly. Not because we disagree. Just because your ‘arguments’ are not just seriously flawed – they are risible.
Fortunately, and thanks to the sacrifice of the likes of most of those commemmorated at Brookwood, you and I have the freedom of speech to express those opposing views.
By: kev35 - 9th December 2011 at 14:28
Tornado.
Perhaps you should start a petition to give Myra Hindley a posthumous pardon on the grounds that there is just an infinitessimally small chance that she was innocent.
Your arguments make no sense whatsoever. And as for bile, that’s surely your province.
Andy makes perfect sense, you provide evidence suggesting their innocence and you may have a point. You won’t because, as you say, paperwork means nothing to you.
Baz.
The cat had clearly just read one of tornado’s rants.
Regards,
kev35
By: tornado64 - 9th December 2011 at 13:37
your last sentence is fair , but we have to have a system that can be trusted first , whilst yes it can be said it is the fairest , there is the other side of the coin that says it is often wrong
files of paperwork mean zilch to me i dare say there were reams of paperwork on all the others they hung innocently saying they were evil b*stards !!
By: Arabella-Cox - 9th December 2011 at 13:23
Tornado.
These men were found guilty. End of. Period.
There has not in any of these cases been any suggestions, ever, of a miscarriage of justice or unsafe conviction. End of. Period.
I have a pile here of the case papers (five lever arch files) which demonstatrate what nasty bar-stewards some of these creatures actually were.
Perhaps you should read them.
If you find any evidence that they were wrongly convicted or executed then pursue those cases with the CPS. If the conviction is overturned in any of these cases then by all means reinstate the names.
Until then, remove them.
What can be wrong with that approach?
By: tornado64 - 9th December 2011 at 13:14
tosh second only to your tedious predictable bile !!
it is a valid point that our legal system was primative then ( and is still getting it wrong with DNA evidence today )
given added pressure of war and the witchunt mentality that exhisted then there is a distinct possibility of unsound convictions
it may well be the case that they are 100 % guilty
but shutting the door to the possibility of innocence merely puts you with the witch hunters
By: kev35 - 9th December 2011 at 12:32
tornado.
You really do talk some tosh don’t you? You either never read a thread properly or just don’t understand it.
Andy is talking about serving Army personnel who were arrested, tried, convicted and then executed for their crimes who have a place of honoured memory alongside other servicemen who died in the service of their Country. They were found guilty at the time and the fact that they have been commemorated in this way is the result of an oversight on the part of the British Army in that they were nopt given dishonourable discharges prior to their execution. It is not a question of whether there was any miscarriage of justice or whether the death penalty should have been enforced. It is solely about the way in which murderers have been commemorated in precisely the same manner, with honour, as those who died with NO stain on their character.
Regards,
kev35
By: Arthur Pewtey - 9th December 2011 at 12:25
If you have evidence that those that were executed and are “honoured” at Brookwood Military Cemetery are not guilty then you should provide it. If there is no evidence that the convictions are in any way unsafe then I would suggest that your argument is spurious.
By: tornado64 - 9th December 2011 at 12:07
the point is that our legal system of the time was less than perfect !!
the only ones that ever know for sure are the murderer and victim
and niether of them can talk , ruling out further evidence
lets remember these were also the good old days when single pregnant women may have still been institutionalised in a mental institution for nothing else but being single and pregnant
some of the evidence would be rightly argued against in todays courts too
shifty once caught ……of course he was he was on the run
large boots , i’m no expert but going off previous army experience the QM had 3 sizes ( even if ten sizes ) that is 1 tenth of the army ( a phenomenal number of people at that time !! )
put all together yes it is a high probability but it still isn’t black or white
just because they made the decision to convict didn’t always mean it was a sound conviction !!
By: Arthur Pewtey - 9th December 2011 at 11:30
We’re not talking about the Rillington Place case though are we. That was widely reported as a miscarriage of justice. The cases Tangmere 1940 has highlighted are, by all accounts, nothing of the sort. The men were tried convicted and hanged and unfortunately their names were placed along side those that genuinely gave their lives in the service of their country. It is an error that needs correcting.
Beat me to it!
By: Arabella-Cox - 9th December 2011 at 11:28
Tornado
The Timothy Evans case is wholly irrelevant to the names at Brookwood. Neither is he a name at Brookwood. Similarly, Bentley.
The fact of the matter is that those listed at Brookwood were accused, tried and convicted (ie found guilty) of capital crimes and executed. There has never been any suggestion, to my knowledge, that any of them may not have been guilty or were wrongly condemned to death, nor that the verdicts were unsafe. Thus, they stand as guilty to this day.
Consequently, in my view, those names should be removed and the continuation of their names being remembered in this way is abhorrent and de-values the memorial and those who died honourably.
If subsequent research should find any of them not guilty (which I doubt) then by all means restore their names. As things stand they are executed and convicted murderers and traitors.
By: tornado64 - 9th December 2011 at 11:21
By: Arabella-Cox - 9th December 2011 at 11:12
Tornado.
Little evidence that they were murderers? What?! Are you kidding?
Believe me, or believe me not, I have researched all the cases.
They were convicted (ie found guilty) and executed according to the civil law of the day. They including one double child killer (who confessed to the second killing after being found guilty of the first) and one spy.
Sign In
December 8, 2011 at 2:26 pm