soc.history.war.world-war-ii

"brandon" wrote

> In some ways, It is better that the Americans did the hangings. The
> British do the hangings secretly without any reporters or public
> representatives (like the Belsen executions, of which we have no
> eyewitness reports from the press). We wouldnt be reading about the
> last moments of Ribbentrop or Keitel or Streicher if the British had
> hanged them.

Rubbish. The British did not allow gallows journalism (it was stopped in the
19th century), but they didn't hold executions in secret either.

An independent lawyer attended every execution to confirm that the accused
had died according to law; there was always a priest and a doctor present
and additionally two entirely independent witnesses specifically to report
back to the Home Secretary on the conduct of the execution. That's in
addition to the Governor or Deputy Governor of the prison in which the
accused had been held, at least two prison officers and the hangman. And, if
that small crowd wasn't enough, a panel of historians and academics were
given the opportunity to witness the executions of all the senior Nazi war
criminals and their dispassionate accounts were very often published.

> Also I am sure that the apparently flawless record of Pierrepoint must
> be taken with a pinch of salt because there are no press reporters
> (neutral witnesses) at British executions.

As shown above, while there may not have been any journalists (and since
when is a journalist a neutral witness?), there were several independent
witnesses at every execution.