True Crime All The Time - Ruth Ellis

Episode Date: November 14, 2022

In 1955, Ruth Ellis shot and killed David Blakely, with whom she had a relationship. She was tried, convicted, and executed very quickly. Ruth was the last woman executed in the United Kingdom. Her case is highly controversial, and there is much debate about whether she should have been convicted of murder at all. Join Mike and Gibby as they discuss the case of Ruth Ellis. Her case has inspired books, plays, TV and radio dramas, and a movie, and there was an attempt to get her conviction overturned in an appeals court after her execution. Much of the controversy surrounding Ruth's case centers on the abuse she suffered at the hands of Blakely. Also, she was with a new boyfriend at the time of the murders, who allegedly gave her a gun and may have provoked her to kill.You can help support the show at patreon.com/truecrimeallthetimeVisit the show's website at truecrimeallthetime.com for contact, merchandise, and donation informationAn Emash Digital productionSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hello everyone and welcome to episode 309 of the True Crime All the Time podcast. I'm Mike Ferguson. And with me as always is my partner in True Crime, Mike Gibson. How are you? Hey, man, I'm doing well about you. I'm doing pretty well. I opened up myself a little bit on Patreon. You did. Talking about this time change. And it's kind of thrown me off. Dragging you down.

It's dragging me down a little bit. Even though we gained an hour, it's somehow still dragging me down. Yeah. Hey, let's go ahead and give our Patreon shoutouts. We had Brianna Perry. Hey, Brianna. What's going on, Katie Brady? Rachel Banyaz jumped out to our highest level.

Appreciate that, Rachel. Crystal Wilson. What's going on, Crystal? Lindsay Stinson. Hey, Lindsay. Donna Faye. Appreciate that, Faye. Nancy Lizarren.

Oh, Lazzarin. True Crime Girl jumped down to our highest level. What up, girl? W. Jane. A.W. Graves Debbie. Appreciate that, Debbie. Andrew.

Andrew. Taylor Miles. Well, what's happening in Taylor? Matthew Simmons jumped out to our highest level. There's the Matthew. We had Caleb Leach. Hey, Leach. Evie Mayhorn.

What's going on, Evie? Corinne Coben. Hey, Corinne. Krista Patty. I appreciate that. Padet. Laura Gross. Hey, Laura.

Stephanie Sue Smith. There's SSS. Jennifer Eichoff. Hey, Ikev. Jaron. Jaron. I appreciate that, Jern. Jed Richards.

There's Jed. And Bryce Quick. Man, thanks, Bryce. Yeah, so we appreciate that support. Then we go back into the vault. This week we selected Nadia Hall. Hey, thank you, Nadia. So we appreciate that.

On PayPal, we had a happy birthday donation for Sean from Calgary. Well, happy birthday, Sean. So the donation was not from Calgary. Sean's from Calgary. Oh, I thought the whole like province or city or whatever Calgary is say, hey, we're all getting together and want to say, happy birthday to Sean. You just said whatever Calgary is. And we also had a great.

donation from Yvonne Sankster. Hey, thanks, Yvonne. Yep, so happy birthday, Sean, and thank you, Yvonne. Gibbs, right now on Unsolved, we have an episode out on some mysterious deaths in Devil's Gulch. We're going to look into some mysterious deaths out in Sierra Nevada, and we're kind of talk about how these individuals died and some of the reasons behind it. And what to make of it. Yeah.

What some people think, what others. think. It's one of these that's a real mystery. All right, buddy, are you ready to get into this episode of true crime all the time? I'm ready. We're talking about Ruth Ellis, who was the last woman executed in the UK. And this is a little bit of a different case for us. Her case is highly controversial. There's a lot of debate about it, really about whether she should have been convicted of murder at all. And this is a case that has inspired. books, plays, TV and radio dramas, a movie. And there was an attempt to get her conviction overturned in an appeals court after her execution. Okay. So I get it. You want to set the record straight,

but it occurred after she had already died. So there's a lot going on here. Trying to clear the name. Ruth Nielsen was born in Real Wales on October 9th, 1926. Her family name was actually Hornby, but her father was a cellist, and he used the stage name Arthur Nielsen. Ruth's mother Elisa Berta fled to the UK during World War I when Germany invaded Belgium. Well, there had to be a lot of that that went on during, you know, both World Wars. Oh, for sure. families, you know, uprooting, leaving one country to flee to another. Ruth was one of five children. Crime and investigation said that as a young girl, Ruth loved clothing and that she really

wanted to make something out of her life. That was a quote that they used. Now, I think you could say that about, you know, a lot of kids. You know, even if you kind of look at the, I want to be an astronaut. I want to be a firefighter. Right. I want to be the Met's second basement. I want to be president.

I want to be president. Okay. That's still saying you have goals. You want to make something out of your life. I always wanted to be the president of Mensa. Now you would just settle for them letting you in. I'd like from to just admit. Recognize your genius?

Yes. Arthur Nielsen played for silent films at the Grand Theater and Basingstoke. But when sound movies became popular, he kind of fell out of work. And I'm sure that happened to a lot of people because, you know, once the talkies came about, yeah, music was still important. There was a score. But there was so much more voice acting that I'm not sure everybody could stay employed.

No, you're right. You know, nobody wanted to be overshadowed by the cellist. Especially some of these great actors with amazing voices and all of that. that. So, you know, when he was working, they were financially stable. But at some point, he was out of a job. They were living in poverty. Bruce's sister, Muriel Jacobite wrote in her book, Ruth Ellis, my sister's secret life, that they didn't have a happy childhood. She said they lived in a cottage and monk Sherbourne and were poor like the brewers next door. Bruce's parents sold what they could to make ends meet, Ruth and her siblings were called ragamuffins because of their

tattered clothing. You know, I remember hearing that phrase a lot when I was growing up, you know, around certain families and things like that. What are you, a ragamuffin? Yeah, you don't hear it used. No. That much in today, but I've heard it for sure. Ruth and Muriel often didn't have food to bring to school for lunch. Now, Today, I think a lot of schools offer free lunch. They do. Yeah, provide it if you can't not bring one in. Yeah, if you can demonstrate that you're at a certain, you know, income or in some schools,

I think, especially during COVID, went to free lunch across the board. In 1999, Muriel Jacobay revealed that their father sexually abused both of them. Hampshire Live wrote that Muriel also wrote in her book. Ruth was subject to father's abuse when she got to 11. I heard her scream the way I did. I knew what he was doing. She'd go into the new bathroom and wash herself when he'd finished. 11 years old.

That's rough, man. I mean, that just makes you sick to your stomach. Yeah. But also, you know, the picture that her sister is painting of her having to, you know, hear these screams and know, exactly what's going on because she'd already been through it. Sure, he would live through it. Can't even be safe in your own home? That's got to be terrifying. Well, and as a young child, and I think we've talked about this before,

you look at your mom and dad as, as the, you know, protectors and the people in your life that should be the most supportive there to keep you safe and to be violated like that, by your father. Yeah. I just, I just don't. It's hard for me to talk about because there's something that starts to well up inside me. A little bit of fury,

anger, a couple of different emotions, but none of them are good. No, it's just so sick. Muriel became pregnant as a teenager and it was said that her son was raised as her brother. And we've actually heard this before.

At the age of 14, Ruth left school and started working to help support the family. She worked clerical jobs, waitressing jobs and worked at a factory near their house. In 1941, during the Blitzkrieg, right, the German bombing of the UK during World War II, Bruce family moved to London. And I read that and I kind of found it odd, to be honest with you, because I thought London was targeted the most. during the Blitz or the Blitz-Creeg or whatever you want to call it.

Yeah, I don't recall, but I think you're right. I thought that was the epicenter of the massive bombing campaign by Germany. And London Knights would go down to the subway station and hide out down there and the underground. When Ruth was 17, she had an affair with a married French Canadian soldier named Claire. She became pregnant. her first child, Claire Andrea Andy Nielsen, was born on September 15th, 1944. Claire visited Ruth and Andy.

He paid child support until he sent Ruth Roses and a letter and then he returned to Canada. Now, I hate to say it, but I'm sure that happened quite a bit as well during the war. Oh, I think so, yeah. And I don't know what recourse some of these women had to, to make these, you know, these soldiers who had come in from all different countries live up to their responsibilities. Sounds like he just took off. I'm sure it was pretty limited.

Ruth wasn't making much money in her current job. So she started doing some nude modeling and she got a job as a nightclub hostess. She also performed sex work to supplement her income according to the mirror and Hampshire live. According to the mirror, Ruth became pregnant at the age of 23, and she had an abortion. Then on November 8, 1950, Ruth married a man named George Johnson Ellis, who was a 41-year-old divorced dentist with two children. He was one of the nightclub customers.

He struggled with alcohol, abuse. During his first marriage, he had a very violent temper. According to Crime Library, he came home one day. day and found that his wife had taken all their furniture and the children. So George started spending more time at bars and he met Ruth at a place called the court club. Ruth had heard about him from some of the other hostesses who called him the mad dentist. The mad dentist, man, that's a dentist. I don't think I'd want to go to. My feeling is anytime you add the word mad in front of a nickname, it's not real great.

It's kind of a negative connotation for sure. In June 1950, George asked Ruth to spend the night with him. She agreed to meet him at a club later that night, but she never showed up because she wanted to go out with another hostess. Ruth later learned that George was attacked outside the club when he tried to flirt with a woman who was with a group of men. Ruth felt bad for him, and she agreed to go out to dinner.

And apparently they had what was called a world wind courtship. According to Crime Library, George took her to expensive restaurants. He bought her gifts. It was written that he was intelligent, musical. He had a private pilots license and he was warm and humorous, at least as long as he was not drinking his gin and tonics. Yeah, when he drank too much, he was not a friendly guy.

Yeah, that's what I got from the research. was that sober, he was a pretty good guy. But once he started drinking, that's when apparently the mad dentist came out. Ruth and George went on a three-month holiday. I always like it that in other countries, they call it a holiday instead of a vacation. I love to go on a three-month holiday. Well, okay, we've discussed it before. Some of our friends who live in other countries, they get a lot more time off.

They do. Then we do over here in the U.S. We stress work way too much. You know, we don't get a nap time. We don't get near enough vacation time. You miss out on all that good stuff. We just work too much, man. That's all there is to it.

Ruth moved in with George when they returned to London, but he was still drinking. And this is an issue that they fought over a lot. And after one fight, George agreed to admit himself to a hospital for treatment. When he was released, they decided to get married. George started working with a dental practice, but he only stayed sober for just a few weeks. Ruth and George often fought with each other.

George once beat Ruth during an argument. She left and came back several times during their marriage. Like many do. Many do. And it's a subject that you and I have talked about quite a bit. We've also been enlightened by many people. over the years as to why, you know, it's not so cut and dry. It's just not so easy to walk away.

Yeah. You know, in the six years we've been doing this podcast, we've learned a lot. We really have. And that's one of the things that we have learned because I will be very honest. When we started this, I kind of had that mindset. You know, if you're in a bad place, if your partner is being, you know, nasty to you, hurting you. Why don't you just leave? Yeah, just leave. Obviously, I had never been in that position. Right. So I didn't know. I didn't have the knowledge. But like I said, people have written in and really

giving us a lot of insight into just what these types of relationships can entail. Sometimes it's just not that simple. Ruth believed that he was having an affair at the hospital. And she once got so angry during a hospital visit that she had to be sedated. Dr. Rees, a psychiatrist, prescribed her medication and became her doctor until her arrest in 1955. Bruce's daughter, Georgina Ellis, was born on October 2nd, 1951. According to crime and investigation, George refused to acknowledge the child as his own. And after Georgina's birth, George filed for divorce on the grounds of

cruelty. And obviously that would not be him being cruel to Ruth. No. He's filing that she's cruel to him. Well, clearly he's not happy in his marriage. Well, it definitely sounds as though he was not happy about the birth. I don't know, you know, any specifics around it of why he refused to acknowledge the child as his own. Did he have some inkling that the child wasn't his or he just didn't want a child. But what happened was Ruth was forced to move in with her parents. She went back to working at the nightclub. She eventually became a manager at Little Club in Knightsbridge, London. In 1953 three, Ruth began what was called a tempestuous relationship. Tempetuous. No, but that was close. Yeah. Yeah. It was very close. And this was with a 24-year-old race car driver named David Blakely.

Crime and investigation wrote about Blakely. He was a man with public school manners and expensive tastes, but also a racing driver with a passion for fast cars and hard drinking. And apparently this guy was engaged when he met Ruth, but pretty quickly they moved in together. He was really taken with her and proposed to her. Ruth was still legally married to George Ellis, though, at the time, but eventually accepted his proposal. Well, clearly they had a strong attraction for each other. Yeah, and it sounds like things progressed pretty quickly. But after the marriage proposal, things took a turn.

Blakely started becoming jealous. He started spending a lot of time at the nightclub so that he could keep an eye on, Ruth. That jealousy thing's very bad, man. Yeah, it's usually not a great thing. Now, what was said in the research is that, you know, this kind of keeping tabs. on her. It had a negative effect on her earning at the nightclub. And at one point, this Blakely character had some money that he got from an inheritance, but he was an overspender, unlike yourself. You're not even a spender. I'm not. You're an underspender. But, you know, I think he kind of blew

through it pretty quickly. And so Ruth and David started fighting about money. And apparently these fights became violent. Now, he was also seeing another woman, which made Ruth very jealous. Well, that will do that. Can't be seeing another woman. And I expect your other partner to be jealous. Unless you got one of those open relationships, that normally is not going to work out well. No. people just don't seem to like that. I don't even know how well these open relationships really work when it comes down to it. Oh, yeah.

I'm not sure either. I think by and large, most people discourage that notion. Right. People that have been in them say, yeah, that sounds like a great idea. But man, do not go down that road because it didn't work out well for me. And I'm not even okay with like this open podcast relationship that you keep trying to force me into. like I'm going to have a different co-host come in. What do you mean?

No. It's six years. Have I ever had another co-host? No. I keep asking every down there. Everybody knows. I keep asking if I can see other other co-hosts. And you keep turning me down.

So he's dating another woman. Ruth began seeing another man as well. A guy by the name of Desmond Cussin. He was an RAF pilot who served during World War II. He later became. and accountant. So there's a lot going on, right? We've got Ruth and Blakely in a relationship, but now they're each seeing other people. Ruth got fired from the club, and she moved in with Cussin while she was still seeing Blakely. Well, that's going to be a little, uh, hot. Well, and,

you know, they were betrothed to use an old, timely word, right? He had proposed to her. So not hard to imagine. that this relationship is going to be rocky. It's also going to turn volatile. In March, 1955, Ruth Ellis learned that she was pregnant again. Late that month, Blakely punched Ruth in the stomach during a fight, which caused her to have a miscarriage. You see that movie sometimes when the guy hits the woman in the stomach when she's pregnant. It just seems so brutal.

Yeah, brutal. It might be an understatement because by my way of thinking, you know, it's not. if you're going out of your way to cause a woman to lose a baby, you're a monster. So this guy committed a murder. Yeah, I think a lot of people would view it as that. Now, I don't know how the law would view it, especially back in 1955. But just before Easter, the two made up and Blakely told Ruth that everything would be all right. He talked about getting married, making sure that she was financially.

financially supported, he told Ruth he'd spend Easter weekend with her and her son. But on Good Friday, he went to Hampstead London and ignored Ruth when she tried to contact him. It's typically not good to ignore a woman. I don't know if it's great to ignore anyone. What I will say is that you're talking a good game, right? If you're this Blakely character, hey, everything's going to be all right. I know I did this horrible thing. going to take care of you, we're going to get married.

And then you make a promise and then you just bolt. Yeah, basically his word means nothing to her now or shouldn't mean nothing to her because he doesn't follow through. So she went to find him in Hampstead where he was staying with some friends. The Guardian wrote that when she knocked on the door and she didn't get an answer, she pushed out his car windows to try to attract his attention. Well, I think when you break out somebody's windows, You're going to get that attention.

But he didn't contact her the next day. And on Sunday, April 10th, 1955, Ruth fatally shot David Blakely outside the Magdalek pub in Hampstead, North London. The Daily Mail reported six revolver shots shattered the Easter Sunday calm of Hampstead and a beautiful platinum blonde stood with her back to the wall. In her hand was a revolver. So what happened, was David Blakely walked out of the pub. With his friend, Clive Gunnell, Bruce shot him in the back

and then shot him four more times when he fell to the ground. Ruth's fifth shot hit a woman named Gladys Kensington Yule in the hand. Eventually, an off-duty police officer took the gun out of Ruth's hand. After the shooting, Ruth asked Clive Gunnell to call the police. She was arrested shortly after that. Blakely was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. At 11 p.m., Ruth admitted to shooting Blakely in front of three different officers. And the very next day, Ruth was charged with murder. She appeared in court on April 12th and was transferred to the Holloway prison. She was out for vengeance.

Well, she was mad. She was upset. You know, go back to losing a child at the hands of this guy. And then, you know, he's doing all the sweet talking, but it almost seems as though she figured out that it was just talked. Because now he's ignoring her and he's off with his buddies doing whatever he wanted, even though he promised her this, this, this and this. And then when he fails to contact her, even after this kind of big, grand gesture of busting his windows out, that seems to be the final straw for her. Yeah, it seems like she passed her breaking point. So Roos trial started on June 20th, 1955, and it only lasted one day. The Guardian wrote that many people thought Ruth seemed unnaturally

cool at her trial. I'm taking that to mean she wasn't rattled. Yeah. She wasn't crying. She seemed calm, collected. At trial, Ruth said that a U.S. servicemen gave her the gun. And three years ago to pay off a debt. She also said that she ordered the taxi to take her to the Magdala. Ruth's attorney Melford Stevenson wanted to argue that Ruth was provoked. He told the court that Ruth was driven to a frenzy, which for the time being unseeded her understanding. His goal was to get a manslaughter charge, which did not come with the death penalty. and I think we see that play out still today.

We do. If you can't get somebody off and there are just cases that are so stacked against a client that it's going to be near impossible to get an acquittal, the goal then becomes, okay, how do we get out from under the death penalty? Yeah, how do we get a lesser charge? Yes. Or a lesser sentence that doesn't include death. But I want to go back to this statement.

driven to a frenzy, which for the time being unseeded her understanding. To me, that is a little bit of a different way of saying she was kind of temporarily insane. Yeah. Due to what she was experiencing. Now, he's using the word unseated and things like that. According to the guardian, Bruce said at trial, he only hit me with his fist or hands. I bruise easily. She also said a few weeks or days previously, I don't know which.

David got very violent. I don't know whether that caused the miscarriage or not. He thumped me in the tummy. Well, she's trying to paint the picture that he was a violent man sometimes. Yeah, and I don't, I don't think that that was untrue. I think David Blakely was a violent individual at times. The prosecutor Humphreys, did agree that Ruth was disgracefully treated by the man who died and that this could have caused

an intensely emotional state. And he only asked Ruth one question during cross-examination. What was her intent when she fired the gun at David Blakely? And Ruth answered, It's obvious when I shot him, I intended to kill him. And according to history.com, it was Ruth's admission of her intent. That led to him. to her conviction. British law at the time required demonstration of clear intent for a conviction and she basically served it up on a platter. She really did. I think in hindsight, if you could restructure the way you said that, maybe it would have been more beneficial for her. Oh, there's a bunch of different ways that you could have answered that question that would have

helped her out in court. There's no doubt about it. It seems to me as though she was being like very, very honest in a situation where most people are not honest. Right. You'd have to agree with that, Gibbs. I mean, a lot of defendants, if they are going to take the stand, they do take the stand. If they're asked a question by the prosecutor, are they going to be 100% truthful? And I would say, most of the time probably not. They may not outright lie, but at the very least, they're going to bend it. Right. They're going to bend that answer in a way that makes it a little bit more beneficial to them.

It didn't seem like she was trying to do that at all. No. She was just coming out and saying, yeah, obviously, when I shot at him, I was trying to kill him. And that seems like that's all they needed. Right. And maybe that's why the trial only last. did seem very quick, right? It did, really quick.

The judge determined that there wasn't enough evidence for a provocation defense. So murder was the only verdict available to the jury. So, you know, a lot of times you think about a jury, they go in with options, murder, manslaughter, different degrees. Right. Here they don't have it. Yeah, it's either it's this and is it guilty or not guilty. Yeah.

And if she's guilty, then she's guilty of murder. And the jury only took 14 minutes to convict Ruth. Okay. We've done a lot of cases and we talked a lot about jury deliberations, some very quick, some very slow or that, you know, some that drag out over days and even weeks. 14 minutes might be a record for TCAT. Pretty fast. I don't even know how you can take a vote.

boat barely in 14 minute by the time you get back there. By the time you get around the table, I guess everybody was pretty easy on just saying guilty. Guilty, guilty, guilty. Ruth received an automatic death sentence from Judge Cecil Haver's. And she was executed just three months after her conviction. So again, right, going back to now we're in England, but, you know, even in the United States,

when you go back to cases in the 50s. Executions happened very quickly. They didn't mess around, did they? After, you know, guilty verdicts. But there were a lot of people who weren't happy with this. 50,000 people signed a petition asking for clemency for Ruth. On July 11th, Ruth's lawyers submitted evidence to try to overturn the death sentence. According to the Guardian, some of the evidence was witness test.

stating that Blakely inflicted repeated beatings on Ruth and that she believed he had caused the miscarriage she suffered just 10 days before the shooting with a punch to the stomach. Well, that can add to her mindset, right? I mean, you're trying to demonstrate what her mindset was. Yeah, the problem I have is she didn't come across that way, really, at trial. You know, she said he gave me a thump on my tummy. I feel like the defense attorney should have did a better job of prepping her. Yeah, or leading her, I don't want to say leading, but getting her to, you know, really kind of answer certain questions. And I want to go back to one of the statements she made at trial, which was he only hit me with his fists or hands.

Only? Yeah, like that's okay. Okay. I'm not saying she was saying it was okay, but when you use that kind of qualifying word only, only, yeah. It says something. Well, it typically diminishes. Yeah.

What's coming after it, right? Yeah, I would say you're correct. And to me, that's not something you want to try to diminish. But the evidence that her lawyer submitted was not enough to overturn the death sentence. Ruth's sister Muriel and her mother visited Ruth the night before her execution. Muriel told the guardian. She was very calm. My mom said, don't ask any questions and let Ruth do the talking.

I just had a new baby. And she said, what was he like? And she said she liked the dress I had on. I believe she thought at the last minute, they'd say, you'll go to prison instead. So was she so calm? because in her mind, she didn't think she was going to be executed. Maybe. It's kind of what her sister's saying.

Yeah, it could have been the reason why. On July 13th, 195, 28-year-old Ruth Ellis was hanged at the women's Holloway prison in Islington, London. You know, I'm not sure I feel about hangings. Well, we had a case recently, right, where the guy had the choice and he chose hanging. Yeah. I said it on that. that episode, it definitely would not be the route that, that I would go. Now, I don't know that there was a choice in this case. Seems like to me that was the method of execution at the time.

I mean, look, I'm okay with a little rope around my neck, but I don't want to hang. And I'll tell you the same thing I always tell you, what you choose to do in your free time, that's up to you. But when you bring it on to the podcast, you're crossing the line. Yeah, I'm sorry. But Rue's case was cited as a reason to abolish the death penalty. And in 1965, the death penalty was abolished in England, Scotland, and Wales, Northern Ireland abolished capital punishment in 1973. Only certain crimes, including treason, remained punishable by death in Great Britain until 1998. So it took him a little bit, right? I mean, 55 to 65, but that took care of the bulk of the death penalties. In the 1970s, Roos Body was exhumed and reburied at St. Mary Churchyard in

Amersham, Buckingham, I'm sure. I don't, and Gibbs, I never know. Do I always go sure? Some of these might be Shire, might be Buckingham Shire. I think it's Shire. It probably is. Because you go to the Shire, you know, it's the Shire. Yeah. I think that's Lord of the Rings, Tolkien, the Hobbit. I don't know if that plays, but. It all took place over there. I don't. I don't know. It all took place over there. know they say middle earth but it's really you know they're all english actors yeah a lot of times i go sure because in cases that we've done in england a lot of them are pronounced that way so her headstone had the name ruth hornby on it but ruth was originally buried in an unmarked grave ruse 18 year old sister died a few weeks after her execution george ellis died of suicide in 1958 and russ's son

Andy tragically died of suicide in June 1982. As an adult, Andy made several tape recordings and even interviewed the prosecutor in Roos case. Georgina Ellis was adopted after her mother's death. As an adult, she did an interview with Michael Barrymore. Georgie was three when her mother died, but she learned about it when she was eight years old. She was adopted and found some newspaper clippings about her mother's death. She saw a Roos picture and remembered her from when she was a little girl. This also helped her realize why people treated her differently. There were a lot of tragic events that happened after Ruth's execution.

Yeah, especially with her family. And you know, you think about her daughter, Georgina. She was adopted. And then at eight years old, finds out about, you know, what her mother had done and that she was hanged, that's got to be rough as an eight-year-old. In 1999, the Guardian published an article with information on documents released by the home office. The home secretary at the time, Gwillam Lloyd George, knew that Ruth confessed to solicitor

Victor Mishkan before her execution. Rousse said that on the day she shot David Blakely, she was drinking with her boyfriend, friend Desmond Cussin, who gave her the murder weapon and also drove her to the pub. According to Muriel Jacob Bates' solicitor, the documents from the home office show that a stay of execution should have been ordered while new evidence was investigated. Bruce's interview with Mishkan ended at 12.50 p.m. on July 12, 1955, he went to the home office with the new evidence. Scotland Yard was ordered to search for Cussin, but they gave up after an hour of waiting at his home in London.

Secretary George rejected Roos confession. The home secretary relied on a prison officer's account of Roos confession to justify his refusal to order a reprieve. The officer confirmed Solicitor Mishcon's version of the story, but added that Ruth asked Cussin to give her the murder weapon. Okay. So is that true? or is that a little bit of embellishment?

A little fluff. But I want to go back to, you know, some of these documents showing that a stay of execution should have been ordered while new evidence was investigated. I think this is part of the problem with executing someone so very quickly. Well, you're exactly right because they don't have a voice now. They can't help out. They can't answer certain questions. And if you find that maybe they shouldn't have been executed, what are you going to do?

There's no taking it back, right? But I also think they have this information. They want to go talk to Frank Cussin, but you know what? An hour's long enough. He doesn't show up. We're done. You know, that just doesn't seem to make any sense. The papers from the public records office show that six months after Ruth's execution,

the home office sufficiently believed. Ruth's claims that she was acting under the influence of Cusset. The home office asked the director of public prosecution, prosecutors to examine if Cussin should be charged as an accessory before the murder. So these papers did confirm that Mish Khan listened to Roos confession. Roo said that she didn't implicate Cusson at trial because it seemed traitorous. And again, I go back to some of my comments about, you know, what she said or didn't say at trial. It was almost as if I don't want to say she was resigned to her fate, but.

you know, now you hear this and it's like she didn't want to throw her boyfriend under the bus. Yeah, I mean, it could have saved her life. She's on trial for her life. And her concern is, I don't want my boyfriend to look bad. Yeah, it seems so strange to me, you know, that and some other things that she did or said at trial. Now, there's no doubt that she killed this man, Blakely. She shot him. People saw it.

That's not in doubt. According to Philip Allen, who later became the most senior home office civil servant, the prison officer's note has the important addition that Mrs. Ellis said that it was her suggestion that she had the gun. I questioned the officer on this. She was positive that her report was accurate. An attempt was made to find Cussin to question him on Mrs. Ellis's statement, but he could not be found. He could not be found in that hour.

And so that's it. We give up. Ruth's lawyers had also submitted evidence on July 11th of witnesses testifying that David Blakely repeatedly beat Ruth because he was jealous of her involvement with Desmond Cussin. Evidence also stated that Ruth believed Blakely was responsible for her miscarriage three days before the murder. Again, something else that I think she really downplayed at trial. Yes, you could have used that to provide a better defense. At the very least, you would think maybe it could be viewed as a mitigating factor, a mitigating circumstance. Frank Newsom advised the Home Secretary.

It would be a bad day for this country if we adopted the doctrine of crime, Pachianel. This was a deliberately planned and cold-bloodedly executed murder. And jealousy is not one of the emotions which entitle a man. or woman to kill her lover. The Home Secretary said that the law should take its course. The crime was a premeditated one and carried out with deliberation. If a reprieve were granted in this case, I think we should seriously have to consider whether capital punishment should be retained as penalty.

So there's a couple of things here. You know, this guy Frank Newsom saying, jealousy doesn't entitle a man or one. woman to kill his or her lover. I understand that. I have no qualms with him saying that. But is that why she shot this man? Because she was jealous? Or did she shoot him because she was upset that, you know, he was beating on her. He had caused her miscarriage. I'm not saying either one is right. But to me, those are two very different set of circumstances. Maybe one carries a lesser charge. I don't know about the charge. Maybe the sentence. Yeah, the sentence. Again, when you think about mitigating factors, I think that's where all this stuff kind of plays in. Six months after

Ruse's execution, after reporters like Peter Griswood and Duncan Webb wrote about the case, the home office conceded that there might be something in the Cussin connection. But they didn't admit Ruth should have been reprieved from execution. And to me, I think that's what a lot of people were upset about. Okay, what's the harm in delaying this a little bit while we figure some things out? Continue to do your investigation. She's not going to go anywhere. We know where she's at.

It's not like they're letting her out. They're just not killing her. In February, 1956, a home office official wrote in internal papers. It might be possible to prove that Kassin and Ruth, Ellis were together in Cussons flat in the evening and they drove together to the neighborhood of the crime. But on public grounds, there is a good deal to be said for not reopening the case. I would say on their part, yeah, yeah, you don't want to reopen the case.

There's a chance that, you know, you could be made to look back. This official advised that the papers be sent to the director of public prosecutions, the director would examine the evidence that Cussin supplied the murder weapon, incited Roof to shoot Blakely and drove her to the pub. But the director concluded that Ellis is no longer available as a witness. There is no evidence to prove that Cussin supplied her with the gun. And that statement is not false because they had already executed her. Yeah.

You know, back to your point. You can't go back and ask questions. because the woman's already, you know, been killed. And I don't want people to take, you know, some of this the wrong way. I'm not saying what she did was right at all. I think what a lot of people in this case really are trying to figure out is whether or not she deserved to be executed. Right.

In light of some of the circumstances and the facts that came out that they could have looked into if they had chosen to instead of moving ahead with the execution. I think that's what this case really boils down to. You know, if you think about it, if this guy cussin gives her the gun, if he's kind of talking her into doing this, not making her, but they use the word insight. Right. He drives her to the pub. Okay, can a case be made there that he's a part of it? Does that have any bearing on whether or not she receives the death penalty, I don't know. The problem is, no one can ever know because they didn't follow up on it. Yeah. They just went through with the execution so fast. Lynn demayed the solicitor who pushed for the criminal cases review

commission to reexamine the case on the grounds of provocation and diminished responsibility said that the papers prove that the authorities knew the truth of the case. And, you know, the case before the execution. They just wanted to rush it through. Well, you just said they were too quick to rush it. They were just taking their time to investigate some of these claims before executing her. Or before trial. Or even before trial.

You know, more so. Again, some of this information maybe came out later, but now for his part, Cussin denied ever giving Ruth the gun. He later moved to Australia and died in 1991. Georgina died of cancer in 2001 at the age of 50. Guardian reporter Claire Dyer spoke with Ruth's sister Muriel. She was 83 years old at the time. Before the court of appeal heard evidence in Ruth's case.

Muriel fought for decades to have Ruth's conviction overturned. She thinks that her sister was protecting Cussin because he promised to look after her family. The Guardian wrote that according to her. to Bernard DeMay, the solicitor handling the modern appeal. In the 1970s, solicitor John Bickford, who just happened to be a friend of Desmond Cusson, wrote to Scotland Yard and admitted that he hid from the jury that Cusson had driven her to Hampstead, provided the gun, and had goaded her into shooting Blakely to remove a love rival from the scene. Okay, so now we're really getting into some bad territory here.

At the time of Roos trial, provocation was only interpreted as killers reacting in what was termed hot blood to something immediately before the murder. In the 90s, judges opened provocation to battered women or people who self-control was affected by despair or depression. So those are some big differences. you know, provocation, meaning it's something immediately before the murder. To me, that's like walking in on your significant other having sex with somebody else. And you lose it.

Right. And you grab a gun and you shoot somebody. You know, in that moment, I think like a lot of people would be, you're not yourself. And I don't think logic is going to come into play. And again, it doesn't mean that you didn't do something horrible. it's just viewed a little bit differently, I think, when it comes down to, you know, let's say sentencing. You know, like judges opening provocation to battered women. Well, this woman, Ruth Ellis was battered. I don't think there's any doubt about that to the point where she had

a miscarriage after a violent altercation. Now, does that mean she should take a revolver and kill this man? it doesn't mean that, but do you view it differently in the context of a trial, a verdict, a sentencing? And I would say, yeah, we do that today. It may not mean you're not going to be held responsible, but it may mean that your responsibility is viewed differently. Does that make sense? No, it does. I mean, I think you can look at the person prior to this event. How do they normally act. And then look at this event and clearly in some cases, it will be the event that triggers what they do. Yeah. It could be. Modern lawyers argued that Ruth suffered from post-miscarriage depression. She was provoked and suffered from diminished responsibility. A diminished responsibility defense

could have reduced the charge to manslaughter. Diminished responsibility was permitted as a defense in 1957, mostly because of the Ruth Ellis case. So her case, death led the way for that. Yeah, in large part, according to a number of different sources. But I think, you know, that's kind of going back to what we were just saying. Diminished responsibility, not no responsibility. The appeal hearing began on September 26, 2003. And that's the other thing I want to point out.

I mean, we're talking about almost 50 years. years after this case took place. Michael Mansfield represented Roos' sister Muriel at this hearing. The following quotes come from the Guardian's coverage of the hearing. Bruce's 1955 jurors were not allowed to consider her provocation defense. According to Michael Mansfield, the trial judge fell into substantial error when he withdrew that defense as a matter of law from the jury. And that's why it was so important to talk about what provocation kind of was back then or what judges thought of it. They thought of it more as the something is unfolding right now type of thing.

Mansfield told the court that Haver's decision led to a miscarriage of justice, which had lasted for 48 years. So this appeal hearing lasted two days. Mansfield goal was to have Roos murder conviction, quash, and substitute it for a verdict of manslaughter on the grounds of provocation and or diminished responsibility. Mansfield said that the jury in 1955 should have been allowed to consider a manslaughter verdict. He said, were this trial to be allowed to occur today? The course of the trial would be entirely different. And I would say that's that's probably a given. Yeah, I agree with that statement. Mansfield described Ruth and Blakely's relationship as swings and roundabouts.

That's a heck of a way to describe a relationship. It paints a picture, right, of a very violent one. Bruce said at one point about Blakely, he only used to hit me with his hands and fists, but I was full of bruises on many occasions. And we kind of said that something similar, she said at trial. Again, that word only, almost as if she's saying, well, it could have been worse. He could have hit me with a bat or, you know, some kind of instrument. According to Mansfield, Ruth was provoked by Blakely to the point where her judgment was

suspended and the element of malice needed to prove murder was not present. She was provoked by Blakely not showing up to their scheduled meeting. He had talked about marrying her and offering financial support. Ruth was also still in love with him, even though she blamed him for her miscarriage. Blakely had promised her a bright future and had told her he loved her before suddenly ignoring her. Mansfield said that Blakely's behavior that weekend was intentionally directed at Ruth and that based on their relationship history, it amounted to provocation. Okay. I'm not sure I'm buying this part 100%. Why is that?

Well, he had me with the violence and the miscarriage. But when you delve into kind of not showing up for this meeting and ignoring her, I'm struggling to find the provocation in that part a little bit. I see where you're headed. I don't know if I'm missing something here, but I'm just kind of verbalizing my thoughts. To me, the provocation was the violence and the miscarriage and all that. And it was still pretty fresh.

It had only occurred 10 days before the murder. It wasn't like it was three years prior. No, no, no, no. But now he's kind of hammering home this idea that he made all these promises and then he wouldn't return her calls or wouldn't contact her. is that provocation for murder or for shooting a guy? I'm not seeing that part. Yeah, not either.

It's unfortunate for her. But that happens to a lot of people. Yeah. Their significant other says, we're going to do this. I'm going to give you this. I'm going to take care of you. And then they flake. But like I said, you know, just two years after Ruth was executed,

the law changed to allow diminished responsibility as a defense. And maybe I'm just getting too hung up on the word provocation. Maybe it's more about, you know, her state of mind. And, and you have to wrap all of these things together. Maybe I'm taking it too far out of context just by looking at, you know, this one kind of statement on its own. Maybe he's trying to stack everything on top. Yeah, I see.

And we're headed with that. And call that the provocation. Yeah. Bruce representatives also presented evidence of her confession and Cussons alleged involvement. According to Mansfield, the judge, prosecutor, and defense were laboring under a misconception or misunderstanding of the law. They believed that in order to establish a provocation defense, they had to prove the murder was not motivated by malice. So the killing basically had to be in the passion or the heat of the moment. moment without intent to kill someone or cause grievous bodily harm. And according to Mansfield,

you know, he said this was incorrect. He argued the correct construction of the law on provocation is as it then stood was that the intent to kill arose out of a passionate loss of control and provocative conduct directly linked to that loss of control. Okay. So now when I kind of of read that, it does make a little more sense. I think he is stacking everything together. The beatings, the miscarriage, the promises. It all kind of led up. And I think you even said it earlier. It was like that was the last straw or that was the tipping point. I can't remember what you said, but was it the point where she lost control? And I think that's what he is saying. what he's arguing. The really interesting point to me is that he's arguing that it should have been

allowed in 1955. Yeah. But the judge said, no, this is how you have to kind of look at provocation. Mansfield announced his intention to call on a medical expert who would testify that Ruth suffered from battered woman syndrome. One of the judges said that in the 1950s, the provocation defense was based on sudden and temporary loss of control. But there was a 90-minute period between Ruth getting the gun and killing Blakely. Mansfield responded that that question should have been up to the jury. He also said that it was remarkable that the people involved at trial believed that to establish provocation, there could be no malice or intent.

When a matter could lead to execution, it behooves those in a position of authority to ensure they have a grasp of basic principles. Okay, that statement I'm not going to argue with at all. When you're talking about somebody's life, I do think it's extremely important for everyone, the prosecutors, the defense attorneys, and more importantly, the judge, to have a grasp on all the principles. Absolutely, it is. he's just saying they didn't have it. David Perry for the crown said in court that provocation

didn't arise because there was no final provocative act and no evidence of sudden or temporary loss of control. He told the court, a reasonable woman would not have been provoked on the basis of the alleged provocative act. Okay. I want to go back to what Mansfield said in that it should have been a question for the jury. And I think that's very important because I think both sides can argue there was provocation, there wasn't provocation. And I think what Mansfield is saying, why not let the jury decide that? Why take all of it out of their control and basically rule that there was no provocation? And so you either are finding someone guilty or not guilty. and if it's guilty, it's murder.

Because that's ultimately what happened. Yeah, you're right. And how are you going to find someone not guilty when it's clear they shot someone four or five times? I don't know how you could not find them guilty. At the hearing, Mansfield presented evidence from Mooring Gleason, a retired midwife living in Australia. She gave a written statement to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in 1999.

Gleason saw Ruth stressed and weeping outside a garden wall in a Hampstead street. Allegedly on the night of Blakely's murder. She told Gleason, it's my boyfriend. He's in there with another woman. He won't let me in. Ruth was said to have been quite distraught.

Gleason offered to take her home for coffee. And according to her statement, Ruth was crying again and said, as if surprised, oh, I've got a gun. She said, then a bulky man with a proprietary air loomed up and stood possessively over Ruth.

According to the Guardian, this was understood to be Desmond Cussin. The three justices said it was unusual that Ruth didn't appeal her death sentence. Mansfield said Ruth had no desire to appeal because when she killed Blakely, she intended to end her own life, but she ran out of ammunition.

According to BBC, Mansfield said in court that Ruth was told by her lawyers, there were no grounds. for an appeal. And I always find this interesting in cases. You know, people say their lawyers told them this, told them that sometimes it comes out that some of this stuff is true. Oh yeah. And that the lawyers were wrong or gave bad advice and that they really were ineffective. I don't know if that's the case here. Or the attorney gave them good advice. And they decided not to take it. Yeah. Yeah, that happens as well. The three judges declined to hear evidence from the medical expert.

who was set to testify about battered woman syndrome, one of the justices said the evidence was not admissible in law. On December 7, 2003, the justices in the court of appeal determined that Ruth was rightly convicted under the law at the time, and Muriel's appeal was without merit. The justices ruled that for the provocation defense to be valid, the defense had to prove that Ruth was subjected to an immediate affront and that all her normal self-control had been lost.

So that's much different, right, than what Mansfield was trying to argue. You know, what would you consider an immediate affront? Being battered is one thing that comes to mind. I would think that would qualify. Being hit in the stomach so hard that it causes you to miscarriage, but that wasn't immediate, right?

That was 10 days prior. So it really comes down to what does immediate mean. And to me, that means it's happening right now, right then and there. And they viewed it as there was no such thing happening right then and there that would have caused her to lose her self control. They also stated that under the law at the date of the trial, the judge was right to withdraw the defense of provocation from the jury and the appeal must fail. If her crime were committed today, we think it likely that there would have been an issue of diminished responsibility for the jury to decide, but we are in no position to judge what the jury's response to such an issue might be.

Muriel said after the decision, I can't believe it after all these years. The whole thing seems very unfair. And I'm never going to give up over this until I am taken from this earth. Ruth always said she hoped the truth would come out one day and now I hope to do something about all the lies that have been written about her. It's kind of amazing when you think about, you know, her sister fighting for, you know, 50 years. Yeah. Just to clear her sister's name in some capacity. You can you, you're not going to clear it altogether because she didn't kill a man. She did. You're trying to clear it or put it in, in a,

in a different context. A little softer. In 2018, the BBC reexamined the case in a three-part series titled The Ruth Ellis Files. The purpose of the series was to look at evidence of Desmond Cusson's role in the murder and how Duncan Webb, a journalist, tried to clear Ruth's name after her death. Webb believed that Lloyd George didn't give Scotland Yard enough time to investigate Cusson's influence on Ruth. It's possible, as we've already said, that Ruth was.

driven to the pub and given the murder weapon by Desmond Cousin six months after Webb's investigation, the home office conceded that his claims may have merit. But they did not say that Ruth should have been reprieved. It's pretty tough, I would think, to submit something that's going to make them say that, right? That a mistake was made. She should have gotten a reprieve. So Gibbs, as we wrap up this case, the execution of Ruth Ellis is still, today a controversial case. There are arguments that, you know, if Roos trial took place in modern times, she would have been convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of either provocation or diminished responsibility due to the abuse she experienced. There are also arguments that the law at the time

was applied correctly and she was rightly convicted. You know, both of those things could be true. Yeah, they absolutely could be. I get it. Mansfield argued that there should have been grounds for provocation even back then. He thought the judge erred by kind of ruling it out. But I think you're absolutely right. To me, I would say there's a very good chance that if Ruth Ellis was tried today, that history of abuse would play a big factor in her trial. I would hope it would. would. She's still going to be convicted. Sure. But convicted of what? Murder or manslaughter. Death sentence versus whatever the sentence for manslaughter would be. Now, those are two very, very different thing. But when you look at the case as a whole, I think you can justify manslaughter. I could definitely see a jury coming to that conclusion. I definitely could. If they had that choice, they didn't have the choice in 1955. It was murder or nothing, right?

And I think that's what a lot of people really found tough or find tough still. But, you know, when higher courts looked at it, they said, no, the judge was right to rule that out. Provocation back then just meant something different than it does today. But either way, you know, Ruth Ellis lived a very short life. Was she 28 years old? Yeah, very young. when she was executed. And she lived a pretty rough life.

She had a lot of hardships, tragedy. And like you said, there was a lot of tragedy, you know, even after she died in her family. I just found the case very interesting because you can kind of look at it a couple of different ways, a number of different ways. Actually, you can look at it from the standpoint of 1955 when the trial occurred and say, you know, was this right? or should something have happened. Then you can also look at it as if it were occurring today and see how things have changed

over the last, you know, X amount of years. I don't think there's any doubt. The case would probably go a different way, still a conviction, but it's probably not going to be first degree murder. And the death penalty. And the death penalty. And that's part of the thing about this case. And I think why a lot of people find it so fascinating, so interesting.

Also, the fact that, you know, she's the last woman to be executed in the UK. Yeah, that's true. But that's it for our episode on Ruth Ellwell. So we've got some voicemails. You want to check those out? Yeah, I want to hear them. Hello. Hi.

Oh, my goodness. I can't believe I'm doing this. You guys are just so awesome. Keep the podcast going. And I am team givey. All right. Yeah, keep your own time ticking. Well, we will keep it going.

We definitely will keep it going as long as people keep listening. That's kind of the prerequisite. Kind of the key to everything, right? The key to keeping it going is that people keep listening. I can't believe she did that either. I can't believe she left that voicemail gives. It's really cool. It was awesome.

Hey, Mike and Giddy. My name is Josh. I'm from here in Ohio with you guys. I've been listening for about a month and a half. now. I've been caught up constantly due to my job at work. I'm a delivery driver. I have a suggestion for a episode. It just happened a few years back. About 30 minutes east of Columbus in Newark, Ohio, they were known at the 22 caliber killers. Their names are Gary and that Lundiansen.

And the place where it all started is actually a little bar, it's still up and operating today. But I think it'd be one you guys would be interested in to checking out. I'm team T-Cat all the way, and guys just keep their own time ticking. Thanks. All right. Thanks for the voicemail. Yeah, we definitely have that on our list and I have had it on there for a very long time.

I'm not sure why we haven't done that case yet. We'll do it soon, maybe. With it being so close to where we are. Yeah. Hey, Mike and Givie. This is Erica from San Diego. I just finished the Leonardo episode, and I was just cracking up a little because when you guys were talking about conversion rates, when I was working out of Sierra Leone, we came back to visit friends and family. in Vegas and I actually left a wallet.

It was a wallet of probably like 100,000 land. And when I called back, or no, the security is actually the one that called us because they thought it was a lot of money. But it ended up only being like $5. It didn't really amount so much. But yeah, I got a kick out of that. So take care and keep your own time ticking.

Yeah, thanks for the voicemail. Obviously, conversions are always tough for me, especially tough for Gibby. But I will say, $5 is a lot of money for you, man. You could eat for weeks. I could. And I would think, you know, as a San Diego one, that. 60% of the time, it works every time. Is it what our buddy Ron called him?

Yeah, San Diego ones. Oh, you didn't have anything after that? Oh, okay. Oh, okay. I'm all out. Yeah, you, uh, So it was just to get that part out. San Diego wins?

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I thought there was more coming. It sounded like there was more coming after it. San Diego wins. Yeah, but we appreciate the voicemail. We had some mailbag.

Rebecca Callister sent us in some Harley chips and some Harley Dice, which I've never seen. And I'm in love with. And I would love to have more. They're very, very cool. Jed Richards, who was a Patreon supporter that we talked about in the beginning, sent us some ceremonial keys to a. a U.S. Navy brig with the words Snake Charlie on the side. Yeah, they are very cool. He also wanted us to give a shout out to the girl. He said she would know who she is. So you know who you are.

You know who you are. You know that girl that likes to hang around with Jed. Hopefully Jed and the girl, that's enough to, uh, yeah, solve the mystery. Yeah. All right, buddy. That is it for another episode. of true crime all the time. So for Mike and Gibby, stay safe and keep your own time ticking.