<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[I think I might have to rewind and concentrate because I think Christie is actually a witness in this scene.  I fell asl]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><em>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — 10 Rillington Place</em></p>
<hr />
<p dir="auto"><strong>highpriestess32</strong> — <em>10 years ago(May 16, 2015 04:21 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">I think I might have to rewind and concentrate because I think Christie is actually a witness in this scene.  I fell asleep last night before the end so am trying to re-cap (only just got the DVD a few days ago).<br />
I'll ask anyway even if I risk looking foolish because it's bugging me.  Are prosecution teams still allowed to bring up past cases to undermine a witness regardless of whether or not he is the one on trial?  The Prosecution are reading out a list of four previous convictions.<br />
I hope you get where I am coming from.  Sorry to be so dense but I'm totally exhausted today and not on the top of my game. Thanks for any pointers if you can elaborate<br />
"Has anyone seen my wife?" - Columbo</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/183905/i-think-i-might-have-to-rewind-and-concentrate-because-i-think-christie-is-actually-a-witness-in-this-scene-i-fell-asl</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 May 2026 21:18:23 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/183905.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:33:12 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to I think I might have to rewind and concentrate because I think Christie is actually a witness in this scene.  I fell asl on Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:33:15 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>highpriestess32</strong> — <em>9 years ago(February 01, 2017 12:23 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">OK thank you.<br />
"These days you have to boil someone before you can sleep with them"</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1544933</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1544933</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:33:15 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to I think I might have to rewind and concentrate because I think Christie is actually a witness in this scene.  I fell asl on Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:33:14 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>Arseweb</strong> — <em>9 years ago(February 01, 2017 12:21 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">It's not always allowed, but generally it is when they are "convictions or cautions for offences involving dishonesty, fraud/forgery, perjury, perverting the course of justice, or a like offence", because it informs about the credibility of the witness. Note that the barrister in the film stresses that the 4 cases involved dishonesty.<br />
That quote comes from the Crown Prosecution Service website <a href="http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/disclosure_of_previous_convictions_of_prosecution_witnesses/" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/disclosure_of_previous_convictions_of_prosecution_witnesses/</a><br />
I don't know if the rules have changed since the time of the Evans trial but I would imagine that if anything they were less strict back then.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1544932</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1544932</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:33:14 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to I think I might have to rewind and concentrate because I think Christie is actually a witness in this scene.  I fell asl on Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:33:13 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>angelfox</strong> — <em>10 years ago(June 20, 2015 02:22 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">The prosecution brought up Christies previous convictions as Evans had implicated him in his <a href="http://statement.it" rel="nofollow ugc">statement.it</a> did no good as Christie won the sympathy of both judge and jury.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1544931</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1544931</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:33:13 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>