Corrections

Become a member and get loads of extra features!

Mistakes

In the previous book, Dark Assassin, Monk goes through Durban's notes and finds the only case of his which "remained a mystery" (Ch. 7). The case Monk reopens in the next book, Execution Dock, is also repeatedly referred to as "the one case Durban had not solved" (e.g., Ch. 1 and Ch. 5). The mistake is that there is no way these are the same case. The one from Dark Assassin involves the murder of a 40-year-old barber named Roger Thorwood; the one from Execution Dock is the sexual abuse and murder of a boy named Walter Figgis, by a man named Jericho Phillips. None of the suspects, victims, or witnesses in the two cases overlap at all. Of course Durban could have worked on both cases – but they can't both be the one single case he never solved. And if they are both unfinished, then it is wrong to say (as the author does repeatedly in Execution Dock) that there is only one case Durban didn't close. (It also can't be a character mistake on Monk's part, since he knows about both cases). See more...

Mistake pictures

Movie Mistakes blog

Other great sites

The entry you are correcting is:

Title	Execution Dock
Original entry	In the previous book, Dark Assassin, Monk goes through Durban's notes and finds the only case of his which "remained a mystery" (Ch. 7). The case Monk reopens in the next book, Execution Dock, is also repeatedly referred to as "the one case Durban had not solved" (e.g., Ch. 1 and Ch. 5). The mistake is that there is no way these are the same case. The one from Dark Assassin involves the murder of a 40-year-old barber named Roger Thorwood; the one from Execution Dock is the sexual abuse and murder of a boy named Walter Figgis, by a man named Jericho Phillips. None of the suspects, victims, or witnesses in the two cases overlap at all. Of course Durban could have worked on both cases – but they can't both be the one single case he never solved. And if they are both unfinished, then it is wrong to say (as the author does repeatedly in Execution Dock) that there is only one case Durban didn't close. (It also can't be a character mistake on Monk's part, since he knows about both cases).

Title

Execution Dock

Original entry

Please read carefully:

MOST IMPORTANTLY: Be sure you've actually seen the scene yourself and checked it's wrong, rather than just assuming something's a mistake because of how it's worded on the site.
Don't just try and think of an excuse - by and large if something looks like a mistake, it's a mistake. Yes, the character may have chosen to suddenly take a jacket off while the camera was off him for 3 seconds, or they may have decided to take all of the batteries out of their clocks, but unless you have any reason to believe that's the case, it's just a movie mistake. Corrections must be based on evidence in the movie, not just a theory.
This form is ONLY for disproving entries. If one minor part of an entry is wrong, but the overall entry is still valid, please use the "change text" option instead.
Please just write an explanation in the box as to why the entry's wrong. Don't repeat the original text.
Having a movie-making explanation isn't a valid correction. Saying "his jacket changes because they shot that scene on different days" might explain WHY the mistake occurs, but doesn't explain it within the context of the film.
If an entry says that something changes "between shots" that means it's an instant change, visible onscreen at all times, so it can't be corrected by saying "it only takes a fraction of a second to change positions".
Make sure you READ THE ENTRY CLOSELY. You'd be amazed how many people, despite a mistake saying something like "before the explosion, his hair changes", submit a correction saying "the change was caused by the explosion".
Mistake spotting isn't about assigning blame to specific people - if there's an entry relating to the subtitles or something similar, the argument "those are done by someone different, it's not the movie-makers' fault" isn't really valid. It's an inconsistency to spot relating to the movie, therefore it's worth listing on this site.
Just because something requires slow motion/pause to spot doesn't automatically invalidate it. If the mistake's significant enough then it should be listed regardless. However, minor continuity mistakes (a tiny change in someone's clothing, for example) which needs slow motion to see shouldn't be online.
If you don't like a mistake, but can't actually disprove it, just vote it down, or suggest that it should be moved to the "minor" section by selecting "minor entry" from the list of editing options.
If you're correcting trivia by saying "that's too obvious" or something similar, bear in mind not everyone may have your level of movie knowledge. Certain references like the Indiana Jones hat-grab from under a door are so well known that they shouldn't be listed, but many others are not. If something's been referenced a lot in the past, it's probably not worth listing, but something more unusual should stay online. Likewise anything interesting on-screen - if it's specifically drawn attention to (like the Ark of the Covenent in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) then it's not worth listing, but if it's something more subtle, just because you noticed it easily, don't assume everyone else did too.

Submissions become property of moviemistakes.com.