Christie

[Garry Wroe]

The passiveness of the victims could be either to stop them commenting or laughing over his smallness, or, that he stumbled on his fetish, which was sex with an unconcious woman?

I tend to think that one led to the other, Miakaal, and that over time Christie developed into a full-blown paraphiliac with necrophilia being the object of his sexual focus. Again, though, for men such as Christie, the desire is not merely to commit a sex crime, but rather to enjoy the perverted sense of power that emerges through the commission of sex crimes.

[Garry Wroe]

You originally argued that if Christie had wanted sex he could have bought it for next to nothing.

And so he could, Caz, had sex been the sole motivation behind his crimes.

But whether his nickname was earned because he couldn't 'get it up' or was not well endowed, he either developed a preference for 'passive' - ie dead or senseless - sexual partners (just as you suggest) who wouldn't laugh at his performance, or he could only 'get it up' when the woman was not conscious. That could have been his 'thing'.

Christie’s crimes were driven by a deep-seated sexual fantasy, Caz, not simply a desire to enjoy intimacy with a woman who wouldn’t ridicule his performance or manhood.

Either way, that kind of sex would not have been bought easily.

For the average prostitute playing dead would have been a means of earning easy money, Caz. Dennis Nilsen had little difficulty in finding such partners in local public houses, even those who were prepared to be stripped naked and covered in talcum powder in order to create a more corpse-like appearance. Equally, had he wished, Christie could have picked up a drunken tart, slipped her a couple of sleeping pills, raped her, then allowed her to go on her way once she regained consciousness. He didn’t. He killed his victims, retained mementoes such as locks of pubic hair, and even committed further sexual assaults on decomposing corpses. This isn’t the psychopathology of a man who was merely a little awkward around women. It signifies a profoundly inadequate individual who harboured and enacted a deep, longstanding and perverse fantasy centred around necrophilia and thus sexual dominance. In this respect he was extremely similar to Nilsen and Dahmer, and not a million miles away from Ed Gein.

[miakaal4]

I read up on him a little. It seems he had sisters who were a problem for him. Also his father was remote and showed him little affection. He frequented prostitutes. He was married, then estranged, then reunited with his wife. They lived in a part of a house at 10 Rillington Place in London. It was a corner house in a rundown area. He Liked wearing uniforms. He enjoyed being an WRP warden, a post he got despite having been charged in the past with various offences, including theft. Felt he was "better" than his neighbours. Seems like a real sleazebag who felt he should have been to a higher class. He felt something like joy when he first saw a dead body, but as it was someone he didn't like...
This stuff about keeping something from the victims, and putting bodies in the walls etc, many killers have done this sort of thing, I'm sure others here know of at least one or two. Some are mentioned above, is this a primitive action of some sort? Did we as a species, used to do it? Or is it connected to the motivation? Surely it cannot be for convenience?!

[Cogidubnus]

Antigone

This stuff about keeping something from the victims, and putting bodies in the walls etc, many killers have done this sort of thing, I'm sure others here know of at least one or two. Some are mentioned above, is this a primitive action of some sort? Did we as a species, used to do it? Or is it connected to the motivation? Surely it cannot be for convenience?!

Oedipus Schmeedipus, what does it matter so long as a boy loves his mother?



All the best

Dave

[caz]

Christie’s crimes were driven by a deep-seated sexual fantasy, Caz, not simply a desire to enjoy intimacy with a woman who wouldn’t ridicule his performance or manhood.

Yes, I know that Garry. That was my point: his sexual fantasy went way beyond enjoying intimacy with a woman who was merely 'playing' dead for his benefit; he was a necrophiliac. After the first time he had sex with a freshly killed woman, at best he may not have really enjoyed intimacy with a live one again; at worst he may not even have been able to achieve orgasm. Fresh corpses being rather hard to come across (ouch, sorry), he was kind of obliged to commit murder if he wanted to act out his sexual fantasy, so it would be hard for us to know for sure whether the murder itself was a crucial part of his necrophilia or more a means to an end (ooh dear, more apologies).

He killed his victims, retained mementoes such as locks of pubic hair, and even committed further sexual assaults on decomposing corpses. This isn’t the psychopathology of a man who was merely a little awkward around women.

I agree entirely. The mementoes probably allowed him to relive the sex and maybe achieve orgasm between murders, and the further sexual 'assaults' on decomposing corpses may have been a way of reliving the murder itself, but not necessarily. They may be an indication that overpowering and killing a victim was actually less important than acting out the fantasy of sex with a lifeless woman.

It signifies a profoundly inadequate individual who harboured and enacted a deep, longstanding and perverse fantasy centred around necrophilia and thus sexual dominance.

Again, I agree with you until your assumption that this was about sexual 'dominance'. It may have been, but I have trouble imagining anything less 'dominating' than having one's wicked way with a corpse. It would be akin to trying to torture a pork chop. Christie had used guile to get his victims into a vulnerable position so he could gas them and use their bodies for sex. If it was equally about power and domination, they hardly knew about it until their last seconds, and nothing at all about the sex. Were the ripper's mutilations about gaining more dominance over women he had just overpowered and killed with such apparent ease? Or something else?

Love,

Caz
X

[Albert]

It's a horrible, horrible story made to seem worse by the dreary squalor that surrounded the murder location

In the very early 60s, I'd have been about 11, I was taken to Madam Tussaud's and saw the Chamber of Horrors for the first time.

The most frightening and long-lasting image I carried away with me was not of gore or crime, - but the deck chair with a seat made of knotted string that was part of the Christie exhibit (it might even have been an original from the house). I had never seen anything like it before, and could not believe people lived in such conditions. It was somehow emblematic of that particular killer.

I don't know whether the deck chair is still there.

Phil

Hi Phil,
I remember seeing that deck chair at Madame Tussaud's in the late 60s/early 70s and that memory has stayed with me ever since. Watched 10 Rillington Place again last night and that deck chair is STILL scary
Regards
Albert

[Abby Normal]

Yes, I know that Garry. That was my point: his sexual fantasy went way beyond enjoying intimacy with a woman who was merely 'playing' dead for his benefit; he was a necrophiliac. After the first time he had sex with a freshly killed woman, at best he may not have really enjoyed intimacy with a live one again; at worst he may not even have been able to achieve orgasm. Fresh corpses being rather hard to come across (ouch, sorry), he was kind of obliged to commit murder if he wanted to act out his sexual fantasy, so it would be hard for us to know for sure whether the murder itself was a crucial part of his necrophilia or more a means to an end (ooh dear, more apologies).



I agree entirely. The mementoes probably allowed him to relive the sex and maybe achieve orgasm between murders, and the further sexual 'assaults' on decomposing corpses may have been a way of reliving the murder itself, but not necessarily. They may be an indication that overpowering and killing a victim was actually less important than acting out the fantasy of sex with a lifeless woman.



Again, I agree with you until your assumption that this was about sexual 'dominance'. It may have been, but I have trouble imagining anything less 'dominating' than having one's wicked way with a corpse. It would be akin to trying to torture a pork chop. Christie had used guile to get his victims into a vulnerable position so he could gas them and use their bodies for sex. If it was equally about power and domination, they hardly knew about it until their last seconds, and nothing at all about the sex. Were the ripper's mutilations about gaining more dominance over women he had just overpowered and killed with such apparent ease? Or something else?

Love,

Caz
X

I think Caz's point is that Christie's main motivation was the pleasure he received with the victim after his victim is dead(JtR, Dahmer, Kemper), a what I call Necro serial killer, as opposed to the sadist serial killer(Hillside stranglers(s), The night stalker-both of them, Hansen) who derives his main pleasure from the dominance, rape and torture of a living victim.

Were the ripper's mutilations about gaining more dominance over women he had just overpowered and killed with such apparent ease? Or something else?

The main motivation for the ripper was probably less about dominance and more about pleasure he gained with a victims dead body. I think he got sexually aroused by the mutilations, what he could with his knife and the organs he took away. He was definitely of the Necro serial killer type.

[Garry Wroe]

After the first time he had sex with a freshly killed woman, at best he may not have really enjoyed intimacy with a live one again; at worst he may not even have been able to achieve orgasm.

I seriously doubt that Christie ever enjoyed intimacy with a consensual partner, Caz. His teenage years were almost certainly characterized by feelings of sexual inadequacy, a mindset that would have impaired libidinal performance and functionality and thus created the pattern for later life.

The mementoes probably allowed him to relive the sex and maybe achieve orgasm between murders, and the further sexual 'assaults' on decomposing corpses may have been a way of reliving the murder itself, but not necessarily. They may be an indication that overpowering and killing a victim was actually less important than acting out the fantasy of sex with a lifeless woman.

Perhaps. But to be honest, Caz, I think it equally likely that Christie derived his real thrill from throttling a victim as he raped her.

Again, I agree with you until your assumption that this was about sexual 'dominance'. It may have been, but I have trouble imagining anything less 'dominating' than having one's wicked way with a corpse. It would be akin to trying to torture a pork chop.

To quote an FBI axiom, Caz, ‘sexual assault services nonsexual needs.’

Christie had used guile to get his victims into a vulnerable position so he could gas them and use their bodies for sex. If it was equally about power and domination, they hardly knew about it until their last seconds, and nothing at all about the sex.

Virtually all rape is about control and domination. If a rapist merely requires sex, he can get it relatively easily without the need to impose himself on a nonconsensual victim. Again, sexual assault services nonsexual needs. In Christie’s case what the victims knew of the assaults is largely irrelevant. The issue is what Christie knew and experienced. Once more, though, given the evidence that certain victims died during the rape phase, it is entirely possible that Christie’s real motivation lay in the excitement of strangling a victim to death during the sexual assault. Either way, domination assumed a central role in Christie’s crimes, whether it be related to the manner in which he subdued, raped and killed his victims, or the sexual assaults committed much later.

[caz]

I seriously doubt that Christie ever enjoyed intimacy with a consensual partner, Caz. His teenage years were almost certainly characterized by feelings of sexual inadequacy, a mindset that would have impaired libidinal performance and functionality and thus created the pattern for later life.

Yes, I imagine you are probably right there, Garry.

Perhaps. But to be honest, Caz, I think it equally likely that Christie derived his real thrill from throttling a victim as he raped her.

Something I imagine only Christie could have known for sure.

To quote an FBI axiom, Caz, ‘sexual assault services nonsexual needs.’

Never heard of a sexual assailant called FBI axiom. Dennis Rader would presumably disgree that nonsexual needs had anything to do with it in his case. See my final paragraph.

Virtually all rape is about control and domination.

But again, if the sexual element of a crime takes place when the victim is dead, and way beyond control or domination, I'm not so sure.

If a rapist merely requires sex, he can get it relatively easily without the need to impose himself on a nonconsensual victim.

Again, it depends on the individual rapist. Some men rape because they can only get an erection/achieve orgasm with a 'partner' who is clearly not consenting, or is actively struggling. This type of sexual offender might even run a mile if offered sex on a plate.

In Christie’s case what the victims knew of the assaults is largely irrelevant. The issue is what Christie knew and experienced.

And that is what only Christie could have told us. If he knew his victims trusted him and had no idea of the danger until seconds from death, and possibly not even then in every case, I would argue that he didn't care whether they knew what he was doing to them or not, as long as they were beyong doing anything about it. If his real motivation lay in the excitement of sexually assaulting them as they were dying, then their consciousness of what was happening to them in their last moments would surely have been of the utmost relevance to him. But the fact that he continued to have sex with decomposing remains suggests that his real motivation was necrophilia; ie having sex with real, but lifeless women.

Either way, domination assumed a central role in Christie’s crimes, whether it be related to the manner in which he subdued, raped and killed his victims, or the sexual assaults committed much later.

And I would argue that without domination of one sort or another Christie would not have been able to get the kind of sex he craved, so it's a moot point whether his method of domination (offering to help out women 'in trouble' with illegal abortions and overpowering them with gas and/or manual strangulation) was essential to get to the sexual thrill part, or an essential part of the overall thrill.

When Dennis Rader confessed to being BTK, he told the court that his motivation was acting out his sexual fantasies. If we can put any trust in the word of these people, Rader did everything he did for the sexual thrills he got out of it. The sex was not secondary, or even merely equal to the physical control and domination he exercised over his victims. But in his case, control and domination did play an integral role in satisfying his perverted sexual desires. So any apparently nonsexual stuff, like selecting victims and preparing them for assault, was all part of servicing his sexual needs.

Love,

Caz
X

[Smoking Joe]

Im surprised that so many believe that Evans was innocent ,based purely on the assumption that two killers couldnt have inhabited the same house at the same time.Particularly as Evan's every action after the crime were those of a guilty man. Possibly murders of a different nature, murder for enjoyment and the other a domestic murder-an argument taken too far,with unforeseen consequences.

[RivkahChaya]

I think Caz's point is that Christie's main motivation was the pleasure he received with the victim after his victim is dead(JtR, Dahmer, Kemper), a what I call Necro serial killer, as opposed to the sadist serial killer(Hillside stranglers(s), The night stalker-both of them, Hansen) who derives his main pleasure from the dominance, rape and torture of a living victim.

The main motivation for the ripper was probably less about dominance and more about pleasure he gained with a victims dead body. I think he got sexually aroused by the mutilations, what he could with his knife and the organs he took away. He was definitely of the Necro serial killer type.

Jeffrey Dahmer even stated in interviews that he disliked killing people, he only liked having a completely passive body to have sex with. He tried several things to stop repeatedly killing people (including a long period of celibacy, and one wishes he'd had just a little more willpower): he tried a manikin, he tried homemade "lobotomy," he tried preserving bodies, and then just preserving parts of bodies, including skulls, which held up better than soft tissue. He also said that he never wanted to get out of prison, because he didn't was to kill again, and staying in prison was the only way he knew to be sure of it. He came off as a nebbish, really.

Again, it depends on the individual rapist. Some men rape because they can only get an erection/achieve orgasm with a 'partner' who is clearly not consenting, or is actively struggling. This type of sexual offender might even run a mile if offered sex on a plate.

FWIW, while I personally find even BDSM role-playing a little creepy, there's a huge difference between wanting the physical feeling of a woman struggling, or "liking it rough," from a consenting partner, and needing to know on a factual basis that you are violating a woman's will. If you go read the Reddit rapist entry (just Google it), he talks about getting off on knowing that the sex isn't consensual, even if it isn't consensual because he drugged her drink.

Im surprised that so many believe that Evans was innocent ,based purely on the assumption that two killers couldnt have inhabited the same house at the same time.Particularly as Evan's every action after the crime were those of a guilty man. Possibly murders of a different nature, murder for enjoyment and the other a domestic murder-an argument taken too far,with unforeseen consequences.

It's "What are the odds?" vs. "But he confessed!" next on WWE.

[Smoking Joe]

Jeffrey Dahmer even stated in interviews

It's "What are the odds?" vs. "But he confessed!" next on WWE.

He did indeed! But even without his confession his own actions afterwards would have convicted him.
Christie killed enough people as it was without piling another two onto him.
By the way what does WWE mean?

[caz]

Basically, Evans hanged because he was not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and said a lot of silly things which only served to damage his credibility.

If that's all it takes, a few people around here should be jolly glad that hanging will never be brought back in the UK - and that they don't live in the same house as an active serial killer.

Love,

Caz
X

[Smoking Joe]

Basically, Evans hanged because he was not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and said a lot of silly things which only served to damage his credibility.

If that's all it takes, a few people around here should be jolly glad that hanging will never be brought back in the UK - and that they don't live in the same house as an active serial killer.

Love,

Caz
X

Evan's may well have not been the brightest bulb in the box. That is irrelevant .He said a lot of "silly things" By that I presume you mean confessing ,and several times saying ,shouting "I'll kill you,you f****** old cow"(or words to that effect) loud enough for passers by and neighbours to hear.He said other "silly things" like Beryll has gone away for a holiday,when in fact she was dead, to his aunt and uncle.
Evans also DID silly things too.He allowed others to witness his violent physical and verbal attacks on his wife. Sold his wife's belongings,clothes even wedding ring,and from the proceeds bought himself a new, flashy and expensive Camel hair coat with part of the proceeds. He flees to Merthyr Tydfil with a **** and bull story about Beryl being away on holiday, even embroiders it by way of telling his aunt and uncle that Beryl sends her love and....... .Not content with that he dreams up a story about spectral "abortion mixture" providers in equally spectral cafes. There is no telling what other fairy stories he might have concocted.....given the time.
His only Alibi was.."Well Christie done it" and asked "why Christie would have done it?" His best answer was "Well he was home all day!"
At worst Evans was a murderer,at best he was an accessory to murder after the fact.He was no innocent even if we give him the benefit of the doubt.
But we shall continue.
The autopsy of Beryl showed no evidence of sperm in the Vagina,no trace of carbon monoxide ,coal gas or for all I know Friars Balsam which were the tools of his trade.And Christies "relic box" overflowing as it was with keepsakes of female pubic hair,contained none that could have belonged to Beryl.
But wait, are we expected to believe that Ethel Christie was involved too? Was she his look out man? Because to believe Christie killed Beryl ,we have to believe that too. Paper thin walls ,while Reg merrily strangled ,raped and god knows what else ,Beryl sat downstairs browsing through "womans weekly" or knitting a woollen hat for dear old Reg ,blissfully unaware of the carnage taking place up stairs above her very head.
Or do we believe instead that Poor ole Timmy, that epitome of innocence, landed Beryl a right hander,then throttled her in one of his well known alcoholic outbursts against her. The Christies below ,well used by now to the fights between these two, probabley winced and said something after the fashion of "those two are at it again" and continued with their game of "whos wearing the knickers tonight".
Everything Evans did after the murder were the actions of a guilty man. Everything he did screamed out guilty.
That is my opinion and Im sticking to it.

[caz]

His only Alibi was.."Well Christie done it" and asked "why Christie would have done it?" His best answer was "Well he was home all day!"

If Evans had killed Beryl and the baby, he'd have had no reason to think Christie was a killer at all, and yet we know Christie had already murdered and disposed of two women on the premises, and was using one's thigh bone to prop up the fence! On the other hand, if Evans knew he hadn't killed anyone himself, he would have realised Christie was responsible, which makes sense of his accusation against a man who was undoubtedly a serial murderer.

Love,

Caz
X