The Christie Case

[Limehouse]

I respect your opinion Delboy, and really my main motive for discussion is to pick up snippets to try and piece a jigsaw together. My issue with Kennedy is that he used a lot of conjecture, and that official papers released in 1994 seemed to tell us more about Evans's character, namely that he was violent. We know that neighbours saw him with his hands round his wife's throat on at least one occasion. Having said that, John Eddowes's case is also very questionable.

I agree that Evans would have probably been released had for example someone found the human thigh bone propping up the garden fence when the police were at the house investigating Evans and investigated further, but i think the discussions here are about what we think really happened rather than the legal standpoint. I know from personal experience that British justice and the real truth don't necessarily go hand-in-hand.
Anyway, you have said before that you believe in truth and justice, so the official line on Evans is that he was a murderer but deserved a pardon because he was innocent of the murder he was tried for (i.e Jeraldine). This was Brabin's official verdict, as we know.

It is true that Evans was violent towards his wife but Christie also had convictions for violence. I am not excusing him - but Evans' violence probably stemmed from his immaturity and lack of ability to control his anger.

I don't really understand the theory that Evans killed his wife but Christie killed the child. Why would he do that?

[contrafib]

In answer to Chris, you're right about the 2004 verdict. I wonder why it suddenly came up again in 2004. Did the commission simply bow to long-term pressure from Evans's family?

I think most of us would agree that IF Evans killed his wife, it would have been somewhat impulsive, not thought out as Christie's murders seemed to be. The theory with Christie killing the child would be that Christie took control of the situation and was able to kill the child while Evans simply wouldn't have been able to face doing it. We would assume therefore that Evans wouldn't have been present when this happened, but the prisoner he was on remand with (was it Hume, i can't remember?) stated that Evans told him that he watched Christie strangle the baby.
Very confusing!!
Can someone clear up these details??

[Limehouse]

In answer to Chris, you're right about the 2004 verdict. I wonder why it suddenly came up again in 2004. Did the commission simply bow to long-term pressure from Evans's family?

I think most of us would agree that IF Evans killed his wife, it would have been somewhat impulsive, not thought out as Christie's murders seemed to be. The theory with Christie killing the child would be that Christie took control of the situation and was able to kill the child while Evans simply wouldn't have been able to face doing it. We would assume therefore that Evans wouldn't have been present when this happened, but the prisoner he was on remand with (was it Hume, i can't remember?) stated that Evans told him that he watched Christie strangle the baby.
Very confusing!!
Can someone clear up these details??

Well - fellow prisoners are notorious for embellishing conversations with high profile inmates such as Evans. Sometimes they do this in exchange for lighter sentences for their own crimes and others just like their bit of fame. A similar thing happened when James Hanratty was on remand. A fellow prisoner claimed Hanratty had 'confessed' to him that he was the A6 killer/rapist.

Also - I think that Evans is a very unreliable 'witness' (if that is the right term in this actual case). I can imagine that he was very distressed and very scared. I think - as I said before - that he would have said anything to anyone that he thought would be approved of. He had a low IQ and was completely out of his depth.

[Delboy58]

I guess I maybe a bit naive here but I have never been able to fully accept the idea that two murderers, both stranglers of women, lived at number 10 at exactly the same time. Evans may have been violent towards his wife but sadly that applies to partners in so many marriages throughout history, both men and women. My own grandfather was abusive to his wife and children seventy years ago, a situation all too common in many of the poorer London households. There are also at least three husbands in my own Essex neighbourhood who have received convictions for assault against their wives in the last five years. Whilst I abhor this sort of domestic violence I do not believe it necessarily makes these people potential murderers, although the beating or grabbing of another person around the throat could of course lead to death. It's interesting to note that The Man on Your Conscience, Michael Eddowes 1955, really kicked off the Evans is innocent debate, and yet the book written by his son John, The Two Killers of Rillington Place, 1994, totally debunks his father's work. I fear some of the motivation for John Eddows book may have been purely due to a dislike of his father.

[Limehouse]

I guess I maybe a bit naive here but I have never been able to fully accept the idea that two murderers, both stranglers of women, lived at number 10 at exactly the same time. Evans may have been violent towards his wife but sadly that applies to partners in so many marriages throughout history, both men and women. My own grandfather was abusive to his wife and children seventy years ago, a situation all too common in many of the poorer London households. There are also at least three husbands in my own Essex neighbourhood who have received convictions for assault against their wives in the last five years. Whilst I abhor this sort of domestic violence I do not believe it necessarily makes these people potential murderers, although the beating or grabbing of another person around the throat could of course lead to death. It's interesting to note that The Man on Your Conscience, Michael Eddowes 1955, really kicked off the Evans is innocent debate, and yet the book written by his son John, The Two Killers of Rillington Place, 1994, totally debunks his father's work. I fear some of the motivation for John Eddows book may have been purely due to a dislike of his father.

Hi Delboy

I agree that it is highly unlikely that two stranglers occupied the same house at the same time. Christie was high manipulative and able to give the impression that he was a respectable citizen whereas Evans - although no saint - was vulnerable and desperate. By the time Evans' wife and child died - Christie was already an experienced killer and a very cool customer indeed.

[Delboy58]

Hi Limehouse. Hello to Contrafib and the other writers here too. As I said before, domestic violence is all too common but does not commonly lead to murder. The other point that seems largely ignored by those who believe one murder was committed by Christie, the other by Evans, is that both the bodies of Beryl and baby Geraldine were discovered together in the wash house. Geraldine still had a man’s tie around her neck. Now surely whoever placed one body there also placed the other?

[contrafib]

Fair points all round. The 2 stranglers thing is unusual, and i agree that there are lots of violent people who don't kill. I think it's still possible because '2 stranglers' or '2 killers' implies that they both had previous or were that way inclined whereas in my humble opinion, IF Evans did kill Beryl, it happened on the spur of the moment. Not a great argument i know, but i don't really have a stance that i'm trying to defend. I'm just considering all the options and i much appreciate other opinions. I'm definitely not looking for random online arguments with people i've never met. I could go to youtube for that!! Also, i think those who think each man did one murder each think that they weren't done totally independently of each other, so it could still be that the same person hid the bodies. I've always felt there was something magical about this case, the way that things seemed to go unnoticed or that things were able to be concealed in this tiny house, especially when there was such overcrowding from 1951-53.

Is there any value to these discussions? I suppose we're all interested in this case in terms of trying to find some truth. It's hard for me to feel emotionally involved in it because it happened a long time ago to people i never knew or had a connection with, but i certainly think it was a sorry tale and take no voyeuristic pleasure in the evil deeds (or certainly none that i'm aware of). I weep from afar for all the many victims of history, and man's inhumanity to man. Interestingly, for those who haven't seen the Rillington Place DVD extras, Richard Attenborough expresses the idea that society is partly to blame for the likes of Christie and his deeds, and in Kennedy's book, he states that the judge in Christie's trial was weeping as he handed the death sentence to Christie, a quite extraordinary occurence if it's true. I imagine this would be my reaction too if i was in his position, rather than anger. Kennedy also gives the opinion that Christie was in the end a figure for pity rather than hate. Having worked with many of society's deviants, i know that it's far too easy to hate them rather than look for root causes. The media coverage of the recent riots has predictably focused on the buzzword 'looting' rather than seeing a few steps further to get nearer the root. Any opinions on the above??
Regarding theories/information about the Evans/Christie issue, a couple of other theories have been mentioned, namely that Christie and Beryl were having an affair with Evans's consent, and also that Beryl may have killed her baby. Anyone know where these were mentioned and if they have any creedence?

[contrafib]

Re: my above post, at the end i meant to ask where the 2 theories were first mentioned in print rather than on this forum. Apologies if i repeat myself on any points. It's a bit of a job to go back through the 16 pages and check everything i wrote before.

[Delboy58]

Hi Contrafib. Good points intelligently made. I agree with much of what you say. I think I may have heard somewhere but forgotten about an alleged Christie/Beryl relationship. Wow this thing gets more bizarre! I cannot really give it credence. Would the young Beryl have been attracted to Christie? It is indeed an interesting case and I do feel some personal connection, if only because I spent time visiting the area on several occasions as a boy. Bit morbid I know. Still harking on about old stuff (sorry), but one of the problems for me about the two killers angle is that there is no verbal testimony or physical evidence to support the theory that Christie and Evans were in collusion to kill and dispose of bodies. I am sure we all agree it is generally accepted Evans was of a lower IQ than Christie and his statements were erratic and at best unreliable, but if Evans really did know the truth why would he not have simply told the Merthyr Tydfil police the real location of his wife’s body, instead of saying he had put her down the drain? I think this was because he did not know anything about the wash house, or indeed anything about the death of Geraldine.

[Limehouse]

Fair points all round. The 2 stranglers thing is unusual, and i agree that there are lots of violent people who don't kill. I think it's still possible because '2 stranglers' or '2 killers' implies that they both had previous or were that way inclined whereas in my humble opinion, IF Evans did kill Beryl, it happened on the spur of the moment. Not a great argument i know, but i don't really have a stance that i'm trying to defend. I'm just considering all the options and i much appreciate other opinions. I'm definitely not looking for random online arguments with people i've never met. I could go to youtube for that!! Also, i think those who think each man did one murder each think that they weren't done totally independently of each other, so it could still be that the same person hid the bodies. I've always felt there was something magical about this case, the way that things seemed to go unnoticed or that things were able to be concealed in this tiny house, especially when there was such overcrowding from 1951-53.

Is there any value to these discussions? I suppose we're all interested in this case in terms of trying to find some truth. It's hard for me to feel emotionally involved in it because it happened a long time ago to people i never knew or had a connection with, but i certainly think it was a sorry tale and take no voyeuristic pleasure in the evil deeds (or certainly none that i'm aware of). I weep from afar for all the many victims of history, and man's inhumanity to man. Interestingly, for those who haven't seen the Rillington Place DVD extras, Richard Attenborough expresses the idea that society is partly to blame for the likes of Christie and his deeds, and in Kennedy's book, he states that the judge in Christie's trial was weeping as he handed the death sentence to Christie, a quite extraordinary occurence if it's true. I imagine this would be my reaction too if i was in his position, rather than anger. Kennedy also gives the opinion that Christie was in the end a figure for pity rather than hate. Having worked with many of society's deviants, i know that it's far too easy to hate them rather than look for root causes. The media coverage of the recent riots has predictably focused on the buzzword 'looting' rather than seeing a few steps further to get nearer the root. Any opinions on the above??
Regarding theories/information about the Evans/Christie issue, a couple of other theories have been mentioned, namely that Christie and Beryl were having an affair with Evans's consent, and also that Beryl may have killed her baby. Anyone know where these were mentioned and if they have any creedence?

Hi contrafib

You are right to point out that if there were two killers - they were of different types. Christie became a compulsive killer whereas Evans may well have acted impulsively. However - as Delboy states - Evans had no reason to fib about where his wife's body was if he knew she was in the wash house.

With reference to your other points - I was having a similar conversation with my daughter just a few minutes ago. We were talking about Ian Brady as her work has recently brough her into contact with similar offenders. It is easy to write these people off as evil but it is of course their crimes and deeds that are evil. As people they are sick. Christie was indeed a rather pathetic figure once his deeds had been uncovered and he had to face up to what and who he really was. Having compassion and sympathy for his victims does not rule out having compassion for him as a person with a sickness.

re the riots - well I am disgusted but the deeds - the ability to smash up and thieve from one's own community - but the certainly is a deeper cause that must be addressed. It is tempting to categorise crime according to the 'surface' appearances of the criminal and the crime. So - smashing and grabbing from a shop causes outrage because of the visible damage it does and the harm it causes to the owners and customers. Fiddling your expenses is much 'cleaner' but could be just as harmful if you peer a little deeper beneath the surface.

[contrafib]

Good posts, people.
Re: Evans. I have no explanation as to why he told the police what he did. I think people who are liars generally tell crazy lies under pressure, real fabrications. Of course, different books have given slightly differing views on how forceful Evans was. John Hurt portrayed him as somewhat meek when he wasn't drunk, but i've read also of him being quite confident and sure of himself. Back to square one, i'm afraid!!! I think you're right that Christie's intellect could mean that he used language and some sort of blackmail to confuse Evans, as i'm sure happened during the trial. Evans was surely no match for articulate lawyers literally speaking a different language. Why are people not versed in legalese before they go to court, by the way.

Re: the riots/evil deeds. Yes, murderers and drug addicts are sick, but certain taboos have been created in society and perpetuated by mainstream media (i.e seeing paedophiles as 'sick' rather than 'bad', and the same with drug addicts) to stop this fact being recognised, as well as keeping the masses in surface thinking. Correct about fiddling expenses, and what about the bankers? This is now mainstream news that they have ripped society off, (see documentary 'Inside Job', narrated by Matt Damon), but many people are still blinded by the 5000 dollar suits and the 'appearance' of respectability. Society 'must' go below the surface to analyse itself effectively, and the internet and alternative media, for all its faults, does help do this.

[RonIpstone]

Christie, Evans and Beryl agree that Christie will perform an abortion on Beryl. Christie murders Beryl but tells Evans that she died when the abortion went wrong. Christie persuades Evans that the best thing all round is for the body to be dumped, baby Geraldine to be sent to Christie's relations in Action and Evans to hot foot it to south Wales. To this Evans agrees but after a few days in Wales he decides to take the rap for the abortion and out of a misguided sense of loyalty to Christie decides not to implicate him. Once Evans had confessed to being the sole instrument of his wife's demise the Met bobbies, not the brightest of individuals themselves, were able to fix a murder charge on Evans.

Evans was guilty of no more than being part of the conspiracy to perform an abortion. Christie had murdered in the past and would again in the future and, as a matter of statistical analysis and common sense, he must be regarded as the only strangler who lived at 10 Rillington Place.

[Delboy58]

The sequence of events that RonIpstone relates is of course the most logical and plausible version of the tale. The problem is, people being people, they have a tendency to say there is no smoke without fire and that what if...? Official enquiries and re-investigations over the years have all reached different conclusions and so there has always been a grey area of speculation. It seems logical to me that there was only one killer living at Rillington Place and with all the advances in forensic science I am certain that today Timothy Evans would have walked away a free man. It’s even possible he would still be alive now at the ripe old age of 86. All of the key witnesses and participants in this tragic tale are now dead, murdered or executed, so I suppose we will never know exactly what was said and done in that grim little house. The 2004 appeal court judges concluded that Evans did not murder either his wife or his child so I guess at least from an official standpoint we have some closure.

[contrafib]

Certainly, if i had to put my own life on one explanation over the others, that would be it, with variations. Delboy, your post seems like an appropriate conclusion to the discussions, but i still like hearing from others so i guess it will go on.
Strange anecdote- When i first lived in West London about 10 years ago, i did a little walk around the places associated with the case, and i got to the Oxford Gardens address where Ruth Fuerst is known to have rented a room. At the moment, i got there, a lady of advanced years came out of the building, with a face that vaguely resembled Ruth Fuerst as she might have been if she hadn't met the fate she did, namely tallish with centre-parted hair and full lips. Quite spooky timing at least.
I'd still like to find the origin of these other rumours (Christie's affair with Beryl, though Sherlock did give an answer to this one somewhere else in this forum, and Beryl maybe killing her baby.

[sdreid]

The 2004 appeal court judges concluded that Evans did not murder either his wife or his child so I guess at least from an official standpoint we have some closure.

Was this action viewed as a pardon? I don't know about the U.K. but in America a pardon only means forgiveness, it does not equate to a finding of not guilty.