The Christie Case

[contrafib]

Hello all,

Below is a link to the Rillington Place website links section, where you will find under You Tube an alternative commentary to the film '10 Rillington Place', somewhat less one-sided than John Hurt's official one, and beautifully delivered by 2 knowledgeable geniuses (err...that'll be myself and Honest John!!).
If you haven't listened to it already, dig out your DVD or VHS of the film and follow along as we talk about it, and leave a comment please.

http://www.10-rillington-place.co.uk/html/links_etc.html

[caz]

Christie may have forced himself to control his morbid desires in the immediate aftermath of Evans's execution. He couldn't afford any fresh murders to be associated with that house. Over time he must have become more complacent I suppose.

What I meant was, that if it was Christie's intention to throw himself on the mercy of the court, then he probably did not want to admit to killing a toddler; however, save for that bit, he wanted to conform his admission to what was expected of him, because that, and not true honesty, is what would make him appear as honest as possible.

But as GUT advised you, Rivkah, in Christie's time, the sentence for wilful murder (ie the intentional taking of human life) was death - confession or no confession, child or adult. There was no 'mercy' to be had unless the killer could convince the authorities that he didn't know right from wrong, taking the 'intent' to do wrong out of it.

Christie boasted about his deadly 'conquests', including Beryl, to his fellow prisoners, but as you have also been advised, the killing of a tiny child was, and is, something else entirely - something other prisoners would gladly have strung Christie up for themselves. He'd have feared being beaten to a pulp had he 'boasted' of that into the bargain, or confessed to it in court. It's no surprise to me that he denied it to the end, even though mother and daughter were killed in the same way and their bodies stashed together. If he hadn't killed Beryl I doubt he would have claimed otherwise, given those circumstances.

Love,

Caz
X

[contrafib]

Dear Contrafib,

It is on http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/80027010

John Curnow pointed this out to me. There's 9 parts to his oral history; parts 8 and 9 are the 'relevant' ones.

Regards etc.

Wow! I'd really like others to listen to this and share opinions. I just don't know what to make of it because he gets some details wrong, such as saying Christie was the landlord and that Evans killed his baby with his hands, but they could be just misrememberings. But what about the rest?? I suppose it could be true that there were far more bodies (why would Trevallian lie could be a good question) but they couldn't all have gone into bomb shelters because there must have been lots after the war. And how could Christie keep having sex with them without his wife knowing before 1952??
It has always puzzled me that if Christie killed Beryl Evans, he still had a gap of 5 years before and 3 years after before killing others. That's a very long 'latent period'. And if he didn't kill Beryl, then the gap is over 8 years!! Certainly plenty to think about

[Honest John]

Honest John,

Can you post a link to the Trevallian interview? I can't seem to find it.
Have you ever thought of trying to contact Lucy Endecott, Basil Thorley etc...? As a Christie biograoher, you would surely have more chance than most of us.

By the way, our commentary has had around 200 hits for the first part but not too much for the rest. I suppose full enjoyment requires having the film there to watch along with it.
I relistened to bits of it a few days ago and I think we did a good job.

Dear Contrafib,

It is on http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/80027010

John Curnow pointed this out to me. There's 9 parts to his oral history; parts 8 and 9 are the 'relevant' ones.

Regards etc.

[RivkahChaya]

G'Day RivkahChaya

You certainly didn't need "special circumstances" [or sentence enhancers] in Chrstie's time, murder conviction = death.

What I meant was, that if it was Christie's intention to throw himself on the mercy of the court, then he probably did not want to admit to killing a toddler; however, save for that bit, he wanted to conform his admission to what was expected of him, because that, and not true honesty, is what would make him appear as honest as possible.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi GUT

The test for insanity as set out in M'Naghten is, in a nutshell, not knowing right from wrong, there is nothing I have seen that supports a proposition that any admission in relation to Beryl came anywhere near establishing this.

I make no claims either way, but admit I do find Oates' conclusions fairly convincing. I really would recommend the book - approaching Christie in a totally different way to the longer established 10 Rillington Place, it's a real eyeopener - something to make you rethink!

Cheers

Dave

[GUT]

G'Day RivkahChaya

You certainly didn't need "special circumstances" [or sentence enhancers] in Chrstie's time, murder conviction = death.

[GUT]

G'Day Cogidubnus

The test for insanity as set out in M'Naghten is, in a nutshell, not knowing right from wrong, there is nothing I have seen that supports a proposition that any admission in relation to Beryl came anywhere near establishing this.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi GUT

The M'Naghten rules set out the legal definition of insanity, itself a legal concept not a medical one. One does not need to be insane to commit murder [even the most horrific type, or confess spuriously or genuinely

The point Jonathan Oates makes, is that in his view Christie was claiming Beryl precisely in order to appear mad within the legal boundaries set out by the M'Naghten Rules...because if he could successfully present as such, he could avoid the rope...and he was avoiding claiming Geraldine because of the distinct antipathy juries feel towards child killers.

It is interesting to note Mr (Dr?) Oates' inference that as Evans had been specifically charged only with killing Geraldine, then if Evans did indeed kill Beryl, and Christie killed Geraldine, then technically Evans' pardon is justified

What an odd beast the law is...

All the best

Dave

[contrafib]

Honest John,

Can you post a link to the Trevallian interview? I can't seem to find it.
Have you ever thought of trying to contact Lucy Endecott, Basil Thorley etc...? As a Christie biograoher, you would surely have more chance than most of us.

By the way, our commentary has had around 200 hits for the first part but not too much for the rest. I suppose full enjoyment requires having the film there to watch along with it.
I relistened to bits of it a few days ago and I think we did a good job.

[RivkahChaya]

I'm not sure how it worked there when you had the death penalty, but there are pretty much three kinds of states here-- well four, actually.

1. States that don't have the death penalty.
2. States that have it in theory, but not in practice, because it is technically legal, but some important aspect, like a method, has not been approved, or they have a situation like California, which calls for a doctor licensed in the state to be present, and currently the California State Medical Board is refusing to participate.
3. States that have it, but primarily use it to force plea bargains, and if someone actually is convicted and sentenced to death, they almost win their appeals. People who are executed are usually people who have waived final appeals. (Indiana is like this, and so is the federal government.)
4. States that look for reasons to execute. Texas, for example. If you ask Texas why, you hear a story about a guy named Kenneth MacDuff, who, back in the 1950s, got a life sentence that was commuted, and then ke went on a second killing spree. Texas has made it a mission never to have another Kenneth MacDuff. Supposedly.

One this is true in all DP states is that you need "sentence enhancers" to ask for the DP. Killing a child under 7 is a sentence enhancer.

People often confess to try to get a lighter sentence, but this won't work if you have killed a child.

This probably operates on an informal level in a lot of people's heads. Confess and ask for mercy works a lot, but not when you confess to killing a child, or to a rape/murder, or torture/murder.

So I can see Christie making a rational choice to deny killing the child.

[GUT]

G'Day Dave

If I read it correctly, the Jonathan Oates book suggests that rather than Christie being mad (within the strict meaning of the MacNaghten Rules) he was claiming Beryl as one of his own, as an act of low cunning, purely to appear mad in order to cheat the hangman.

The M'Naghten rules set out the legal definition of insanity, itself a legal concept not a medical one. One does not need to be insane to commit murder [even the most horrific type, or confess spuriously or genuinely.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Ginger

Christie confessed to the murder of Beryl Evans, as well as his wife and the five other bodies found in and around his house, but denied having killed the baby. Speaking from memory (and I'm ready to be proven wrong on this) he also hinted without giving details at a number of other rape/murders, but the police were inclined to dismiss these as fabrications.

IMHO, and purely personal opinion, Christie was so far gone in his madness by the time he was caught that he wasn't able to comprehend the horror with which normal men viewed his deeds. I think he saw himself as some sort of dashing scoundrel, something akin to a Highwayman, or a Kissing Bandit, outwardly denounced but secretly envied.

I think he falsely confessed to Beryl Evans to put another rape on his scorecard. I think that had he murdered her, he'd have done away with Timothy Evans (and the baby) as well, to tie up loose ends. This was in 1949, when Christie was still taking precautions not to be caught, long before he started storing dead bodies in the closet.

If I read it correctly, the Jonathan Oates book suggests that rather than Christie being mad (within the strict meaning of the MacNaghten Rules) he was claiming Beryl as one of his own, as an act of low cunning, purely to appear mad in order to cheat the hangman. It is suggested that none of his accounts of Beryl's killing correctly conform to the post mortem findings. I have to say it is far more convincingly expressed in the book than I could manage...well worth a read.

It has to be said that many modern views (my own too) have initially been shaped by the Ludovic Kennedy work and it's continuing influence...and this too is thoroughly discussed by the estimable Mr Oates!

All the best

Dave

[Honest John]

Does anyone know when Evans' sister, Eleanor, died? I have a feeling it was pretty recently.

There is a recording of Leonard Trevallion on the IWM site. He claims Mrs Christie was an abortionist whilst Christie had sex with the girls as they were dying/dead. She discovered this and so he killed her. Pretty implausible stuff, especially as he claims Black covered it all up (hard to see how as he was not in charge of the Evans case and wasn't involved in ther Christie one).

[GUT]

G'Day RivkahChaya

But if you read up on executions in 1800's it was not uncommon to on the day of execution confess to other hang-able offenses, with no impact on execution. In fact the Clergy attending the condemned were required to produce a report after execution including any confessions.

They make interesting reading.

GUT