The Christie Case

[Sherlock]

My impression is that Timothy Evans was genuinely fond of his little daughter Geraldine, which could also militate against the possibility of him murdering her. Moreover, he appeared to sincerely believe Christie's story of her being adopted by a childless couple in East Acton.

Unfortunately, the real truth of the matter will never now be known.

[Sherlock]

Concerning Joan Vincent, I vaguely remember reading somewhere that she later suffered from depression which required hospital treatment. However, I cannot recall the source.

[Sherlock]

Hello Honest John,

That is a good point. Norman Rae apparently arranged to meet Christie outside Wood Green town hall in north-east London at 1.30am on 30th March 1953, but the latter was arrested by PC Thomas Ledger near Putney Bridge on the south bank of the Thames shortly after 9am on 31st March.

If Christie was indeed at Wood Green in the early hours of the previous morning I suppose it is not impossible that he could have walked to Putney Bridge in the course of the following 32 hours. Alternatively, he could have used public transport for all or part of the journey if he had any money left with which to do so. However, it is also possible that the rustling in the bushes heard by Rae when the policeman passed by at Wood Green was not made by Christie at all, and that he was nowhere near the area at the time. Rae did not claim to have actually seen Christie at their rendez-vous, although it is not impossible that he did speak to him on the telephone to arrange a meeting.

It never seems to have been determined exactly where Christie got to between the time that Christie left Rowton House and his arrest at Putney Bridge, although Maxwell states in The Christie Case that he may have spent one of his final three nights of freedom on waste land in Hammersmith and two in a partly-built block of flats in Putney, and that he had also tried to scrounge twopence for a cup of tea from a man in Putney.

If this was the case it would seem to suggest that Christie was not in the vicinity of Wood Green in the days immediately prior to his arrest.

[Honest John]

Thanks for the comment. As there seems to be no proof for the Rae story I tend to discount it. Yes, I read Maxwell's remarks and they tie in with the fact that he was in south London pawning an item at about that time (haven't got my notes with me so can't be precise right now).

My other recent thought is the motivation for the murder of Ruth Fuerst; clearly not the reason often quoted because the fight with the wronged husband occurred in 1945 not 1943. i suspect the telegram's role to be crucial.

[Sherlock]

Hello again Honest John,

It is quite possible that Christie was forced to murder Ruth Fuerst in order to get her out of the way before his wife returned after he had received the telegram. I wonder if Ruth threatened to blackmail him in any way, perhaps by telling Ethel about their affair if Christie did not give her more money.

I have also wondered if Ethel's murder also had a sexual motive. As he claimed to have strangled her in bed, I wonder if he had tried to make love to her and failed, then killed her in a fit of rage after she taunted him. I believe that Christie told one of the prison pyschiatrists that she sometimes taunted him over the breakfast table about his impotency at around this time.

Possibly the murder of Ethel then caused his final moral degeneration which resulted in his last three murders.

[contrafib]

Although i enjoy hearing other theories, the possible scenarios are infinite and unfortunately there is a point where we have to accept that there are many things that are unknowable by this point.
I have always found the supposed hiatuses in Christie's 'murder career' quite strange so anything is possible as to why he suddenly restarted. Maybe Christie just lost it one day, entered a fugal state, reached the end of his tether etc.., as Martin Fido suggested.

[Honest John]

Insp. Black said that Evans was very keen to discuss the Setty case and there were clippings from four newspapers, The Star, Daily Mirror, Evening News and one other in the cupboard in his rooms - mostly with pictures showing the wrapped bundles found. The question is whether this proves anything or not, as Contrafib suggests. Christie read the Mirror, but then so did 5 million others at this time.

Another point is that I have recently noted a debate about whether Christie was an evil monster or whether he was capable of monstrous acts and fit to be hanged, yet was a human being with virtues as well as vices. Does anyone else have any views on this.

Finally, has anyone seen the film or read the book Payment Deferred? It is a novel about a middle aged, married bank clerk who kills his rich relation and buries the body in the back yard. The film stars Charles Laughton, born in 1899, joined the army and served in France in 1918 where he was discharged after being gassed? CS Forrester was the author and PD is highly recommended.

[contrafib]

Hi honest John,

You are certainly whetting the appetite for the book!

Is the debate that you noted (about Christie being evil or not) on this forum, as we have certainly discussed it before? I was a Psychology major and also studied Sociology, so i believe that i have gained some insight. Although i don't claim any definitive answers, I am sure that a) there's no way that people are simply good or evil, that's just the simple-minded crap you see peddled in the mainstream media to stop people thinking, and b) society at large in its structure and general way of thinking doesn't help people like Christie. The masses are quite content to put down people who do evil deeds while lapping up all the details in the newspaper and watching films about it. See my previous posts for further views on this.

I'll have a look for the book/film.

[Honest John]

The debate isn't on this site but concerns an amazon review of a rather lightweight 'book' A House to Remember. One reviewer believes those who deny Christie was an evil monster are insulting humanity and seems keen to deny him any good points. Interesting that most authors of scholarly works on serial killers, eg Brian Masters on Killing for Company or the author of One of your Own on Myra Hindley take rather more nuanced views on their subjects and this is surely only common sense. Noted that in today's Metro Robert Black is titled 'Evil killer'. I think a lot of this simplistic stuff comes from people who know very little of the topic. When I watched Ten Rillington Place in 2000, having very little knowledge of the case, I noted in my diary that Christie was 'creepy and evil'; I would not use such terms now. Emotive terms are best avoided unless one is moralising (something some religions take a dim view of).

[Sherlock]

Without in any way condoning his crimes, I think that Christie's abusive father and his lack of sexual confidence probably played significant roles in the creation of the man he eventually became. In many other cases similar factors have played their part in creating murderers.

The society into which Christie was born in the 1900s woud certainly not have given him much assistance in overcoming his character defects. It is difficult to say to what extent today's society would have done so. Possibly much would depend on the environment into which he was born.

At the same time, many other people have suffered unhappy childhoods in all periods of history but have not become murderers. Perhaps we will never really understand why some individuals become a danger to the public and some do not.

If Christie had not been executed in 1953 it seems highly unlikely that he could ever have been rehabilitated, and he would probably have had to remain in a secure environment such as Broadmoor for the rest of his life.

I certainly would not deny that genuinely evil individuals have and do exist, but possibly the creation of evil is rather a complex process. The question is, what ought to be done with such people?

Speaking for myself, I am generally not in favour of the death penalty, but concede that it might possibly be an option for those who commit the most horrific crimes, in particular child murderers.

[Limehouse]

Without in any way condoning his crimes, I think that Christie's abusive father and his lack of sexual confidence probably played significant roles in the creation of the man he eventually became. In many other cases similar factors have played their part in creating murderers.

The society into which Christie was born in the 1900s woud certainly not have given him much assistance in overcoming his character defects. It is difficult to say to what extent today's society would have done so. Possibly much would depend on the environment into which he was born.

At the same time, many other people have suffered unhappy childhoods in all periods of history but have not become murderers. Perhaps we will never really understand why some individuals become a danger to the public and some do not.

If Christie had not been executed in 1953 it seems highly unlikely that he could ever have been rehabilitated, and he would probably have had to remain in a secure environment such as Broadmoor for the rest of his life.

I certainly would not deny that genuinely evil individuals have and do exist, but possibly the creation of evil is rather a complex process. The question is, what ought to be done with such people?

Speaking for myself, I am generally not in favour of the death penalty, but concede that it might possibly be an option for those who commit the most horrific crimes, in particular child murderers.

Hi Sherlock,

I agree with you entirely. I do not believe people are born evil. I think there is a complexity of reasons why people do such terrible things and sometimes it's a result of a brutalised childhood and other factors could also be at work. Possibly WW1 had a profound effect on Christie and his brain chemistry may also have played a part in how he reacted to certain situations and how he was driven to seek what seems to have been sexual satisfaction in murdering women.

I think much the same could be said of JtR.

I don't believe such criminals should be executed but i do believe they should be in prison or hospital for the whole of the rest of their lives once they are convicted. Society has to be protected and these people must lose their liberty because they have taken other people's lives.

[contrafib]

I agree with the last few posts, and the reasoning that an obvious menace to society must be punished is sound. What i would like to eradicate is the unthinking hatred that people at large feel for murderers, and this feeling that they want them to suffer as horrible a death as possible ('dance on their graves'). The crimes are horrible but i think this kind of hatred is a waste of time and nothing like as constructive as trying to somehow understand, which admittedly is difficult to do

[Honest John]

Thanks for the comments.

Another minor issue is the name of Christie's dog. Judy is the name mentioned in most books, but a Halifax newspaper of 1953 gives the name as Bob.

Has anyone read A Capital Crime? It is highly padded with sub plots about the central character's children and would be girlfriend, but otherwise it is not too bad on the Christie/Evans case, though the same officer deals with both cases and arrests Christie in a cafe. The conclusion is refreshingly open.

Well, I'll be sending the manuscript to the publishers in a couple of weeks, so, as Rex Mottram says in Brideshead Revisited, 'A Merry Christmas to one and all'.

Christie's last Christmas was spent at the Greggs' next door.

[Sherlock]

Hello Honest John.

I've read A Capital Crime by Laura Wilson. As you say, it is reasonably OK on the Evans/Christie case, and in the end it leaves it as an open question as to whether Christie or Evans was responsible for the murders of Beryl and Geraldine.

In the novel Rillington Place becomes Paradise Street, John Christie becomes Norman Backhouse and Timothy Evans becomes John Davies. Also, Paradise Street seems to be located in the Euston area rather than Notting Hill.

Have you ever read The Crimes at Rillington Place; A Novelist's Reconstruction by John Newton Chance which was published in 1961, the same year as the books by Ludovic Kennedy and Rupert Furneaux? Like John Eddowes in the 1990s, Chance considered that Evans was responsible for the murders of Beryl and Geraldine, although Christie may have suggested the idea to him.

It is interesting that Christie spent his last Christmas with his neighbours. No doubt he told them some story about Ethel having gone to Sheffield and they took pity on him so that he would not have to spend Christmas by himself!

I wonder if he enjoyed his turkey and Christmas pudding knowing that his wife was buried under the floorboards next door. I have a nasty feeling that he still did full justice to the festive fare!!!!

[contrafib]

I've just read for the first time Rupert Furneaux's book. I was quite impressed, and it contained some interesting points. I have felt for a while that both Evans and Christie were involved, either directly or just by association. What i got from the book is that the crucial points on who was guilty (if it were only one) are: the timesheets pointing to Evans's innocence, and Christie's visit to the doctor after he supposedly killed Beryl weighs heavily against him having killed Beryl at lunchtime on the fateful day. The big question of why Christie would kill the baby is answered if you imagine that both Evans and Christie were involved, and one of them had to kill the baby to get it out of the way. Christie was a more seasoned strangler, and the baby meant nothing to him so he was the better man to do it.
What a crying shame that the testimony of the workmen, Joan Vincent and also Evans's sister (Christie was abusive and maybe even violent to her when she came to enquire about Beryl and Geraldine) never made it to Evans's trial, as it may have meant the right verdict being reached the first time (whatever the right verdict is).
I felt that Furneaux's book had an impartial style and that he reached a conclusion only at the end, rather than Kennedy fitting all his points to a pre-determined and rigid opinion.
Anyway, Honest John's book will answer all (no pressure!!)
I think i will try to get 'The Christie Case' and 'The Crimes at RP: A Novelist's Reconstruction' this year, and i may have all the information out there, outside the National Archives anyway.