The Christie Case

[Gordon]

I'm puzzled by this matter of Christie's visit to Dr. Odess on the day of Beryl's murder, for two separate reasons. I haven't had the chance to read Rupert Furneaux's book yet; I have a copy on order, but it will take some time to arrive. But why would Christie's doctor visit militate against his having killed Beryl at lunchtime, since the visit in question seems to have been in the evening?

While Kennedy knew that Christie visited the doctor "at some point" on that day, curiously Kennedy didn't seem to know what time that visit took place. He remarked that it "may have happened" in the morning, but then went on to argue that "it is more likely" to have taken place in the evening, because the purpose of Christie's visit was to get a certificate to excuse him from work, and it's only after the murder that Christie would realize the urgency of staying home the next day "to ward off casual callers and make plans for the disposal of the body." Dr. Odess's surgery was presumably not open in the afternoon, but Kennedy states his evening hours were between 6pm and 7:30pm.

That's a perfectly reasonable argument, but Gordon Honeycombe tells us in his account (in The Murders of the Black Museum) that at Evans's trial, Christie actually testified that it was in the evening he went to the doctor, "about twenty past five." So one puzzle in my mind is how come Kennedy didn't know that, when he'd studied the case in so much detail? Especially when an evening visit supported his own argument.

I must agree that Kennedy underestimated the time it would take for Christie to visit the doctor, who lived in Colville Square. Kennedy thought Christie could walk there and back in fifteen minutes, and if he was "lucky enough" to see the doctor straight away, he could do it all in under twenty minutes! Colville Square is a good half mile away, so I can't see Christie walking there and back in under twenty minutes. As for seeing the doctor in under five minutes, with the kind of waiting lines they probably had at a doctor's surgery that seems supremely unlikely to me! Furthermore, Christie said his wife was at the library while he was at the doctor's, and he picked her up on his way back home. I imagine that added still more to the time.

It's notable that Christie left home as early as 5:20 if the doctor's office wasn't open until 6:00. I wonder if he left early because patients started queuing up before the office actually opened. Even if he was first in line, I imagine the whole trip must have taken at least an hour or so, not the twenty minutes Kennedy imagined. Kennedy of course was trying to make the time seem short to fit Evans's claim that after Christie told him of his wife's death ("about 5:30 in the evening"), Christie went away and then returned a short time later, "just as [Evans] was finishing feeding the baby."

In spite of all that, I don't see that the timing is critical. If Evans's claim was true, it's perfectly possible that Christie went to the doctor and just took longer to return than it would seem from Evans's account.

However, what I don't understand is why Christie's visit to the doctor in the evening would preclude his killing Beryl at lunch time. Christie did claim he was "in a great deal of pain," "feeling pretty bad," and implied that he went to bed after getting back from the doctor. But surely he could easily have been lying about that, and malingering in order to get the necessary certificate to stay home the next day. Any comments?

[contrafib]

First of all, you're right that the visit to the doctor would take around an hour, and i found it strange that LK would underestimate the time by that much.

Furneaux's point was that Christie was taking a huge risk if he went to the doctor because Evans might come home around that time, find his wife's body and go to the police. It's a decent point as well though that he needed to get off work the next day so i'm a bit 50-50 on that one. Equally, picking up his wife is a bad move in increasing the time out of the house but also perhaps made him appear to be not in a hurry and so not the actions of an apparently guilty man.
Sorry, i'm sitting on the fence a bit here!

[Gordon]

I don't think sitting on the fence is anything to be ashamed of. I'm very much in that position myself right now, with a lot of material still to review. After all, no less eminent a man than Sir Daniel Brabin ended up sitting on the fence, with his "split decision" and his cautious enunciation of events that were "more probable than not." Where there's so much uncertainty and conflicting evidence, it's possible in the end that "sitting on the fence" may be the only intellectually honest position!

My copy of Furneaux just arrived, so I'm working through that. So far, he certainly tries to be more evenhanded about who might have done it. Everybody else I'm aware of so far either has obvious biases, or might reasonably be suspected of bias.

I need to make a mental list of points at issue and what they might imply. One of these is Joan Vincent's lunchtime visit to the Evanses' flat, when (very unusually) she did not succeed in seeing Beryl, but it seemed that somebody was holding the kitchen door closed against her from the inside. Furneaux accepts that this happened on Tuesday the 8th of November, the day of the murder, and might have been Christie holding the door closed with Beryl dead inside the room (p.74). Kennedy goes to the trouble of arguing why this probably happened on the Tuesday and not on the Monday, as Ethel Christie claimed. John Eddowes claims vehemently that this happened on the Monday instead; but Eddowes junior is vehement about a lot of things!

If there's one thing that bothers me about the case, it's Evans's reaction at Notting Hill police station when he was first confronted with the fact that his baby daughter was dead. It's fine to entertain the possibility of a false confession, as Furneaux did--even to argue the reasons for it in great detail, as Kennedy did. The motives for doing such a thing were plausible enough--that Evans was frightened, bewildered, overwhelmed, "brainwashed" and suggestible; that he became depressed and "didn't feel he had anything to live for"; that he feared police brutality, and so on. Just the same, if he was utterly confused and had no idea up to that point what was really going on, if he truly believed his daughter was still alive, that Christie had taken her to a couple in East Acton... that Christie had done something with the baby, at any rate... it seems to me that on hearing the shocking news that his daughter was dead, Evans should have reacted very differently. He might be stunned at first, but whatever it was that happened, and how, it should have been instantly obvious to him that Christie was responsible. Under those circumstances I would have expected Evans's first reaction to be an immediate explosion of rage. He was known to have a temper, after all. He might fall into depression afterwards, but I should have thought his first instinct would be to get hold of this man Christie who strangled his daughter and rip his throat out. Not that Evans was in any position to do that, but the fact that he reportedly showed no such reaction, just stood there looking like a drip when Jennings confronted him, seems very telling to me.

[Honest John]

A very good point re Evans' lack of reaction, which goes against what we know of his character. Likewise, after receiving a death sentence and his appeal being turned down, he diesn't seem to be angry at all.

Joan Vincent had poor memory and was being treated for it; sher gave several different dates for her visit to number ten, so I don't think she's a reliable witness.

Furneaux's book isn't bad, but if you believe as he does that Evans killed his wife, then why should Christie kill Geraldine. It doesn't make sense to me and I feel that whoever killed one, killed both.

[contrafib]

It makes sense because Christie had a vested interest in the general concealment of crimes in R Place (i.e the 2 bodies in the garden) even if he wasn't involved in Beryl's murder. If he took control of the situation, maybe he killed the baby because Evans couldn't face it.

[contrafib]

I've just read with great interest John Newton Chance's 'The Crimes At Rillington Place'. Chance was a very profilic and versatile writer and here he provides a 'novelist's reconstruction' of what he believed were the events at the famous address. First of all, i should say that Chance is undoubtedly a good writer and has a skill at creating a visual image of scenes and conveying the feelings of his characters.

For those who don't know the book, and treating it as a novel, it's mainly the story of Tim and Beryl, with Mr and Mrs Christie as supporting characters in a sorry saga. Tim is a dreamer and a fantasist, a simpleton who has a child's instinct for his own wants and needs and lacks the maturity to see reality as it actually is, particularly in times of stress. He likes the simple pleasures of the pub, not least after long days at work, and has a type of religious faith that 'things will be alright for Tim'. Beryl is a 'strong woman' but also young and naive, and possibly has a bit of the party spirit about her. She copes badly with the responsibility of having a child, and her second pregnancy and the prospect of 'the relentless forward march of nature' bringing another mouth to feed and the permanent prison-like existence she sees as the future, lead her to a deep despair. Mr Christie is a sickly man with constant ailments, at least partly psychosomatic, who lives under the constant shadow of someone discovering his 2 secrets buried in the garden. He can't move house or even leave the house for too long and so he shares the sense of being trapped. He spends a lot of time in the garden, in a sense guarding his secret, often looking out at the world outside, 'meditating' (though not in the formal sense. I think musing might have been a better word). He makes frequent reference to his former life as a policeman and seems to be a man who 'knows things'. He also has a religious sensibility, occasionally reciting the Lord's prayer quietly to himself. Mrs Christie is passive, a kind soul and concerned about her husband's health. Her husband is occasionally sharp with her. Geraldine....cries a lot! i.e. does what babies do, though perhaps portrayed as not particularly passive.

Chance gives us a picture of people struggling in a cramped house with little money, (in the words of John Eddowes) 'living lives of deprivation hard to imagine from the perspective of today'. In Chance's story, Beryl becomes hysterical and nags Tim continuously until his head rattles. She also starts to attack him physically and he seems in fear of her, Chance rather exaggeratedly having Tim thinking that he should kill her before she kills him. Conversations are quoted from real statements or imagined, and one of the more bizarre early on is Christie vaguely telling Evans he should frighten Beryl with a rope, and then denying it later. Evans tells lies so often that he can't remember when he's lied or told the truth. As for the murders, Evans kills his wife on Tuesday 8th November 1949 with a rope that he had at work, and then kills Geraldine on the same day, not 2 days later, when her loud, piercing crying also starts to tear his head apart. Christie involves himself and protects Evans, seemingly to Evans as a kind, neighbourly act, and Evans only starts to blame Christie when he convinces himself that it is somehow Christie's fault (anything to avoid blaming himself). Chance's descriptions of the strain on Evans, his wife's hysteria and his befuddled mind do make the murders seem plausible and even understandable (if not justifiable).

Those who've also read the book, what did you think of it?

[Sherlock]

Does anyone think it possible that Christie murdered Geraldine in Evans' presence, as Donald Hume claimed he was told by Evans when they were both on remand in Brixton Prison? Furneaux considers this as at least a possibility on page 169 of his book.

If so, could this explain why Evans felt responsible for the death of his daughter and confessed to killing her, then later retracted his confession and blamed Christie?

I do not know if this is a plausible scenario or not. What do others think?

[Honest John]

The book is certainly interesting and Chance argues a very plausible case against Evans. Of course, Christie's intervention early on in the novel is pure supposition - there is no evidence whatever to support it. This apart, Chance makes some very valid points which have not been dealt with or invalidated by subsequent writers. Much better as a book than A Capital Crime.

[Honest John]

I'm not certain I would trust anything Hume said unless supported by strong evidence. I find it difficult to imagine a father allowing another man to strangle his baby daughter in his presence. And I do not think Christie would have committed this murder to help out Evans. Malcolm Morris, incidentally, suggested that Beryl may have killed her baby, but its not clear how serious this statement should be made.

Evans said that Hume was a man to avoid, so would he have really have taken him in to his confidence?

Hume was very scathing about Kennedy's book, incidentally.

[contrafib]

Was it not a cutting about Hume's murder of Setty that was found in Evans's apartment?? If it was his, it might indicate he was a 'fan' of his (sorry, bad choice of word). John, i wonder if it's been established that Evans couldn't read at all. There seems to be some doubt about how mentally deficient he was.

[Honest John]

Literacy Issues

Black reported to finding four cuttings about the Hume case in a cupboard in Evans' rooms. This was a major murder case at the time and was heavily reported. The Evanses took a daily newspaper.

Evans made conflicting statements about his literacy. At one time he said he read a letter and at other times he was illiterate. He certainly would not have had to read signs when van driving because the driver's mate, one George Williams, would have done so. He asked one Mr Heaney, a prison warder, to read for him, and so probably had asked Beryl to do so, too. Jennings thought that the fact that Evans did the football pools indicated a level of literacy.

My feeling is that he could read a little, but needed help with anything else.

His only known comment about Hume is 'you have to watch Hume', which doesn't indicate he would have confided in him. That said, as Brabin famously remarked, nothing Evans or Christie says can be taken as fact unless supported by other evidence. Yet much of the case rests on their evidence and theirs alone.

[Honest John]

New flash

Just to let you know, my embryo book is now at the publishers, so although there may well be minor tweaks, it is on its final stage towards publication. A great load off my mind, to quote Evans.

[contrafib]

Well, a better quote than 'Christie done it!' perhaps. So, is it still set for July 2013 or will it be this year?
I wonder, is it hard to imagine what it takes to get a book written and published if you've never done it? I imagine it is.

[Sherlock]

I'm sure your book will be the definitive work on the case and a must-have for any serious historian of crime.

I would put in an advance order for it just now if that was possible!!

[Honest John]

Reply

The publication date has been brought forward to this autumn.

Whether it will be definitive, I don't know. I certainly could not include all I wanted as it was restricted to 80,000 words. However, it does contain a lot more about Christie the man, his victims and his family throughout his life (and afterwards). It probably won't please everyone, but I hope it isn't as extreme in its message as Kennedy on one side or Eddowes junior on the other (by that I mean that both state their views constantly and does so rather strongly). I was going to fence sit but decided to go with what I think is most probable.

Thanks for the votes of confidence, however.