The Christie Case

[Limehouse]

Wait, did Beryl's body end up in the same place that Christie had already stashed previous victims? How did I miss that detail? Somehow, I thought Beryl's body had been put somewhere else, I don't know why. That would have to mean that Timothy Evans saw the other bodies when he dumped his wife's body, assuming that he did so, but didn't say anything about it even when Christie took the stand against him. I realize Timothy Evans wasn't especially bright, but he had to see an opportunity to blame Christie for his wife's death, even if he had, in fact, done it.

Or maybe I'm missing something. I saw 10 Rillington Place in high school, then read some entries on the case in some anthologies of true crime, and something about Evans' pardon, but it was a long time ago, and I've never read an in-depth analysis of the case.

Beryl and the child's bodies were found in an outhouse. At that stage, 'other bodies' were buried in the garden (the bone from one thigh was propping up a fence). The outhouse had been used by workman shortly before the bodies were discovered and they testified no bodies had been in the outhouse when they left work the previous evening. I believe, at that time, that Evans was not in London.

Evans told police he had 'put his wife's body down the drain'

[RivkahChaya]

Wait, did Beryl's body end up in the same place that Christie had already stashed previous victims? How did I miss that detail? Somehow, I thought Beryl's body had been put somewhere else, I don't know why. That would have to mean that Timothy Evans saw the other bodies when he dumped his wife's body, assuming that he did so, but didn't say anything about it even when Christie took the stand against him. I realize Timothy Evans wasn't especially bright, but he had to see an opportunity to blame Christie for his wife's death, even if he had, in fact, done it.

Or maybe I'm missing something. I saw 10 Rillington Place in high school, then read some entries on the case in some anthologies of true crime, and something about Evans' pardon, but it was a long time ago, and I've never read an in-depth analysis of the case.

[Limehouse]

[QUOTE=contrafib;264184]

back to the Christie case, Geoffrey Bing QC said it far better than I could back in 1953, a few months before I was born. He observed that Evans's guilt depended on two incredible coincidences:

1) Two murderers, coincidentally living in the same house and acting independently, both strangled women with a ligature, had intercourse with the victims, wrapped and trussed up their bodies in an identical fashion, moving them round the house before concealing them in the wash-house.

2) Evans had falsely accused the one man in London (Christie) who had been strangling women in the identical way that Evans himself had strangled his wife and child.

Surely to goodness, case closed?



Caz, there is a big misconception about the official stance on Evans's guilt/innocence. Evans was pardoned on the basis of the Brabin report of 1966 which said that he probably didn't kill his daughter, the murder he was tried for, but probably DID kill his wife. In 1950, a defendant could only be tried for one murder, and they chose the baby's murder so as to prevent the defence attempting to get a manslaughter verdict. Just as nobody would have convicted Evans if Christie's bodies in the garden had been discovered at the same time, it is equally true that nobody ever thought that Beryl and Geraldine had been killed by different people, so the jury were indirectly finding Evans guilty of both murders. The Brabin report didn't find fault in the belief that Evans DID kill his wife. It is thought by many that Brabin's strange conclusion was a way of pardoning Evans without the police having to admit that they'd hanged an innocent man.
To summarise, Evans was, until 2004, officially a murderer. We all have our opinions of course but those of you who believe that the official line is the truth are believing Brabin's conclusion, which was that Evans did kill his wife. In a broader sense, it is nice but a bit unrealistic to think that decisions like this are purely made on the basis of justice without political influence being involved. It's quite horrible to think that a 'hanging lobby' existed but unfortuntely it did.

That does help to clarify things but it also serves to highlight the problematic justice system of the time!

Looking at it logically, if Evans didn't kill his daughter, then Christie must have done. But why would Christie kill the daughter if he didn't kill the wife?

Realistically, the points Caz has made make perfect sense. My belief is, and will always be, that Evans was completely innocent and this is based on the evidence and not the assumption that two killer could not reside in the same house.

[contrafib]

[QUOTE=caz;263240]back to the Christie case, Geoffrey Bing QC said it far better than I could back in 1953, a few months before I was born. He observed that Evans's guilt depended on two incredible coincidences:

1) Two murderers, coincidentally living in the same house and acting independently, both strangled women with a ligature, had intercourse with the victims, wrapped and trussed up their bodies in an identical fashion, moving them round the house before concealing them in the wash-house.

2) Evans had falsely accused the one man in London (Christie) who had been strangling women in the identical way that Evans himself had strangled his wife and child.

Surely to goodness, case closed?



Caz, there is a big misconception about the official stance on Evans's guilt/innocence. Evans was pardoned on the basis of the Brabin report of 1966 which said that he probably didn't kill his daughter, the murder he was tried for, but probably DID kill his wife. In 1950, a defendant could only be tried for one murder, and they chose the baby's murder so as to prevent the defence attempting to get a manslaughter verdict. Just as nobody would have convicted Evans if Christie's bodies in the garden had been discovered at the same time, it is equally true that nobody ever thought that Beryl and Geraldine had been killed by different people, so the jury were indirectly finding Evans guilty of both murders. The Brabin report didn't find fault in the belief that Evans DID kill his wife. It is thought by many that Brabin's strange conclusion was a way of pardoning Evans without the police having to admit that they'd hanged an innocent man.
To summarise, Evans was, until 2004, officially a murderer. We all have our opinions of course but those of you who believe that the official line is the truth are believing Brabin's conclusion, which was that Evans did kill his wife. In a broader sense, it is nice but a bit unrealistic to think that decisions like this are purely made on the basis of justice without political influence being involved. It's quite horrible to think that a 'hanging lobby' existed but unfortuntely it did.

[RivkahChaya]

Rivacachaya,
Yes indeed. But the point i was trying to make was that guilty or not ,The WM3 were released on the back of a wave of public opinion,largely due to the 2 documentaries that were produced.One of which falsely tried to put the blame on Byers. And on face value the case against Byers seemed to be strong. The third documentary found another suspect and so on. Public opinion pushed the issue as it did rightly,or wrongly in the case of Evans.
That was what I was trying to put across to the other Poster,before He/She started the histrionics.

How hard is it to CP my name from the post you quoted?

Anyway, you do have a valid point in that the HBO documentaries on the WM3 could have been made without presenting an alternate suspect. The case that they were pretty much railroaded by the police was very strong without having to find out who actually committed the crimes.

Personally, I never thought that Byers was a good suspect. His behavior was bizarre, and I thought he might have undiagnosed (therefore, untreated) bipolar disorder, but that's no reason to suspect him of a crime. I actually thought the second documentary would have been better without the distraction of his antics, and more concentration on the case at hand; however, when the WM3 were finally freed, and Byers and the young men reconciled, it was a powerful moment, so we did need to see some of his anger, crazy as it was in its expression.

Off topic, but the difference between Byers and Hobbs was striking. Byers regarded Christopher as his son, which legally he was, as he had adopted him, and Christopher used the name Byers; Byers clearly was deeply in mourning, even if the expression was, as I said, sometimes a little crazy. Hobbs was Steve Branch's stepfather, never adopted the boy, Steve didn't use the name Hobbs, and it was clear that Hobbs didn't regard Steve as his son.

I've known good stepfathers, bad stepfathers, stepfathers who adopted their wives children, people who adopted older foster children, and there doesn't really seem to be much way in predicting ahead of time how those things will turn out, except maybe a guy who could get as angry as Byers was, was a guy who could express a lot of love, and Hobbs does come across as sort of cold in the first film, although you don't think much about it at the time.

[contrafib]

Smoking Joe & Observer,
this forum has managed to pull off the impressive feat of having 39 pages without pointless bullshit internet arguments between people with opposing points of view who aren't going to change them and so just start insulting each other.
Why don't you 2 arrange to meet up and duke it out (non-violently!!) or alternatively just not bother?? I love debating, don't get me wrong, but if you've both decided the case, what's there to talk about??
By the way, this is a peaceful, well-meaning message so please no angry replies.

[caz]

Back to the Christie case, Geoffrey Bing QC said it far better than I could back in 1953, a few months before I was born. He observed that Evans's guilt depended on two incredible coincidences:

1) Two murderers, coincidentally living in the same house and acting independently, both strangled women with a ligature, had intercourse with the victims, wrapped and trussed up their bodies in an identical fashion, moving them round the house before concealing them in the wash-house.

2) Evans had falsely accused the one man in London (Christie) who had been strangling women in the identical way that Evans himself had strangled his wife and child.

Surely to goodness, case closed?

Love,

Caz
X

[Smoking Joe]

The WM3 were convicted, in one case (there were two trials, one for one of them, and one for the other two) on the coerced confession of a mentally retarded person, and in the second case, jury misconduct. The two who were convicted by jury misconduct should have been freed even if they were guilty, and the one convicted on a coerced confession should have been given a new trial with the confession not admitted, and that should have happened within a year of the original convictions.

the WM3 trials happened in the early 1990s, at the tail end of the "Satanic Panic" in the US, something that began in the early 1980s, with a lot of accusations against day care centers not just of child abuse or molestation, but of bizarre mistreatment of children as part of satanic rituals. One early case was against the owners and employees of the McMartin preschool, previously a highly respected program in California. A man named Ray Buckey, and employee, and the grandson of the owner and founder, spent five years in prison without bail, simply awaiting bail.

A number of other people served long prison terms, or parts of terms they'd been sentenced to, before the public "woke up" to the absurdity of what people had been accused of-- often things that were physically impossible, such as taking children to remote locations by airplane, and returning them, in the space of two hours, every day, or keeping exotic predators in dungeons under the schools to threaten the children with ("we'll throw you to the lions"). No evidence of underground lairs, or the presence of such animals, nor the purchase, procurement of food and other things such animals would need was ever found, as though such a thing were ever plausible.

Some parents served prison terms after being accused of participating in satanic rituals with their children.

A lot of lives in the US were destroyed over this.

I suppose it's remotely possible that the WM3 could be the one single TRUE case of satanic ritual child murder amid all the panic, but I doubt it, especially given all the other reasons, including a startling lack of evidence against the boys who were convicted, and that juror misconduct could have framed guilty people, but I doubt that as well.

Rivacachaya,
Yes indeed. But the point i was trying to make was that guilty or not ,The WM3 were released on the back of a wave of public opinion,largely due to the 2 documentaries that were produced.One of which falsely tried to put the blame on Byers. And on face value the case against Byers seemed to be strong. The third documentary found another suspect and so on. Public opinion pushed the issue as it did rightly,or wrongly in the case of Evans.
That was what I was trying to put across to the other Poster,before He/She started the histrionics.
As regards the Satanic trials you speak of in the U.S.The same thing happened here(U.K) because of over zealous Social workers. Determined as they were to see paedophilia where there was none ,and satanic abuse rings where none existed.They too ruined many lives.None of th ese officials were brought to book for their deeds,indeed some are still practising Social workers . regards

[RivkahChaya]

And in my opinion the same public opinion that freed the WM3.

The WM3 were convicted, in one case (there were two trials, one for one of them, and one for the other two) on the coerced confession of a mentally retarded person, and in the second case, jury misconduct. The two who were convicted by jury misconduct should have been freed even if they were guilty, and the one convicted on a coerced confession should have been given a new trial with the confession not admitted, and that should have happened within a year of the original convictions.

the WM3 trials happened in the early 1990s, at the tail end of the "Satanic Panic" in the US, something that began in the early 1980s, with a lot of accusations against day care centers not just of child abuse or molestation, but of bizarre mistreatment of children as part of satanic rituals. One early case was against the owners and employees of the McMartin preschool, previously a highly respected program in California. A man named Ray Buckey, and employee, and the grandson of the owner and founder, spent five years in prison without bail, simply awaiting bail.

A number of other people served long prison terms, or parts of terms they'd been sentenced to, before the public "woke up" to the absurdity of what people had been accused of-- often things that were physically impossible, such as taking children to remote locations by airplane, and returning them, in the space of two hours, every day, or keeping exotic predators in dungeons under the schools to threaten the children with ("we'll throw you to the lions"). No evidence of underground lairs, or the presence of such animals, nor the purchase, procurement of food and other things such animals would need was ever found, as though such a thing were ever plausible.

Some parents served prison terms after being accused of participating in satanic rituals with their children.

A lot of lives in the US were destroyed over this.

I suppose it's remotely possible that the WM3 could be the one single TRUE case of satanic ritual child murder amid all the panic, but I doubt it, especially given all the other reasons, including a startling lack of evidence against the boys who were convicted, and that juror misconduct could have framed guilty people, but I doubt that as well.

[Smoking Joe]

Grow up

So what you have been spouting here in this forum amounts to worthwhile debate. Haha well I never. Delusions of granduer comes to mind.

I reiterate, after carefull examination of the case I am of the opinion that the Home office were justified in pardoning Timothy Evans.

By the way your use of extended full stops in your sentences remind me of another poster we used to have around here some time back. He/she was also deluded. It's not you in another guise is it?

Oh Hello OB,
Glad to hear from you again.I was beginning to think you were ignoring me. By the way it is GrandEur not granduer. you should know.
Worthwhile debate? What would you know of that?
You can re-iterate all you wish you are still not convincing.
The extended full stops you speak of have a name.....no it's not "extended full stops" .Maybe you might ask someone what they are called.I havent got time or the inclination to educate you in such matters.Sorry.
Another Poster indeed? Who on earth was /is that? Well if he/she was deluded then it seems he /she shared a few,or at least one characteristic with your good self.
AH HA! YES! Of course now I remember .Cant recall the name but someone on another thread accused me of being some one else. Didnt read all of it ,because it was a boring post,from frankly a boring person. Bit like yours in lots of respects. Well OB if you believe that then your best option would to be to inform Admin wouldnt it?Isnt that the usual ploy of the resident children ?I mean you obviously dont feel comfortable here if someone disagrees with you...Im talking about your tantrums of course.
I guess I could have reported you for abuse,but frankly your insult was rather funny and kind of self defeating.

[Observer]

Grow up

So what you have been spouting here in this forum amounts to worthwhile debate. Haha well I never. Delusions of granduer comes to mind.

I reiterate, after carefull examination of the case I am of the opinion that the Home office were justified in pardoning Timothy Evans.

By the way your use of extended full stops in your sentences remind me of another poster we used to have around here some time back. He/she was also deluded. It's not you in another guise is it?

[Smoking Joe]

Of course I wasn't there you idiot.

I have thought for myself. Christie callously fostered that crime onto Evans, it's plain for all to see. Plain for all to see barring deluded nutters like you.

OOH!He is using naughty words now! That was rude !
You were not there? Oh I am so sorry for implying that you were but....its just that you seem to know everything about well.....everything.
Well it was nice talking to you. I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did. Feel free to continue this terribly exciting conversation any time you wish.
If and when you have something worthwhile to say that is.So I doubt it will be any time soon.

[Observer]

Of course I wasn't there you idiot.

My unconvincing argument is echoed by the Home Office, which far outweighs some deluded poster on a Jack The Ripper Forum

I have thought for myself. Christie callously fostered that crime onto Evans, it's plain for all to see. Plain for all to see barring deluded nutters like you.

[Smoking Joe]

Blood found at the scene of the crime which unfairly convicted Davis proved not to be his. It also did not belong to any of the other four men arrested along with him for the crime.

By all means stick to your unconvincing views. Evans was an innocent man full stop. It's a matter of record.

Whether or not blood samples were Davis's ,the fact remains he was not totally exonerated. Which means the Justices plainly were not as convinced as you are
As I said it is your view -you stick to it
RE.. Christie
You were there -right?
You saw it all-right?
Or are you just parotting the official and fashionable opinion?
i.e As christie killed others ,then it follows that he must also have killed Beryl....that isnt a full stop. I t might amount to a comma ,or at a stretch a semi colon.....but never a full stop.
Why not try to think for yourself instead of adopting the pop vox view?
But your unconvincing opinion is fine by me.

[Observer]

Blood found at the scene of the crime which unfairly convicted Davis proved not to be his. It also did not belong to any of the other four men arrested along with him for the crime.

By all means stick to your unconvincing views. Evans was an innocent man full stop. It's a matter of record.