The Christie Case

[Honest John]

Geraldine is the correct spelling.

Evans was charged with both murders but tried for the death of his daughter.

He confessed to the murders twice to Inspector Black and Chief Inspector Jennings; later to Dr Matheson and to DS Trevellian, and again to Black.

He was never tried for the murder of his wife; the prosecution had that option but decided to go for child murder as a defence of provocation was then impossible.

The Brabin Report of 1966 concluded that Evans probably killed his wife but probably did not kill his daughter and because he was convicted of the latter he was pardoned.

It is said that Christie killed Geraldine because he had already killed Beryl and to leave her alive would result in enquiries being made about her mother, leading to him. No reference has ever been made to whether this poor 13 month old could speak.

I would recommend 'John Christie: Serial Killer of Rillington Place' (published in 2012).

[RivkahChaya]

Here is something which has recently occurred to me; what would have happened to Christie if Evans had been found not guilty of the murder of Jeraldine in 1950?

Is it Jeraldine, or Geraldine? I've always seen it with a G.

I have always assumed that Christie killed Geraldine. I'm finding conflicting information in different sources over whether Timothy Evans was ever charged with the murder of Geraldine. There seems to be a biography of Christie that states that Evans was charged with murdering Geraldine, but not tried for it, while other sources say he was never charged with it.

It also seems to be common knowledge that he at one time confessed to murdering Beryl Evans, and the trial was really about death vs. life, not about guilt. I don't know how the British system at the time worked, but in the US, when a prosecutor wants a certain outcome, he may hold back a charge, so that if he doesn't get the outcome in the first trial, he can conduct a second one without violating double jeopardy. There's a case in Texas of a mother who was accused of killing two of her sons, and is now on death row. She was tried for only one, because the prosecutor wanted to be able to try her separately for the second, in case she was acquitted of the first. So, maybe that is why Evans was not charged with killing his daughter-- the prosecution got a verdict of death for Beryl, and had no need to try him again.

Is that possibly the case?

I do seem to recall reading some place that lingering doubts over whether or not Evans killed his daughter was one reason the government was slow to pardon him, even when it was clear Christie had killed Beryl.

I know this happened in the 1950s, and people didn't understand the phenomenon of false confessions then, but Geez.

Anyway, my point: what was Christie's motive for killing Geraldine? what is just that she was a "loose end"? was it because he had a story that Beryl had left, and it didn't sell if she hadn't taken the child with her? Or was Geraldine old enough to talk at all? I know some people think that children at a certain age will see things they can't express verbally at the time, but will remember them, and express them later, when they have learned to speak more. Was it possible he was worried about that?

I am not finding much by Googling. I know I have this info in a book some place, but some of our books are in storage.

[Honest John]

I have not heard anyone refer to the thigh bone propping up the fence prior to March 1953; which doesn't mean to say it wasn't there before, nor indeed, for how long. It is odd that no one noticed it, though.

The identity of the skull could have been ascertained through dental records, as in the case of the murder of Mrs Dobkin in about 1942. However, this was only possible because the police/pathologist had a good idea of who the skull belonged to and so could check with her dentist asap.

Since there was no thought that this was a murder case and given the number of missing people - and that Muriel was far from Putney - I wouldn't give much of chance for a successful ID. Police manpower was very strained after 1945 when the War reserve constabulary had to be released.

By the way, there was a TV programme in 1988, part of which is available online, which features ex PC Ledger (a picture of Christie in the Daily Mail helped him ID Christie) and Leonard Trevellian (the latter says he chased a villian into no 10 and later talked to Christie - in early 1953)

[Sherlock]

There is also the matter of the skull which was found in the bombed house at 133 St Mark's Road at about the same time as the Evans murders. Christie claimed that this was the skull of Muriel Eady which he had put there himself. The skull was examined by a pathologist named Dr Burnet at the time who concluded that it was that of a woman of about 33 who suffered from adenoids; Honest John records that enquiries by a Police Sergeant Garrod of Harrow Road Police Station failed to reveal anyone unaccounted for in air raid incidents at the address or in the immediate area.

Some points arise from this; can we be certain that the skull actually was that of Muriel Eady? As far as I know we have only Christie's word that he put it there, although judging from the pathologist's remarks it does seem quite possible that it was indeed Muriel's skull. At the same time, the skull had been destroyed by the time that Muriel's skeleton was uncovered in 1953, so no positive match could be made, although the fact that no skull was found with Muriel's remains in the garden of 10 Rillington Place might also suggest that Christie was telling the truth in this instance.

One wonders that if it was not possible to ascertain to whom the skull belonged when it was discovered in 1950 whether any enquiries were made as to missing persons to whom it might be linked at that time? Probably there would have been no reason to connect the skull with the murders of Beryl and Jeraldine which had just taken place a few streets away, though.

[contrafib]

You probably have to ask the question first: Why would Evans be found not-guilty of the murder of Jeraldine? It could only be because evidence came to light at the trial implicating Christie unless the jury were somehow convinced that Beryl may have done it herself! I think Christie would be investigated based on Evans's claims and then of course it would all have come to light. Whether Evans would still be tried for Beryl can only be answered by knowing on what basis he was found innocent of the murder of the baby. I think the jury would have seen the murders as one 'transaction'- what a horribly clinical word for a double murder.
One thing has always bothered me and maybe you can answer it, Honest John. Do we know for sure that the thigh bone propping up the garden fence was there during the Evans murders or at least when they were living there? It seems that Christie was usually careful and clinical so why would he do this? and is there no chance that the residents noticed? and the police of course??! It seems that Christie and Evans both had bizarre natures and were in a way almost kindred spirits, very similar in many ways, both prone to living in the present and to saying and doing strange ways.

[Sherlock]

Here is something which has recently occurred to me; what would have happened to Christie if Evans had been found not guilty of the murder of Jeraldine in 1950?

I suppose that Evans would not have been released from prison right away if this had happened, as the the charge of murdering Beryl still stood on file and the Crown might well have wished to proceed with a further trial on this indictment. At the same time, is it possible that Christie might have been asked further questions by the police concerning his involvement with the murders, which might have led to a further search of 10 Rillington Place? If this had happened and the bodies of Ruth Fuerst and Muriel Eady had been uncovered in the garden it would have been impossible to link Evans with these murders.

Would Christie then have been tried for the murders of Muriel and Ruth and Evans released, or would Evans still have been tried for the murder of Beryl?

What does everyone think about this scenario?

[contrafib]

Honest John,
i've emailed you again and also copied it as a private message to you on this forum.

[RivkahChaya]

1) Christie apparently persuaded at least his last three victims, Rita Nelson, Kathleen Maloney and Hectorina MacLennan, to sit in his so-called "strangling chair" prior to their murders. This was an old deckchair with strands of rope instead of canvas.

I wonder what exactly the significance of this chair was in Christie's murder ritual; was it some kind of bizarre prop constructed by himself, or were deckchairs of this type actually used at one time? Has anyone ever seen a similar deckchair anywhere else?

I don't know about "significance," but rope hammocks are pretty common, and easy to make. A rope deck chair isn't much more than a hammock on a chair frame, although the idea that it would be harder to get out of then a conventional chair is good. It might have been a chair that reclined, and was sort of a chair/cot (in the US sense of cot), sort of like a futon frame.

Then, it's also possible that if it had rope restraints on the armrests, and at the foot, they'd be sort of camouflaged-- they'd look like just some loose rope hanging from a rope chair, nothing alarming about that, whereas rope hanging from the armrests and foot of an easy chair would set off alarm bells.

[Honest John]

Dear Contrafib, I am sorry but I do not seem to have received it. Can you send it to my hotmail address again, please?

Meanwhile, though the book was reprinted, it could not be amended, so the following additional information may be of interest.

The Thorleys lived at 133 Brownhill Road, Catford, 1930-1932, 6 Hensler Road in what is now Lambeth in 1936, then 224 New Camberwell Road in 1939, but I don't know where they were in between these years.

In June 1937 Christie's application for a taxi licence was turned down, presumably because of his criminal record, and at this time the licensing office was at Scotland Yard.

Ruth Fuerst had numerous addresses:

6 June - 1 August 1939 92 Oakwood Road, Golders Green
1 August - 15 September 1939 St. Gabriel's Home, Westgate on Sea
15 September - 4 Noveber 1939 The Manse, Elswick
4 November - 5 December 1939 3 Courtfield Gardnes, London
5 December - 27 May 1940 North Hill Highgate Training Home for Girls
27 May - 3 December 1940 Hotel Hydra, Isle of Man
23 December -27 November 1941 30 Orsett Terrace, London W2
1942-1943 140 New Cavendish Street, W1, 141 West End Lane, Hampstead, Lurgan Hotel, 115 Cromwell Road, SW7 (as a waitress)

Also, Mayfair Hotel and Savoy Hotel

Extracts from letters of Ethel Christie

17 March 1952
'Unfortunately Reg had a mishap with his suit at work (burnt his trouser leg on a gas fire in the office) and I have bought another suit which has left us short'.

No date
'Reg is much better and so am I now that the better weather is here'.

19 October 1949
No reference to Evanses

It seems she often wrote letters over a number of days.

Food for thought

[contrafib]

Honest John, have you received an email from me in the last couple of days? i've sent you one in the past and no reply

[Honest John]

Its possible that he may have made advances towards her and these were repelled or it may have been due to racial prejudice, though I would tend to err towards the former, but the latter may have also had a bearing. Bear in mind he was also seeing an unnamed married woman at a cafe in Hampstead close to where he worked; whether this was the same woman or not is open to question.

I think Christie liked children on his own terms - shouting at those noisy children playing in the street but being kind on an individual basis; perhaps this was about power.

[Sherlock]

Yes, there do appear to be a number of indications that Christie had a genuine fondness for children. I am aware of another person who lived in Rillington Place as a child who remembers Christie buying her ice-cream.

As I think I have said before, if Christie did feel kindly towards children it could suggest that he would have been unlikely to have attacked a child and was therefore probably not the murderer of Geraldine Evans. On the other hand, he also claimed to have loved his wife Ethel, but this did not prevent him from killing her.

One interesting point in Honest John's book is that Christie claimed to have left his final job at British Road Services due to "an incident at work regarding a half caste Indian woman", although his departure was apparently at his own request after giving proper notice. One wonders what kind of incident this was, and whether it could have in any way influenced him to commit his final four murders. For example, could he have been humiliated in some way which finally sent him over the edge?

[contrafib]

didn't finish my post. Pepe Forbes remembered Christie as very kind to him,a s fits other accounts of Christie's relationship to children.

[contrafib]

Honest John, i agree that memories get foggy but i don't imagine Peggy Baker would forget her encounter and escape from Christie.
The residents interviewed in the programme largely said that Christie was respected, but one resident recounts that a tenant of no.10 who occupied the top flat pre-Evans apparently remarked at the time that 'Christie is a bad man who digs holes in his garden'. I wonder if there has ever been other testimony from former residents other than Kitchener.
I did once hear a short radio interview with a gentleman called Pepe Forbes who was a child living at no.10 at the time of Christie. I think the piece was designed to show also that murderers have a good side because Forbes remembered Christie.

[Honest John]

There were several statements by women who escaped Christie in the National Archives files and I quote from some of them. Mrs Forrest made a fuller statement to Conrad Phillips than she did to the police. I am sorry not to have seen the programme mentioned. The only point is that if this was made in about 2003, then it was 50 years after the murders and possibly memories may not be wholly accurate. Certainly in the Fred Dineage programme on Christie in 2011, former PS Leonard Trevellian made a statement that's at odds with what he said in 1965 and what clashes with other contemporary remarks. But still, of interest.

Incidentally, in an interview in about 1975 Richard Fleischer said, of 10 Rillington Place and Christie, 'There are no evil men. There are sick men'. Psychologists had been saying this since at least the 1940s, but the film doesn't explore this dimension of Christie, concentrating on the 'evil monster' version, though in a film time is limited for such subtlety, unfortunately.