The Christie 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.

[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]

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]

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

Unless food processor technology was a lot more advanced than I realized, back in 1949, that sounds really difficult. Was "the drain" a euphemism for the outhouse?

[Limehouse]

Unless food processor technology was a lot more advanced than I realized, back in 1949, that sounds really difficult. Was "the drain" a euphemism for the outhouse?

lol! No, in the Uk the streets have drainage systems whereby water (and other debris) is washed from the road into a shaft and then into pipes.

See a picture in the link below:

http://adamcooperf1.com/2010/05/17/did-loose-drain-cover-contribute-to-barrichello-crash/

In the 1950s outhouses were common in old housing. An outhouse is an area outside the main house (but sometimes kind of attached) that would have housed a lavatory and/or a sink where laundry could be done.

[RivkahChaya]

lol! No, in the Uk the streets have drainage systems whereby water (and other debris) is washed from the road into a shaft and then into pipes.

In the 1950s outhouses were common in old housing. An outhouse is an area outside the main house (but sometimes kind of attached) that would have housed a lavatory and/or a sink where laundry could be done.

Ah. In the US (or, the region where I'm from), drains are part of the sewage/septic system that is in the building. The parts in the street are called "sewers," and are covered with grates. Some rural areas have "drainage ditches."

"Outhouses" here are specifically privies-- toilets that are a hole in the ground. If a house has buildings, other than garages or storage sheds, that are detached, they're called "out buildings," even if they are just a single room. Actually, if someone had a shed with electricity and plumbing, it might be called an "out building."

Sometimes people in rural areas have septic tanks, instead of being connected to the municipal sewage system. There have been a couple of cases where people disposed of bodies in septic tanks, and pretty much got away with it. The body was eventually discovered when the house was demolished, or the septic tank was replaced, but it was decades after the murder, and the killer was dead.

[RivkahChaya]

[QUOTE=Limehouse;264201]

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.

I know, right? The only thing that would possibly make sense, is that Beryl killed the child, I suppose, accidentally, and then Timothy Evans killed Beryl in a rage over the baby's death, then disposed of both bodies. I realize that's extremely unlikely. It's just more reasonable than Christie killing the baby for fun, or no reason at all, or he thought a toddler had witnessed something, but left the mother alive.

Did Christie, as far as anyone knows, kill anyone else during the time that the Evanses were his tenants? I know that a toddler makes a rotten witness, but I also know Christie didn't necessarily have a lot of insight into other people, and that there was a popular Freudian theory that psychoanalysis could get people to recall in great and accurate detail things they witnessed when they were too young to speak. Is it even remotely possible the toddler witnessed something?

No, I do not think that Christie killed the child, and Evans killed his wife. I think Christie killed Beryl Evans, and then killed the baby because once her mother was dead she was a nuisance. Just trying to figure out what the pardon board could have been thinking.

[Limehouse]

[QUOTE=RivkahChaya;264217]

I know, right? The only thing that would possibly make sense, is that Beryl killed the child, I suppose, accidentally, and then Timothy Evans killed Beryl in a rage over the baby's death, then disposed of both bodies. I realize that's extremely unlikely. It's just more reasonable than Christie killing the baby for fun, or no reason at all, or he thought a toddler had witnessed something, but left the mother alive.

Did Christie, as far as anyone knows, kill anyone else during the time that the Evanses were his tenants? I know that a toddler makes a rotten witness, but I also know Christie didn't necessarily have a lot of insight into other people, and that there was a popular Freudian theory that psychoanalysis could get people to recall in great and accurate detail things they witnessed when they were too young to speak. Is it even remotely possible the toddler witnessed something?

No, I do not think that Christie killed the child, and Evans killed his wife. I think Christie killed Beryl Evans, and then killed the baby because once her mother was dead she was a nuisance. Just trying to figure out what the pardon board could have been thinking.

I agree. Again, looking at it logically, Evans may have had a history of violence towards his wife (this has not bee positively established however) but that does not add up to murder. Christie, however, had already murdered before these events. Moreover, he also had a previous history of violence towards woman and was convicted for it.

Evans had a much stronger bond with his daughter than Christie did. I find it hard to believe that he would have killed his daughter after learning that his wife was dead. He could have taken his daughter to any of his relatives (his sister, his auntie, his mother) knowing she would have been cared for. There was no need for him to kill her.

[RivkahChaya]

[QUOTE=Limehouse;264221]

I agree. Again, looking at it logically, Evans may have had a history of violence towards his wife (this has not bee positively established however) but that does not add up to murder. Christie, however, had already murdered before these events. Moreover, he also had a previous history of violence towards woman and was convicted for it.

Evans had a much stronger bond with his daughter than Christie did. I find it hard to believe that he would have killed his daughter after learning that his wife was dead. He could have taken his daughter to any of his relatives (his sister, his auntie, his mother) knowing she would have been cared for. There was no need for him to kill her.

Even parents who are indifferent to their children don't usually kill them just to get them out of the way. Sometimes they accidentally kill them through abuse or neglect, but parents who deliberately kill their children are usually psychotic people who think their children are aliens, or sociopaths who kill them for insurance, or to get back at the other parent, and I don't think anything like that was operating in Evans' case.

Anyway, in addition to family, social services, or orphanages, or whatever the local solution was, would take very small children from fathers whose wives had died, and place them for adoption, if they were given willingly. It wasn't the most common solution, but it wasn't met with the kind of eyebrow raises it would be now, because people thought very small children really needed a mother, quite literally, like children raised from infancy or toddler-hood without one might become emotionally disturbed. Not everyone believed that, but enough people did, and enough people were sympathetic to the difficulties of a single father with a very small child, that giving it up didn't seem unreasonable.

The idea that Evans killed his daughter because he had no one to care for her after Christie killed his wife is beyond ridiculous.

[caz]

Hi Rivkah, All,

You may have missed what I posted to the other Christie thread over on Other Mysteries:

'When the game was finally up for Christie, he made at least four confessions to murdering Beryl Evans, changing the details each time. All murderers are liars, but the vast majority of liars are not murderers, and we know Christie was both. We also know he was cunning and manipulative, while Evans was gullible and stupid. When Christie told him his wife was dead and put the frighteners on him, he found himself in an impossible position. Of course he should have made sure the baby was safe and gone straight to the police with the truth as he understood it, but he would still have been the obvious suspect at that time.

Whoever murdered Beryl used the same method on the baby and their bodies were found in exactly the same place, so the same man was responsible for both. Why would Christie have confessed at least four times to one of those murders if Evans had committed them and been rightly hanged for murder?

Christie got a bit of a kick in prison out of the sexual nature of his crimes and claimed he was a decent man who had been led astray by wicked women. If he had ever confessed while in custody to murdering baby Geraldine in cold blood, he would have been despised by the other inmates and his personal safety would have been at risk.'

BTW, I take contrafib's point about the Brabin report's disappointing conclusion and probable reason behind it. All the evidence points to one killer for both Beryl and the baby - ie Christie, making him responsible for ten deaths in total: seven women including his wife, one baby and the two men (including himself) who were hanged.

It astonishes me that anyone would still believe Evans moved into that house and went on to commit murder there, totally unaware that Christie had already murdered twice and would go on to do it at least four more times. It makes all the arguments we hear for several killers being responsible for the Whitechapel series seem slightly less irrational.

Love,

Caz
X

[Hatchett]

Just a thought.

If the Police at the time of their enquiries into Beryl and the baby's deaths had discovered that Christie was an active serial killer, then it would seem likely that they would have suspected Christie rather than Evans.

In which case there would presumably be no mystery or doubt about Evan's guilt or innocent now.

[contrafib]

You're right Hatchett because everyone would have agreed on a verdict, and this is what the truth comes down to in people's minds unless they were actually there to witness the event. Who knows how many other things happened differently to the way we think they did? But in cases where everyone agrees on the truth, it is the truth because nobody has any inclination to investigate further.

[Limehouse]

Hi Rivkah, All,

You may have missed what I posted to the other Christie thread over on Other Mysteries:

'When the game was finally up for Christie, he made at least four confessions to murdering Beryl Evans, changing the details each time. All murderers are liars, but the vast majority of liars are not murderers, and we know Christie was both. We also know he was cunning and manipulative, while Evans was gullible and stupid. When Christie told him his wife was dead and put the frighteners on him, he found himself in an impossible position. Of course he should have made sure the baby was safe and gone straight to the police with the truth as he understood it, but he would still have been the obvious suspect at that time.

Whoever murdered Beryl used the same method on the baby and their bodies were found in exactly the same place, so the same man was responsible for both. Why would Christie have confessed at least four times to one of those murders if Evans had committed them and been rightly hanged for murder?

Christie got a bit of a kick in prison out of the sexual nature of his crimes and claimed he was a decent man who had been led astray by wicked women. If he had ever confessed while in custody to murdering baby Geraldine in cold blood, he would have been despised by the other inmates and his personal safety would have been at risk.'

BTW, I take contrafib's point about the Brabin report's disappointing conclusion and probable reason behind it. All the evidence points to one killer for both Beryl and the baby - ie Christie, making him responsible for ten deaths in total: seven women including his wife, one baby and the two men (including himself) who were hanged.

It astonishes me that anyone would still believe Evans moved into that house and went on to commit murder there, totally unaware that Christie had already murdered twice and would go on to do it at least four more times. It makes all the arguments we hear for several killers being responsible for the Whitechapel series seem slightly less irrational.

Love,

Caz
X

I totally agree - one killer at no 10 and one JtR.

[RivkahChaya]

Hi Rivkah, All,

You may have missed what I posted to the other Christie thread over on Other Mysteries:

It wasn't that, Caz. I don't personally have any doubt that Christie killed both mother and child; I'm just trying to figure out what was going through the heads of the pardon board, when they couldn't just say "Oops. Evans didn't kill anyone."

I know guilt had something to do with it: if they could say that Evans killed someone, then even though there was a miscarriage of justice, they didn't hang a completely innocent man.

The only thing I could wrap my brain around was that Beryl somehow accidentally killed the child, and Evans killed her in anger when he found out, but the method used doesn't allow for that scenario.

One thing, though: there are a lot of good arguments for Evans' innocence, so resorting to "what are the odds" needn't be one of them. Unlikely events do happen.

Look at what happened to the Staynor family (which is beyond tragic for the parents). One of their two sons was the victim of a stranger kidnapping, something that is in itself an unlikely event; then, that son escaped his kidnapper after being held for several years, another unlikely event, in the process rescuing his kidnapper's new victim safely; finally, and most tragically, this son was killed in a vehicular accident. Then, many years later, the parents' other son murdered three women in Yosemite Park, and later another women, and is now on Death Row.

If, before any of those things happened, you calculated the odds of two children in one family being a kidnap victim who was eventually returned, and a serial killer, they would be very high, but if the lawyer for the son now on Death Row had tried to argue to a jury that his client was innocent, because what are the odds of two such unusual, independent events involving brothers, the jury would laugh.

Also, if Beryl Evans had been, say, stabbed, without the use of gas to knock her out, in deviation from Christie's MO, it would make more sense to suggest that Christie didn't do it, and then to look first at her husband as a suspect-- although in a scenario like that, it could also turn out to be a burglar. It didn't happen that way, but we really are pretty sure of the facts here. It's not meaningful as a model for the Ripper case. Aside from everything else, the Christie case took place in one house, not one section of town, as far as we know, only we don't, because we don't know who did it.

[contrafib]

Today Is Undoubtedly A Historic Day In The Case Of 10 Rillington Place, The Date 60 Years Ago When The First Phase Of The Case Effectively Ended And A Whole New Can Of Worms Was Opened As The Last Person Who Knew Who Killed The Evanses (apart From A Few People On This Forum!) Went To The Gallows