The Christie Case

[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.

[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'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]

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.

[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!!!!

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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.