The Christie Case

[Sherlock]

Some of the characters in the Christie story were certainly heard of after he was caught.

For example, Alexander Baker gave evidence in both the magistrates court and the Old Bailey, but I think he disappeared again after the trial. Ludovic Kennedy apparently interviewed both Hookway and Kitchener around 1959-1961 as part of his research for 10 Rillington Place, but Hookway could not be traced by the Brabin enquiry in 1966. Possibly both Hookway and Kitchener were dead by then; Kitchener was already in poor health at the time of the Evans murders in 1949.

I wonder if Alexander Pomeroy Baker could even still be alive at the present time, although he would be a very old man by now. I also wonder what happened to Beresford Brown who discovered the bodies in the kitchen; could he possibly still be alive?

It is stated in the paperback edition of the Brabin enquiry (Rillington Place - The Stationary Office) that around 1959-60 Hookway stated that he considered Beryl Evans to be "a tarty little thing" with whom Christie was having an affair with Evans's consent. Interestingly, Rupert Furneaux records in The Two Stranglers of Rillington Place that convicted killer Donald Hume stated that Evans told him the same thing when on remand in Brixton Prison. However, there is no evidence to support this, and it seems unlikely. Hume was himself apparently a notorious lier.

Ludovic Kennedy certainly states in 10 Rillington Place that Beryl told Lucy Endecott that Christie was going to abort her, but this is rejected by John Eddowes in The Two Killers of Rillington Place.

One also wonders if Lucy Endecott is still alive today!!!

I will post my thoughts on Evans and the M2 statement later.

[contrafib]

Looks like we've got the forum to ourselves, eh??

Wow, the plot certainly thickens, for me anyway. If Hume is to be believed then, Evans let Christie have an affair with Beryl and also watched while he murdered his baby daughter. I'm not sure i buy that. Also, how would Hookway know much, if his only contact with Evans was to buy his furniture? Maybe he knew him slightly. Funny thing with Beryl Evans is that in some photos Beryl looks very pretty but in others not so, and in one photo i've seen of her holding Jeraldine wearing a knotted scarf on her head, she looks middle-aged!!
I imagine that there was probably quite major coverage on the case on T.V. in the mid-60's, when Evans was pardoned, so i wonder if any archives exist of programmes featuring interviews with some involved in the story. I bet Baker had a few nightmares of staying at and sleeping in that house for 3 nights with 3 bodies in close proximity to him.
I don't know if you've ever looked at the BBC's 'on this day' feature on their website but for 25 June, they have a 1953 news items announcing that Christie is to hang. Acompanying it is a short audio clip of Evans's mother talking about the case in 1966, but formerly there was a video of Michael Parkinson outside the front door and then in the yard of 10 Rillington Place, i presume around 1966, talking about the case, plus footage of inside the house, which looks pretty spooky. I also happened to come across a radio 4 show with a feature on an ex-Boxing agent called Pepe Forbes, who lived at Rillington Place and shared the garden with Christie. Unfortunately, it didn't play properly but it's out there anyway.

[contrafib]

Played the Pepe Forbes file but must be a mistake with the name because this person was a child when they lived there, but the boxing agent was born in 1917. For the record, this person said Christie was very kind and every time the child came to the house, he would invite her to look at the flowers in the garden. A couple of books have stated that Christie always liked children and regretted not having any. Could this be a clue that he possibly didn't murder Jeraldine? I don't think Evans or Christie could be seen as stereotypical baby-killers, so that murder seems simply an act of desperation.
This does lead me to think of a wider point, which is the misguided notion of clear good and evil. This is used in religion and politics and i think influences people to think far too simplistically about people and deviant/abhorrent behaviour. It's quite possible that someone with a sick compulsion to do horrible things, like Christie, could be kind in other ways, human psychology is that complicated. I have got into many heated arguments in the past where i have been accused of defending murderers but my point is simply that you don't normally find the truth when you think in black and white terms.

[Sherlock]

Yes, I've also read that Christie was fond of children. This does make one one whether he was actually responsible for the murder of Geraldine, as I have never read anywhere that there was anything in his previous history which might suggest that he would attack a child, or that he had any kind of grudge against children.

At the same time, although Evans could be violent towards his wife and was a heavy drinker, I have never heard it suggested that he ever assaulted Geraldine or ill-treated her in any way.

This would suggest that whoever murdered Geraldine did so as an act of desperation. If Christie was responsible, it was probably to get her out of the way so that the body of her mother and possibly those of his earlier victims would not be discovered and therefore save his own skin, in which case he may possibly have gone into denial afterwards that he was responsible for the baby's death.

If Evans was responsible, it was in a fit of terror and desperation due to the stress resulting from the death of his wife, and may have happened on the spur of the moment if for example he could not stop the child's crying, or perhaps if he was fearful of inquiries being made after her mother.

It has also never been determined conclusively whether the tie with which Geraldine was strangled belonged to Evans or Christie.

I quite agree that it is not always helpful to think entirely in terms of black and white when considering why certain people are induced to commit certain crimes, as other serial killers have also demonstrated positive sides to their characters before and since. For example, I think I once read that Peter Kurten, the vampire of Dusseldorf who was executed in the late 1920s at the time of the Weimar Republic in Germany, was considered to be a very nice man by many people who knew him!!

This does not excuse those who commit horrific crimes, but is does show that human psychology is a very complex matter. No-one will really know exactly what went on inside Christie's head or in that of Evans.

[contrafib]

Yes, that has always bothered me about the tie. Surely fibre transfer would have happened, or something to give clues, but i suspect that the police didn't think it necessary to check closely because Evans had confessed and they had no reason to question that. I think the effect of the confession and the awfulness of killing the baby had lethal effects on the police, and the hate they must have felt towards to Evans would have precluded any thought or investigation as to whether he 'didn't' kill Beryl and Jeraldine.
We humans do like to have things wrapped up neatly so we can get on with our daily lives without gnawing doubts.
And Evans' mental capacity???? I would just like to know whether there is any consensus in the numerous books on the case. While we're at it, Evans and Christies' physical build has also been a source of confusion. Probably most people think that Christie was tall and slim (e.g the Madame Tussauds waxwork) and Evans small and weak because it fits the general idea of Christie's power over Evans. In fact, the pictures of Christie being taken to/from the magistrates hiding his face under his hat seem to show him very small (apparently he was 5'8") compared to the police holding him although he is slightly bowed. (see getty images.com-Rillington place for some great pictures). Evans has been said to have been almost burly though very short. The famous photo in the camel-hair coat may be misleading because of the size of the coat. Comments??

[Delboy58]

The Christie Case

Why are people still debating who was guilty in this case? Tim Evans was officially, though sadly posthumously, pardoned so you people are actually saying that pardon was itself a miscarriage of justice! However difficult it may be, you have to understand that sixty years ago the British legal system got it wrong. Even if you dispute all the fine work of Ludovic Kennedy and everybody else who campaigned for justice in this case, to believe there were two neck tie stranglers living in the same house is absurd. Accept this fact: no jury would have convicted Evans if they had known the chief witness for the prosecution, Christie, was already himself a mass murderer trying to cover his own tracks. There will always be the conspiracy theorists who love to contradict the popular view but thankfully the "Evans is gulity" party is a tiny minority today. However, that minority is still an insult to Evans' family and his memory and to those of us who believe in true justice and morality.

[contrafib]

Delboy, i've had this discussion many times, and i think one of the most dangerous attitudes to have is that questioning the official line is 'an insult to the victim's family'. This line is used all the time by the mass media to stop people thinking for themselves. So, the authorities never lie or get it wrong? Guildford 4, Birmingham 6, Vietnam (now admitted to be based on a lie), 9/11, War In Iraq etc etc... I've done hours of research on this, and even the term 'conspiracy theorist' was invented to give a negative connotation to anyone questioning the official story.
This is the wider point. Specifically about Rillington Place, we'll never know exactly what happened even if we might know who did the crimes. As i've mentioned many times, this scam of concealing documents under the 30/50/100 year rule means that by the time they are revealed, the official line is so ingrained in everyone's head that they won't accept anything else. Documents released in the 90's revealed that Evans was far more dangerous and violent than the dimwit version that JOhn Hurt played.
It's occurred to me more and more that opinions are formed not from research but from what's read/seen in the mainstream media, which is a business (watch a documentary called 'The Corporation' and it becomes clear) designed to make money.
Anyway, please no rude or angry replies, there's too much of that on forums. Convince me with evidence that we should always believe the 'popular view'.

[contrafib]

Just one note. I meant to say that opinions are BEING formed nowadays by most people from mainstream media without them even really realising. Advertising, films, sport, it's all involved in the same agenda, which is to influence how we think and distract us with entertainment (note the huge attention given to the world cup and the ludicrous LeBron James furore). Food is another huge issue, with most food now containing chemicals added through a step-by-step process. I wouldn't go as far as saying we're being poisoned but chemical food affects mood profoundly and endless vaccinations from an early age affect the immune system. Think these ideas are mad?? check them out, i'll be happy to give anyone suggestions about where to find the information.

[Delboy58]

Timothy Evans

There is a lot of waffle in this forum, attempting to mask itself behind apparent scholarly insight. I repeat that sensationalists have always loved to theorise and argue against the popular view but there is no shred of evidence in any of your musings that suggest Tim was anything other than another of Christie's victims. And why not feel sympathy for Evans and his surviving family? Perhaps you would like to meet them all face to face and press home your points in person? I suspect the courage of your convictions might waiver in such circumstances. The justice system finally got it right and it would seem that everybody except your tiny minority accepts that fact. If it pleases you by all means continue posting your opinions but I am also happy in the knowledge that you are entirely wrong. Frankly, in the eyes of the law and to the majority of us who know better, your words amount to little more than than ill informed ranting.

[belinda]

Contrafib has a valid point.

Things cannot and should not be taken on face value.

Even Einstein said to question everything.

[Delboy58]

Timothy Evans

Belinda you do not need a degree to believe things should not be taken at face value and I think most people appreciate that fact, so what is Contrafib saying that we do not already know? Yes, the authorities do get it wrong and in those circumstances of course we should ask questions but my point is that is exactly what we did when the Christie case was originally reopened and Evans received his posthumous pardon. Christie was undoubtedly the guilty party in all the killings that took place at Rillington Place. OK, Christie did not admit to the murder of baby Geraldine, despite Tim's mother appealing to him in his final days to set the record straight, but let's face it, Christie was mad. He had already sent one innocent man to the gallows so his motives nearing the point of his execution do not really warrant much scrutiny. Whilst I do not deny people the right to their opinions, some ideas are just too fantastic to be taken seriously and I do not intend to get on my soap box here to debate what is already known and believed. I realise now that people like Contrafib enjoy the argument more than determining who is actually right or wrong but I am not interested in such pointless discussion. After all, my view point is already widely accepted so I do need to champion any cause, whereas the likes of Contrafib and his sympathisers are a tiny minority to which no sane person gives credibilty anyway.

[belinda]

No Delboy I can't agree with you.Christie denied murdering the child.Whether or not Christie was "mad"does not automatically mean he killed the child as well.He was going to die anyway he had nothing to lose in admitting to killing her yet he did not.

The wide acceptance of something does not mean it is true.It was once widely accepted that the Earth was Flat.

There are three possibilties for the death of Geraldine Evans.

1 Christie did it

2 Evans did it

3 Accident

For all we know the child could have accidently fallen down the steps. A plausible case can be made against both Christie and Evans as the killer. As things stand
we don't know with any certainty what happened

[Delboy58]

Belinda, you are forgetting one important point here. Christie was a serial killer, with a string of victims killed or later to be killed in that house, fact. Tim was simply a van driver, as well as being a husband and father. He also could not read or write. How can you compare the two men as equal and say they both had the same capabilities? Christie was mad and he was a liar. He lied at Evans trial and yet for some reason you afford him the courtesy of saying he would not lie about the baby. Why? Saying he had nothing to lose by telling the truth is attempting to give the man a depth of normality and human understanding that he simply did not possess. And where does your theory about Geraldine falling down the stairs come from? The bodies of Beryl and Geraldine were found together and both had been strangled. I am afraid your three possible causes of Geraldines's death are incorrect. One possibility only; the same man who wrapped the body of Beryl in the table cloth and placed her in the wash house, next to the body of baby Geraldine. Christie.

[belinda]

Now you are putting words into my mouth.

I did not say the two were equal.

People be they serial killers or van drivers are capable of many things.

Accidental deaths occur falling down the steps was an example.

Under stress people act out of character.

Christie had no reason to lie. I did not say he would not lie.

Illiteracy does not mean Evans was stupid.

[Delboy58]

Timothy Evans

It seems to me you are saying the two men were equal if you think they would have behaved and responded in the same way under interrogation, which is simply not the case. My point about Tim being a van driver was to emphasise he was a straight forward working man whereas Christie was a serial killer. For you to say Christie had no reason to lie seems an absurd assumption. If you believe that you might as well say Evans had no reason to turn himself in at the police station in Merthyr Tydfil and tell police he had disposed of his wife down the drain. Beryl was never down any drain so why would Evans say that? You might also just as well say Christie had no reason to murder women.
Let's get real shall we?